presented two Petitions from Carnarvon and Oswestry, in Wales, in favour of Lord John Russell's plan for Reforming the Representation in the House of Commons. Though he was of opinion that there existed a necessity for introducing some alteration in the present election of the House, he was not prepared to go the length which the Bill of the noble Lord went, for parts of it would, if it were carried into effect, go a great way towards rendering the Constitution of the country insecure, and consequently, these parts were dangerous in the extreme. The disposition that now prevailed in Wales favourable to Reform, was entirely caused by the healing measure, as it was called, of 1829, which was passed in opposition to the opinions of every man in that part of the country, and was there considered as violating the Constitution established in 1688.

had been requested to support the prayer of these petitions, which he could not conscientiously do, because he thought the measure would not produce the beneficial effects the petitioners anticipated.

presented a Petition in favour of the Reform Bill, from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Portsmouth, who expressed themselves greatly in favour of the Reform Bill before the House. He also had another Petition to present on the same subject, from the inhabitants of Farlington and Widley. To both of these petitions he was happy to give his most cordial support, particularly to that from his constituents, the Corporation of Portsmouth, which had done itself great honour by petitioning in favour of the Bill. The hon. Member also presented a Petition from the Ship-owners and Merchants of Portsmouth, against the contemplated alterations in the Timber Duties.—Petition to be printed.

presented a Petition, signed by 1,160 of his constituents, Householders and Inhabitants of the Parish of St. George's, Westminster, in favour of the Reform Bill brought in by his Majesty's Ministers. The hon. Member said, he had great pleasure in being able to state, that his anticipations with regard to the popularity of the measure introduced by his Majesty's Ministers had been more than realised amongst his own constituents; and he thought he might safely add, that the measure was most pleasing and satisfactory to all classes of reformers. The hon. Member also presented a similar Petition, agreed to at a meeting consisting of upwards of 800 persons, parishioners of St. Margaret's, Westminster, and observed, that the petition came from the parish in which the House of Commons was situated, and the inhabitants of which, from their proximity to the House, may be supposed to be best acquainted with the necessity which existed for reforming it. Amongst the names appended to that petition was that of Jeremy Bentham, and he understood the petition was signed by a great number of the most respectable inhabitants of this populous parish.

said, that the unanimity which prevailed amongst the Reformers on the subject of the measure introduced by Government, was the best proof that those persons were not actuated by the wild and visionary schemes which the enemies of all Reform ascribed to them. All they wanted was a fair and just control over their Representatives in that House. The fact of the unanimity he had alluded to was sufficient also to falsify the aspersion thrown on Reformers, that they could never be got to agree with each other on any measure. If there was anything wanting to show that the proposed plan was effectual as a measure of Reform, it was found in the fact, that it was sanctioned by the integrity and wisdom of Jeremy Bentham. He found the name of that illustrious man attached to the petition, which was at once a guarantee of the soundness of the mea-sure, and of the uprightness of those who proposed it.

presented a Petition from the working classes of Coventry, in favour of the proposed plan of Reform, which he conceived was highly creditable to them. Some allusion having been made as to the effect of the proposed measure on the weavers and operatives of Coventry and Preston, as soon as the report of what had been said on that subject arrived in Coventry, a hand-bill was distributed, stating the fact, and, within five or six hours, the petition he held in his hand was signed by them. He understood that no freeman in the City of Coventry refused to sign his name to the petition—so anxious were they that the privileges they exercised in voting-for Representatives should be extended to others. He was bound, however, to state, that he had also another Petition to present, signed by Masters and Apprentices in Coventry, praying that their rights might be protected. With that exception, he believed there was no feeling against against any part of the Bill, throughout the city of Coventry.

bore testimony to the respectability of the petitioners. The manly and temperate way in which the petitioners came forward to give up their own privileges for the public good, proved that those very men ought to have the right; and if justice did not demand it, those men, he thought, ought not to be deprived of their privileges. He was a moderate Reformer, and could not think the democratic influence would acquire too much sway as long as one-fourth of the county Members in that House were, as at present, the sons and brothers of Peers. He was apprehensive that, if the proposed measure passed in its present form, the landed interest would have more power than it now had.

said, he had been asked to support the petition, which he did most cordially. The Reformers of Coventry were in favour of the Ballot, and had sent him a petition to present on the subject; but it was his duty to state, that when the plan proposed by Government was made known to them, they appeared to consider it as an effectual measure of Reform, and had intrusted their petition to one of their own Members, asking him to support it.

wished to say nothing as to the merits of the petition transmitted to the hon. member for Preston; but there we e not one-third of the signatures to that petition which were to be found to the petition now presented.

said, that he could not misunderstand the delicate reference made to him by the hon. member for Coventry. He had referred, not to the town of Coventry, but to the class to be found in that town and other manufacturing towns. He said, it was not wise to deprive those men of the elective franchise who at present exercise it in Coventry and Preston; and it did not appear that the petitions now presented gave a positive contradiction to that opinion. Those who possessed the right of voting at present, were secured in the enjoyment of that right during their lives, and were not unfavourable to the Bill; but those who had only an inchoate right petitioned against the measure. Their language was, in effect, "in your Reform measure protect us." As reference had been made to what fell from him, he thought himself called upon to make this observation, without having any intention of exciting unnecessary discussion.

said, the petitioners were strongly in favour of the Bill; they only objected to that part which went to disfranchise them.

said, that when he was in Coventry, the whole town was with him in the market-place; and, when he asked their opinion on the Ballot, the whole multitude held up their hands for it.

denied that the whole city of Coventry assembled in the market-place when the hon. member for Preston visited it. There were not above forty or fifty persons present, and those not the most respectable.

on presenting Petitions from the united Parishes of Roscommon and Killivin, from the Parish of Boyle, the Parish of Tassanagh, of Aughrim, of Kilhimad, and Taumna, said—Sir, I hold in my hand, Petitions from the Roman Catholic Inhabitants of several Parishes in the County of Roscommon—that county for which I have the honour of being a Representative; those petitions are very numerously and respectably signed. They all complain of an unequal and improper distribution of the funds granted to the Kildare-street Society, for the education of the poor in Ireland, and they pray that the allocation of any sum which shall be granted in future for this purpose, shall not be intrusted to that Society. The petition from the inhabitants of the united parishes of Roscommon and Killivin is very short, and well deserving the attention of the House. I think, Sir, I may say without fear of contradiction, that there is no peasantry in Europe more anxious for instruction than the peasantry of Ireland, and that it was never in the contemplation of the Members of this House to withhold from the Catholic portion of that peasantry an equitable share of the sums granted for the education of the poor in that country; yet the petitioners complain that certain resolutions have been adopted by the Kildare-street Society, which, being contrary to the principles and tenets of the religion they profess, debar them from the advantages they expected to derive from those grants. I, however, confidently hope that his Majesty's Ministers will make such arrangements as will prevent any future complaint on the subject. My own feeling is, that a fair proportion of any sum granted in future for this purpose, should be given to the Roman Catholic Bishop and Clergy in every diocese in Ireland; being fully persuaded that they will dispose of it in the manner best calculated to attain the object for which it is intended. I also hold a Petition from the Roman Catholics of Navan, in the County of Meath; it is to the same effect as those I have already mentioned from the county of Roscommon, and I, therefore, beg leave to present it along with them, without any comment more than to solicit the attention of the House to the great interest which the people in every part of Ireland take in this subject.

said, that he rose, pursuant to his notice, to introduce the Scotch Reform Bill into the House. On the Motion that it be read a first time,

observed, that as there would be other opportunities of discussing the merits of the Bill, he was willing to acquiesce in the present stage.

called the attention of the House to the state of the public business, which was such as to render it impossible that all the petitions in favour of Reform could be presented unless some arrangement were made. He had himself a great number of petitions to present, and it was highly important that the House should be made acquainted with the enthusiasm which was felt by the people respecting the measure. Under these circumstances, he should move that Saturday be set aside for receiving such petitions.

said, he had also some very important petitions to present, which, he hoped, he should have an opportunity of laying before the House.

admitted the necessity of making some arrangement, but he hoped that, by receiving petitions at a late hour, they would be able to avoid interfering with the relaxation which they must all feel was so necessary to the Speaker on the Saturday.

proposed, that the time for receiving petitions should be extended to seven o'clock.

thought, that six o'clock would be late enough to answer the purpose.

said, that it was his intention to move the second reading of the Scotch Reform Bill on Friday week, as the other bill would be read on Monday. He would, in submitting the Motion, not only state its general scope, which was already known, but its particular details.

wished to observe, with respect to the receiving of petitions, that, if a greater latitude could be granted as to time, it would do a great deal towards absorbing the large amount of petitions which had accumulated in the hands of hon. Members. The attempt to overcome the difficulty by such means would not preclude them from setting Saturday aside for the same purpose, if, upon experience, it should be found to be necessary. He thanked the House for the consideration which it had manifested towards him, but he was always ready to sacrifice his own convenience to his public duty, nor did he feel that he had a right to do otherwise. Besides, he feared that if Saturday were set aside, no Members would attend except those who had petitions to present.

rose for the purpose of presenting a Petition, respecting which he had given several days' notice, regarding the proposed alteration in the Timber Duties, and complaining thereof. The petition was agreed to at a public meeting, one of the most numerous and respectable he had ever attended during the five-and-twenty years he had been connected with the city of London. It consisted of the merchants of the City, and of the shipowners connected with the port of London. At the meeting, the important subject was discussed with that talent and that freedom from political feeling which was extremely gratifying, and to which many hon. Members of that House, present at the meeting, could bear testimony. It was well known that England was the only country that imported timber to any considerable extent, and that previous to the year 1809 the importations to this country came all from the Baltic. But in that year considerable difficulties began to be felt in procuring the usual supply of Baltic timber, owing to the ports of the North of Europe having fallen under French influence; the consequence was, that every possible encouragement was held out to import Canadian timber, and protection being continued by duties after the ports of the Baltic were opened, the consequence was, that the importation increased up to the year 1821. In that year a Committee of this House sat upon the subject, and recommended an alteration of the duties. The Canadian timber, at that period, paid a duty of only 2s. 6d. per ton, whilst that from the Baltic paid 3l. 10s. The Committee recommended that the duty on Baltic timber should be reduced to 55s. per ton, and that on Canadian timber should be raised to 10s.; and upon this footing the trade had been carried on ever since. In the last year, 600,000 loads of timber had been imported from Canada, whilst the exports to that colony exceeded 2,000,000l. sterling in value, while the whole trade to the countries in the Baltic from which timber was brought, did not exceed 600,000l. The particular advantages of the trade, too, were evident, from the fact that this country had never been previously in the habit of receiving from the Baltic more than 400,000 loads. In this trade, then, with Canada, a very large amount of British capital was gradually embarked, until at last there came to be engaged in it 440,000 tons of shipping, and not fewer than 22,000 seamen—little short of the number now engaged in the Royal Navy of England. This trade was exclusively carried on with British capital, and nearly 1,500,000l. had been embarked in erecting saw-mills, and other works in Canada, necessary to the preparing of timber for exportation. It was, of course, to be expected, that such a state of things as that must have great influence upon the general trade of the country; it was, therefore, obvious, that no steps ought to be taken with reference to it, unless upon the most mature and deliberate consideration. It was also worthy of observation, that a large emigration took place to the Canadas. In the period to which he referred, no fewer than 250,000 persons emigrated to Canada from the United Kingdom; and in the last year the number amounted to 30,000. It was, then, the duty of the House to look at what might be the situation of persons sent out under the sanction, and through the encouragement of the Legislature. It was well known that the winter was longer there than in our climate; and it was also known, that the emigrants were, for the most part, engaged during the winter in the business of preparing the timber for the English market. It would be, therefore, most unjust to deprive the emigrants of that which they were entitled to expect; and the Canadians long settled in the country, of advantages, for the preservation of which Great Britain was responsible. Besides that, nothing could be more impolitic than to remove the barrier which Canada presented to the advancing encroachments of the United States, which might lead to serious consequences in the event of another American war. It was said, that the proposed alteration was introduced with a view to the improvement of the Revenue, and that it would effect an improvement to the extent of 600,000l. If this were to be the case, instead of 600,000 loads, there must be an importation of 750,000 loads of timber, and Canada, he calculated, would lose, at least, an export of 350,000 loads out of the 600,000 which she now exported. There could be no expectation of an increased trade with higher duties. It was true, that the shipping interest had increased or improved in the last twelve months, but this would be a fatal blow to its prosperity. Supposing the Revenue should be increased by 600,000l, he really thought that such a sum was not worthy of consideration, as compared with the disadvantages which must result from the proposed change, such as the loss to our shipping, the injury to our colonial subjects, and the advantage to our rivals, and possibly our enemies. It was a mistake to suppose that the shipping now engaged in that trade could be turned over with facility to the coasting trade—they being for the most part vessels from 500 to 750 tons. He might be told, that the Canadian timber was the inferior article—that it was worth only 3l. 10s. a ton, while the Baltic timber was worth 5l. or 5l. 5s. But it should be recollected that there were a variety of purposes to which Canadian timber might be applied, and for which it was quite as fit as any that could be found; but in a different state of things, if the alteration of the duties should be persevered in, the people of this country would be compelled to use Baltic timber at 5l. a ton, for which Canadian at 3l. 10s. would answer fully as well. He especially intreated the House to turn its attention to the immense amount of shipping and of seamen which would be thrown out of employment by the destruction of the trade with Canada. In the Baltic trade they might rest assured that no British ships would be employed. Prussia and Norway could build vessels for about 7l. or 8l. a ton, and thus evidently become most formidable rivals in the trade of this country. The fact was, that he believed, that the eyes of Ministers were beginning, though late, to be opened, for they felt very sore on the subject, and they went the length of expressing displeasure against the Governor of a colony for merely writing a pamphlet, exposing the real state of the case. Another thing to be recollected was, that the Legislature was anxious to promote emigration to Canada; and at present, in consequence of the ships employed in the timber trade not finding cargoes to carry out, the expense of passage was not above 6l. a head, whereas it would be upwards of 20l. This would be a great check to emigration. He would only, in conclusion, say, that the Ministerial plan had created great alarm among all persons connected with the Canada trade. The hon. Member moved that the petition be brought up.

said, it was his intention to bring the question of the timber duties on on Friday next, when he should state the grounds on which the measure proceeded. It would be more convenient to take the discussion upon that occasion than at present.

said, the House ought to be disfranchised, and would no longer deserve the name of a British House of Commons, if it ceased to attend to the interests of our ships, colonies, and commerce. He wished Ministershad consulted practical men, and men interested in the subject, before bringing forward their proposition.

would refrain from entering at length into the subject after the observation of the noble Lord. He must say, however, that he agreed with the meeting of shipowners in opposing the proposition of Ministers, the effect of which must be to destroy the Canadian timber-trade, and that part of our commercial marine embarked in it.

said, he had lately urged on the House to relax, in favour of the present Petition, those recent regulations by which they had, in fact, very much closed their doors against the petitions of the people; and he was satisfied that the importance of the document which had thus been brought before them would be thought fully to justify its admission. That document lost none of its importance on account of the grievance the petitioners complained of having been inflicted by measures depending in Parliament, and having been heavily increased by the extraordinary manner in which these measures were suspended. If, indeed, the Bill proposed by the noble Lord were one of merely financial regulation, the postponement of its operation until October, as he had proposed, might justify the House in postponing its decision; but, if the petitioners were right, who viewed the Bill, not as a measure of revenue regulation, but as carrying with it the entire ruin of numbers amongst them, and the extinction of a part of the commerce in which they were engaged, then the suspense in which the Ministers now held them, regardless whether this ruin were to be inflicted or not, could be little alleviated by the grace of postponing its execution till October. The Ministers had now consented to bring their measure to the decision of the House on Friday next, and he should yield to those rules which obstructed debates on petitions in not then entering into any details; but even then he thought it necessary to enforce on the consideration of the House what was the real character of the measure on which they would on Friday have to decide. Previous discussions were useful, and indeed necessary to the advantageous consideration of every question involving a variety of interests, and nothing could be more inconvenient than for the House to be called on to decide on such a question after a long and desultory debate, in which were presented to its view, perhaps for the first time, many of the grounds on which its decision must rest. Such discussion was particularly necessary on this question, because, in fact, the real character it bore had never yet been brought into view. His Majesty's Ministers had presented the question to the House only in its least material features, and had kept out of view altogether the real grounds on which, he was satisfied, the House would form its decision, rejecting from consideration those motives which seemed alone to have guided the Government. How, he desired them to consider, was this measure of duties on Canadian timber brought before them? Five weeks back, in his budget, the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to raise 750,000l. a year, but he would take 600,000l. by a tax on timber, not, as he told them, a fit subject of taxation; but why it was unfit, or why Canadian timber was less or more fit than other timber, he said nothing. In this state the noble Lord left the question, till it was taken up some days afterwards by the right hon. the Vice-president of the Board of Trade. He carried their views a stage further. This, said he, is a measure by which the Exchequer will gain 600,000l. a-year by a tax on timber; but a farther benefit will also accrue,—for the consumers of the article taxed will pay no part of that tax; they will get timber cheaper after the tax is laid on than before. And thus the question stood before the House on this showing of the Ministers. All interests were to be gainers; the Government would get 600,000l. without the people being called on to pay the money; and this the House were left to ascribe, if they pleased, to the dexterity of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, aided by the science of the Vice-president of the Board of Trade, had been able to apply new rules of art to the exhausted resources of the country, and to cause money to flow into the Exchequer, which they did not drain from the pockets of the people. From this visionary prospect, the petition his hon. friend had presented, for the first time aroused them. The mystery was made evident; the money which the Exchequer was to get, and the people not to pay, was to be paid by a part of the people. The shipowners, timber-merchants, and colonists of Canada, were to be made to yield 600,000l. to the revenue by the sacrifice of their capital and commerce to Russia. That was the real state of the case, and the moment it was presented to their view, they would discard altogether the calculations and theories' of the Ministers of the Crown; they would have to consider nothing of how much the Government was to gain, or how much the consumers of timber were to gain. The agricultural interest, said the right hon. Vice-president of the Board of Trade, knew how much they would gain by his scheme, and how much they would save by having foreign timber at a cheaper rate, to build barns and outhouses with. He (Mr. Attwood) disclaimed all personal hostility to that right hon. Gentleman; be did willing justice to his talents, though he approved of few of his measures. These considerations were as nothing when it was proposed to sacrifice the interests of one part of the community to the rest. The first point was, if the sacrifice were voluntary. If not voluntary, then what was the right by which the House was called on to adopt that course? Were there no Acts of Parliament to protect this interest—no system of conduct, from which protection was to be implied; and if so, that implied faith bound the country, when the question was between a great government and one of its distant colonies, or indeed any class of the community, as strongly as though it was fortified by the letter of a thousand Acts of Parliament; and in default of both, they would have to inquire whether they could sacrifice their merchants, without a violation of that universal principle of all governments, which binds the first faith of every country to the protection of the property of its citizens. It was on grounds like these that the House must decide the question. In detail he would then discuss none of them; but even then there was one consideration he thought desirable to bring under their view. The House ought not to consider the question of protection to this timber trade, without the full recollection of the circumstances under which it was first established, and that it was to meet a great emergency, and a great necessity— it was to guard against consequences arising from the hostility of Russia—that this capital was invested, which it was now proposed to sacrifice to Russia. In 1809 it was, when the northern Powers of Europe joined those of the south, west, and east, against this country and its institutions, that the country called for the resources of our northern colonies, and our merchants invested their capital in compliance with that call. The union of Russia with the continental league struck, or was thought to strike—for he cared not whether men might now deny that danger, which was then believed, and which he now believed—a heavy blow on the resources which supplied the strength of the navy. It was to guard against that blow, to renew those resources, to reserve that right arm of power, which his hon. friend, the member for Newark, beside him eloquently said had wound round the brow of the country a wreath which could never fade—that arm which smote their enemy in every sea—that they had resorted to the aid of the Canadian colonists, and that their merchants had invested the capital which now it was proposed to sacrifice—but never, he trusted, without all these circumstances being gravely considered. Could it be believed that the nation then contracted no obli- gation of protection to this capital? Were they to believe that these emergencies were never again to arise; or was that the period when they were to blink opinion, with the state of Europe before them, in horrible convulsion and change, but establishing, in every form, whether of anarchy or despotism, one uniform evidence of hatred and hostility against the present institutions of this country? Of those facts, and of those grave considerations, his Majesty's Ministers appeared by their measures to know and to consider nothing. They thought alone of the emptiness of their Exchequer—of applying new maxims of financial and commercial reform, which they had drawn at second hand from the book of the hon. member for Queen's County (Sir H. Parnell), to an exhausted system of taxation; and were bringing their miserable supply to the Exchequer, without being sensible that they were carrying into the colonies, perhaps, the convulsions of Europe—were encountering the hazard of giving the Canadas to America, and trusting the navy to the faith or friendship of Russia. The House, he trusted, would proceed on different views; and would on Friday decide this question, as one that involved the faith and the honour of this country, as well as those principles on which must depend the security of our colonial power.

was disposed to follow the advice of his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to abstain from entering into the discussion at the present moment. But he must take this opportunity to contradict the assertion of the hon. Member who spoke last, as to the existence of any pledge on the part of this country towards Canada, with respect to the timber trade. So far from there being any pledge on the subject, whenever a pledge was demanded, it had been refused. He thought the true way of benefitting our shipping interests was, to endeavour to extend them in every direction, by removing all unnecessary burthens; and then he was sure no country would compete with us. It was just that we should support the interests of our colonies, but not separately from, or in opposition to, our other interests. He never would endeavour to foster one interest at the expense of the whole community. But he should be able, when the discussion took place on Friday, to demonstrate that the support which we had hitherto extended to the shipping and colonial interests, had cost the country upwards of a million a-year.

thought the shipowners had made out a strong case against the noble Lord's proposition, but that was scarcely necessary to convince him of its impropriety. From the first moment he had heard of the scheme, he disapproved of it. The Canadas took from us manufactured goods to the amount of 2,000,000l. sterling yearly, while the Baltic States took scarcely any tiling from the English market. In fact, the amount of our exports to those countries did not exceed 600,000l. and four-fifths of that was cotton twist. Yet it was now proposed to deprive Canada of the advantage of the timber trade, and transfer it to Norway.

said, that he had a Petition to present on the subject which had been agreed to at Glasgow, the prayer of which resembled that presented by the hon. Alderman. He coincided completely in the views taken by the petitioners and the Members who supported the petitions.

was apprehensive that the measure would create dissatisfaction, and he for one must give his cordial support to the petitioners.

was also intrusted with a Petition to present against the measure, which he thought calculated to cause inconvenience and mischief, and which, on the behalf of his constituents, he meant strenuously to resist.

said, he had been intrusted with a Petition of a like description to that presented by Mr. Alderman Thompson, from the shipowners of Dublin, who, although aware that it was not intended to extend the measure to Ireland, on account of its poverty, yet as shipowners they felt disposed to make common cause with the shipping interests of this country. The petition expressed an opinion that the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have the effect of annihilating the Canadian timber trade, and throwing out of employment all the tonnage at present engaged in it.

agreed in principal with the noble Lord, but differed in some degree from him as to the extent to which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) seemed disposed to carry the measure. At present he would content himself with observing, that the tonnage connected with Liverpool, which was engaged in the Canadian trade, amounted to 130,000 tons, while that em- ployed in the Baltic trade did not exceed 18,000,—a fact sufficient in itself to show how much more important than the Baltic was the Canadian trade to the town which he represented.

said, that the complaints which were made by the shipping interest were but reiterations of those made in 1821; while the fact was, that the timber trade with Canada since that time had increased in the proportion of eight to five. It was then said, that the trade would be ruined by the proposed alteration; in fact, it had flourished more than ever. When he remembered that the exports to Canada, amounting to 2,000,000l. were chiefly in consequence of the canals and public works that were going on there, and to pay the expenses of the government, while the value of the timber imported only amounted to 500,000l. he could not think that their timber trade was of so much importance to the country as was pretended.

supported the prayer of the petition, which related to the vital interests of the country. If the Government- were to proceed on the principle of allowing sugar, and corn, and timber to be brought into this country from the places where they were grown cheapest, it would soon ruin every establishment and every interest in the country. If the timber trade did take a million a year from the country, if it did cost annually that sum, that was nothing compared to the advantages which the trade afforded us. In 1829 that trade employed no less than 1,611 ships, and to build and man and equip them, employed a great deal of labour. If it could not be shown that the present rate of duties and the trade which was to be destroyed afforded great advantages to the country, by the labour it set in motion, he should be ready to give up the whole question. He was sure that it could be shown, and he was ready to meet any hon. Member on that ground. The proposed alteration would inflict a serious injury on the whole Canada trade, and as the hon. member for Bridport admitted, it would destroy the half of the shipping engaged in it. He was not so much astonished to hear the hon. Member make that admission, as to hear the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the night he brought forward his Budget, calmly and plainly admit that his plan might put out of employment the half of the shipping engaged in that trade —that was just the half of 1,611 ships, and of 20,000 seamen to be put out of employment. He thought the duty of Government was to protect and preserve, but it was in this instance only destroying the best interests of the country. Where else could they find employment for so many ships and such a number of seamen, and by what other means could all the great interests which depend on the employment of ships and seamen be remunerated for the losses they would suffer? It was intended also to encourage the Northern Powers of Europe, those very Powers which in 1807 we had sent a large expedition to destroy. The present trade with Canada was altogether a British trade, under the control of the British Government, and he must protest against breaking that up to make us again exclusively dependent on Powers that had been our enemies, and might be again. He was surprised to hear the hon. member for Liverpool support the proposed measure, though he confessed he did not understand the reasons which the hon. Member gave for it. Did the hon. Member know how important the present trade was to Liverpool? In 1821 there were 218 ships connected with this trade in the port of Liverpool; and in 1831 the number had increased to 321, carrying 106,000 tons. By the altered system, the lumber trade would be destroyed,—a trade which was of the first importance in clearing and peopling the colonies. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be successful on Friday (and he hoped that he would not), he (Mr. Robinson) would not be content with one night's debate on the subject, because the measure, in his opinion, would strike at the security of this country as a maritime nation. He would contest and oppose the measure at every stage.

observed, that those who opposed this measure formed a class who never looked to the advantage of the people, but, by some strange sort of anomalous reasoning, believed that they should be better able to pay the National Debt by being obliged to purchase every thing at as dear a rate as possible. Now he was a friend to the opposite system. He wished to have cheap sugar, cheap corn, and cheap timber, and therefore he would import those commodities from those places where they might be most reasonably obtained. Looking to the country at large, it appeared to him, that the greatest injury was inflicted by those monoplies, which were called protections, but which ought to be considered as destructions.

was of opinion that the proposed measure would ruin one-fifth of the shipping interest; it would strike at the prosperity of our country and excite great discontent in the colonies.

observed, that the petition from the city of London ought to give rise to some doubts in the mind of the noble Lord as to the policy of this measure; but, until he heard it explained more in detail he would forbear from giving any decided opinion with respect to it.

said, it appeared to him that the proposition involved the violation of much vested capital, and the destruction of a most useful class of men. If it were determined to benefit the consumer, it ought not to be done at the expense of the shipping interest.

said, that his constituents complained that this measure would occasion the total destruction of their property, because they could not find employment for the shipping which they had now engaged in the Canada trade, in any other pursuit. The Vice-president of the Board of Trade had stated, that this measure was a boon to the landed interest. But the right hon. Gentleman knew little of the landed interest of England if he believed that that interest wished to derive any exclusive benefit or advantage (and he did not think it would be an advantage) which was given at the expense of the other interests of the country.

never meant to say that this was a boon to the landed interest in particular. He said that it would be a boon to the country generally.

said, that those who opposed this measure seemed to think that the prosperity of the country depended upon the employment of a certain number of ships. Now, what was the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in bringing forward this measure? Why, to benefit the consumer generally; and this he did too when he relieved the country from the oppressive tax upon coals. Was it not desirable that they should have better wood for building in this country than they could get from Canada? In addition to supplying the country with a better commodity at a cheaper rate than at present, it would place a considerable sum in the Exchequer, and he could not conceive that such a circumstance ought to make the Commons of England reject it. The measure would, he believed, be useful to the general community.

did not concur in the opinion of the hon. member for Middlesex, They had expended 6,000,000l. on Canada, and merchants had, in consequence, invested much capital there, which would be overthrown by this measure.

thought, that the present discussion was Unnecessary, as the question would be regularly introduced on Friday. But he could not help observing, that the reason which had just been given for continuing in the old course, was the most extraordinary he had ever heard. They were told, that because they had expended 6,000,000l. to encourage the colonists of Canada, they ought still to support a system which was injurious to the general interest of the country. He had no objections to colonies, but, like the hon. member for Middlesex, he could not approve of buying their attachment by the immense annual sacrifices which were involved in this unnatural protection. In his opinion a better system ought to be adopted, and the present system of management might with great propriety be entirely altered. Under the present state of things, we were compelled to purchase bad timber to support a certain interest. To alter that system might be very inconvenient to those who were maintained by it; but all that they could do was, to let those persons down as easy as they could. This indifferent timber was absolutely forced into the building- of ships, and of houses, and much mischief resulted from it. He would recommend that the system should be removed altogether, even if the country was called on to pay a sum of money to the shipping interest.

asked, whether the hon. members for Westminster and Bridgenorth were prepared to dissolve the connexion between the colonies and the mother country. Why the hon. member for Bridgenorth said he would procure sugar, corn, timber, &c, at as cheap a rate as he could, in any place, and the hon. Baronet seemed to participate in his sentiment. That was the policy which they would adopt. There was evidently a specious reason, at least, to suppose, that if they had their free will, they would make it part of their policy henceforth to dissolve the con- nexion with the colonies; but that was a sort of policy which he never could approve of. He was sure too, if the hon. member for Bridport looked carefully into the report of the Committee of 1821 he would find no support in that for his arguments.

said, it appeared to him that the measure proposed by Government was founded on principles different from those stated by Gentlemen near him, and therefore he differed from them. There was no intention to destroy the interests either of the colonies or of the shipowners. No two interests could be more intimately connected, and if any measure were proposed that seemed likely to overturn either, he would strenuously oppose it. He thought, that in the course of the argument, much misapprehension and misconception had prevailed; and on a future occasion he would point out, and perhaps correct, those erroneous impressions. But he must say, that before the measure was distinctly submitted to the House, they were not in a proper situation to discuss it. His principal objection was to the time at which the measure was proposed. He denied that this measure would inflict injury to the extent which had been stated; but he did not mean to say that it would not, in some degree, be productive of injury; because no great change like this could be effected without causing injury. If the noble Lord had taken another opportunity for proposing this measure, he thought that he would have done better; because, just at the moment when they were opening the West-India trade to other countries, which for years had been closed to all but the North American colonies—it was hard at such a time to impose an additional duty on the commodities they sent to the English market.

said, a petition from the City of London, for the protection of the interests of a certain class of men, had given rise to a debate of several hours. Thousands of petitions had been presented from the people, praying for relief, and in consequence the noble Lord proposed to take off a large duty on coals, which would be most useful to the community,—and to lay the tax on timber, which would fall on wealthy commercial men. He was very glad to see a tax taken from the shoulders of the poor, and laid upon those who could best afford to bear it. He was the more pleased on this occasion, because many of the influential men who now peti- tioned the House had, twenty-five years ago, employed themselves in supporting and upholding that system which placed them and the country in its present situation and compelled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to declare that he could not remove taxes from one portion of the community without placing them on another.

said, that in moving for the documents of which he had given notice, he did not mean merely to confine himself to that point, his object being to draw the attention of the House to the state of the law with regard to diplomatic and consular pensions. In 1782 this subject was, for the first lime, brought under the consideration of Parliament, by the Act for regulating the Civil List, and by that Act the Civil List pensions were then limited to £90,000. There was in that Act this clause, "Whereas, it hath been usual that persons who have served the Crown in foreign Courts, have, after the expiration of their service, at his Majesty's pleasure, received such proportion of their former appointments as to his Majesty hath seemed expedient: Be it enacted,—that nothing in this Act contained, relative to pensions, shall be construed to extend to such allowance, either in present or in future, provided the said persons do not severally enjoy some place or other profit from the Crown, to the amount of the pension usually allowed in such cases; provided that the list of the said pensions shall be laid, in the manner before mentioned, before Parliament." The law remained in this state until 1810 when another measure was passed amending the former Act as far as related to diplomatic pensions. The Act of 1810 contained this important clause. "And whereas it is expedient that the said Act (22 Geo. 3rd c. 82, A. D. 1782) should be amended, so far as respects pensions to persons who shall have served the Crown in foreign Courts after the expiration of their services: Be it therefore enacted,—that no pension or allowance shall be granted to any person for, or on account of, having served the Crown in foreign Courts within less than ten years from the date of his first appointment in such service, during which time he shall have served not less than three years, and no such allowance shall exceed 2,000l. per annum; and every such allowance shall abate if such person shall be appointed to any civil office or employment under the Crown of equal or greater amount, and shall also be subject to a proportionate abatement if the value of any such office or employment should be less than the amount of such allowance as aforesaid: provided always, that before any such pension or allowance shall be granted, the person in whose favour the same shall be granted shall be not less than thirty-five years of age; and his Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs shall transmit to the Treasury a certificate under his hand that such person has not, within such ten years, declined serving as a foreign Minister, except for sufficient cause, in any rank or station equal or superior to that in which he had last served, which certificate shall be recited in the grant of such pension or allowance." Those restrictions, though not strict enough in his mind, were thought to be too strict by the Ministers of the Crown; and in 1811 they brought in a Bill, to exempt from the provisions of the Act of 1810 all persons who, previous to the passing of that Act, had served the Crown in foreign parts. The reason assigned was so curious, that he would take the liberty of reading the clause to the House: "Whereas the provisions of the said Act (Act of 1810, 50 Geo. 3rd., c. 117) hereby amended, do, in terms, extend as well to persons who, previously to the passing of the said Act, had served the Crown in foreign Courts, as to those who might serve after the passing of the said Act. And whereas such persons who, previously (o the passing of the said Act, had served the Crown in foreign Courts may have engaged in such employment upon the faith of the usage with respect to the grant of allowances by his Majesty after the expiration of their services, which is recited and confirmed in the Act of the 22nd year of his present Majesty (Act of 1782): Be it therefore enacted,—that the provisions of the said Act hereby amended shall have no application to persons who, previously to the passing of the said Act, had served the Crown in foreign Courts; and that nothing in the said amended Act contained shall be construed in anywise to alter or affect the said Act of the 22nd of his present Majesty, so far as respects the grant of allowances by his Majesty to per- sons who, previously to the passing of the said Act, had served the Crown in foreign Courts." It seemed that those who were affected by the Bill of 1810 thought it very hard that they should serve ten years before they were entitled to those large allowances of 2,000l. or 1,500l.: and they could not conceive why three years service was not quite sufficient. The hon. Gentleman said, he meant to make no attack upon individuals; it was the system which he considered bad; and he thought that some reduction ought to be made in the charges paid under the head of diplomatic pensions. The result of the state of the law which he had described was, that we had five pensioned-off ambassadors from the Ottoman Porte, of whom three were exempt from the provisions of the Act of 1810, and who received larger pensions than that Act permitted. We had three pensioned-off from St. Petersburgh, every one of whom escaped the provisions of the Act of 1810; two from Wirtemburgh, two from Madrid, two from Lisbon, two from Sweden; and, on the whole, though there were only nineteen diplomatic persons in actual service, who received 3,000l. per annum and upwards, there were twenty-eight retired diplomatic persons who received, on an average, above 1,000l. a-year each as pensions; and, out of these, there were twelve who received upwards of 2,000l. a-year, each of whom twenty-one years after the passing of the Act of 1810, was still exempted from its provisions, by what he must call the unworthy means, as well as pretences, by which the Act of 1811 was obtained from the Legislature. The annual expense of our diplomatic relations with the Ottoman Porte was now 20,967l. without any consideration of outfit, or of any salaries which are less than 1,000l. per annum each. He considered that very extravagant. He asked the House, whether such a state of things could exist under a reformed Parliament? He contrasted the emoluments of ambassadors and governors of colonies; the former of whom were sent to pleasant places, and mixed in agreeable society, were well paid, and allowed retiring pensions; while the latter were sent out to countries which it was not very desirable to inhabit, did not receive such high salaries as ambassadors, and upon retiring received no superannuation allowances. The hon. Member concluded by moving "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying him to direct to be laid before the House,—Returns of the date of the pension granted to each of those persons who are included in a Return of this Session (p. 35) intituled 'Civil and Military Offices,' and who are stated to receive pensions for Diplomatic and Consular services:—Of the date of the first and every subsequent appointment of each person therein included, and of the length of his actual service in each such station, respectively:— Of all other diplomatic and consular pensions not included in the above-named paper, which Return shall specify the names of the parties receiving such pensions, the date of the pension, and of the first and every subsequent appointment of each such person, with the time for which he shall have actually served in each appointment."

had no objection to the production of the return moved for; but observed, that he looked upon these pensions as a sort of half-pay, which it was to the interest of the country to provide, in order to induce those persons whose diplomatic talents might be productive of advantage to the country to make the diplomatic service a regular profession. Whether or not those pensions were too great, was another question. It was true, that ambassadors were sometimes sent to agreeable places, but it should be remembered that they incurred great expenses, and he did not think that it would be good policy in the country to discontinue altogether the payment of the pensions.

was of opinion that it would be a far better plan to give no retiring pensions to ambassadors. The United States gave no pensions to their ambassadors, and he was not aware that that country ever stood in need of able Ministers to manage its affairs in other countries. Besides, these pensions had not had the effect of securing to this country the services of men of ability, for it was not the rule to give consular appointments to men of talents, but to men of powerful connexions, whose support it was the interest of Government to gain. He wished to know whether the recommendation of the Finance Committee of 1828, that the amount of these pensions should be confined to 40,000l., had been complied with?

thought that the recommendation of the Finance Committee had been uniformly adhered to. With respect to the American Consuls, he had an opportunity of learning, that they themselves complained that the salaries allowed them were inadequate for their decent support at the Courts of foreign Powers.

said, the recommendation of the Finance Committee had not been complied with, for at the commencement of the present reign 46,000l. was proposed to be voted as a permanent provision for retired allowances. He considered the salaries paid to British Ambassadors too high; and thought that men of great diplomatic ability might be obtained at a lower rate.

said, that the recommendation of the Finance Committee was, that the amount of pensions should be gradually reduced until it fell as low as 40,000l., and though 46,000l. was proposed to be applied to that purpose, yet the recommendation of the Finance Committee had been complied with, because the same was in the course of reduction.

stated, that the sum of 46,000l. was proposed as a permanent provision.

rose to move for a copy of the memorial to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland from the parishioners of the Union of Wicklow. The hon. Member adverted to the numerous preferments which were held by Archdeacon Magee, the incumbent of the Union, which he stated gave him a very large income. He had to complain of the contradictory statements respecting the value of the living, which had been made by the Archbishop of Dublin, in his report to the Privy Council of Ireland. He declared it to be worth only 909l. a year, while Archdeacon Magee, at a meeting of the parishioners of the Union, had declared it to be worth 2,255l. He thought that when the memorial was produced, the House would be able to ascertain what measures could be taken to reconcile the unhappy difference existing between the Archdeacon and his parishioners. He said, that the question was not one of Catholics against Protestants, nor ought the House to regard it as any attack on the Church. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a copy of the Memorial presented by the parishioners of Wicklow to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

did not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the production of the memorial moved for by the hon. member for Wicklow, but having seen a copy of that memorial, he must protest against the correctness of its statements, and he thought he could briefly explain to the House the misconception out of which the complaint of the memorialists seemed to him to have arisen. The parish of Wicklow consisted of four chapelries, and was divided into prebendal, or large, and vicarial, or small, tithes, though the prebend is a sinecure, held altogether independent of the Union now in question, and incapable in law of being episcopally united to it. The Union to which the Archbishop of Dublin's report related was the Vicarage of Wicklow, and the small parishes, Drumkey and Kilpool, and the value of these united, instead of exceeding 909l. a year, was considerably lower than that sum, being about 500l. This Union, as well as the Prebend of Wicklow, had been held for many years by a Clergyman who was in embarrassed circumstances; his preferments were under sequestration, and it was from the written return of his sequestration (the original of which he had seen) that the Archbishop took the value, extent, and particulars of the Union. It was unprecedented that an Archbishop under these circumstances should employ a professional valuator, and he resorted for information to the person who had been interested in making the value as high as possible, and in point of fact, he returned a much higher value than was necessary for the object of the Union, though not as high as the entire value, including the Prebend. He did the same as to the Glebe Lands, all of which with the exception of the eight acres returned by the Archbishop, were attached to the Prebend. Now, as to the policy of this Union, supposing it a new question, the vicarage and the two parishes as he (Mr. Shaw) stated, were worth about 500l. a year and the present incumbent kept four Curates at 100l. each, and which, allowing for deductions of collectors, would leave him about 50l. a year out of this Union; there were besides three churches in the Vicarage; and, none in either of the small parishes, so they would be insufficient to maintain an incumbent and church of themselves, and therefore it would appear highly expedient to unite them with the vicarage of Wicklow—and also desirable (to say nothing of the principle of sinecures, which he was not defending) under existing circumstances that this Union should be held by the Prebend of Wicklow, in order that, out of the large income attached to that sinecure, he might support the Curates and expenditure necessary for the whole Union. As to the complaints against Archdeacon Magee, it was alleged that he had been exorbitant in his demands; but how did the facts support this allegation? When he received this preferment, he had a valuation made of the tithes he was entitled to, and it amounted, including the entire preferment, to 2,300l. For this he was willing to accept l,500l. a year as compensation, and had never asked for more than 1,600l.; and he further offered, if the parish did not agree to the composition, to take 1s. instead of 2s. in the pound compared with the value of the ground, his strict right, and to let the maximum value of the ground be taken at 3l. an acre, whereas a considerable part is worth 6l. Then as to the charge of his claiming tithe upon some lands which had not paid tithe before, it was a question as to a very small extent of land, depending not between him and any poor parishioner, but between him and the Corporation of Wicklow. The claim for glebe lands was a question between him and Lord Fitzwilliam. With respect to the other preferments mentioned by the hon. Mover St. John's, in Dublin, is of very inconsiderable value above the curate's salary, but it confers a vote in the Chapter of Christ Church; and the Archdeaconry of Kilmacduagh is a sinecure of small amount, and from which Archdeacon Magee has as yet not received a shilling. It is situated in the county of Clare, and the hon. member for Waterford knew that it was not very easy to collect tithes there. He knew many of the individuals who signed this memorial, and they were of the highest respectability; they did not profess to speak from their own knowledge, and he (Mr. Shaw) believed the real explanation of the circumstance was, that they received their information from a curate of one of the parishes, himself, he believed, a respectable and talented clergyman, but suffering under the bitterness of some disappointment, arising, as stated by the Archbishop of Dublin, out of a misconception of a conversation held with him upon the subject of this Union.—Under all the circumstances, he could not but lament that it had been thought advisable to bring a matter of this nature before the House, when it admitted of an easy explanation between the parties themselves; more particularly, as he was satisfied that the very respectable individuals who had signed the memorial, had not been actuated by any hostile or invidious feeling to the Established Church of Ireland. He could not, however, help regretting that so inappropriate a period had been selected for the purpose of making this complaint, when the distinguished Prelate against whom a charge of unfairness was insinuated, was suffering under severe indisposition, and at a moment when organised opposition was taking place in many parts of Ireland to the payment of tithes—which, if successful as to them, would be found equally applicable to rents and every other claim of right— when, if he might use the expression, it had become rather the fashion of the times to be weary of our ancient institutions, and when especially the Irish branch of our Established Church was much reviled by its opponents, but whose clergy, he could boldly affirm, were, taken as a whole, as enlightened, as zealous, and as eminently pious a body of ministers as belonged to any religious order in existence. The Established Church was, no doubt, subject to those defects which are indispensable from every human institution, but withal, he Believed it in his conscience to be one of the best and surest pillars of the State, an honoured and an acknowledged instrument of an authority paramount to all human institutions for checking infidelity, and all its train of evils, and for promoting true religion and all its accompanying blessings, throughout the land.

lamented that this subject had been brought forward, and he also lamented that any grounds had been given for complaint. He considered, however, that such an accumulation of preferment as Archdeacon Magee was loaded with, was a great scandal and a great injury to the Church. The hon. and learned member for Dublin (Mr. Shaw) had said, that the livings joined to the vicarage of Wicklow were only worth 200l. a year, as if that were not a sufficient income to support an incumbent. He knew many men of exemplary character and good education, who performed the duties of ministers for no higher a remuneration than 100l. a year. He thought that persons who held preferments ought to be resident, and he was sorry to be obliged to declare, that due regard had not been paid to the interests of the Church, and of religion, by those whose especial duty it was to provide for both.

did not doubt the legality of the proceeding which had been brought under the consideration of the House, but he hoped it would make the House understand how the system worked in Ireland, and how much irritation it gave rise to. It appeared from the statement of the hon. member for Dublin (Mr. Shaw) that Archdeacon Magee did not hold the living in Dublin for the purpose of attending to the duties of the office, and looking after the wants of his flock, but merely for the purpose of possessing the privilege of having a voice in the Chapter. He did not think it proper that gentleman should hold so many livings. He was already in possession of two livings before he was put into possession of that of the Union of Wicklow, from which it appeared that he received at least 1,500l., and gave at most 500l. to the curates who did all the duty. He was paid, therefore, 1,000l., for doing nothing. What right had he to that when the people were suffering from great distress? At any rate, the Archdeacon ought not to receive any more than 500l. from the Union of Wicklow, and the remaining 1,000l. should be applied to the relief of the parishioners.

, in answer to what had fallen from the right hon. Member, the Secretary of War (Mr. C. W. Wynn), stated, that he had not said that the reason for uniting the two parishes, Drumkey and Kilpool, to the vicarage of Wicklow, was the insufficiency of the income to support an incumbent: but that there was no church in those parishes, and therefore no duty could be performed in them, unless they were joined to the vicarage.

was well aware of the difficulty of arguing the question of tithes, because it always sounded harshly to take the tenth potatoe from the poor man, but it was a small contribution from a great many, to support a most meritorious class of men. He was not disposed to take the character of the clergy of the Church of Ireland from the hon. and learned member for Waterford. Considering all circumstances the Union was most desirable, and there was no pretence for stating that the Archbishop of Dublin had made any statements to the Privy Council of Ireland which were not founded in fact. So far from undervaluing the livings, he had overvalued them.

said, if the livings were undervalued, the statements of the parishioners were most false. He was happy, however, to believe, that the time had arrived when no more faculties would be granted for unions.

vindicated the character of the Archbishop, and said, that upon inquiry the conduct of that right rev. Prelate would appear unimpeachable. He saw no ground for the interference of the House, and he was sorry to see in it a disposition to vilify and condemn the clergy of the Irish Church.

said, that the hon. Mover had not brought forward the subject with the view of vilifying the character of the Archbishop. The hon. Member who spoke last seemed inclined to defend what was a tissue of abuse. The Church of Ireland was a tissue of abuses from first to last, whatever hon. Members might say. There were parishes without churches or resident ministers, the inhabitants of which consisting chiefly of Catholics, were called on to pay large sums to the members of the Established Church. If that were not an abuse, he did not know what the word meant. The clergy of Ireland were actuated only by a desire to acquire money, instead of attending to their religions duties. He thought that the time had come when the Irish Church must be remodelled, and no man be allowed to receive a shilling who did not perform efficient duties.

said, he could not concur with the unqualified censure which the hon. Member had passed upon the members of the Irish Church. At the same time he thought the case which had been brought; under the consideration of the House, had been properly so brought.

admitted that some of the members of the Irish Church discharged their duties in the most praiseworthy manner.

said, that if any ill-feeling prevailed against the Established Church in Ireland, it was owing to such circumstances as had been brought under the notice of the House that evening.

, in rising to move for the appointment of a Select Committee "to consider how far it may be expedient to relax the exercise of the privileges of this House, respecting the imposition of pecuniary penalties for offences," said it was not his intention to occupy the time of the House. There was no one of its privileges, which he considered should be held more dear, or one which they owed it to their constituents to maintain more inviolably, than that of reserving to themselves the right of originating any change or alteration of money clauses of bills, which was among the most ancient privileges of the House, and one which he should be sorry in any degree to surrender. At the same time, however, it could not be concealed that, the assertion of that privilege had, in some instances, been carried to an extreme, and especially as regarded the imposition of fines meant as a punishment. The consequence had been, that no bill for the regulation of the criminal law could be originated in the other House of Parliament. This was extremely inconvenient; for the time of that House was so much occupied with Government measures, and other bills of the utmost importance, that it had not time to consider the alterations in our criminal laws which it might be wise to adopt. The House of Lords, on the other hand, adjourned at a very early hour every day, because it had no business before it. The object of his Motion, therefore, was, to ascertain by a Committee, if so much of that privilege might be relaxed, as would enable the other House of Parliament to originate, or to alter and amend any criminal laws. It was, however, a matter of too much importance to be decided upon hastily, and without due consideration. Instead, therefore, of bringing forward a direct motion on the subject, he had preferred to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider of the propriety of abating that privilege.

hoped, the right hon. Gentleman would pardon him for saying, that the terms in which his notice was couched, so inadequately conveyed an idea of what he intended to propose, that hon. Members around him, like himself, were entirely ignorant of the object contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman. In his opinion, there were few bills which might not properly originate in the other House of Parliament; any clauses by which penalties would be imposed, might be left for insertion when the bills came down to that House; a course which had been adopted in the bill relating to the building of churches.

was of opinion, that if any one system could be more defective than another, it was that of introducing a measure in one place, and leaving something else to be added to it in another. With respect to the Motion, he would only observe, that the House ought not to hold out on a matter of form where the public good might require that that form should be abandoned.

did not oppose the present Motion; but he wished to observe, that the House of Lords had already the power of originating criminal laws, leaving the penalty clauses to be added by this House.

said, the originating of bills in the other House, and leaving them to be completed in that, was a very inconvenient and a very improper course. Under these circumstances, he trusted that his Motion would be agreed to as it stood.

wished to see the Motion so worded, as at once to direct the attention of every hon. Member to its real object.

stated, that the Motion appeared to him perfectly intelligible. He knew of no privilege possessed by the House, with respect to the imposition of penalties, except that which excluded the House of Lords from any participation in originating them.