rose to submit the Motion of which he had given notice. He said, that he was relieved from the necessity of occupying much of the time of the House in consequence of the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer having consented to the appointment of the Committee for the purpose of investigating the Public Accounts. He believed that every Gentleman in the House was aware that the present system of keeping the public accounts was extremely defective. It certainly must be admitted, that in so important a matter as the regulation of the public purse, it was of the first importance to have a clear view of the receipts and expenditure. The object which he contemplated was, the appointment of a Committee to ascertain what plan was best for introducing a simple and uniform scheme of public accounts in all the departments; for securing a proper audit of the public money; and also, for causing such annual Returns to be laid upon the Table of the House as would furnish the House with correct information of the state of the income and expenditure of the country in each year. The Committee would carry on what was begun by the Finance Committee which was appointed in 1828. The latter Committee made some progress in the work, but in consequence of its not having been re-appointed, nothing effectual had been accomplished. He would conclude by moving for the appointment of "a Select Committee to inquire into what improvements may be introduced in the mode of keeping the Public Accounts, and of providing an efficient control over the expenditure of the public money."

said, he did not rise to offer any opposition to the Motion: on the contrary, he thought it very desirable that the Committee should be appointed. As an instance of the difficulty of coming to a correct conclusion with respect to public accounts under the present system, the House would recollect, that when the same set of accounts was laid before two Committees, they came to different results respecting them. He thought it most desirable that the proposed inquiry should take place, and it could not be conducted better than under the superintendence of his right hon. friend.

said, he had not the slightest objection to the Motion: on the contrary, he would endeavour to assist in carrying its object into effect. Some doubts, however, had suggested themselves to his mind, with respect to the latter part of the Motion of his right hon. friend—namely, the words "to provide a more efficient control over the public expenditure." He wished to know whether those words referred to a control to be had by the means of the and it ship of accounts, or whether it was meant that the Committee should enter into a general inquiry such as that to which the Finance Committee applied themselves. It was necessary that the instruction to a Committee should be clearly understood, for Committees were very often puzzled to know what they were empowered to do. There certainly was some ambiguity in the wording of the Motion. All he wished to know was, whether the Committee were to inquire into the mode of keeping accounts, or to enforce a better system of management?

said, that if he had entered into detail he should have explained his object more fully. He intended the latter part of the Motion to refer exclusively to the keeping of accounts, and the causing of them to be brought before the House, so as to give the House an efficient control over the public expenditure. If his hon. friend wished this object to be expressed more distinctly, he would alter the Motion.

said, that after the explanation given by his right hon. friend, he had not the least objection to the Motion in its present shape.

presented a Petition, signed by 255 inhabitants of Evesham, in the County of Worcester, praying for Reform, and complaining, that, of 4,000 persons in that Borough, only about 400 had any share in the return of Members, and no more than 115 of those were resident voters.

wished to take that opportunity of asking the noble Lord a question with reference to the measure which he proposed shortly to bring forward. What he was desirous of knowing was, whether it was the noble Lord's intention to propose Resolutions, or to bring in a Bill for Reform. It must be obvious to the noble Lord, that the sooner the House could be made acquainted with the nature of his intended measure the better, and it would be necessary that the House should have some time to consider its bearings after it should be made known.

said, in answer to the gallant General, that the first step be should take would be, to move for leave to bring in a Bill.

then rose to make the Motion of which he had given notice relative to this borough. He should be able satisfactorily to prove to the House the corruption which prevailed in Evesham, and to show that the resident voters had participated in the money which had been distributed, not only at the last election, but that in fact, for the last forty years the borough had always been in the market for whoever had bid highest for it. It was impossible for him, feeling strongly, as he did, that when that House could prevent bribery, it was its duty to do so—it was impossible for him to suffer this question to be set aside. It ought to be dealt with as the circumstances of the case merited. By referring to the evidence already before the House, particularly that of a witness of the name of North, the House would see the arrangements which were made before the election—that a number of gentlemen consulted together, and the borough was to be put into the hands of him who should give the highest sum. It would also appear from the evidence of a person of the name of Jacques that he had received 12l., according to the custom of the borough. He should not be satisfied, therefore unless that House acceded to some measure which would forward the ends of justice, and bring the entire history of the borough of Evesham before the House. It might be asked what course he intended to pursue. His intention was, to propose a Resolution similar to that moved on a former occasion by an hon. Gentleman opposite—he meant the Resolution of the hon. member for Bletchingly, with regard to East Retford. If he were allowed to make this Motion, and if it were agreed to, he should then ask leave to bring in a Bill to disfranchise the borough of Evesham, on the ground of the evidence which he should call, and to transfer the franchise to the town of Birmingham. He regretted to hear that his Motion was to be met by an Amendment to postpone the question until after the business of the 1st of March. Now, he knew nothing of the Motion of the 1st of March; but he brought forward a specific grievance—pointed out a specific corruption — and asked for a specific remedy. He should not, therefore, consent to a postponement of it. Whatever might be the remedies to be proposed by his Majesty's Ministers, it would create great disgust and general dissatisfaction, if, when a case of gross bribery was proved, no notice were taken of it by that House. He was prepared to prove a case of corruption against the resident voters, although the evidence on the Table did not contain such proof. He trusted the House would believe that he had not taken up this case from party motives, which he altogether disclaimed. His only motive was, to show the public and the country that that House would do its duty. He should not enter into the general question of Reform; this was not the time for it; but he called upon the House to deal fairly by the question before it. Let them meet it with fairness, with justice, and cool deliberation. Let him produce the evidence, and it would satisfy the House as to the real state of the case. In this, as well as in other instances, he was prepared to do his duty to the country at large, and whatever popularity might attach to the Ministers from their Motion of the 1st of March, men on that side of the House who were anxious to do their duty to their country, should have an opportunity of doing so. Let it not be supposed that the Reform measure of the 1st of March would remedy every grievance, and do away with every complaint. It was clear that the state of the borough of Evesham required consideration, and he wished its franchise to be transferred to Birmingham. He therefore asked per- mission to move a Resolution which he hoped would be supported by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, as it was nearly word for word the same as that formerly proposed by the hon. Member for Bletchingley. He begged leave, therefore, to move a Resolution, "That the corrupt state of the Borough of Evesham required the serious attention of that House."

said, the House was aware, as the noble Lord had stated, that there was in the evidence before it no distinct proof that corruption existed amongst the resident voters of the borough of Evesham; but the noble Lord also stated, that he was satisfied such corruption did exist, and that he was able to prove it. For his part, he too was perfectly satisfied that such corruption did exist, and it was possible that evidence of it might be brought forward, although he did not know that the noble Lord would be able to prove notorious bribery. He should have thought it better, undoubtedly, if the question had been postponed until after the motion for Reform should have been disposed of; but the noble Lord was of a different opinion, and certainly he should not object to his Motion. He did not think that the benefit to be gained by it was very great, but if the noble Lord wished to bring the question under the consideration of the House, he should certainly not stand in the way of it. The question resolved itself into two divisions —namely, Parliamentary Reform, upon which it was not desirable at present to offer any opinion; and the exercise of the judicial functions of the House. In this view, the members of his Majesty's Government would not deal with the question in their capacity as belonging to the Government, but merely as Members of that House.

wished that the noble Marquis would postpone his Motion. He thought it improbable that the noble Marquis would succeed in what he wished for, and if he would consent to a postponement it would save time. He was happy that the cause of Reform had so zealous an advocate in the noble Marquis. Should the motion of which the noble Lord below him (Lord John Russell) had given notice for the 1st of March, not extend to the circumstances of the Evesham case, he (Mr. Clive) should be very much dissatisfied with it.

said, the hon. Gentle- man had given no reason why the House should not exercise its judicial functions in this case. The House of Commons knew nothing of the motion which was to be proposed on the 1st of March. There certainly was a notice on the paper relating to the stale of the Representation, but as yet the House had no further knowledge on the subject. It appeared from the report of a Committee, that extensive corruption prevailed, at least amongst the non-resident electors of this borough—and the petition presented by the noble Lord opposite confirmed the fact. In that petition, 2.55 of the inhabitants spoke of the corruption which had broken out in the borough, and they spoke of it in no milder terms than as a leprosy. If this borough were proved to be a delinquent borough, it would be necessary to punish it, whether the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) should succeed in his motion or not, because, even supposing that he did succeed to the fullest extent, still that House ought to signify to all future constituents, that future delinquencies, if such were committed, would be visited with punishment, and that, if they should be justly chargeable with corruption, they would subject themselves to punishment. An hon. Gentleman opposite had paid a compliment to his noble friend on the ground of his zeal for Reform, which compliment, however, had rather the air of a sarcasm. [Mr. Clive said "It was not so intended."] His noble friend said, he had evidence to prove the corruption of the borough, and the noble Lord opposite (Lord Althorp) had acted with his usual candour in the course which he had taken in reference to the question. He (Sir R. Peel) should certainly feel it his duty to support his noble friend's motion.

defied any one to point out a single one of the 658 places which sent Members to that House where more or less influence of a corrupt nature was not used [cries of "No, no."] He construed that "No, no," merely as a plea of Not Guilty. He should like to know how hon. Gentlemen would feel if called upon to take an oath that they had not bribed their constituents. The borough of Evesham was not more guilty than others. Its misfortune was, that it was found out. This reminded him of the Chinese law. It was no crime to steal in China, and one Chinese would look on and laugh at another picking a pocket, particularly if it was the pocket of a European,—but if he was found out, the Lord have mercy on him. Let them take up the rest of the boroughs, going through the A, B, C, in regular alphabetical progression. They would have Abingdon, Bletchingly, and, at last, would come down to Liverpool. Let the House show strict impartiality, and act upon a general principle. They should not visit this unfortunate borough with punishment at the present moment, even refusing it the short respite of a fortnight. There seemed a determination to hunt down Evesham, and he hoped there would not be quite as much disturbance as there was on the East Retford question. He should assuredly oppose the Motion. He wished some hon. Member would rise in his place and propose that the writ should issue for the return of a member for Eve-sham. That ought not to be delayed; and the House might proceed on any inquiries which were necessary afterwards. With regard to the measure to be brought forward on the 1st of March, he could only say, that we know how we are, but we do not know how we shall be. The present Ministers were the very last men in that House who ought to say that the Parliament, as at present constituted, was not fully competent and desirous to do its duty to the country and itself.

said, he hoped, as the hon. Baronet was not in favour of a partial measure of Reform, that he would at least be in favour of the general measure which he (Lord John Russell) was to bring forward. He inferred, indeed, that he was to have that support from the speech of the hon. Baronet; otherwise, the hon. Baronet would have placed himself in this dilemma, that he thought partial corruption ought not to be reformed, and general corruption ought not to be reformed, and consequently, that it was expedient to encourage and continue bribery and corruption. He understood the hon. Baronet, however, to say, that he would not object to the general measure of Reform, and, therefore, he (Lord John Russell) looked forward to his support. He agreed in much of what the hon. Baronet had said. The misfortune of this borough was, that, like Grampound and East Retford, it was found out. He should be disinclined to inflict any punishment; but the transfer of the franchise to a large town he looked upon, not as a punishment but a reform. He agreed that the petition which he had presented was rather in favour of this Motion, but in other points he differed from the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet. It would have been a wise plan some years ago to proceed in Reform by transferring the franchise from boroughs to large towns, and so promote that extension of Reform which was expedient; but he thought that the noble Lord was mistaken if he imagined that such a measure as had been formerly proposed would give satisfaction to the people at this time. When hon. Gentlemen opposite resisted the transfer of the franchise from East Retford to Birmingham, and insisted upon its being retained in Nottinghamshire, it gave such a general disgust, that all hope of benefit from gradual measures was given up, and nothing would now satisfy the country but to show that that House meant to do full justice. Agreeing in the object of the noble Lord's motion, as he did most heartily, although he hoped that the investigation would not be carried on at the bar at this period of great business, but would take place in a Committee, yet he considered the remedy not appropriate to give satisfaction to the demand for Reform which pervaded all classes of his Majesty's subjects.

said, the hon. Baronet had asked if the Members of that House could lake an oath that they had not been guilty of bribery; and he had made rather an unlucky selection of the borough of Abingdon. He (Mr. Maberly) could take an oath, that he had never, directly or indirectly given a bribe to any of his constituents. The hon. Member should be cautious before he made these attacks. There were many boroughs perfectly free from all bribery or improper influence; and it was not fair to use the liberty of speech to make such unfounded attacks.

said, he had not intended to insinuate any thing against the hon. Member. He had not made any specific charge, but had spoken generally, and only mentioned Abingdon as being one of the first on the alphabetical list, as it began A, B, (A b.) He might, perhaps, have mentioned Aberdeen, or any other town beginning with the same letter.

said, he should trouble the House with but few words on this subject. As he did not come under letter A, he had thought it better if A would rise before B. He was glad the hon. Gentleman opposite had risen, because, as the individual who now addressed the House had stood extremely high for the borough of Abingdon, he who now addressed them as letter B might have had to address them as letter A. He could state, that the constituency of that borough was highly honourable. But, letter A having been disposed of by the Representative of A, he came to letter B. The hon. Baronet asked, if all the Members of that House would take an oath that they had not been guilty of bribery. He had no doubt that letter A would, and he knew that letter B could. His constituency, he could confidently affirm, were honourable, respectable, and independent; and he certainly was one of those who, if necessary, could swear to having forborne bribery, as the hon. Baronet so facetiously proposed. He believed that his hon. friend (Mr. Maberly) might take that oath; he did not know whether the hon. Baronet could. The hon. Baronet said, that this borough had the misfortune to be found out. That was true; and how could it be punished till it was found out? The duty of that House was, to correct a case of bribery and corruption whenever it occurred, without looking to any ulterior measures. He knew nothing of the measure which was to be brought forward on the 1st of next month; and it was quite obvious that it could have nothing to do with the proposition now before the House. If the Cabinet told the House it was their measure, then surely it was the duty of some member of the Cabinet to bring it forward, and not to leave it to a plain Member of Parliament. Upon a question of this nature, the Members of that House were not bound to follow any Government, and much less were they bound to follow the Government's deputy, the noble Paymaster of the Forces (Lord John Russell). The Members of that House did not sit in that House as the mere organs of the Government, much less as the organs of the Government's deputy. They would become mere tools—and he did not intend to use the word tools in an offensive signification—if they suspended this Motion because some other motion, of which they knew nothing, was to be brought forward on a future day by some deputy of the Cabinet. The House would practise a meanness deceiving themselves, and be guilty of a dereliction of duty, if they could for one moment think of abandoning a straight-forward course for every fanciful hypothesis. Nothing was clearer than that, as Members of that House, they could only recognize the noble ray master, in his individual character, as one of themselves. The noble Paymaster, and other parties, might be disgusted, as he saw they were, with what had taken place in certain quarters on the subject of East Retford; but he had no right to suppose, or presume, that the people of England were disgusted.

must protest against the assertion that all the Members of that House were returned by corrupt influence, in a more or less degree. He could not remain silent and hear such an imputation cast on the Representatives of the people. He would tell the hon. Baronet who had made the assertion (Sir C. Forbes) that he (Sir J. Wrottesley) was sent to that House by a body of 10,000 or 15,000 individuals, who had not acted under any corrupt influence whatever. He was sorry to see a partial measure of Reform brought forward, being convinced that no practical advantage could result from it.

was prepared, in looking at the manner in which that House was constituted, to take the risk, from the top to the bottom, and would then ask how many Members there were who were not returned by corrupt influence? Exceptions there were, it was very true, else he must condemn himself.

said, he should support the proposition, for he thought the sooner the question was got rid of the better.

considered, that the question was very fairly met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not see that the noble Marquis could possibly postpone the proposition, and the question was one which could not be affected by any subsequent measure with regard to the state of the Representation.

rose to move for certain papers relative to the Union of Wicklow. His object was, to obtain some information on the subject, which had occasioned considerable discussion in the county of Wicklow, and given rise to a correspondence between some of the Magistrates of the county and the Government. Some dissensions had arisen in the parish of Wicklow, in consequence of the present incumbent refusing to enter into a commutation of tithes, which led to the union. He might, perhaps, be allowed to say, that the effects of the Tithe Commutation Act had been most beneficial wherever it had been brought into operation. He believed that no opposition would be made to this Motion; but it would be right for him to state some of the circumstances connected with the Union of Wieklow. The House must be aware that there were parishes in Ireland, the income of which was too small to support the clergyman in decency: in consequence of this, an Act was passed some years ago, to allow the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Bishop of the diocess, to form a union of two or more parishes, provided the income did not exceed a certain amount. In the present instance, the parishes he alluded to were in the diocese of Dublin; and, in the course of last year, in consequence of a certificate of the Archbishop, presented to the Privy Council, the decree for the union was issued. The income from the united parishes was 1,200l. a-year. Such unions were improper; and the Act, if it could be evaded in this way, ought to be remedied. In this case, the union consisted of not less than six parishes; one of which was worth 600l. a-year. The right of presentation was in the Archbishop of the diocess who instituted his son, the Archdeacon of Kilmain. What was the value of the other livings he knew not; but some of them were of sufficient value to support an independent clergyman. Most other gentlemen would have been satisfied with a union that gave a large income; but the tithes were soon raised. The Archdeacon had refused to commute his tithes for the yearly sum of 1,800l.; when the Privy Council was induced to sanction the union of the livings, inconsequence of the declaration of the Archbishop, that their united value did not exceed 900l. a-year: He refused any offer to commute for his tithes unless he could get the full value of them. He felt bound to say, in behalf of the Protestant clergy of the county of Wicklow, that in nearly every instance they had acted with propriety and forbearance, and had readily assented to the offers of their parishes to commute their tithes, which had been attended with the most beneficial effects, and the best feelings existed between the clergy and their parishioners. It was a most unfortunate thing that this clergyman refused to compound with his parishioners, for the Privy Council, if it had been led to issue the decree of union in consequence of incorrect information, was able to recall it. He did not bring forward this subject with a view of making any attack on the Church, but he wished the House to adopt some proceedings on the subject of tithes. The hon. Member concluded with moving for a copy "Of the Report made in 1830 by the Archbishop of Dublin to the Duke of Northumberland and Privy Council in Ireland, respecting the Union of the Parish of Wicklow."

wished to know how far the clause of the Act of Parliament was operative as regarded this subject, and whether a specific clause of an Act of Parliament could be rendered of no effect by conduct of this sort. It was distinctly stated, that until the union of the parishes had received the direct sanction of the Privy Council, no such union could take place. This was done with a view to prevent the union of valuable parishes; and, under any circumstances, it must be considered an evil. He was not aware whether there were any previous instances of evading this Act, but he conceived it to be the duty of the House to inquire into the subject. In the present case, the Archbishop, in the certificate which he sent to the Privy Council, stated, that the value of the living did not exceed 900l. a year, and it was in consequence of this representation that the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council consented to the Union. It was quite clear that they would not have done so had they been aware of the real value of the living, and that the Archbishop of Dublin intended to institute his son to the vicarage of these united parishes. The father estimated the income of these livings at 900l. a-year, and the son refused to commute his tithes for 1,800l. a-year. The House ought to have all the circumstances of the case laid before it, with a view to prevent such an occurrence taking place again, as well as to see whether there was any defect in the Act, by which it might be so easily evaded. A proceeding of this sort was most detrimental to the interests of the Protestant Church of Ireland; and he called upon the House, as it respected that Church, to come forward and defend it on the present occasion. He was a sincere friend of that Church, and he called upon the House, for its sake, to assent to the present motion, with a view to future proceedings.

meant to confine his observations to the statement made by the hon. member for Wicklow and the hon. member for the city of Waterford. He rose for the purpose of vindicating the character of the Archbishop of Dublin, feeling that the integrity and purity of the conduct of that venerable and eminent Prelate rendered him superior to any insinuations that could be thrown out against; him; neither did he wish to oppose the motion of the hon. Member, but rather to court inquiry, being convinced that every information which could be elicited on this subject would tend to prove the strict propriety of the course which his Grace adopted. It had been truly stated by the two hon. Members, that the return made to the Privy Council, on the occasion alluded to, was 900l. per annum, and that now the Union, including the Prebendary of Wicklow, was valued at 1,600l. per annum. A little explanation would satisfy the House as to the cause of the difference. On the death of the late incumbent, who had held the parishes for the preceding thirty-five years, they fell, for the first time, into the gift of the Archbishop of Dublin; it was then necessary, in order to continue the union of these parishes, and to comply with the Act of Parliament alluded to by the hon. Member, to make a return to the Privy Council of the value of the tithes, and, deeming it the best source of information, the Archbishops procured the affidavit of the Sequestrator, who had the management of the tithes for the preceding thirty-five years. On the appointment of the present incumbent, a son of the Archbishop, when he came to receive his tithes, he found that a very considerable portion of the lands of the union had never paid tithe, owing to the neglect or mismanagement of the Sequestrator, which was the cause of the difference between the return made to the Privy Council and the present estimated value of the tithes. As this return appeared to be the chief cause of crimination, now that he had explained the reason for it, he should hope the unfounded charges and insinuations made against the Archbishop would cease. He should go no further into the subject until the case was brought before the House, but then he should be prepared to substantiate the statements he had made.

did not rise to offer any opposition to the motion of the hon. member for Wicklow being satisfied that when the returns were laid on the table they would be accompanied with the most satisfactory explanation on the part of the parties concerned; but he wished to set him and the hon. Baronet, the Member for Water ford, right as to one fact. No such union of parishes had taken place as that described by them. He had been only informed of the facts since he came into that House; but he had every reason to believe his information was correct. The Prebendary of Wicklow, and four Chapelries, were quite distinct from the union in question, and to which alone the certificate related—it was only the continuation of the union of the vicarage of Wicklow, and of the two small livings of Kilpoold and Drumlay, which, taken together, did not amount in value to above 120l. per annum, a sum insufficient to maintain their Curates. The value of the vicarage and these two small parishes was alone necessary to be stated to the Lord Lieutenant and Council. So that the Archbishop returned a much greater value than necessary by the Act of Parliament; although in point of fact, the value of these parishes and of the prebendary (which it was unnecessary to return) taken together, did not exceed the sum of 900l., which had been returned to the Archbishop by the person who had been Sequestrator of the parish for many years in the time of the late incumbent. The whole charge, he was sure, would be satisfactorily met when the proper time arrived. He would only observe, that he could not help lamenting that this complaint should have been brought forward at a moment when the individual principally concerned, who had been so remarkable for energy, activity, and great talents—was incapacitated by illness from taking any part in public business—an individual who had been, as even his political opponents admitted, one of the most distinguished ornaments of literature, of the Established Church, and of the country. As to what had been said about the Church Establishment, he would not enter into its defence; nor would he attempt to throw a cloak over its abuses, for time produced abuses in the most perfect of human establishments; but he wished to see those abuses corrected by the hands of the friends of the Church, and not submit her to the mercy of those who, while they professed to reform, would be only anxious to destroy. The Church and State had long stood together, each supporting the other—so must they fall together; and if the Church were pulled down, the Crown and the Constitution would perish with her.

was convinced, that the circumstances of this case could be explained in a satisfactory manner. With respect to a reform of those abuses that may have grown up in the Church, there was a Commission sitting in Dublin, composed of some of the most distinguished Prelates and members of that. Church, and they were most zealous in the reform of that great institution. He had no doubt that the greatest benefit would result from the labours of this Commission.

was sorry that there should be even the appearance of opposition to granting these papers. The hon. member for Dublin supposed that this was an attack upon the Church of Ireland; but he was satisfied that neither the hon. Member who brought the Motion forward, nor any other Member, had the least idea of doing anything of the sort. Every one must regret the indisposition of the Archbishop of Dublin, but the charge of unfairness ought not to be brought against the hon. Member for making the present Motion during the illness of the Archbishop. He did not impute any blame, in this case, to the Archbishop, but some misrepresentations had been made, which he hoped would be explained and rectified. According to the paper presented to the Privy Council, the annual value of these livings was 900l., but it appeared that the Archbishop's son refused an offer of 1000l., and stated that it was worth 1,800l. With respect to the quantity of land in the union, it was stated to be 17,200 acres, but it actually was 34,000 acres, though he did not charge the Archbishop of Dublin with misrepresentation, because he believed that he was not aware of the circumstances of the case.

could assure the hon. Member, that he had not the least idea of making any attack upon the Archbishop of Dublin. He was not aware of his indisposition, and should be loath to say anything which could have the least appearance of an attack upon him under such circumstances. No person had made an attack on that Prelate, unless it was the hon. member for Longford. He said, that the certificate with respect to the value of the livings was made by the Sequestrator, and that the Archbishop had no opportunity of knowing the real value. How came the Archbishop to present this as an accurate return if he was not aware of the real value of the union? The hon. member for Dublin said, that we should leave the Church to reform itself; but he was satisfied that the people never would have obtained the Commutation Act, or any other measure, if it had been left to the Church, The certificate of the value of those livings was made under the signature and seal of the Archbishop, and, in consequence of that certificate, the Privy Council made a decree in favour of the union. He meant to bring forward the subject again when the papers were laid on the Table.

said, he did not rise to oppose the Motion, and he was sorry, in the absence of his noble friend (Lord Howick), that he could not answer the questions of the hon. member for Middlesex; but this he could say, that with respect to the payment of Consuls, he knew that subject had been some time under the consideration of his noble friend and the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department.

asked the noble Lord, whether he persisted in raising the duty on Cape Wines?

replied, that he had received a deputation of the merchants and others concerned in that branch of trade with the Cape of Good Hope, and, after hearing their arguments against the impost, he had agreed that some alteration should be made in the duty, and that, instead of raising it all at once to the same duty as was to be levied on the continental wines, it should be only raised from 2s. 5d. per gallon to 2s. 9d.. for the ensuing two years.

said, that he expected a deputation of the principal manufacturers and others concerned in the cotton trade, from Lancashire, to-morrow, and that, after he had fully discussed the matter with them, he should be prepared to answer the hon. Member's question.

suggested to the noble Lord, that it would be proper to afford the House an early opportunity of discussing the Budget, as it was intended to be ultimately settled, in order to appease the public: anxiety on the subject, and also to afford the House an opportunity of discussing the alterations which it was intended should be made in the propositions originally brought forward.

observed, that the tax on Steam-boats had every attribute of a bad tax, and would have the effect on the poor of his country (Ireland) of making it a question whether they should be allowed to earn their bread in England or not. He sincerely hoped it would not be persevered in.

expressed a similar opinion. Me had received many communications from Lincolnshire, denouncing the tax, and he advised Ministers to consult amongst each other as to the necessity for withdrawing it. The tax would have the most injurious effect in preventing men from seeking employment at a distance, and would increase the distress of the labourers by circumscribing the market for their labour.

stated, that the invention of steam-vessels had, in a great measure, compensated on the coast of Scotland, for the injury which had been inflicted on the kelp manufacturers by the loss of their employment. There were no less than from thirty to forty steam-boats plying daily between Greenock and the adjacent coasts of Scotland, nor could ten or fifteen minutes elapse without a steam-boat coming in or going out of that port. The result was, that the whole of the coast to the south of the Clyde had become active; the inhabitants had turned their labour towards cultivating small gardens, with the produce of which the markets of Glasgow were supplied; nor, in his opinion, could any tax more injurious to the industry of that part of Scotland be devised. When it was recollected, that by the aid of steamboats, we had brought Edinburgh and London within forty-seven miles of each other—he meant forty-seven hours journey the advantage gained by that improvement was so great and so evident, that nobody could misunderstand it, and nobody ought to wish to diminish it. There was scarcely any thing he would not rather do than assent to the tax in question; and he felt convinced, that if it were to be imposed, the Table of that House would very soon be crowded with petitions, from those parts of Scotland to which he had referred, against it.

observed, that all the industry of the western coast of Scotland had been called into action by steam, and had since been supported by it. The tax would not fall upon the proprietors of steam-vessels, but on those who availed themselves of that mode of conveyance.

wished to say one word as to the policy of this tax, and would put it to the noble Lord, whether Ireland had not peculiar claims to a cheap and easy ingress into England, and whether it would not be more consonant to justice to restrain, by some legislative measure, the culpable emigration of the proprietors of Ireland, who drew so much from her, and repaid her nothing. It was, in his opinion, an act of gross injustice to throw any impediment in the way of the Irish labourers in their endeavours to resort for employment to this country. The tax would be a means of preventing communication between the two countries; it would prevent the consolidation of the Union, and he therefore should wish that it might not be enforced.

said, the tax would prove most prejudicial to Liverpool, and ought not to be persevered in.

observed, that the tax on the passage by steam would be considered in Ireland as an attempt to prevent the emigration of Irish labourers into England, and would excite feelings that, under the present circumstances of the country, ought to be avoided. They would, however, still be enabled to avail themselves of colliers and sailing-boats for-that purpose.

implored the noble Lord not to lay on that tax, if hit only motive for so doing was the revenue to be derived from it. To Ireland it would do inconceivable mischief, by exciting the easily irritated feelings of the people of that country.

said, that the people of the Isle of Wight felt very repugnant to the imposition of the tax on steam passengers, and hoped, in common with him, that it would not be persevered in.

considered the tax as an absolute prohibition on the poor Irish labourer coming to England to earn his bread, as it was one of no less than 300 per cent, on the amount of his passage-money. For instance, from Ireland to Glasgow, in consequence of steam navigation, he could now get Across for 4d.; while, if the tax proposed should be adopted, the price would be Is. 4d., which the Irish labourer never would be able to pay. At the same time, he was of opinion, that a beneficial tax might be levied on that artificial power which had, in so many instances, superseded manual industry.

agreed with those hon. Members who coincided with the views of the noble Lord, and who praised the measures of the Government; and did not blame those who were opposed to the imposition of the tax: but what he had most particularly to complain of was, the course pursued by hon. Members who got up a debate every night on every tax proposed, with the view to goad the noble Lord and his colleagues into the imposition of a property-tax, which, after all, as had been stated by a noble Earl in another place, would not be agreed to.

said, that the tax on steam passengers would not have the effect of prohibiting the importation of Irish labourers. But what he was astonished at was, that no efforts were made with that view by the maritime parishes, who had been subjected to the burthen of passing these Irish labourers back to their country, who were allowed to take all the money they had earned back to Ireland in their pockets. The city of Bristol alone had paid 2,500l. in this mode last year, and if this tax was imposed it would have to pay double that sum this year. He had expected from the hon. member for Liverpool some statement in opposition to the tax, as to the injurious effects it would have in Liverpool and other sea- ports in Lancashire, which must necessarily be much greater there than at Bristol.

said, that the effect which the tax would produce would be, to put down steam-boats in England altogether, and, with them, to throw all persons who were dependant on that mode of employment, out. of bread. When it was considered that the coal-tax was to be only 5s. per Newcastle chaldron on exportation, it would be. seen that depots of coal would be formed at Calais, Dunkirk, Ostend, and other places on the coast of Flanders, and enable those places instantly to start steamers, and successfully to compete with the English vessels, as no duty was to be levied on them.

must, submit to the House that he was hardly dealt fairly by in this discussion. Although the House had seemed exceedingly gratified at every statement of a tax taken off, they had, more naturally than reasonably, objected to every proposition for a tax to be laid on. Now they must be aware, that in the present state of the Revenue, for every tax taken off there must be some burthen of another sort imposed; and the only question was, how to take off taxes that pressed injuriously on productive industry, and to substitute others that would not have a similar effect? It was said, that this was a tax contrary to all principle; he feared the same objection could be made to most taxes. It would be difficult to state any principle on which taxes ought to be imposed, at least so far as the advantages of labour were concerned. But he must say, with respect to what had been said as to the injustice of the tax, that he could not concur with the remark; for, when every land carriage was taxed, as it was at present, he thought it could not be unjust to impose some tax on the rival mode of carriage. It might, indeed, be proper to modify the tax in some manner, so as not to make it press unequally or improperly on any particular class of persons; but he saw no reason for giving up the tax altogether. It might be said, indeed, that the Government ought to take the tax off stage-coaches and post-horses, which was true; but when the object of the Government was to take off those taxes that pressed most heavily on productive industry, he did not think that any Gentleman in that House would be found to assert that that was the first which ought to be repealed. He must repeat, that he did not think it unfair to establish between the two modes of conveyance a greater degree of equality than at present. He was ready to admit, that for small distances, the tax as at present stilted, might be too high, but that was capable of regulation, and the tax, instead of being charged as now proposed, might, perhaps, be made more to resemble that now put upon stage-coaches. Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think, that because he had consented to make some alterations in his original plan, he ought to submit to a change of the whole. He could assure such hon. Gentlemen that if they expected him to do so they would be mistaken. The House must be aware, that in laying on fresh taxes, and in remitting others, he was placed under great difficulties, for he was compelled to maintain a complete secrecy respecting his arrangements till he announced them to the House, and was therefore obliged to act, in some respects, upon defective information. He had, however, now received information on most of the subjects connected with the Budget, and should shortly be able to make up his mind decisively as to the course he should pursue.

said, that the proposed tax on passengers by steam would be felt as a great hardship by the lower and middle classes. A jaunt down the river was always considered one of the chief recreations of the citizens of London. In his opinion, the proposed tax would bring ruin on Gravessnd, Margate and Ramsgate— towns recently built to accommodate the citizens, a great majority of whom took advantage of steam communication. When the noble Lord considered the small advantage which could be derived from the tax, and the great difficulty and inconvenience it would produce, he trusted he would yield in this, as he and done on so many other occasions, to popular feeling and the opinion of the House, and give up the proposition.

entirely concurred with those who objected to the tax on passengers in steam-boats on the grounds of inexpediency and impolicy. He wished, however, to refer to the noble Lord's apology for the tax, which was founded on the idea that it was a kind of counterbalance to the tax on stage-coaches. He contended, however, that steam carriage did not seriously affect stage-coaches. Stagecoaches had a monopoly of the land com- munication, and steamers of communication by sea; and the facility of steam communication was an inducement to many to go to different parts of the country, who would otherwise remain at home. Many who went in steamers, also returned by land, and in that way stage-coach travelling was encouraged by steam navigation. The stage-coach proprietors, he was convinced, so far from considering the proposed tax as a boon, would say that it was a tax on stage-coaches. He repeated, that the proposed tax was such, in point of fact. He only asked the noble Lord to inquire, and he would find that this was the light in which the tax would be viewed. He objected to it, however, on higher grounds. It was a tax on productive industry, and contrary to the principle which the noble Lord himself had so forcibly advocated. He himself was intimately connected with a set of adventurers—so they might be called—but he would say a set of speculators [laughter]. Well, then, as that excited risibility, he would say, that he was in communication with a company of capitalists and speculators,—who had it in contemplation at this very time, to establish a company for the increase of steam navigation to all parts of the world, not only for passengers, but goods. The proposed tax, however, would prevent all projects of that description, which, he contended, would be attended with great national advantage.

thought, that if the noble Lord was as well aware as he was of the advantage and accommodation which the steam navigation on the river afforded to the shopkeepers and citizens of London, who were shut up in a narrow and confined atmosphere six days of the week, he would feel the injustice and cruelty of the proposed tax. The fare to Gravesend was one shilling, and the tax would amount to a shilling also—so that, in that instance, it would amount to 100 per cent. It would be felt, not only in London, but in all the sea-ports throughout the kingdom. The hon. Alderman concluded by reading an extract from a letter which he received from an individual residing in Ipswich, stating, that a steamer, which was about to be started, would be sent for sale to a foreign country, or broken up, if the proposed duty was imposed; and suggesting, that if there must be any tax, it should be laid on the vessel, rather than on the passengers.

objected particularly to the inexpediency of the tax as it would affect Ireland. Those who argued against the Repeal of the Union in that country always insisted, that if such an event occurred, a tax of this kind would be inflicted, to the great injury of Ireland. He therefore respectfully submitted, that it would be most injudicious, in the present state of that country, to impose such a tax.

said, the question before the House was, the repeal of the duty on coals, and not the tax on passengers by steam. No occasion more unfavourable, he contended, could have been selected for arguing against a tax on steamboats, than the bringing up of Resolutions which led directly to a measure by which the proprietors of steam-boats would be considerably relieved. The repeal of the duty on coals gave a great advantage to steam communication—a consideration entirely left out by those who argued against the proposed tax. It would be much better, he submitted, to reserve the arguments against this tax till the specific measure imposing it was introduced. The most extraordinary of all the arguments against it was that of the member for St. Alban's (Mr. Tennant), who contended that this would be not so much a tax on steam-vessels, as on stage-coaches. The very principle on which the measure was defensible was, that it proposed a tax on a species of conveyance not already taxed, and by that means put it on an equality with another species of conveyance (he meant stage-coaches), which was already taxed to a considerable amount. When steam navigation was first established, many petitions were presented to the House for a tax on steam-vessels, on the ground that they would be. injurious to stage-coach property, and if the hon. member for St. Alban's inquired, he would find, probably, that many of his own constituents had signed those petitions. When the whole of the measures of his noble friend were considered, he thought the proprietors of steam-vessels ought to be well pleased with what was proposed.

objected to the proposed tax, on the ground that it would operate most injuriously on the inhabitants of the Western Highlands. The argument that it would equalise the burthens now laid exclusively on stage-coach property did not apply to that part of the kingdom to which he adverted, because the inhabitants knew not the blessings of a stage-coach. He hoped the noble Lord would defer to the suggestions of nearly every Member who had spoken, and give up the tax on passengers by steam.

said, that when the noble Lord proposed a reduction of taxation, there had been a general cheer, but when new taxes were suggested, very one had some objection. He had no particular objection to the proposed tax on passengers by steam, except on the grounds urged by the last speakers. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer came forward with his proposition on this subject, he (Mr. Alderman Wood) gave notice that he should certainly move that Scotland should be relieved from the operation of the measure. The means by which he proposed to effect this was, by doing away with the drawback now paid on malt used in distilleries in Scotland. That was a dead robbery on the country, to the amount of above 200,000l. per annum; for he was sure the malt was never used on which the drawback was allowed. He gave notice, therefore, that when the noble Lord brought forward his Resolution for the imposition of this tax, he (Alderman Wood) would move that Scotland be exempted from it, and that as a substitute no drawback should be allowed hereafter to Scotland on malt. There were other means, by resorting to which the noble Lord could effect a considerable saving. There was a Motion of his which stood in the Order Book for a red net ion of salaries. Now he would tell the noble Lord, that if he did not effect reductions in the public salaries to the amount of 700,000l., he would not do his duty to the country. If he did that, he might let cotton and other articles go untaxed. If the noble Lord would reduce the salaries of sixty-nine departments which received about 3,000,000l. annually of the public money, he could do without the tax upon cotton, and other taxes which he proposed to impose. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would introduce measures of the most severe retrenchment.

entirely concurred in the hon. Baronet's (Sir G. Clerk's) suggestion, for placing Ireland on the same footing as Scotland, with respect both to the tax on steam passengers, and the drawback on malt.

spoke, not so much from his own judgment, as from that of practical persons, when he said that the proposed tax on passsengers by steam would operate injuriously. If a tax was put upon steam-vessels, however, he saw no reason why those machines lately invented, and which conveyed tons of goods, to the great danger of his Majesty's subjects (he meant steam carriages) should be excepted. These conveyances came directly into competition with coaches and waggons.

thought the noble Lord was like the man and his ass—he endeavoured to please everybody, and had pleased nobody. He recommended the noble Lord, however, to persevere in what, as a conscientious man, he believed to be right. For his own part, he thought, the tax on steam-vessels a very reasonable tax, and he would vote for it.

rose for the purpose of asking the noble Lord whether it was his intention to repeal that particular duty paid on one description of coals, and best known as the Richmond ship-duty, as well as the general duty.

was understood to answer, that the subject was under consideration.

felt called upon, on behalf of the poor of Sussex, who had suffered greatly from the duty on coals, to express his gratitude to his Majesty's Government for reducing that tax. Great frauds were committed in that article, of which he could state a recent instance. He had imported some coals from Newcastle, and, as they were for his own use, he was anxious that they should be of the best description, and directed that they should be large:—134 chaldrons were shipped, but, when the vessel arrived in the port of Shoreham, those 134 chaldrons had increased to 156, having multiplied on the voyage. The large coals had been turned into small, and he had to pay duty and freight for twenty-two chaldrons more, in fact, than he received. The coals were deteriorated—a great part actually reduced to dust; and yet he had to pay 6s. a chaldron duty, and 12s. a chaldron freight; so that he received an inferior article, and had to pay about 20l. more for it. To prevent frauds of this description, he should propose that coals should be sold by weight, and not by measure.

recommended, that the duty on the manufacture of tiles should be taken off, as it yielded little to the revenue, and pressed severely on the manufacturer.

thought, that if a duty was to be put on steam-vessels, as proposed, the fair way would be, a tax on the steam-power, and not on the passengers.

presented a Petition from an Inhabitant of Dublin, complaining of the conduct of the Corporation of Dublin, in excluding him from the freedom of that City, to which he was entitled by birth and apprenticeship. The petitioner had obtained a Mandamus from the Court of King's-bench, and had paid the fees necessary for obtaining his freedom; notwithstanding which, the Corporation refused to admit him as a freeman. He described the Corporation of Dublin as very differently constituted from that of London, and very inferior to it in respectability and independence.

assured the House, that he trespassed upon it with extreme reluctance. But the hon. member for Clare having once failed In courtesy, by attacking him in his absence, seemed determined to make amends, by attacking him as often as possible in his presence. The hon. Member had given him notice, a few evenings since, that he had a petition to present respecting the Corporation of Dublin; and on his (Mr. Shaw's) asking on what subject? the hon. member for Clare replied, that it was no matter on what subject; but "it will be enough," said he, "to make a breeze in the House between you and me." But he must protest against the House being made an arena for a sort of Irish pugilism in argument. He hoped the hon. Member would not occupy the time of the House in discussing merely local matters; which he made, by his manner of treating them, directly personal. He denied that there was the slightest foundation for the allegation of the petitioner, and must oppose the Motion for the petition to be read.

said, that notwithstanding the compliment which the hon. member for Clare had paid the Corporation of London at the expense of that of Dublin, he was bound to observe, that the petition cast imputations upon persons whom he knew to be respectable, and he therefore could not support the petition.

moved; according to notice, for the printing of a Petition, presented on Friday night last, from G. Flight, complaining of corrupt practices in the borough of Bridport.

was decidedly opposed to the printing of petitions coining from individuals, and he thought that this particular petition should not go forth with the authority of the House.

observed, that the petition, if presented at all, ought to have been laid before the House three months ago. If the statement of the petitioner was well founded, he ought to have brought it forward as an election petition. According to those who were for the printing of the petition, any man might be calumniated in a petition. Any man, to gratify his private spleen and malice, might call upon the House to publish whatsoever he might think proper to indite.

said, that if the peti- tion had been a statement of opinions, and not facts, he should be, as much as any hon. Member who had spoken, opposed to the printing of it. He by no means considered that it would be a bad rule to lay down that petitions from individuals should on no occasion be printed; but he could not at all assent to the position, that it heretofore had been the uniform practice of the House to refuse the advantage of printing to the petitions of individuals; on the present occasion, however, he must be allowed to say, that time had been wasted, even it> so short a discussion, about a matter of so little importance.

supported the printing of the petition. Though it was a petition from an individual, it related not to any private matters, but to circumstances in which the Members of that House and the public at large were deeply interested.

likewise supported the printing of the petition.

saw no necessity for printing the petition of an individual, when a general petition upon the same subject, and from the same place, had been presented before it.

objected to the withdrawal, and the House divided — For printing the Petition 38; Against it 55; Majority 17.

presented a Petition from the inhabitants of Crete, complaining of their suffering under the Turkish Government in that island.

was desirous of knowing whether any person, not being a British subject, had a right to petition that House; and he also wished to know if the petitioners were British subjects.

said, they certainly were not British subjects; but they thought themselves included in the Treaty of 1827, and were desirous of partaking of its benefits.

thought, that the limitation to petitions supposed to exist by the hon. member for Middlesex was much too narrow; but it would be, at all events, desir- able that some rule should be laid down upon the subject.

said, that a very important question was suggested to the consideration of the House by the hon. member for Middlesex — viz., whether petitions from persons who neither owed allegiance to, nor could claim the protection of, this country could be received. The object of the petitioners was, to obtain the interference of the Crown of Great Britain, to protect them from the miseries under which they were at the present moment labouring. Was this a petition at all? and, if so, was it not a petition to the Crown of Great Britain solely? The petition did not appear to contain any matter which brought it within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. It commenced "Honourable Sirs," and stated, that "On the renowned English people, the lovers of liberty, the patrons and protectors of the injured, the Cretans placed their last hope of salvation, looking up to them for the advocacy of the cause of Crete." It was clear that the petition could not be received by the House of Commons. It was an address to the English nation.

said, that after this declaration on the part of the Speaker, he could have no hesitation in withdrawing the petition. Though he had felt that he could not refuse to present a petition on behalf of persons enduring such great sufferings, he had, at the same time, had some doubts as to its reception.

regretted the decision to which the noble Lord had come. The French Chamber of Deputies did not refuse to receive the addresses of foreign nations.

said, that if such addresses were received, it would lead to great confusion in public affairs.

observed, that the subjects of this country never addressed other governments.