presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of the City of York, in favour of the measure of Reform brought forward by his Majesty's Government, praying the same might pass into a law. He stated, that it was agreed upon by the most respectable and most numerous meeting of persons of all parties. He stated, that he had already expressed himself in favour of the measure, but he would take this opportunity, and he felt, as their Representative, he was bound to state, that a great number of his constituents, freemen of the city, not unfavourable to Reform, viewed with dissatisfaction and regret those clauses of the Bill which tended to disfranchise their posterity of their rights of voting, by patrimony and by servitude, which they had so long enjoyed and exercised in such a becoming manner. He trusted, therefore, that as the measure professed to extend, and not contract, the elective franchise, his Majesty's Ministers, in the Committee on this Bill, would see the necessity of giving the greatest possible latitude to claims so just, consistently with the general principles of a measure fraught with so many benefits to the country.

concurred entirely with the hon. Member, and knew that the freemen of York had exercised their franchise in a very proper manner.

supported the prayer of the petition.

presented three Petitions from different parts of Connaught, and one from Clare, in favour of the Reform Bill; also, one from the town of Galway, praying that another Representative might be given to that place. The hon. Member expressed a wish that some additional Representatives might be given to Ireland. If the fate of the Reform Bill had depended on the votes of the Members for Great Britain it would have been lost. It was carried by a majority of Irish Members, which, however, shewed its utility, because those Members had constituents, whose wishes they were obliged to attend to. Of the Scotch Members, twenty-six voted against the Bill, and thirteen for it: of the English Members, 238 voted for it, and 240 against it. Of the Irish Members, fifty-three voted for, and thirty-seven against it. Its triumph, therefore, was due to the Irish Members. He was not surprised at the votes given by the Scotch Members, because they represented only themselves, but the Irish Members represented the people; as for example, in Mayo, which he represented, there was 300,000 inhabitants. After this explanation he was sure it would be more just in the hon. and gallant member for Liverpool to disfranchise the corrupt voters of that borough than the people of Ireland.

did not wish to contract the Representation of Ireland, or to disfranchise its people; on the contrary, he meant to propose that four Members should be given to every 150,000 inhabitants, but he did wish that the proportional number of Representatives from the three parts of the Empire, as settled by the Acts of Union, should not be altered.

presented a Petition from the county of Down, agreed to at a meeting convened by the High Sheriff. The petition was signed by 13,000 persons, either registered, or entitled to be registered, as 10l. freeholders, and had been intrusted to his care, because the county Members had declined to present it. The requisition for the meeting was signed by thirteen or fourteen Magistrates, and the petition was principally signed by Protestant freeholders. The petitioners prayed for Reform, for the duration of Parliament to be shortened, and that every Member should be required to make oath that he had not employed improper means to procure his return.

said, that if any proposition should be made to encumber Members of Parliament with more oaths than at present, he should give it his most determined opposition.

in presenting Petitions from Montmellick, in favour of the Irish Reform Bill, observed, that he considered the fears of those who imagined that the Bill would give an undue influence to the Roman Catholic interest in Ireland as groundless. The greater portion of his constituents were Roman Catholics, and yet he was quite sure that, were he under the necessity of calling on them for their votes, in the event of a dissolution of Parliament, those votes would not be withheld from him. He believed that the agitation which prevailed in Ireland arose from the state of destitution and distress in which the great body of the people in that country were placed, and he was convinced that any English gentleman who in that House would advocate the interests of Ireland, would, though a Protestant, be returned for an Irish county or city as soon as an Irish Roman Catholic gentleman.

in presenting a Petition from Selkirk, in which the petitioners objected to the details of the Scotch Reform Bill, observed, that the borough of Falkirk, which it was proposed to add to the district of burghs to which Selkirk belonged, was no less than sixty miles distant. In his opinion the Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee of gentlemen connected with Scotland, who could modify and improve its details.

said, that he saw no weight in this objection, seeing that several of the burghs, under the present system, were further apart.

begged of Gentlemen, as this was the last day of sitting before the holidays, not to consume time in the discussion of the English, Scotch, and Irish Reform Bills, but to confine themselves to the presentation of petitions.

thought that it was most desirable, in the present state of the subject, that the House should pay some attention to it. He believed, and he had always admitted, that in Scotland there was a strong desire for a considerable extension of the elective franchise; but he did not believe that such an alteration as was proposed would give satisfaction. The great question was, whether the plan introduced by the noble Lord was a convenient or an expedient one for Scotland. He was of opinion that it was neither the one nor the other.

wished, as the House was that evening to be adjourned for the holidays, that some day should be fixed, before the Reform Bill was considered in Committee, for receiving petitions respecting that measure. There were hundreds of petitions to be presented, which could not be laid before the House, unless some such understanding took place. Would the noble Lord set apart the first day after the House re-assembled for that purpose?

could not set apart the day mentioned by the gallant General; but a day should be appointed for the presentation of petitions only.

said, that the subject had been taken into consideration by his noble friend, the Postmaster-general. The first proposition which had been made to him he had declined, because it would be beneficial to the rich, and not to the poor. His noble friend had, however, taken a radius of three miles circuit, which included Belgrave-square, Lambeth, and Bethnal-green, comprising a much larger portion of the metropolis than the plan at first suggested. He intended to extend the limits of the Twopenny Post to the whole circumference of that circuit. The expense would be 25,000l. a year, but he thought it a very proper expense. The arrangement would take place on the 5th of April next.

brought up the Report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the salaries of certain Public Officers.

said, it was not usual, on presenting the Report of a Committee, to offer any remarks on the proceedings which had taken place in it; but there were peculiar circumstances in this case, which rendered it necessary to take a different course. A declaration had been made by the noble Lord opposite, that he would adhere to any proposition which the Committee, whose Report was now brought up, might think fit to recommend to the House. The Report, however, he knew, contained matter which did not strictly come within the line of inquiry to which the attention of the Committee ought alone to have been directed —matter involving a constitutional question of the first importance. To that point he wished to call the particular attention of his Majesty's Government, and of that House, before an attempt was made to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee, by the introduction of a Bill on the subject. The Committee was appointed to inquire as to what reduction could be made in the expense of offices held under the Crown by Members of either House of Parliament. He had stated to that Committee, as he was a member of it, that it was not his intention to interfere with their deliberations. Personal reasons rendered it unfit that he should appear in any other character save that of a witness. Now that to which he was about to call the attention of the House, did not fall within the directions tinder which that Committee acted, and was introduced at the conclusion of the Report. The superannuations and allowances on retirement from office were there adverted to in a manner not authorized. He admitted that, in considering the subject which they were appointed to inquire into, the Committee had a right to advert to any ultimate advantage which was likely to accrue to persons in office. On the one hand they had a right to consider all the inconveniences that were connected with the holding of office; and on the other, they were bound to look to the emoluments that would arise from retiring allowances. He did not object to their stating what they considered as the proper amount to be granted with reference to retiring allowances. But the Committee had gone a great deal further, and recommended that no such allowances should be granted hereafter, except with the approbation of that House. This he conceived to be an invasion of the Constitution, and an inroad on the dignity of the Crown. The Committee declared, that it was expedient to repeal the Act which enabled his Majesty to recompense the services of persons who had held certain high official situations. The preamble of that Act declared, that it was expedient to abolish certain sinecure offices, and to allow a sum of money to enable his Majesty to provide for individuals who had held particular official situations. And how did the Committee follow up their notice of that Act? It recommended that that Act should be entirely repealed; and further, that any and every case of public service, which might be considered deserving, should in future be submitted to the decision of that House. This was, in effect, recommending that there should be transferred from the Crown (which was hitherto the fountain of grace and honour) to the House of Commons, the right of remunerating public servants. This, he contended, was a great and manifest invasion of the Constitution, and he trusted that the House would not adopt such a proceeding, in compliance with the recommendation of any Committee. He stated his opinion in the Committee; and having done so ineffectually, he thought it his duty to draw the attention of the House to the subject, in order that when it came regularly before them, they might well and maturely weigh the important principle which this recommendation involved.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman was himself aware, that to make observations on a Report which was not yet printed was very irregular. The question was certainly important, and it was hardly fair in the right hon. Gentleman to discuss it then. He might have attended the Committee, and given it the benefit of his arguments, and there they might have had due weight. It should be remembered, that the measure recommended by the Committee was not something which the Government could carry into effect on its own authority—it must have an Act of Parliament. Before the Ministers could take any steps, they must come down to the House with a Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman might discuss that at all its stages. The first question the Committee had to determine was this, whether there were to be any superannuations or retiring allowances at all; and the next was, whether those retiring allowances were to be given under any legal sanction, or whether those who were to receive them were to be left to take care of themselves, without any responsibility? All those who had given the slightest attention to the subject must have perceived how heavily the weight of the superannuation and half-pay list pressed on the resources of the country, difficult to deal with at any time, but peculiarly difficult to deal with in their present situation. It could not, too, be forgotten, how often that House had been subjected to the reproach—a reproach, he admitted, not without justice:—that it was continually giving its assent to the cutting off all the allowances granted to the lower class of public servants, while it left the higher totally untouched. The Committee had accordingly come to a determination to enable the Government to grant allowances as pensions, but to subject the grant afterwards to the approbation of the House. Whether that determination was right or wrong, it was not for him now to say, because sufficient opportunities would no doubt offer themselves to vindicate hereafter the course they had adopted. Upon the subject of the Bill alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, the member for Armagh (Mr. Goulburn) he would merely say, he agreed with him, that the alteration was no trifling matter, and that it required serious consideration. The Act to which the Report of the Committee referred, gave the power to the Crown to grant a pension to certain public Officers after two years' services; and he was bound to admit, that the power thus granted had not, as it appeared, been hitherto abused; but it was quite impossible to overlook the consi- deration, that it was a power which it was much better to place under the control of Parliament. All the Committee said in their Report was simply this, that the power of the Crown to give pensions should remain, but that in the consent to the payment of these pensions the House of Commons, as in all money matters, should be at liberty to determine on the propriety of the grant. The sanction and approbation of that House with respect to payments of public money was indeed justified on every principle which governed it in the application of the money of the people to public purposes in any other case, and the Committee, being of that opinion, recommended the adoption of that course which was explained in their Report.

denied, that he had pledged himself to abide by the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee. All he had said was, that he was willing the question of Pensions should be inquired into; and now that the Committee had made a Report, he pledged himself to give its suggestions all the consideration in his power; but he did not pledge himself to adopt all that it recommended.

did not rise to prolong the discussion; but he felt it his duty to protest against one part of the recommendations in the Report of the Committee, which placed the Officers of the Army in a disrespectful and degraded situation as compared with the Officers of the Royal Navy. He protested against that part of the Report in the strongest manner, because he thought it unjust, and because it was besides neither wise nor politic to raise distinctions between those who were, in point of service to their country, on terms of perfect equality. By the Report of the Committee, the Crown was recommended to allow certain classes of Naval Officers to enjoy their pay along with their allowance for discharging the duties of a civil office, while the Officers of the Army were wholly excluded from the same privilege; and he repeated, he thought it cast a slur and indignity on the Army which it did not deserve, and which he trusted the House would not sanction. He hoped they would consider well before they adopted a custom so repugnant to the feelings of that branch of the service, and one which was at variance with all that had been done from the time of Marlborough down to the present, and which created most unjust and disrespectful distinctions. If no other person called the attention of the House to the subject, and if the Government did not express its intention to abstain from carrying this part of the recommendation of the Committee into effect, he now gave notice that he would, immediately after the Easter Recess, bring under the consideration of the House, by a direct motion, the question connected with this matter, together with that of the half-pay of the Army Officers when taking civil situations—a point which, on many considerations, he thought required the attention of the House. It appeared, indeed, that the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Admiralty, could recommend Officers of the Navy, holding their half-pay, to civil situations, while the King himself, by the Appropriation Act, could not do that with respect to the Officers of the Army.

was aware of the inconvenience of anticipating the discussion of the terms of a Report which had not been printed, and with which Members could not be acquainted but by hearsay, and he therefore was anxious that it should terminate as soon as possible; but he could not avoid apprising the right hon. Baronet (Sir H. Hardinge) that he was not correct in his statement of the principle of the recommendation of the Committee. The Report did not make any distinction between the services, except in one instance, and that was with respect to the Naval Lords of the Admiralty, the Committee thinking it better that they should retain their half-pay than that they should be allowed to draw a larger salary. He would merely add, that he thought the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) with respect to the Bill, in the present stage of the proceedings, rather unfair; for he did not favour the Committee with his attendance at its previous sittings; but in the eleventh hour, and when they were about coming to a conclusion on the subject of the Pensions, he made his appearance to protest against it.

thought, though the indulgence might be confined, as the hon. Member stated, to the Lords of the Admiralty, that it was unfair to make even that distinction: and he did not see on what principle the same indulgence should not be extended to Army Officers holding high situations in the Ordnance.

said, that the Committee were anxious to give the naval Lords of the Admiralty a higher allowance by a different method, but they were precluded from doing so by the nature of the reference which had been made to them. They recommended, therefore, the continuance of the practice which had always hitherto taken place in the Admiralty, through the means of memorials; but he denied most positively that they had made, or intended to make, any distinction between the army and naval service. With respect to the other point—that of the Pensions—he for one did not consider the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government pledged to adopt the recommendations of the Committee: indeed he confessed he should be very sorry to hear that they were so pledged. He was one of those who were parties to the compact entered into with the Crown on the subject of sinecures, when, two-and-twenty years ago, they agreed to allow pensions to be granted after two years' service, in lieu of the sinecures which had been bestowed on retiring public servants, and which were from that moment abolished. Feeling that the Bill which the Committee, by their recommendation at this moment wished to get rid of, was a portion of that compact, and knowing too, as they had heard it admitted, that the powers which it gave the Government had not been abused, he should feel himself bound to resist the repeal of the Act, if it should be proposed.

recommended that the discussion should be postponed.

defended the observations of his right hon. friend (Sir H. Hardinge), and contended, that the principle inculcated by the Committee was in the highest degree unjust and ungenerous toward the officers of the army. He thought, too, that the practice of compelling officers to give up their half-pay when they accepted a civil situation was equally unjust, and by no means even economical. During the three years he held office he had frequent opportunities of employing military men to advantage in the colonies, and with a great saving to the public, because they would have been willing, on condition of holding their half-pay, to accept a very moderate salary; but in consequence of the strictness of the regulation applied to officers of the army, who would not consent to give up their half-pay, he was obliged to employ civilians at much larger salaries. The half-pay he considered to be a sum given as a reward for long and laborious service; and he certainly could not see any reason why it was to be taken away from those who might afterwards be called to discharge the duties of a civil situation.

defended the conduct of the Committee, and denied the assertion of the member for Honiton (Sir G. Warrender), that the Pension Act was intended to be given in lieu of the power to confer sinecures formerly possessed by the Crown. The Parliament took away that power, and it was for the Parliament to determine to what extent the granting of pensions was to be exercised, and on whom they were to be conferred. This was, in effect, the recommendation of the Committee.

said, that after the House of Commons had entered into a compact with the Crown, to give it the power of granting pensions under certain conditions, in the place of the sinecures which it had formerly bestowed on meritorious public servants, this Committee proposed in its report that no pension should be granted under the power the Act conferred on the Crown, unless the House of Commons approved of it. This was, he regretted to say, too much like some other anti-monarchical propositions which they had lately heard offered to the consideration of that House. It was, like them, a plan for striking at the just prerogatives of the Crown, and striking at them, too, through the medium of a public compact entered into between the Crown and the people.

defended the course adopted by the Committee, and contended that it was somewhat unfairly treated, as much by the observations of the right hon. member for Armagh, as by the right hon. and gallant Officer below him (Sir H. Hardinge), who had found fault with a distinction between the army and the navy which the Committee had not made, and did not intend to make. He thought, too, that the right hon. and gallant Officer's observations were a little uncandid, because he had already given a full statement on the subject, in evidence before the Committee, which would of course be printed and circulated with the report. He trusted that the House would await the publication of that report before it proceeded to make any further observations on its contents. But, with respect to the assertion of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir C. Wetherell) near him, that its propositions were anti-monarchical, he would take leave to say, that the recommendations of the Committee were as little anti-monarchical as that plan to which the learned Gentleman no doubt alluded. If the learned Gentleman made no better use of history than to seek in it for the defence of abuses, and reasons for giving opposition to all attempts at improvement, then he must say, that it would be far better if all histories were thrown into the fire. He might, indeed, say to the learned Member, as it was eloquently expressed elsewhere, that he valued the coin, not for the beauty of the stamp, but for the sake of its antiquity, and the rust that covered it. He concluded by entreating the House to abstain from further discussion till the report Was printed.

condemned the expression of "uncandid," used by the member for Westminster, as exceedingly unparliamentary. The statement which called it forth did not require such an expression. He could well understand why it was that the member for Westminster wished all histories thrown into the fire. They would then get rid of all the wisdom derived from experience. They would have no practice, but plenty of the theories which he was daily advocating.

protested against the continuance of the discussion on a report, of the details of which they knew nothing.

defended the Committee for merely suggesting the propriety of repealing a particular Act; and in reply to the member for Boroughbridge (Sir C. Wetherell), contended, that the greatest enemies of the monarchy were the defenders of its abuses. That was his opinion.

on rising to reply, was assailed with a cry of "spoke"; they might call "spoke," but they should rather say, do not speak to the hon. member for Middlesex. He (Sir C. Wetherell was not a defender of abuses, but he was an enemy to republican breaches of faith.

said, he knew the hon. Member who used the word "uncandid" would be the last to utter any expression towards him in an offensive sense; and he had, therefore, nothing to say on that point; but he repeated his intention to bring the question of the half-pay, in connexion with the civil service, before the House, on a regular motion.

expressed a hope that the House would permit him to pre-sent the Petition from the University of Cambridge. He thought he should best discharge the duty he had to perform, by reading to the House the sentiments of the petitioners themselves. They began by stating, that they understand "your honourable House to be at present employed upon a most important object— namely, the introducing into the mode of electing the Members of your honourable House such changes as time, and the altered condition of the country, may be found to have rendered expedient. That your petitioners acknowledge it to be right and wise thus to watch over the Constitution; but they humbly conceive that all alterations should be made with much caution and deliberation. They are persuaded that sudden and sweeping changes in a Constitution which has been so long and so deeply associated with the principles and feelings of Englishmen, are likely to be attended with great and incalculable evils: that such changes lead men to cast off the scrupulousness which has always been held to be a duty in dealing with the institutions of their country and the interests of their fellow-citizens: that in every Government a belief that alterations in its forms will be made slowly and cautiously is necessary to mutual confidence and public prosperity: and that this is eminently necessary in an empire, the wealth and greatness of which, up to the present time, have resulted from the joint and gradual growth of various classes and interests, and could not fail to suffer by any abrupt change in their mutual relations. That it appears to your Petitioners that the Bill now before your honourable House will give the elective franchise to a very large proportion of the male population of the country, and to numerous classes of persons of very small property, not hitherto possessing, or expecting to possess, this privilege: that such a privilege placed suddenly and unexpectedly in the hands of such persons would be liable, especially under exciting circumstances, to be exercised less calmly and scrupulously than might be desired in the discharge of so important a duty; and that it may thus lead to other changes, calamitous to the peace, honour, and prosperity of the country. Your petitioners humbly beg, therefore, that in the changes which it may seem good to your honourable House to introduce into the mode of electing the Members of your honourable House, care may be taken to mark strongly your sense of the caution with which such changes are to be made, of the reverence with which the Constitution is to be touched, of the seriousness of the responsibility which the elective franchise involves, and of the duty which is incumbent on the Legislature of bestowing its protection on all classes and interests, and of justifying their confidence in its considerateness and wisdom." Having stated thus much of the opinions of the petitioners, he should not further enforce its prayer than by expressing his conviction that its eloquent language, and the tone of moderation which prevailed in it on a subject which called forth so much excitement, would have its due weight with the House, and likewise ensure the petition that attention to which, on every other ground it was so fully entitled.

congratulated the noble Lord upon having been at length delivered, painfully delivered, no doubt, of the petition now before the House, after an unexampled gestation of nine, not of nine months, but nine days. That period had now elapsed since the petition was agreed to, and transmitted to the noble Lord from Cambridge; and he could assure the noble Lord, that for several evenings past, he and his hon. friends, the members for Armagh and Boroughbridge, had been waiting the result with the utmost anxiety, and the noble Lord ought now to "return thanks for the honour of their obliging inquiries." He dared to say, the noble Lord would remember that when at school at Westminster it was said of the boys who were not ready with their lessons, that they were coming from the country by the slow waggon. Now he must say, that the Cambridge University Petition had come up by the slowest waggon that ever travelled. Why, if it had come from the University of Padua, of Pavia, or of Gottingen, in these days of railways and steam coaches, it would have reached the House in less time than had been consumed in bringing it from Cambridge. But if it had proceeded from another University, from the University in Gower-street, very different, no doubt, would have been the speed with which it would have found its way to that House; it would have travelled by the swiftest Omnibus. The distance from Cambridge to London was about fifty-two miles.

"Nine times the space that measures day and night"

had been fixed upon by the great Poet as the time occupied in the fall of a being from one world to another. This was the exact time consumed by the petition in its progress; and if the great mathematicians of Cambridge were to put a calculation of the time and distance to paper, he believed the result would be, that it had travelled six miles per day, and a small fraction—as the mathematicians would call it, a small uncertain quantity. He believed, however, that if the history of its progress could be told, it must appear that the delay had not taken place upon the road through Ware and Edmonton, where other journeys of extraordinary speed had been performed. He had no doubt that the coaches travelled with their ordinary regularity. No; it was the last stage of the journey—it was in getting from Downing-street to that House, notwithstanding that the road was so evenly Macadamized, that the petition had been so long impeded. But the noble Lord, in travelling that journey, was under the influence of a drag-chain, in the shape of a petition from his own constituents against a measure of his own and of his colleagues. Perhaps the nicest mathematical heads in the observatories of Cambridge would find it difficult to calculate the exact ratio in which such a drag-chain in his pocket would impede the progress of a Cabinet Minister. The petitioners were members of the Church of England, and he was not surprised that they should view the measure with apprehension and alarm. There could be no doubt that innovations had long-been meditated against the property and just influence of the Church of England, and they were now beginning to be executed. What was the object of their petition? It was a petition against a measure which was intended to add to the numerical power in that House, of Presbyterian Scotland, and of Catholic Ireland, while from Protestant England it took away eighty-two Members. He was not surprised that such men as the petitioners should view such a measure with apprehension and alarm, when he connected it with the doctrines he was accustomed to hear from some of the benches near him. He was not to be deceived by the conduct of those who occupied the benches he had alluded to now. He did not expect to be interrupted by the hon. member for Middlesex now. That hon. Gentleman was not so poor a tactician as to put forward his doctrines while this measure was in suspense. They should have no sneers at the Church now. Perhaps what he said might even gain a cheer from the hon. Member. But he was not to be deceived. The hon. Member had sent forth his hint to his friends to be quiet on the Ballot— and he would now doubtless be quiet himself upon the subject of Tithes. But if this measure should be carried, the noble Lord would soon see what would be said of the body whose petition was before the House, and of all the rights and interests of which they were the protectors. He trusted, however, that a different result would attend the prayer of the petitioners, and that every man to whom it was addressed, would retire to his chamber impressed with the conviction that the preservation of those high and important interests depended upon his own conduct.

begged to say a few words. He had voted for the second reading of the Bill, because he thought it would not be right to cut short the progress of a Bill of such importance on the Motion for the second reading. He was confident that if the House, in the Committee on the Bill, proceeded circumspectly with regard to its various details, the people, who were almost unanimous in its favour, would be satisfied. ["No, no!"] The hon. Gentleman might deny it, but he knew that in the part of the country in which he resided, and he believed that most other hon. Gentlemen would say the same with respect to their own particular districts, such was the fact. But he also believed that the people of England, from the mixture of good humour and good sense in their character, were more easily to be led, and from their high spirit were with more difficulty driven, than any people on the face of the globe; and that if there should appear to be in the Bill any dangerous and objectionable provisions, which he and other hon. Members might think it their duty to reject, the petitioners in favour of the Bill, if fully satisfied of the character of those provisions, would tranquilly acquiesce in their rejection.

believed that the petition correctly represented the opinions of the resident members of the University, to which the hon. member for Marlborough and himself belonged. It would seem from the hon. Member's speech, that he thought the members of the University good calculators of space, time, and velocity. No doubt they were; as a proof of which he referred to this simple fact, — that on Saturday evening at six o'clock, notice was given of a Grace to be brought before the Senate on the Monday, with a view to this petition, its promoters knowing full well that the contemplations of the members of the University would not be disturbed by the passing of the ordinary vehicles of communication on the Sunday, so that no opportunity was afforded to the non-resident members to go down and take a part in the proceeding. Thus, he said again, the attendance of the nonresidents, who had often outvoted the residents on similar occasions to the present (for instance upon the Catholic Question) was altogether precluded by the nice mathematical calculation of the resident members of the University. The petition bore the signatures of 150 residents. The number of non-residents who attended was necessarily few. In fact, it was impossible that the large body of non-residents could attend in time. Only twenty or thirty were present, and of those only four signed the petition.

begged to state the facts of the case. He happened to be at. Cambridge a few days before the petition was prepared; and at that time the general conversation turned on the expediency of petitioning. If the resident members of the University had been desirous of opposing the proposed measure as a change and innovation, simply because they were hostile to all change and innovation, they would not have waited until its details came regularly before them. Those details, however, they did not receive until the 16th. They then found that the second reading of the Bill stood for Monday, and apprehensive that the time would be too short for a more extensive petition, they proposed that the petition should purport to be only that of the undersigned members. But many of the members of the University who were against the Bill, declared that they would not sign any petition upon the subject which had the air of being a private petition. It had been said, that the determination of the University of Cambridge, to petition against the Bill, was consequent on the decision of the House of Commons with respect to the Timber duties. A more gross misrepresentation had never been made. The notice of the meeting had been sent from the University Press three hours before the news of the decision of the House on that subject arrived at Cambridge. The hon. member for Bridport said, that no time had been allowed for the non-resident members of the University to attend. The petition professed to be only the petition of the resident members of the University; but there would have been time for non-residents to go to Cambridge if they had chosen to do so. It appeared by the petition itself, that four non-residents had attended; and others might have done the same. With respect to the petition itself, nothing could surpass the moderation of the tone in which the petitioners expressed their sentiments. The majority of them, indeed, were prepared to use stronger language, but it was thought better to unite the suffrages of all who condemned the Bill, although in different degrees. The petitioners were men who looked on public affairs with an impartial eye, and whose opinions on such subjects were most valuable. They were not opposed to all Reform, but they looked at the Bill before the House with the most grave and serious alarm.

believed, that the petition was made known after the coaches had left on the Saturday; the Mail might pass through afterwards, but much time was not allowed to circulate or act upon the information as far as concerned the non-residents. The petition was only open for signature forty-eight hours: perhaps if more time had been allowed for the arrival of the non-resident members, it might have been carried the other way.

remarked, that the petition was directed—not against Reform generally—but only against parts of the proposed measure; and, more especially, against giving the elective franchise to individuals possessed of so small a qualification, as living in a house of 10l. a-year. He denied that the University was averse from the whole measure.

complained of the injustice of what had fallen from the hon. member for Marlborough, on the delay which had taken place in the presentation of this petition. Every one knew how difficult it was to obtain the opportunity of presenting a petition. He himself had had in his possession, for the last nine days, a Petition in favour of the Bill, from the Nobility and Gentry of Dublin, signed by the Lord Mayor, the Duke of Leinster, Lord Cloncurry, &c.; and, though he had been down at the House at ten o'clock that morning, for the purpose of putting his name down on the paper, he was apprehensive that even now his noble friend would not allow him an opportunity of presenting it. The hon. member for Marl borough was not justified in insinuating that there was any unwillingness to present the petition. He could not consider it as a petition against the measure generally. It was a petition from the resident members of the University, couched in moderate and becoming language, and directed against the measure; but it did not term it, as it had been termed by others, a Revolutionary and Jacobinical attack on the Constitution. The prayer of the petition was—"That in the changes which it may seem good to your honourable House to introduce into the mode of electing the Members of your honourable House, care may be taken to mark strongly your sense of the caution with which such changes are to be made, of the reverence with which the Constitution is to be touched, of the seriousness of the responsibility which the elective franchise involves, and of the duty which is incumbent on the Legislature of bestowing its protection on all classes and interests, and of justifying their confidence in its considerateness and wisdom." In the sentiments expressed in that prayer he entirely concurred. Connected as the petitioners were with the Church, and the other institutions of the country, the prayer that the House would use caution in making any changes by which they might be affected was a becoming one. But as to the proposed qualification for the elective franchise, to which the petitioners objected, men who lived more in the world were perhaps better judges on that point than the resident members of the University of Cambridge, who were immured in their cloisters, comparatively uninformed of what was going on in the world, and perhaps ignorant of what had for some years been taking place in the House of Commons. They did not perhaps know, that the addition of six, or even of two Members to that House had been strenuously opposed. They did not perhaps know, that when he proposed to add six Members to the House, he had been told, "the House is already too full, do not add one Member to it, or you will overturn the Constitution." When, on the other hand, it was proposed to retrench the number of Members, it was said, "Oh! do not take one away, or you will do irreparable injury." Thus every obstacle was thrown in the way of the gradual Reform which the University of Cambridge desired. It was the duty of those who knew the facts of the case to propose those changes, the necessity of which the retired residents in Colleges could not possess the means of fully ascertaining.

maintained that, the opponents of the petition had been completely unsuccessful in their attempts to undervalue it; and that their cavils were wholly destitute of foundation. He expressed his astonishment that the noble Lord should imagine that the resident members of the University of Cambridge were in such utter ignorance of what took place in the House of Commons. There was no society of individuals in the country better informed on all subjects discussed in that House, as well as on all subjects of general learning. There were particular circumstances which entitled the petition of the University of Cambridge to great weight. In the first place, the measure could be judged of only by its probable consequences on the institutions of the country. Now, whatever class of men was the best instructed, was the best able to lay aside popular feeling, and pronounce by that criterion. In the second place, the Bill proposed to deal with every elective franchise in the country except the elective franchise belonging to the Universities. Non-resident freemen were objected to by the Bill, but not non-resident Masters of Arts. If the Bill passed, therefore, the Universities might boast that they were the only bodies of freemen in the country whose qualifications would remain unchanged by it. If, therefore, they had any prejudice on the subject, that prejudice would in-duce them to support the Bill rather than to oppose it. The petition was further entitled to the attention of the House, in consequence of the moderate, though firm tone in which the petitioners expressed their sentiments. The noble member for Tavistock said, that he did not consider that the petition was hostile to the Bill. Would he say that it was in favour of the Bill? It called upon the House to abstain from so sudden and wide a change in the Constitution; and it expressed the alarm of the petitioners lest the measure should lead to other changes, calamitous to the peace, honour, and prosperity of the country. As to the objection that means had not been taken for giving the nonresident members the means of expressing their sentiments, his hon. friend near him had sufficiently shown its futility. He repeated, that the petition was the legitimate expression of the wishes and feelings of the resident members of the University. If it were wished to ascertain the wishes and feelings of the non-resident members, it ought to be remembered that they were scattered over the face of the country, and that to endeavour to collect them would be as vain as to attempt any other impossibility.

after observing that the petition had been supported by two hon. Members who had been members of the University of Cambridge, and who might probably wish to renew their acquaintance with it, and by another hon. Member, who might probably wish to form an acquaintance with it, went on to remark, that it turned out, as had been originally stated, that no notice of the meeting of the Senate had been given until Saturday, and that the meeting took place on Monday. It was impossible, therefore, that the non-resident Members could be present; for, because it happened that four non-resident Members in London knew what was going forward, it did not follow that four hundred were also in the secret. What did the petition recommend? Nothing, but that which every grave and respectable body of persons—what every man, in considering a great constitutional question, was bound to do; nothing but what his Majesty's Government did, before this much calumniated Bill was brought in; nothing but what he trusted, the House would do before they adopted it—cautiously to weigh the character and value of the measure. It had been said by the hon. member for Marlborough, that the University was alarmed at the prospect of disturbing the existing proportion of English, Scotch, and Irish Representatives. No such alarm was expressed in the petition. The petition did not characterise the proposed measure as a "Corporation robbery." The petitioners did not say one word of. the alleged perjury of those who, having sworn to defend certain rights, were now prepared to relinquish them. Some allusion had been made to the University in Gower-street. He thought the members of that University had done themselves no small honour in abstaining from interfering in the discussion; for he did not conceive that the Universities, who were not at all affected by the Bill, ought to come to the House and give their advice upon it. He did not observe that the University of Oxford had thought proper to put itself forward in hostility to the Bill; and, in his opinion, it did that University as great honour as the change which, in support of its consistency, it some time ago made in its Representation. One hon. Gentleman had attributed the general demand for Parliamentary Reform to the neglect by that House of the agricultural distress; another hon. Gentleman, the hon. member for Boroughbridge, had in a grave and solemn tone ascribed it to the neglect by that House of the state of the currency. He did not believe that it proceeded from either of those causes. As he was formerly a Member, though not a distinguished one, of the University of Cambridge, he must say, that he highly commended the tone in which the petition was couched. It recommended only caution, and warned the House only against precipitation. He was sure that when the measure had received that attention in a Committee of the House which its importance demanded, it would be regarded with perfect satisfaction, not only by the University of Cambridge, but by all other learned and corporate bodies in the kingdom.

asked his hon. and learned friend whether he was quite sure that what had happened at Oxford might not happen at Cambridge? His hon. and learned friend had spoken with approbation of the change which had some time ago been made in the Representation of the University of Oxford. Peradventure a similar change might be made in the Representation of the University of Cambridge. He hoped the noble Lord would not suppose that he meant to trench upon the general principle of courtesy established in that House by making this remark; but he thought that before his hon. and learned friend had permitted him- self to indulge in the observation which had fallen from him, he might have considered what might possibly occur else-where. He congratulated the noble Lord on having been at length delivered of the petition, and he would not inquire if it had come up by the Cambridge van, and had been nine days on the road, or if it had arrived by the Telegraph, or some other light coach, and had been detained elsewhere. His hon. and learned friend censured the University for petitioning the House on the subject. It should be recollected, however, that neither the University of Oxford nor the University of Cambridge ever petitioned that House with reference to any party question, with reference to any change of Ministry, or subjects of that nature. But, whenever a great constitutional principle was at stake, then, and then exclusively, the Universities thought it their duty to express their sentiments to Parliament. They had done so on the Catholic Question; they had done so on other occasions which had no connexion with party. He was sorry, therefore, that his hon. and learned friend had thrown at least an indirect censure on the University of Cambridge for its conduct in the present instance. His hon. and learned friend had said, that the University of Oxford had not petitioned on the subject. But it had frequently happened that one University petitioned when the other did not. It showed that they were independent; that they acted without any reference to party feeling or cabal. Again, his hon. and learned friend observed, that the petition did not complain of the violation of corporation charters; that it did not com-plain of cutting off sixty-two Members of that House. And because the petitioners did not enter into such details, and because they said nothing about the currency, his hon. and learned friend held that they pronounced no opinion hostile to the proposed measure. He entirely concurred in the value of the moderation of tone which the petitioners had adopted; and he entirely concurred in approving their abstinence from stating what, in their opinion, ought to be done. But did those circumstances diminish the force of their disapprobation of the measure? His hon. and learned friend had alluded to a statement which had been made by the hon. member for Boroughbridge; but as he said it had been made in a grave and solemn tone, he (Sir Charles Wetherell) was sure that his honourable and learned friend did not mean to allude to him. With reference to an observation of the noble Paymaster of the Forces, he wished to remind him that one of the cloistered monks of Cambridge was Dr. Paley. He was, in fact, the Blackstone of that University, and one of the most luminous writers upon the subject to which he had directed his attention. And he (Sir C. Wetherell) considered that the petitioners of Cambridge were men of equal liberality and knowledge of the world with those who were implicated in the contentious scenes of the House of Commons. The petitioners, like the members of the University with which he was connected, were not persons who had taken an active part in politics; they remained, too, altogether untouched by the present measure in their rights and privileges, and were, therefore, perfectly impartial; and he accordingly was of opinion that their petition should, were it only for this reason, have great weight. They were anxious only for the maintenance of the Church and the civil institutions of the country, and he hoped their petition would be taken as a signal for other corporations to pursue the like course, and that, when they did petition, it would not be thrown in their teeth that the terms in which they expressed themselves were too moderate.

felt himself called on to disclaim the imputation of having ever asserted that the people had called for Reform as a measure to which they were attached of themselves; but he had said that a general feeling of distress in certain quarters had prepared those classes to look to a change as desirable, in the futile hope that it would give employment and wages to some, and bread to others who had it not. He could have wished that the hon. and learned Attorney General had restrained that disposition to put strongly and powerfully what rested on assumption, and have abandoned that habit in which he was too frequently found to indulge, of uttering libels in that House. [Order, order, by several Members.]

said he had only waited to give the hon. Member an opportunity to conclude his sentence, in the hope that he would be able to add that which would explain away whatever might be considered disorderly in the former part of the sentence, taken disjointedly and apart.

said, he had no intention of making any improper allusion to the habits of the hon. and learned Member which would in the slightest degree infringe on the orders of that House and as he found the word "libels" was objectionable, he would drop it. His argument had been that the system worked well, whilst the people, finding they were subjected to a distress, from inquiring into which Parliament seemed to shrink last year, became desirous of a change, and insisted now that it worked ill. He did not charge, in this instance, the Ministers, in the part they had taken, with wishing to deceive the people, but he had said that the people rested on their promises, and when they found out that they were deceived, the Ministers power would vanish quicker than it had grown up.

as an old member of the University, expressed his satisfaction at the course which that learned body had pursued in reference to the proposed measure of Reform. It had been truly stated that they habitually stood aloof from faction, and intermeddled not in the intrigues of party, and therefore it was that their opinions were entitled to especial consideration. The petition against the present proposition of Ministers was the more remarkable, as having come from those very persons who agreed with the noble Lord opposite on most other subjects, and on account of that general similarity of sentiment had elected him as their Representative in Parliament. He would take this opportunity to state, that the feeling of the Bar in favour of Reform by no means prevailed to the extent that had been supposed: in proof of which he might mention, that of the forty-two barristers on the Home Circuit, to which he belonged, but thirteen had signed the Reform petition, whereas twenty-nine had objected to do so and but four or five of the subscribing parties were connected with the University of Cambridge. That University, in his opinion, had performed its duty in a most portentous crisis, and be the consequences what they might, it at least would enjoy the proud consciousness that it had not been found wanting in the hour of danger to the Constitution.

did not consider the petition opposed to the measure. Those who signed it prayed that no sudden or ill considered changes might be made which this Bill certainly did not make.

on moving that it be printed, denied that he had wilfully delayed presenting it to the House. In fact, he had received it just that day week and had attended daily for the purpose of fulfilling the wishes of his constituents, but it so happened that an opportunity of doing so had never been afforded him, except at an extremely late hour of the night when it would hardly have been consistent with the respect due to the petitioners to have presented it. Indeed, his being enabled to lay it on the Table even now, was entirely owing to the indulgence of the House. He could scarcely regret the delay, however; had it not occurred, hon. Members would have been deprived of the pleasure they had received from the elaborate pleasantry of his hon. friend the member for Marlborough, who had favoured them with the many facetious impromptus which he had employed seven days in concocting. With respect to what had been said relative to the discrepancy of opinion on this subject between the University of Cambridge and himself, he should merely observe, that he never believed that by honestly performing his duty as a public man on a great national question, he should forfeit the confidence which his constituents had reposed in him. At the same time the hon. Gentleman opposite was mistaken in asserting that this petition had originated with those to whom he was principally indebted for his seat, since many of those whose signatures were attached to it had formerly opposed him on the policy of Catholic Emancipation.

remarked that the petition certainly appeared to him to have received much less respectful treatment than it would probably have experienced had it been in support of Reform instead of being against it.

stated, that he would yield to no hon. Gentleman present in respect for the University of Cambridge and it was therefore most unfair to interpret any of his observations as in the least degree disrespectful to that learned and venerable body. He did not wonder at the importance which some Gentlemen attached to every petition presented against the Bill before the House, as it was natural that they should wish to make the most of the little opposition which was made to the measure. An hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded to him, and to some of the former transactions of his life. He did not envy the hon. Gentleman any state of feeling which could prompt those allusions. He had no apology to make, and had never made any apology, for what he had done, and had been compelled to do, on behalf of the illustrious but unfortunate client whose interests had been confided to him. Personalities, it was true, had been uttered; but his most painful duty to his unfortunate and much injured client rendered such personalities unavoidable. But since this unhappy subject had now been invidiously obtruded on the notice of the House, he would not shrink from declaring, that an illustrious individual, whom it would be un parliamentary more particularly to allude to, had in his person given a more signal example of generous magnanimity than history had ever recorded of any sovereign since the time of Henry 5th, when that high-minded and chivalrous monarch presented the sword and balance to the Chief Justice who had personally offended him.

in explanation, said he had only stated that the Attorney General had employed inflammatory language which might be productive of the most injurious consequences in the present excited state of the public mind. He would put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether, if an individual should be prosecuted for a libel by that House, through the intervention of the Attorney General, that individual might not place him in an awkward situation, were he to read to the jury language as inflammatory as his own, which had been used by that very Attorney General himself, in his place in Parliament? Why-should the hon. and learned Gentleman make use of expressions there for a similar use, of which it was possible he might hereafter be called upon to punish others?

said, he could by no means admit that the public mind was in that state of excitement which the hon. Member described, although, certainly, attempts had been made to inflame it. He thanked the hon. Gentleman for so kindly cautioning him as to the performance of his duty, at the same time that he considered his gratuitous suggestions on the present occasion wholly unnecessary, for he had only asserted that a great portion of that House could not give an impartial or disinterested vote on the question of Reform, and that assertion he did not hesitate most emphatically to repeat.

said, it seemed to be considered by some that the House of Commons were not to be the judges of this great question, because some of the Members might be affected by its result, and the University of Cambridge were not to be judges because they were men secluded in their closets. If neither of these bodies then, were to have a voice, who, he would ask, were to be the judges? Those promiscuous assemblies to whom some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite were so much in the habit of appealing, and whom they could easily get to second their views?

said, that it was not a fair and correct argument to say that many of those who had voted against this measure had a direct interest in opposition to it.

in explanation, said, he should have no wish to sit in that House after the passing of a Bill which would destroy the Constitution.

after alluding to the predicament in which the Attorney General might be placed in prosecuting parties for libel, as already stated by the hon. member for Borough bridge, referred to the recent rumours of an approaching dissolution, and animadverted on the declaration of the hon. and learned Member the Attorney General, that it was the undoubted prerogative of the King, in such an event to issue no writs to certain boroughs which at present enjoyed the right of returning Members. He could not; however, for one moment believe it possible that Ministers would presume to advise his Majesty to adopt such a monstrous alternative after their recent experience of the result of an unconstitutional interference with the right of election in a neighbouring kingdom. In reference to his assertion respecting the vote given by the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer on Mr. Davenport's motion, for an inquiry into the distress which then prevailed in the country, he observed, that he was happy to repeat in the noble Lord's presence what he had said in his absence —namely, that he had voted against the Committee, and had spoken in justification of that vote.

said, it was true that he had voted as the hon. Member stated, but he had at the time assigned the reasons upon which he acted. They were, that he did not think that the inquiry would tend to alleviate the distress. Most of the hon. Gentlemen who voted for the inquiry went into a discussion upon the currency, upon which subject he entertained different views from their's, and he did not consider that the agitation of that question would have any tendency to alleviate the distress. These were the grounds of his vote. Whether they were right or wrong, it was not for him to say; but he would only observe that he was not now convinced of their not being sound and substantial.

said, that the menace of a dissolution was a most offensive attempt to intimidate members, for the purpose of deterring them from the discharge of their duty. Ministers might as well say to Parliament "We despise your opinions, for we shall soon have an opportunity of kicking you out of the House."

in illustration of his assertion, observed that if the question was whether Hertfordshire should be disfranchised, he, as a Hertfordshire man, and having a seat for the county, could not give a disinterested vote. He did not mean to say they had not a right to vote, but he could not think that they were impartial observers of the nature of the measure; for he confessed, that if a Bill was introduced to disfranchise Hertfordshire, he should not be an impartial listener to the proposition, but should oppose it with all his power.

said, the hon. Baronet had attempted to explain his observations by what he had just uttered; but the very tendency of the explanation itself was, to throw a degree of discredit upon the opinions and votes of those who were now sitting in that House for places which were about to be disfranchised. The hon. Baronet seemed to think that the interests of none were affected except of those who opposed the measure of Reform; but in that he was mistaken, for there were persons who supported the other side of the question who had full as strong motives for their conduct as those who opposed it. A number of objections had been urged to this measure, but there was one of a very strong kind that had been passed over, namely, that if this Reform were granted, those who wished for Reform of a more extended nature would say afterwards that this was not sufficient, and could not be supposed to be so, for it had been voted by a Parliament that did not represent the people. It carried with it, therefore, the elements of further change, and opened the door to a great variety of innovations.

.—I wish to know from the hon. Baronet, how he would vote, should it be proposed to disfranchise the county which he represents, or reduce its Members to one, the principle of disfranchisement being the same as in those boroughs which the Bill he supports goes to deprive of their Members?

.—Most decidedly I would oppose the proposition.

begged leave to say what he had said touching the King's prerogative extending to the power of omitting to send writs to places returning Members to Parliament, had been misunderstood. At present all writs were sent in the King's name; and though he had his doubts whether his Majesty constitutionally possessed the power of omitting to send writs to every place which may have returned Members, he had no doubt of the improbability, amounting to an impossibility, that such a coup d'état would ever be had resort to. He was inclined to think the King did possess that power; it certainly was exercised in ancient periods of our history, and had not been formally curtailed; but, as he had said, need not be apprehended. By the Bill the power thus formerly exercised would be defined and exercised by an act of the Legislature.

could not let that opportunity pass without making one observation upon what the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite(the Attorney General) had stated with respect to the right of the Crown to suspend the writs. He believed that if the Crown ever did suspend the writs, the rights of the boroughs did not cease upon that suspension, for whatever length of time might have elapsed since the borough had received the writ, it would still be entitled to insist on the revival of the right at the first opportunity. There was one change which amidst all the others that their Bill proposed to make, had been overlooked, but which, in his mind, ought to be made—he meant that law which had been passed upon a private occasion—the expulsion of Mr. Home Tooke from that House-— should be abolished with respect to the two Universities; for as the Bill professed to act on the principle of giving a representation of local interests, he did not see why Clergymen should be excluded from holding seats for either of the Universities.

begged to say, with respect to the boroughs that were to be totally disfranchised, that the one he re- presented, which was among the number, had now a population much more numerous than at the Revolution of 1688; and yet, by this iniquitous Bill, it was to be deprived of its right to send Members to Parliament. The tenure by which the right of voting was given was the same now as it had been then; it was the burgage tenure; and there was nothing in the constitution of that borough which varied now from what it was at the time of the Revolution; and therefore he asserted that any Act which took away the right of sending Members from the borough of Newport was contrary to the principles of the Revolution of 1688.

was not surprised that those Members who represented boroughs should stand up for the right of voting by bur-gage tenure; but at the same time, he must be permitted to ask them, whether it was consistent with common sense, that the owner of certain fields—for the fields alone gave the right of voting—were to be allowed to send Members to Parliament, while such large towns as Birmingham, with extensive and important interests, were excluded from that right? Some Gentlemen thought that everything that was old ought to be maintained; but the change of circumstances often rendered old customs unfit for application, and that was the case with these votes of burgage tenure. The objection of the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Murray) to this Bill being a change in itself, and being likely to open the door to other changes, was applicable to every new law and new regulation; and if it was a proper objection, it applied to some new regulations which had been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman himself.

was opposed to this measure, and thought it would be highly injurious to the country. One of its objects was to disfranchise the out-voters; and he wished to observe, that the first person who would suffer under the operation of this provision was his most gracious Majesty, William 4th., for he was an out-voter of Southampton. He had examined the Bill, and he asserted that it did not restore the rights of the people, but destroyed them. He denied, besides, that any rights had been taken from the people: so that the consequence was, there were none to restore. There had been a Committee appointed to examine the petitions, and what was the result? There were 600 petitions for Reform generally, 287 of these were for the Ballot, a number for the abolition of tithes, and the reduction of taxation, and the abolition of sinecures, and for everything but for this particular Bill. He urged this country to take a warning from France and Belgium, and not to allow the introduction of revolutionary doctrines-He had stood near the noble Lord when he almost introduced the tri-coloured flag in that House, by the eulogium he passed on the conduct of the people of those countries; and in that course he had been followed by the hon. members for Bridport and Middlesex. The present Cabinet were said to be unanimous, but how had their unanimity been obtained? Not indeed by the proscription of their relations or friends, but by the proscription of principles. This measure was called a conservative measure. He denied that it deserved that title; for instead of preserving, it went to destroy everything. He asserted the excellence of the present system of Representation, and declared that the men returned to that House acted conscientiously, and for the good of the country; and he was sure that if a gulph should open in the State, as a gulph had once opened in front of the Roman Forum, that House contained many Members who, for the good of the country, would readily plunge into it.

said—I should not have trespassed upon the House upon a petition from the University of Cambridge, had I not considered it my duty from circumstances that have this day occurred. The fact is, and as long as I have the honour to be a Member of this House, I wish everything that falls from me to be strictly, truly, and unsparingly stated, that I found, upon conversing with one or two of the most respectable independent constituents, out-voters, or non-resident freemen of that city, for which I entertain, and have shewn, I trust, every feeling of regard, and am still Representative of, I trust disinterested and honest Representative—that this Bill—this Reform Bill, as itistermed—is unknown, and misunderstood; and well it may be, for it is a curious, indescribable, unintelligible Bill, and so intended. Sir, it was understood to give important extension— general, liberal, fair extension of elective franchise; and these honourable constituents—I rank none dishonourable—who have hitherto supported me, believing as I hope I can prove, that I shall act on every mea- sure an open, honest, consistent, and disinterested part, such as my family, for years and years, Sessions and Sessions, representing that city, have ever done; these constituents of mine have, since my vote in this House upon the Reform question, declared they did not approve of my vote, and have stated that they considered I was voting against the city, the country, and the sovereign. Sir, they are this day, having seen the Bill in black and white, converted; and the fact is, they have requested me to come down to shew the fallacy of the Bill in its true colours. There was an expectation that the elective franchise would be extended in the good city, according to the Returns now before the House. The Bill gives what? To the city of Lincoln, out of a population of 10,367, census 1821, 434 voters, formerly 1,233. And what will be the census in 1831? Is this just? It cuts off, without judge or jury—matk ye, for no fault, no conviction of bribery or corruption—799. Liberal, fair, just, popular Bill! In what state is poor Grimsby, mutilated Grimsby! population 3,064 in 1821: 304 voters formerly, now thirty-four. And what is Westminster and London? How stand they? And these measures are popular, giving to the people popular representation, annihilating hosts who have done no harm, committed no fault, and by destroying rights, giving to those who never had any right! Sir, I shall not now advert to the former opinions of the noble Lord who introduced this popular Bill. But, Sir, in 1819 and 1823 these opinions were very different. That noble Lord said of the House of Commons in 1819, "The principle of the construction of the House is pure and worthy:" and he also said; "I cannot agree to the wholesale plans of Reform before me." Such were stated to be the noble Lord's opinions in 1819. What are the noble Lord's Bills now? Counties will be close boroughs; cities cut up root and branch. Sir, I am a Reformer, and would Reform much. I approve of the extension to leaseholders, copyholders, in counties; to the extension of elective franchise to those highly respectable individuals who have not enjoyed it in counties corporate. I do not object to the extension, but I object to the deprivation of honest, independent men; and will this satisfy the unjust, partial deprivation without fault, without misconduct, without corruption alleged or ascertained? This Bill goes to disfranchise by a nice calculation, 286,000 individuals, according to the statements of the Returns comparatively taken. Sir, I will vote for any just, fair, and proper Reform that will be generous and liberal—just to my city, liberal and fair to the people—not partial, uncertain, and mysterious, undefined, but will ensure benefit, and not concealment for the errors of late and present Governments to soothe the people for disappointment, or promises for disappointment; as to giving relief from taxation or distress, the Bill is a fallacy throughout. I will do my duty; I trust I have done it; I will not sacrifice my conscience to gain any popularity; and the more the Bill is known the more its fallacy and deception will be proved.

said, that the petition was undoubtedly one which contained matter of great importance. It was not in favour of the Bill to its full extent, neither was it against it, as might be supposed from the observations of hon. Members who had spoken on the opposite side of the House. The petition had taken a middle course. It was obvious, from what had taken place in that House, that, at all events, those hon. Members who had opposed the Reform Bill were friendly to a moderate Reform. He was anxious to say a few words with respect to the opinions of the great body of constituents whom he had the honour to represent. He had made inquiry of persons who well knew the fact which he was about to state, considering it right to set the matter in a correct point of view, because it had been insinuated that there was a general objection in that city (Norwich) to the principles of the Bill. If there had existed such a feeling he should certainly regret the circumstance; but it was not so, and therefore he felt it to be his duty to state, from the best information upon the subject which he possessed, that not only was the measure highly satisfactory to the population generally, but to the freemen who formed his constituency. It would probably be in the recollection of the House that he himself had had the honour a few nights back, of presenting a petition from the city of Norwich, in favour of Reform, which was signed by 7,000 of the adult male population of that city, and only the day before yesterday a meeting was convened, by the Mayor of Norwich, for the purpose of considering, amongst other matters of business, the subject of a petition against the measure now pending. After the two or three subjects of business had been disposed of, one of the Tory party, a person, who was one of the chief promoters of the anti-Reform petition, got up and moved the postponement of that question, sine die. His motion was seconded and supported by a respectable person of his own party, and he was joined by a third; so that the matter was put off without one word being uttered in favour of the counter-petition against Reform; a fact which would tend to prove that the city of Norwich was not opposed to Reform. He was disposed to think that the freemen of Norwich would be inclined to support the Bill, though they would be deprived of their franchise under its operation; but he also thought that they would receive that franchise in another form, and would be included under the class of persons holding property of a description which would enable them to retain their votes.

presented another Petition, from the University of Cambridge, in favour of the Reform Bill, signed by the Bachelors of Arts resident in that University. The petitioners stated it to be their opinion that the Bill was calculated to give stability to the Throne and security from danger to the Constitution. Amongst those who signed it were to be found the names of many individuals who had highly distinguished themselves in their academical studies.

begged to say, he had felt on a former occasion great regret in understanding, from an expression which had fallen from an hon. and learned Member opposite, that the prerogative of the Crown extended, in that hon. and learned Member's opinion, to the extent of suspending at pleasure the issue of writs for boroughs, which it might be deemed necessary to deprive of Representation in that House; he, however, rose on the present occasion to express the satisfaction with which he had since heard, that in the hon. and learned Member's opinion, as one of the Law Officers of the Crown, the kingly prerogative did not extend to the suspension or intermission of writs to any boroughs.

said, that his observations only went to show that the power which, the Reform measure was to give the Parliament was only a power which had been formerly possessed by the Crown. There was a resolution of the House of Commons, in the time of James 1st, which declared the Crown not to possess the power of withholding the writs for certain boroughs, or of sending those writs to other places;—but then that was only a resolution of the House, and not a law; nor was there, as far as he knew, any doctrine laid down to that express effect. The suggestion, however, of suspending the writs for any boroughs whatever was not likely to be acted on under any circumstances, however advantageous it might appear to be.

observed, that but one writ had ever been intermitted since the time of Richard 2nd, and that was the case of Fareham. He was clearly of opinion that the Crown could by its writs call on places to send Members which had never sent them before, as it could create new Peers; and he was inclined to think, as the Crown could not deprive a family of its peerage, so it was not in its power to deprive a place once possessing the right of sending a Member to the House of Commons.

concurred in the observation which had fallen from the hon. Member who spoke last; he begged to remind the House, that this was no light matter of consideration, but concerned one of their most important privileges. In the reign of James 1st, the Law Officers of the Crown had settled the point which was brought under their consideration, and the learned Selden was one of those whose judgment, aided by the House, decided that the Crown had not the power to intermit or suspend the issue of writs to any one borough that had formerly sent Members to that House. The House of Commons asserted their rights on this point, the suspended writs were issued to those boroughs which James 1st. attempted to deprive of Representation, and one of the Members who were returned to that House under those writs was John Hampden.

observed, that, in his opinion, the hon. and learned Member who sat below him did not, on the occasion to which the hon. Baronet, the member for Cornwall, alluded, assert that the prerogative of the Crown extended to the power of suspending the writs for boroughs; the hon. and learned Member had certainly said, that it was once in the power of the Crown to do so, and that the Reform measure now proposed to do by Act of Parliament, what was formerly in the power of the Crown to effect without any Act of Parliament—namely, to deprive certain boroughs of the right of sending Representatives, and transfer that right to other places.

said, that the present was not a question of prerogative, but one of the parliamentary constitution of that House. If the Crown were to possess an influence over the constitution of that House, as one of the doctrines of Reform, he conceived that the House of Commons would receive a fatal stab; the question ought to be set at rest, and he trusted that it would not be suffered to remain in the present state, or to be discussed only in a loose conversation. The matter was one which the Crown lawyers, and not county Members, ought to decide upon, and thus set the House of Commons at rest on one of the most important points connected with its constitution.

said, that the petitioners in favour of the Bill were under a delusion which he hoped would soon be dissipated. He represented a borough which had of late only conquered its independence and now it was to be disfranchised without having committed any crime whatever.

remarked, that he had certainly understood the hon. and learned member for Nottingham to assert that the prerogative of the Crown did extend to the right of omitting and suspending the writs for boroughs, and that the reign of Richard 2nd afforded precedent for the intermission. This was not, however, a question to be discussed as a postscript to a petition from any University, whether the petitioners were Doctors of Law or Bachelors of Arts; nor was it a time to meet an illegal and an unconstitutional statement of that nature. If the hon. and learned Member would rise and state that, in a barbarous time, the Crown had usurped a power to which it never had a right, and which it used in the most illegal manner—if the hon. and learned Member would rise and state this, he would say that he was satisfied; but he could not condescend to enter upon a subject of this high importance on an occasion like the present. He hoped that the hon. and learned Member, as one of the Law Officers of the Crown, would not leave the matter where it stood, or suffer a proposition which left the Members of that House in such doubt as to its consti- tution to remain in uncertainty, but that he would come forward at once and say that it was not law, and never could be law, that the Crown possessed the power of suspending the writs for boroughs.

said, that nothing could be more unconstitutional than to leave the Crown the option of issuing or suspending the writs for boroughs at its pleasure. Such a power would place all the institutions of the country in jeopardy, and would hazard all that had been gained from the Crown by the glorious Revolution of 1688.

could not refrain from expressing also his sense of the dangerous consequences of the doctrine of the hon. and learned Attorney General. It was by the exercise of the power which, according to him, the Crown was still in possession of, that the county of Cornwall came to have so many Members; for writs were sent to places in it for the purpose of carrying into effect the plan of the Government of the time being, whether that plan was to attaint an innocent person, or to raise supplies to carry on needless and expensive wars, or any other purpose of the monarch hostile to the interests of the subject; so that it became of double importance just now, on the eve of a threatened dissolution (which, by the way, he did not expect), that it should be distinctly known whether the Crown might still issue new writs here, or withhold them there, as it might enable Ministers to retain the reins of power. He said he did not expect an immediate dissolution, because he thought that Ministers knew too well that a new Parliament would be still more hostile to them than the present?—that the boroughs which they proposed to disfranchise would be opposed to them to a man, and as the late election for the county of Clare showed that Ireland was in such a ferment on the Repeal of the Union question, that it would not be safe to increase the excitement by a new election. In a new Parliament, Ministers would not have to propose their Reform measure, but to fight for their places, whence they would doubtless be ejected in the event of a dissolution. In saying this he was not actuated by any factious opposition, but by a sense of public duty, which he would ever assert, be who might the Minister; and he hoped he should never again see the day when a Ministry must have recourse to an excitement of the public mind as their only means of retaining office.

moved the Order of the Day for the House to go into a Committee of Supply on the Ordnance Estimates.

wished to know whether it was the intention of the noble Lord opposite to go seriatim into the whole of the Ordnance Estimates at the late hour of ten o'clock. He thought it would be found most convenient for the noble Lord to take some particular item, which was more necessary for the public service than any others; he was only desirous to suit the convenience of the noble Lord, for he had no intention at present of opposing any of the Estimates which might be brought forward.

said, that he should proceed through the estimates regularly, as they were set down on the paper, up to the time at which it might be convenient to adjourn.

said, that before the House resolved itself into the Committee of Supply, he wished to put two questions to the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, involving the honour and reputation of the nation. 1st, Whether the noble Lord (Palmerston), as a member of the government, had given any authority for the removal from Gibraltar of persons calling themselves Spanish Refugees, who for a long period had been harboured in the fortress, and had been guilty of a violation of the rights of neutrality? 2nd, Whether there would be any objection to lay upon the Table any correspondence between the Governor of Gibraltar and the Spanish authorities, relative to that violation? The hon. Member adverted to the circumstances under which a small band of refugees had entered Spain, and expressed some fears that they had been encouraged in that design by the public authorities at Gibraltar, and that the British Government had pursued towards a weak State a different course of policy to that which it would have adopted towards a powerful ally.

in answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman, would first mention, that the subsisting relations between this country and Spain were those of perfect friendship and good under-Standing. The preservation of those re- lations was essential to the interests of both countries, and the British Government would consider itself liable to the most severe censure if it had connived at, much more encouraged, any attempt of the kind referred to by the hon. Member. He had learnt with great regret the occurrences of the month of January last, when no more than about thirty-four persons (for the number had been greatly exaggerated) secretly made an attack upon the Spanish lines, and being compelled again to seek refuge in the fortress, were disarmed, treated as prisoners, and ordered to quit Gibraltar. Others known to have been incidentally parties to the attempt had also been sent away, and he did not believe that one individual concerned now remained in the garrison. So much did the Governor disapprove of the design, that he had defeated a similar plan ten days before, and had called upon the Spanish authorities to point out persons who they suspected entertained any such project. It was a standing regulation in Gibraltar that no foreigner should permanently reside there, without the permission of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Governor could only give a temporary permission of the kind, and since the affair alluded to, he had been called upon from home to put in force the powers he possessed. His Lordship trusted that he need say no more to convince the hon. Member and the House, not only that the British Government had in no respect been privy to the breach of neutrality, but had taken the most effectual means that the fortress should not become the place from which attempts should be made to disturb the tranquillity of Spain.

confirmed Lord Palmerston's statement, and the subject was dropped. After a few words from Mr. G. Dawson, Sir H. Hardinge, Lord Althorp, and Mr. Hume, the Ordnance Estimates were postponed; and the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply on the issuing of Exchequer Bills for the Relief of Ireland.

hoped that it would not be necessary to detain the Committee long in explaining the plan which Government intended to submit. Hon. Members were aware that the greatest evil at this time pressing upon Ireland was the want of employment. That country presented an extraordinary state of things: with a most fruitful soil, upon which capital could be most advantageously employed, and connected with a country in which capital was so abundant, it nevertheless did not flow into Ireland with any thing like the expected rapidity. The object of Ministers, therefore, was, to adopt such a course as would encourage the flow of capital into Ireland. It had been said that it would be imprudent, and contrary to the principles of good government, for England to advance money for this object; for that if the works contemplated were likely to be profitable, capital would be devoted to them without any extraordinary impulse. But experience of the condition of Ireland showed that such was not practically the fact there; capital was, indeed, increasing but hot to the extent that must be desired by every well-wisher to the United Kingdom. It would, therefore, not be thought contrary to principle, or to those views that ought to guide an enlightened Government, to give an artificial direction to capital by the application of the powers of the Legislature, He was very far from saying that the people of England ought to be taxed for such a purpose—that would not be a justifiable proposition; but he thought that the security of the country might be given to assist those who needed capital to be applied to the improvement of Ireland. To him there seemed nothing wrong, therefore, in advancing money in the way in which he proposed, although he was aware that every such advance should be made with great caution, being liable to great abuse. It was necessary that great precaution should be exercised, both as to the manner in which the money advanced might be applied, and as to the hands through which it might be allowed to pass. Great care was necessary to prevent its being applied more to the furtherance of private and local interests than to that of public objects. There was one great danger attending the application of public money which must necessarily be placed under local superintendence, viz. that it might be too much subjected to private or merely local influence. It was, therefore, proper to place as much as possible the control of the sum for which he applied in the hands of the Government in this country. But in reserving that control, it was at the same time necessary that those who should have in their hands the immediate application of the money should possess the most intimate local knowledge of the places in which the expenditure was to be made, as without that knowledge it was not possible to direct the application of the money with effect. Another thing which was particularly to be guarded against in the application of the public money in Ireland was, that it should not be made subservient to political or party purposes. In coming to Parliament for the advance now required, his Majesty's Government had taken all those particulars into their consideration; and the manner in which he hoped to secure all the necessary precautions would be explained, he trusted, to the satisfaction of the House when the Bill came before them which it was the intention of the Government to propose. As, however, it was not intended to introduce that Bill immediately, he should not occupy them with a statement of its details, but confine himself to a general explanation of its leading provisions. It was intended to appoint a Commission in immediate communication with the Treasury in Ireland, but acting solely under the control of the Government here. To this Commission would be intrusted the disposal of the money granted by Parliament for local improvements in Ireland, and all matters at present subjected to the direction of the Commissioners of Inland Navigation, the Board of Works in Ireland, and the Commissioners of Post Roads. The superintendence of the works at present under those Boards would be committed to the Commissioners under the Bill which it was intended to introduce; at the same time that they should not have the control of the money applied under their direction as was the case with those Boards. Thus, by the appointment of the Commission, instead of an increase, there would be a considerable diminution of expense, by the reduction of those Boards, independently of the advantage to the public of having the outlay of the sums granted entirely under the control and upon the responsibility of the Government. At the same time he wished it to be understood, that. whilst the proposed Commission was to be in communication with the Irish Treasury, it should not be at all under the control of the Irish Government. It should not be supplied with the means of undertaking, or be permitted to undertake, any work without the express consent of his Majesty's Government in England, in order to prevent the influence of any political or local interest from directing the application of the public money. In the consideration of every application made to them for assistance, and in their communications to the Treasury, the Commissioners would be expected to have regard to the public benefit to be derived from the projected works, and to have regard also not only to the immediate, but to the future employment of the labouring population, in the districts in which it might be proposed that works should be undertaken. Above all things, they would be expected to have regard to the security on which they should propose to advance the money. The main object of the Bill would be to grant loans of money for the promotion of local improvements upon available security; but not upon the principle on which former loans were granted. In former loans, when the money advanced had been repaid, the fund ceased; but it was now the intention of his Majesty's Government that when any sum advanced by the Commissioners should be repaid, the Commissioners should continue to apply it, with the rest of the fund under their direction, to the improvement of Ireland; with this condition, however, that the interest was to be paid to the Government. The way in which it was proposed to raise the money was by Exchequer Bills, of which the interest would be received by the Government; the fund being in all cases of repayment, left in the same state—the principal sum being continued to be applied to the improvement of Ireland. Reports from the Commissioners should annually be laid before Parliament for their approbation, stating the sums advanced, and the repayments received, as well as the nature and situation of the works conducted under the Commission, within the year. Persons borrowing that money would become Crown debtors. One kind of security to be accepted by the Commissioners was the county rates. But also in places where tolls were exacted, the tolls would be taken as security, and in some cases money would be permitted to be advanced on the security of private property, great care being taken to ascertain that it be adequate. In that way there could be no doubt that the repayment would be secure; for on all former occasions of the advance of money by Government, the loan had always been repaid. Nor was the Government merely indemnified for the advance, but in all such cases, the improvement of the revenue in the districts in which the money lent had been applied would of itself repay the advance. He believed, that when the general measure should be laid before the House, the results which had been proved from former loans would be shown to be such as to remove every rational objection to the Bill. The Committee must be aware, from the outline which he had given of the general purposes of the Bill, that it must be one of considerable length, and that an examination of its details would occupy a long time. Therefore, if his Majesty's Government were to wait until the Bill should have been fully discussed, and should have been passed into a law, the time for its application, in the present year, would have long passed. with that consideration, he thought that he was justified in asking for a smaller grant in the mean time. The Committee must be aware that the months in which labour would have most opportunities of employment in Ireland were April, May, and June. But if the Government were to postpone their assistance for the employment of labour until the Bill could pass, much of the season in which the assistance might be beneficial would be lost. The state of Ireland at present was such, that the necessity of some immediate remedy was of extreme urgency. It might be objected that the assent of the Committee to the Resolution which he should propose would be of no effect, because it could not be reported until after the holidays. But it must be obvious to the Committee, that his Majesty's Government could not bring the grant into operation without some time to consider it. Therefore, it was necessary that the consent of the Committee should be obtained as early as possible, in order that the Government might make the inquiries necessary for its immediate application. He had said that it was the determination of the Government to take every means for preserving the proposed Commission free from political or local influence; but yet he did not think that the objections to which he had referred were of so much weight in respect to a temporary measure, as they would be to the permanent operation of the Bill itself. They certainly were not such as could induce the House to reject the Resolution which he had to move for, especially when it was considered, as he had already stated, that the time for bringing the Resolution into operation would be gone by unless it were now agreed to. His intention was, to advance the sum of 50,000l. in Exchequer Bills, to be placed at the disposal of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under the restrictions to which the Commission would ultimately be subjected— that is, for the purpose of being applied, in the way of loan, to the promotion of public works in Ireland, with the sanction of the Treasury in Ireland in the first instance, and with the consent afterwards of the Government in England. He did not stipulate that condition through any want of confidence in the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; but he thought that if the measure would require the precaution to be exercised in the whole course of its arrangements, as he had explained, it was indispensable that it should be exercised in the beginning. He believed that he had now made the objects of the Resolution understood by the Committee; and he thought that he and his hon. friends near him would be able to answer any questions which might be put, to the satisfaction of the Committee. The money which he proposed to ask of the Committee would be lent upon private freehold property, as well as upon the security of the county rates and upon tolls, in districts in which tolls are collected. The noble Lord concluded by moving, "That it is the opinion of the Committee that a sum of not less than 50,000l. should be placed at the disposal of the Lord Lieutenant and the Government of Ireland, to be applied to local improvements in Ireland."

said, that he had yesterday postponed a Motion respecting the employment of the poor of Ireland, on the understanding that the Government themselves had prepared and were bringing forward a measure upon that subject. He felt that he could congratulate the country upon the prospect which the Government had opened of bringing into action the resources of Ireland, which had so long lain dormant. Although the proposition of the noble Lord would only comprehend a part of that which he (Mr. Wyse) had intended to bring forward, he was willing to relinquish any opportunity of gratifying his own personal vanity. The present state of Ireland was such as the House and the country were scarcely aware of. The people were in some places in such a condition as to bring society to the verge of dis- organization. The elements of society were in disorder, and in Meath and Clare, in disunion. The system was falling to pieces in large masses — and unless it were immediately repaired, the evil would soon be past recovery and cure. The state of Ireland was the anomaly of anomalies in the history of nations. Its population was hardy, intelligent, numerous; — greater than that of nineteen States in Europe— smaller only than seven. Its soil not requiring the skill or manure of England, was capable, as had been stated by Arthur Young, of sustaining 100,000,000 of souls; its climate was the happiest medium, its fisheries were mines under water—its south-west districts contained the richest mines, according to Griffith, in the empire; its apposition was such, that it was the link between two hemispheres, so that a ship could reach America from its western coasts before she was out of soundings departing from London. Such was the Ireland which God created. What was the Ireland which man had made? Other countries had risen and fallen; Ireland had never been but as at present; she had had vicissitudes, but only vicissitudes of ill; hope, which comes to all, never came to her; with her population, she was powerless except for evil; with her soil, her climate, her fisheries, periodical visitations, sure and quick visitations of famine had been her history; with her mines, her ports, her coasts, she had no shipping, no trade; in one word, endowed with every physical blessing she was the prey of every moral ill. The frequent famines in her early history were known and, according to Spencer, the frosts in the year 1539 and 1560, carried off one-third of her population. The dearths of 1741 and 1762 were as bad. But, alas! our own times could parallel these accounts. Three famines, with their consequent trains of epidemics, had swept over the land since the peace, and the people were crouching now before the fourth. The awful visitation of 1822. and the dreadful state of the counties of Mayo, Galway and Clare, at that period, must have made the most selfish and profligate shudder with awe. In Sligo the starving peasantry of an absentee landlord lay perishing about the doors of a poor clergyman. In Mayo numbers were seen stealing the sea-weed which was brought for manure. In Cork many grew mad and delirious with hunger—numbers died for want of food. Did the evil cease there? No; plague trod on the heels of famine— scrofula, typhus, mania followed up in fierce succession, gathering what hunger had left. Each of these diseases was only the manifestation of sheer want. Scrofula, it was well known, was indigenous to those countries where extreme poverty compels the use of crude food, exposure to damp air, and great fatigue. It is the malady of the Highlands of Scotland, the remote districts of Switzerland and Egypt—it leads to typhus and insanity. The typhus is the famine—plague of Ireland. Dr. Stokes, in his reports of the Cork-street Fever Hospital in Dublin, had distinctly traced it from its first insidious advances to its final fastening upon the heart of the people. Baron Larrey when he visited the Dublin hospitals, started back in horror at the scene, it was not disease, but starvation. Then it was, that 11,681 patients passed through the Government Hospitals, and 200,000 through the other establishments of Dublin. In 1815, when great scarcity prevailed, the number of in mates in the Lunatic Asylum of Cork rose from 74 to 210. A scarcity of grain in the Netherlands in the years 1816 and 1817, and a want of bread in France, produced a similar phenomenon in their respective establishments. But these evils could not be slowly exorcised. Famine in Ireland was occasionally suspended, but never extinguished. In Carlow, one of the most flourishing districts of Ireland, where seven families are often cooped up in one cabin, disease was, of course, produced, and, on the average, out of thirty families ten survive at the end of a twelvemonth. But why refer to that, with the existing famine of the barony of Erris before the public? The facts detailed in the letter of Mr. John M'Donough, dated the 22nd of February last, would give the House a pretty good idea of the calamities of that place. Men perishing at sea in their boats, being too weak to row them; others nearly expiring while begging coffins for their wives. The doors barred, that the scanty meal might not be seen by the passing strangers, and the Irish peasant must endure much before he would close the door of hospitality—flight give the House some idea of the calamities now suffering by the Irish. What was the cause of all this misery? Was there no food? There was food, but no money to purchase it; and, what was worse, no means of earning money. There were many mouths and many hands, but no means to feed the one, or employ the other—want of employment was the chief cause, but why did that exist? The process of deterioration had been going on among all, without any means to stay or prevent it. Manufactures had expired. The people of Erris complained that they had lost their employment, and that their small manufactories in flax, wool, &c, had utterly failed. But was it not the same in. other parts of the country? It was true that the exports of oxen, sheep, and swine had enormously increased since 1800. Exports of wheat and flour had also augmented, though in a small proportion; but the exports of beef and pork had declined, as well as the import of tallow, and there was a diminution of the consumption of malt, tea, sugar, wine and tobacco. Cottons were imported to a great extent in 1800, the imports amounting to 976,466 lbs.; and in 1825, to 2,702,5231bs., but it must also be remembered, that the linen trade had in the same period considerably declined. The augmented import of coals, of which nearly half was confined to Dublin, was attributable principally to the introduction of steam. The Marine Insurances effected in 1815, amounted to 3,000; in 1830, to not more than 2,198. Seven-eighths of the shipping trading with Ireland were British and foreign, and three fourths of the Irish trade was carried on exclusively by British shipping. Even Scotland had the advantage of Ireland, which had nothing but the manufacture and export of food; but would it not be a better evidence of prosperity, if that were consumed at home? England consumed her own produce, and six millions of foreign produce besides. What was the result of this ''.—Why the whole population was thrown on the cultivation of the soil; but the soil was gradually becoming pasturage, and the employment was lessening. The root of this misery was mal-administration; penal laws, the sweeping disfranchisement of the Catholic freeholders in the reign of George 1., like those under the present Disfranchisement — and Subletting Acts, and the exemption of pasturage from tithe, depopulated and desolated the country. Henry Boyle, the first Earl of Shannon, saw this in 1748; but new insurrections added new evidence every day. In 1759, the price of cattle was raised, the demand for pasturage increased, tenants were ejected, and the White-boys desolated Ireland; in 1763, Grand Jury cess was the grievance, and the Hearts of Oak made their appearance; in 1770, the refusal of renewals on a large estate in Down and Antrim caused the Hearts of Steel to come forth; and, in 1784, the pressure of tithes gave rise to the Peep-of-day and Right Boys—the Rebellion of 1798 Was Protestant and aristocratic, but the servile war was only suspended. The exactions on the Courtney estate brought it again into action in 1823; and at this moment, in Clare, the same exciting: principle was bursting forth in the fiercest gusts. The cause was one and simple— the rich and poor have been and are separated. The rich are absentees, the poor are unemployed. No wonder they should be divided, no wonder they should be hostile, no wonder such hostility should endure, no-wonder it should wrap in common injury every order in the community. What then should be done? Employ, and make the persons most benefitted contribute to this employment. Let not the occupant bear all; the landlord was more benefitted than the occupant. Let not the absentee escape by throwing the burthen on the occupant. Irish mendicancy at this moment costs us enormously; there were about 500,000 paupers, who could not be supported for less than 1,800,000l. Add the Grand Jury cess, 800,000l.; the expense of an army, 23,000l.; of a police, 50,000l., &c, which would bring it up to not less than 2,870,000l. annually, one-fourth of the rental, and one-twentieth of the entire consumption of the State. The poor-rate in England did not amount, though high, to one-fortieth of the entire consumption. His estimate did not include English expenses for Irish paupers, which amount to same hundreds of thousands in the year. Such sums, properly laid out, or even a portion of them, would go far to give employment to the whole of the poor labourers of Ireland. But would there be no return? Take any of the various sources of production with which Ireland abounds. There are five millions of waste, but reclaimable, land in Ireland, capable of supporting two million persons. Mr. Nimmo engaged to drain it at 1l. 1s. per acre — the total expense would be 9l.; which allowing 3l. 3s. surplus or profit per acre, would increase the national revenue 9,000,000l. Mr. Kelly's evidence was not less flattering. But was this calculation only? Mr. Nimmo had it put to the test of experience. It cost Govern- ment only 150,000l. to make 1,000 miles of road in the Highlands—what was the result? Mr. Telford's evidence was conclusive on the subject. In 1742 there were no roads in Scotland; every inconvenience was suffered from this want of communication. The late improvements have, in his language, "advanced the country one hundred years." The effects in Ireland are not less striking. Mr. Nimmo, by the order of Government, expended on roads, &c, in Connaught, 167,000l.: seven years fully repaid it. Mr. Griffith expended, in a similar improvement in the South, 60,000l., and there venue had since been benefited not less than 50,000l. annually. By similar exertions, the Marais de la Vendée was made one of the most fertile districts in France, and the soil of Belgium had been converted into the garden of Europe. The soil of Belgium, Sir H. Davy remarks, has the very same substratum as the bogs of Ireland. As to inland navigation, what country in Europe offered equal advantages? but how much neglected! Any one who cast his eye over the map of the comparative inland navigation of both countries, could not but feel mortified. England was intersected with conduits like the living human body; Ireland had only great arteries in her rivers, yet it had been ascertained that thirty rivers in Ireland might be rendered navigable, which would bring not less than 6,400,000 square acres within five miles of water carriage. Her coast extended 1,737 miles, but was comparatively waste and idle. Any one who referred to the fishery reports might see how much had been done; but also, how much remained to be done. Sixty safety-tiers had been built along the western coast, at a very trifling expense; but such was still the deficiency, that the Dublin fishery boats often catch, off the coast of Mayo, the treasures of which the inhabitants themselves could not profit by for want of deep-sea boats. The Fishery Board expended little more than 5,000l. a-year, and 3,000,000l. had been voted for the Rideau Canal, and 1,500,000l. for an absurd palace. A tithe of these sums would have contributed to the improvement and tranquillity of Ireland! He said tranquillity; for idleness, hunger, and discontent, must bear misery and anarchy, as the wild tree bears its bad and bitter fruits. Such policy was a bribe for crime; gaols were like palaces, and cottages were wretched hovels. What was the result? Better to be well housed, well clothed, with 2d. per day, than rotting in rags with scarcely two pence. Such was the reasoning of the peasant, which meant, that it was better to be a criminal with these advantages, than an honest man without them. What, then, was the remedy? These evils had originated in want of employment, high rents, and partial burthens; substitute, then, employment, lower rents, and more equal burthens. The resolutions which it was his intention to have proposed yesterday, went first to the establishment of a Board on the principle just sketched by the noble Lord, consolidating all previously-existing Boards, but constituted on somewhat a different principle from his. It was intended to suggest, that it should be composed of three or more Members of Parliament, from each province, and an equal number of persons appointed by Government, as is the case in America. This body should be divided into three sections: the first for public works; the second for public charities; the third for public education. The province of the first should be all such works as the noble Lord has just stated, which come under the head of works of general utility, such as roads, bridges, &c. The other departments of the Board should attend to charity and public education. The hon. Member then entered into a rapid explanation of his own plan, and which was nearly coincident with the arrangements explained by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, except that the hon. Member's Board was to be permanent, responsible to the rate-payers, and to engross into its own hands the functions of Grand Juries and parish officers.

said, that no adequate relief could be given to Ireland by a mea- sure of the description of the one proposed, and he hardly knew whether or not to give it his approbation. There were 150,000 persons on the verge of destitution and actual starvation, and the loan of 50,000l. would afford no adequate relief to the distresses of such a mass of people. If the population were 8,000,000 it would afford about l½d. a head. That was not the way to relieve such deep-seated distress. He had heard a good deal of Irish labourers taking the bread out of the mouths of Englishmen, but he did not hear much said against those absentee landlords who took the bread out of the mouths of the Irish peasantry. He thought some measures ought to be taken to compel those culpable absentees to support the poor in Ireland, and until the House adopted some moderate system of Poor-laws for that country, he did not think it would have done its duty. He must urge Ministers to proceed in a more decided course, being satisfied that temporary and palliative measures would be of no use, and that they must, to restore Ireland to prosperity, be guided in their measures by the great principles of justice. They should consult these, not the voice of shifting expediency, or the theories of political economists. Let them advance 500,000l. and nothing would be done effectual. They would place the people in debt, and ultimately increase the discontent of a high-minded population. Nothing but a system of Poor-laws would relieve the distress of the people. The gentry of Ireland often rose in that House and exclaimed, what does Ireland get by this or that measure? But he never heard those honourable Gentlemen say, what do we give? With regard to the Poor-laws of England, he would say, they never could dispense with those laws. A moderate system of Poor-laws introduced into Ireland some time ago, would have afforded relief; but loans of 50,000l. would produce no useful effect. At the same time he did not oppose the loan proposed, but implored his Majesty's Government to have recourse to a more enlarged mode of assistance.

said, he had pledged himself to his constituents to advocate retrenchment and economy; and he wished to know, from the noble Lord opposite, whether, considering the sufferings of the poor of this country, he should act consistently with his promise if he supported the present vote for 50,000l.? He hoped the noble Lord would take the distresses of the people of this country into consideration. He was sure that this country could not exist without Poor-laws, and therefore he was of opinion that Ireland would never be well off till she had such laws.

explained, that no part of the 50,000l. would come from the pockets of the people. It would be raised by Exchequer Bills, and repaid by the people to assist whose labours it was intended.

was of opinion, that the Government greatly deceived themselves if they imagined, that by the advance of this money they would afford any permanent relief to Ireland. To assist that country effectually, they must come to a qualified system of Poor-laws. He felt how annoying it was for Irish Members to come begging to that House, but he did not see how that could now be avoided. The present loan was only an extension of the eleemosynary system, and its most beneficial effect, he was afraid, would be only to encourage speculation.

said, that the adoption of a well-regulated system of Poor-laws was the best thing that could be done for Ireland; and though he believed his noble friend (Lord Althorp) was opposed to that system, it must be established.

was quite satisfied, that some plan of Poor-laws must be carried into effect with respect to Ireland. Permanent good could be effected by no other means.

gave the Government credit for an anxious desire to do full justice to Ireland; but still he considered the present proposition as a complete delusion (and he did not mean to use the expression in an offensive sense) on the people of Ireland. No gentleman would like to become a Crown debtor, and to have his estate made accountable for money borrowed to forward works in his neighbourhood. Irish corporations, or Irish gentlemen, if they saw the necessity of borrowing money, would rather seek it from other sources than from that which was contemplated under the plan of the noble Lord. When they came to find that they must apply to Commissioners, Solicitors, and all those who were connected with the machinery of this measure, they would at once reject the aid which was to be thus obtained. Gentlemen in Ireland would not be able to procure the assistance which the noble Lord proposed to give, without mortgaging their estates. This they never would consent to; and therefore he again said, that the plan was a delusion. He objected, whether the sum to be granted was 50,000l. or 500,000l., to have it placed under the control of a Board of Commissioners, because he believed that a system of jobbing would be the inevitable result. He meant not to cast any reflection on those who might be appointed Commissioners—of course he knew not who would be placed in that situation; but of this he was certain, that they would be exposed to the arts, to the trickery, to the cajolery, of designing persons, who might wish to get this money into their possession. They would be but men, and with the best intentions in the world it was very likely that they would be deceived. He believed that not a month would elapse before these gentlemen would find themselves in a very inconvenient position. The great question was, how the poor of Ireland could be raised from their present deplorable state of destitution to one of decency and respectability? Having considered the subject much, he had come to this conviction, that unless some system of Poor-laws were adopted, their situation could not be permanently ameliorated. He believed that machinery could be found in Ireland quite sufficient for carrying such a plan into effect. Every Member for Ireland ought to be anxious to have something effectual done for the poor of that country; for it must be most distressing and annoying to a gentleman of feeling to find his country constantly brought before the British public as an object of charity. It was, however, but just to this country, and to their English fellow-subjects, to say, that whenever the misery of Ireland was brought before them, the appeal never failed to excite feelings of sympathy and of generosity. The hon. Member then adverted to the report of the Committee appointed last Session to inquire into the state of the Irish poor, and observed, that though that Committee had recommended several plans for the relief of the poor of Ireland, none of them (with the exception of the present) had been attempted to be carried into effect. As a sincere well-wisher to Ireland, and believing that the Gentlemen opposite were most anxious to do as much as they could to promote the prosperity of that country, he called on them, as the only way in which that prosperity could be secured, to introduce a modified system of Poor-laws.

defended the Government from the charge that this proposition had been brought forward for the purpose of obtaining a temporary popularity in Ireland. The right hon. member for Harwich had depreciated the report of the Committee of last Session which had been drawn up by his hon. friend, the member for Limerick, but he must maintain that it was a very able, comprehensive, and masterly document. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that of the nineteen bills recommended in that report, none had been brought forward by the Government. Now several of those bills had been already introduced, and several had been prepared and would have been introduced before this time but for the great and important measure which now almost exclusively engrossed the attention of the House. He would not pledge himself to resist the introduction of any species of Poor-laws into Ireland, but, not intending to enter upon that question at present, he should content himself with saying, that he had never known any measure of that kind as yet prepared which did not appear to him to be calculated to be attended by results that would counterbalance any advantages which might be derived from it. He was sure that this proposition would be accepted with gratitude in Ireland by persons who had opportunities for employing capital to advantage there, but who did not possess the means of doing so without the assistance of Government. It had been said, that if money should be advanced in this way, it would never be repaid to the Government. Now several sums had been already advanced in a similar way, for similar purposes, in Ireland, and such had not been the case; and he held in his hand a statement, from which it appeared, that of the 500,000l. which had been advanced to Ireland in 1822, both of principal and interest, there remained only 15,000l. not repaid. The advance which, it was proposed to make in the present instance would be only a fair advance of money, which any private capitalist would make upon equally good security. It appeared from the report of the Committee of last Session, that the most beneficial effects had resulted from the advances which had been already made from time to time for the carrying on of public works in the south-western districts of Ireland; and he was confident that the advance which it was now proposed to make, was calculated both to relieve distress and to increase the revenue, as had been the case in the former instance.

was sorry to say, that he did not think that as much good as was expected by those who proposed it, would be derived from this advance, and he did not believe that this sum of 50,000l. would at all go to the extent which was anticipated towards alleviating the distress which existed at present in some districts in Ire- land. It was not from those districts that the Government might expect to have applications sent to them for portions of this loan. Such applications would come from the more prosperous districts, where speculations of various kinds were more likely to be afloat. This proposition, therefore, if acceded to, would do very little towards removing the distress which prevailed in some parts of Ireland.

said, that so far as this measure went, it should have his complete concurrence; and if a compulsory assessment had been also proposed, he should be most willing to give his assent to it. The right hon. Gentleman contended, that if the proprietors of land in the distressed districts did not consent to charge themselves with the relief of the poor in their vicinity, they would disgrace themselves. It was said that large advances had been made to Ireland; so there had, and they had been repaid. Out of a sum of 1,600,000l. advanced to that country for public works, only 20,000l. remained now unpaid, and that was in the course of re-payment. He gave his cordial approbation to the proposition, which he was convinced would do much good in Ireland.

agreed that the present was not the fit opportunity for discussing the question of the application of Poor-laws in Ireland; but he hoped the noble Lord opposite would provide an early opportunity for the discussion of the motion of the hon. member for Ennis, for making some provision for the poor of that country by legislative enactment. Unless some compulsory means of relief were adopted, no temporary measure of this kind would be effectual. The relief would not be given by works which were to be finished in a given time; on the contrary, the works should be permanent, and of such a nature that they should be carried on or discontinued as occasion might require.

feared, that if money were to be lent out only to borrowers upon adequate security, it would not answer the end in view. Immediate relief was what was wanted. An immediate application of relief would alone be effectual. If, instead of giving this money as a loan, a sum was made applicable to the immediate relief of the distress now felt, and which would be more severely felt in the course of the next month, some good would fol- low; but he feared that the tedious process of looking out for security for the money advanced would defeat the object of advancing it.

deprecated a discussion on the question of providing security for the insignificant advance of 50,000l. at a moment when distress existed which required immediate relief. He would not believe, that the proposed sum was intended to court popularity; but he must say, that it would be inadequate for the relief of the distress which existed. The present Ministry had held out hopes of relief to the distresses of the people, which he feared they would never realize. After all the hopes held out, the only measure of relief proposed was this insignificant Joan of 50,000l., and the emigration plan, in which Ministers themselves seemed to have not much confidence.

regretted to find that some hon. Members should attempt to throw cold water on a proposition of this kind, and talk of a Poor-law at a time when instant assistance was required. When he heard the members for Water-ford and Limerick, and the right hon. member for Tamworth, object to the Poor-law system in Ireland,—when this objection was made by men who had no community of opinion,—he must pause before he assented to the proposition. He did not concur with the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, that this plan of lending money on security would afford relief— that immediate relief which was wanted. If they wished to avert all the horrors of famine in several parts of the country, particularly the district of Erris, to which he had before called the attention of the House they should give immediate and gratuitous assistance.

spoke to the following effect:—Sir, I should have expected that the right hon. Gentleman, the member for Armagh, instead of declining to express an opinion on the measure now proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have been the first to have urged his Majesty's Ministers to pursue towards Ireland the same conduct he adopted himself in 1822, when he was Secretary for that country, and when it was very nearly under the same unhappy circumstances as it is at present. In 1822 the right hon. Gentleman came down to this House and asked—on the part of Ireland, what was instantly conceded—a grant of 50,000l. for the purpose of spreading employment n the mountainous and distressed districts of the south and west of Ireland, and a loan of 200,000l., repayable with interest, on public security, such as the funds of corporate bodies, canal companies, or Grand Jury presentments, to promote such national works as would have the effect of giving immediate and profitable employment in those opulent districts of Ireland which could afford paying for their further improvement. This expenditure, and subsequent loan, of money, repayable never under four per cent interest and five per cent principal, materially relieved Ireland, and now enable her to repay, by a permanent increase of revenue in the districts where the improvements were curried on, the full amount of the original advance. As the right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware that an annual increase of revenue equal to the amount of the sum expended has been the result of his advances, I could not possibly have expected but that he would have been the first to have applauded the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the measure he has now brought forward. Sir, on grounds of public policy, it is impossible to dispute the justice and the expediency of making small grants for the purpose of spreading colonization and intercourse in deserted portions of the United Kingdom, where the result would be an accession of profitable territory to the State, and of making even large loans for the further improvement of opulent and cultivated districts when the repayment was well secured. I believe it to be an undoubted fact, that, at this moment, there is not a single public work executing at the public expense in Ireland. Far be it from me to argue that because there has been a lavish expenditure in palaces and public yards, and great undertakings in England, that, therefore, the improvement of a fertile and populous portion of the empire, like Ireland, ought not to be overlooked. I disclaim this kind of reasoning. I am one of those who are happy to see everything done to improve England, provided some little attention is paid to promote the prosperity of Ireland; and whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes a loan, or imitates the conduct of his predecessors by calling for a grant in aid of local improvements, I am satisfied that, by the people of Ireland, either measure will be received as a very useful and timely relief to the country. Sir, the measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is loudly called for by Grand Juries and public bodies in Ireland, who have made large presentments in aid of local improvements—who offer security which cannot be questioned—and who, by this measure, would immediately take out of the market of labour the redundant hands which are now idle and unemployed. I consider this loan of 50,000l. in aid of public works, re-issuable for other works as the instalments are paid into the Treasury, a great improvement on the plan of the loans which were heretofore advanced in favour of public works in Ireland, and calculated, I trust, to prevent the humiliating necessity of Irish Gentlemen, year after year, coming down to this House to solicit the smallest advance in aid of districts which may be visited with sudden or temporary calamity. I regret that there should be the smallest difference of opinion respecting the measure which the noble Lord has thought it his duty to recommend in the present instance; for I cannot help saying, that, in my opinion, if the public bodies of Ireland brought their securities into the money-market of England, and proved, as the fact undoubtedly is, that their engagements for a succession of years were punctually discharged, but that ample funds might be speedily raised on those most ample securities. I think there is nothing extraordinary in a Parliament doing, for the public benefit, what individuals would be found to do even for private advantage. These advances have been of signal benefit to Ireland, and have not been attended with the smallest loss to Great Britain. I should however, deceive the House if I disguised the fact, that the present alarming condition of Ireland requires a far more searching and more extended remedy than a mere loan of 50,000l., repayable with interest. Sir, if I am asked to what it is I ascribe the more than usual redundancy of unemployed labour, and the discontent, which exist at this moment in Ireland, I say it is my conscientious opinion, that the sudden suspension of loans for aiding and encouraging the extension of public works has caused a great deal of discontent, and impressed a large portion of the working poor with the opinion that even measures of the most admitted public utility were no sooner introduced into Ireland than they were abandoned, When the late Secretary of State for the Home Department introduced for the first time the system of aiding and developing the natural resources of Ireland, by an advance of capital to public bodies giving adequate security, and also of assisting with public grants districts quite incapable of giving security for repaying advances—the obvious benefit of this system rapidly displayed itself, and Ireland became progressively enriched, without Great Britain being at all impoverished or inconvenienced. Why, then, was a system which worked so well discontinued? If any Gentleman who has filled the office of Secretary for Ireland will rise in his place and declare that this system of loans, repayable with sufficient interest, was unprofitable to Ireland or injurious to England, I will not trouble the House with another observation. But when it is admitted on all sides that there was no loss sustained by these loans, and that they acted as a stimulus on Irish industry, and reacted beneficially on the commerce and manufacturing industry of Great Britain, by making Ireland a greater and wealthier consumer, is it not to be regretted that any interruption should be given to a system which increased the revenue of the State, and increased the comfort of the labouring poor of that country? Now, although it is contended by the right hon. member for Armagh, that when the 50,000l. is advanced, the instalments, by which it is to be repaid, will afford only a very small fund for future employment, I must say that, let the fund be what it may, still it will be to all intents a national loan-fund, to which distressed districts may resort on urgent necessity. Sir, the instalments may be small, but still the advantage of the proposed measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, that a national loan-fund is created, which will enable those intrusted with its management to take care that those districts of Ireland, which from accidental causes may require small temporary relief, through the medium of employment, shall, on security, be always certain of obtaining it. I consider this measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated to be of great utility; and having given that opinion, I should have closed with that observation, if the hon. members for Newark and Borough- bridge had not, I am satisfied with most excellent intentions to Ireland, zealously and fairly submitted—that measures of a very different character were absolutely necessary for the relief and tranquillity of that country These two hon. Gentlemen, along with other Gentlemen, have fearlessly declared, that a provision for the Irish poor cannot be longer delayed or evaded. I hold in my hand a paper which I received this day from Ireland, containing a letter from a highly informed and educated gentleman, addressed to the Marquis of Anglesey, in which he says, that though the bones and muscles of the Irish peasantry fertilize the fields, create the national wealth, and provide funds for rents and taxes and tithes, yet that peasantry, who produce everything, consume nothing; and that, unless measures, the most prompt and energetic, are adopted to improve the condition of the Irish labourer, and to furnish him with regular employment so as to enable him to procure comfortable food and decent raiment, Ireland will become a wilderness; and he fears, ere long, a country in which no person could happily reside. In that letter it is asserted that the war of poverty against property has already commenced —that formerly it was the war of religion, or the war of political opinion; but that it is now, unhappily, the war of gaunt famine, leading to desperation, and striving for an improved existence. I confess I fear that this description of the country is too true a delineation of its present condition, and that it is well calculated to confirm many Gentlemen in the opinion of the necessity of introducing a provision for the poor in Ireland. On this subject I allow there is a great discrepancy of opinion. I admit at once that it is my firm and conscientious belief, that the frightful evils of a desolating absenteeism, and the immense drain for the payment of the interest of millions advanced on the security of landed property, are the causes of the great distress which exists in Ireland. I admit, that the Irish absentees are probably amongst the first class of landed proprietors in Europe; and that a country which produces an annual stock of wealth from the produce of her own soil, cannot be in a sound or healthy state whilst loans of money are requisite to be raised in another country, to be remitted to that country to discharge the functions of capital. When I make this admission, I beg Gentlemen will consider, that even if the proprietors of great estates in Ireland remained at home, still the rental of the country is small, and the population very great. The accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few is in every country accomplished at the expense of the many, inasmuch as each community possesses only a certain amount of property. When these masses of wealth are reinstated where they are collected, the evils are mitigated; but when these masses are taken out of this country, a general disorganization of society is the unavoidable result. Sir, while I am favourable to any measure which will retain the wealth which a country produces in that country for its ulterior improvement, be assured that it is impossible for any individual to proceed with greater care or caution than I am disposed to do, in endeavouring to effect so important a purpose. I am one of those who like to draw from authorities which are venerated for their intelligence and worth, and from legislative enactments, where I can find them, authorities in favour of, and precedents which are in point for, measures which may be considered calculated to relieve the distresses of my country; and I avow that the recommendation of Dr. Woodward, the Bishop of Cloyne, published sixty years ago, and then submitted to the consideration of the Parliament of Ireland, always appeared to me highly deserving the most serious consideration of such persons as were disposed to pay attention to the affairs of Ireland. That eminent and distinguished scholar and divine laid down these principles:—"That the poor are so inadequately provided for by voluntary contributions in Ireland, as to stand in need of some legal title to a maintenance. That it is the indispensable duty of the rich to grant to the poor some competent provision; and That it is eminently the interest of the commonwealth that this duty be discharged in a suitable manner." These were the principles of an Irish Protestant Bishop, Dr. Woodward, sixty years ago, and are the principles of a Catholic Irish Bishop, Dr. Doyle, an eminent divine and distinguished writer, at the present moment. It was said by Dr. Woodward, sixty years ago, "That the lower class of the people of Ireland are ill accommodated with lodging, raiment, and even food; and that their poverty is likely to continue with but little mitigation, from the following, amongst other causes—the exorbitant rent extorted from the poorer tenants, ever loth and afraid to quit their ancient habitations; by the general method of letting farms to the highest bidder, without any allowance for a tenant right; the oppression of duty-work, which calls the cottager arbitrarily from the tillage of this little spot which he holds at so dear a rent; and the low rate of wages for labour; these circumstances, combined with some others, reduce the Irish cottager below the peasant of almost every country in Europe. Such is his hard condition in the most plentiful season, and in the prime of his health and strength: what, then, must be his state in time of dearth, under the pressure of years, infirmities, or even a very numerous young family? His expenses admit of no retrenchment; he is a stranger to luxury, or even to decent accommodation, and yet his wages seldom afford any reserve. On the death of such a father of a family, dependent on his labour for their main, or perhaps entire, support, how forlorn must be the situation of his widow and orphan children! It would shock a tender mind to imagine (if imagination could paint) the miseries to which the bulk of the inhabitants of Ireland are continually exposed by the slightest reverse of fortune, By a single bad season; by an accidental loss; by an occasional disease; and even by the gradual decay of nature, these evils exist in a great, although not equal number, and cannot be doubted or denied by any but those who shut their eyes or steel their hearts against them." These were the words of an Irish Protestant Bishop, addressed to an Irish Parliament sixty years ago, and to a Parliament which actually commenced legislating at his instance, and on his re- commendation. These sentiments have, I candidly admit, always left a deep impression on my mind, as well deserving most serious consideration. Dr. Woodward contemplated the creation of a fund for supporting destitute children, providing the sick poor with medicine, and the aged poor with a small fund in aid of their labour. Dr. Woodward likewise proposed a regular contribution of one percent on all property, to make such provision for the poor as would take away all imputation of neglect or injustice. The gentleman (Dr. Grattan), an extract from whose letter to the Marquis of Anglesey I read to the House, certainly goes farther than Bishop Woodward, for he is for creating a national loan-fund by the imposition of a tax, not upon income, but upon actual property of every description, increasing in a ratio proportioned to the property of the individual, so that those who have a larger property shall pay a higher poundage than those whose property is smaller; the entire produce of the tax to be expended in Ireland for the purpose of providing regular employment for the poor, and encouraging undertakings of useful and productive labour. Sir, I have not ventured to lead, but I have humbly presumed to follow and support public opinion in Ireland on these important topics. Every one knows how easily the able-bodied peasant disposed to work, and who cannot obtain the means of subsistence, is reduced to a condition as bad as that which proceeds from age or even infirmity. In my opinion, it ought to be a favoured measure to extend employment, even at the lowest rate of wages, to the working poor of Ireland; it may be said to be the religion of the Irish people, for the young and hearty labourer of every family to support the aged and infirm of his family. I do not say that the Irish peasant ought not to be relieved of this burthen, but I say it is a burthen he is willing to endure when he can obtain employment. I will support the national loan-fund in aid of public works in Ireland, as proposed by the noble Lord, as I will every other measure calculated to extend employment in Ireland, whether it be by grant, by loan, by assessment, by labour-rate, or by Poor-laws. I, for one, will never differ about the mode in which the fund is raised, or the name which is bestowed upon it. As an incipient measure, this proposed measure of the noble Lord is entitled to my most warm and hearty concurrence; it precludes no other project being resorted to in aid of the same principle, and it lays the foundation of a system which I trust will prove, as I am confident the noble Lord and his Majesty's Ministers intend it should prove, the means of extending employment to the people of Ireland, without the smallest injury to Great Britain; and answer a most beneficial purpose, until measures of a more extensive nature may be carried into execution for ensuring the peace and improvement of Ireland.

supported the Motion, and regretted it did not go farther.

expressed his gratitude to the Government for this measure of relief. The application of such grants to the improvement of the roads in the western district of Ireland would be, in his opinion, the best system of Poor-laws that could be introduced.