presented a Petition from the Presbytery of Dunblane, praying that in the Reform Bill provision should be made that the Ministers of the Church of Scotland might have the power of voting for a Representative in Parliament. He was himself not favourable to giving the elective franchise to the clergymen of the Church of Scotland, because doing so would bring them into collision with the people at elections, and thus lower their character, which at present stood very high, owing to the fact, that in no instance was any opportunity afforded of bringing them into unpleasant collision with their parishioners. He could not support the prayer of the petition. If, however, the clergymen of the Church of Scotland thought that they ought to be represented, and were desirous to be so, he should wish to see them represented as the Church of England was —in the House of Peers by means of her dignitaries, and in the Commons, by the Members for her Universities. He did not advocate change, but as the Ministers were about to make a great change, that ought to be made as perfect as possible. On this principle he must contend, that Scotch cities and towns with upwards of 20,000 inhabitants, which by the new Bill would be left unrepresented, ought to have Members given to them. As he perceived that another Member was to be given to the University of Dublin, he recommended Ministers to give the same advantage to the Universities of Scotland.

cordially agreed with his right hon. friend. To take the clergy of Scotland from the exclusive performance of their clerical duties, would be a great injury to them and their flocks. At the same time he wished to see their interests represented and taken care of in Parliament.

thought some of the observations of the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Murray) was levelled at the clergymen of the Church of England, who, he was persuaded, formed as zealous a body of clergymen as were to be found in the world.

said, that the Representation of the Scotch Church was a question still open; and he might also state, that the plan of giving a Member to the Scotch Universities was under the consideration of his Majesty's Ministers.

presented a Petition from the inhabitants of the suburbs of Manchester, in which they stated, that though they thought no Reform would be effectual without Vote by Ballot, yet they were favourable to the Ministerial plan, and hoped it would be carried without being suffered to be impaired by those parties who were interested in the existence of the abuses of the country. In presenting another Petition from New Lanark, complaining of Distress, of Taxation without Representation, and praying for a repeal of the Corn Laws, the hon. Member expressed his regret at the absence of the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, and of the hon. member for Waterford, both of whom had attacked him last night, as the present petition would have shown them, that he was correct in his observations. The present petitioners prayed for the abolition of the restrictions on the importation of corn, and also that the people might not be called upon to serve in the militia, or to pay taxes, until every kind of retrenchment was adopted, their grievances redressed, and a full Reform granted in the Commons House of Parliament. He had, however, been attacked by those hon. Members, so that between Sawney and Blarney he had enough upon his hands.

said, that, in the absence of the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, he would say, that he entirely concurred in every thing which had fallen from him on the previous evening. He would not charge the hon. member for Preston with having sold himself, for he was incapable of doing so, but, notwithstanding his respect for him, he must say that his conduct was suspicious. He believed, that the hon. Member had elicited the opinions of the few hundred thousand persons of whom he spoke on a former evening, by putting leading questions to them, such as "Would you not rather have no Reform than such a Reform as this?" to which a multitude like that would naturally reply in the affirmative. The sentiments the hon. Member stated were not the sentiments of the people of England.

said, that he had never known any measure give so much satisfaction as the present. There were not, in the whole kingdom, 5,000 persons who would be found to disapprove of the measure. He thought it a remedy for all present evils, and he had no doubt that in any future House there would be individuals fully competent to carry on the business of the country. He merely rose, in consequence of his connection with large bodies of men, to give his contradiction to the statements which had been made.

observed, that as the hon. member for Waterford had complimented the hon. member for Preston in having gone over to the Tories, the hon. member for Preston might compliment the hon. member for Waterford in having gone over to the Whigs. The hon. Baronet, the member for Lewes, had stated, that when he went to his constituents, there were only one or two who approved of the Bill. He (Sir H. Hardinge) understood from undoubted authority that the freemen of Lewes were persuaded that the Bill would not answer its objects, and that they had come to a resolution, in the event of a dissolution, of again returning their present Representative, who opposed the Bill, to Parliament. In Northamptonshire there was any thing but a universal feeling in favour of Reform. He rather believed that an anti-Reform feeling had been expressed not only by the property of the county, but by a large majority in point of numbers.

said, that the persons in Scotland from whom this petition emanated were peculiarly satisfied with the Reform Bill. In Paisley there was a universal feeling of satisfaction. He was sure that no hon. Member could contradict the statement that at a meeting at Paisley, unexampled for numbers and respectability, a universal feeling of satisfaction was expressed.

hoped, that the House would bear with him for a short time, having been attacked in the way that he had been. How often had he said, that the people were run wild in favour of this cause? He was heard at the Common Hall of the City of London with great complacency in favour of the Bill, but the moment he endeavoured to say any thing to show, that it would not have the effect which was expected, he was no longer favoured with a hearing. He had stated, that the whole country were running wild with such a degree of unanimity as he had never before beheld in this country. There was, however, a reaction beginning; and he would observe, in answer to what had fallen from the worthy Alderman, that he had had today two deputations from the City of London (he had had one yesterday), to invite him to take the chair at a meeting of the operatives, to express their disapprobation of the Reform Bill; but he had declined, having otherwise more business than he could manage. Situated as he was, between Caledonia and Hibernia, he had quite enough to do. He was ready however to face the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, either there or elsewhere. What he had said was, that he was about to present a petition from new Lanark, praying to be relieved from taxation, unless they were represented in Parliament. That was all that he had said. The hon. mem- ber for Waterford talked something about Paddy. He had said nothing about Paddy. What he had said was, that he had been attacked by Hibernia, on one side, overpowering him with tears, and Caledonia threatening great heat and fire on the other; and that between "Sawney" and "Blarney" he was very nearly overwhelmed. Everyone would think, after the speech of the hon. member for Waterford, that "Blarney" was applicable to him. The hon. member for Waterford had said that he (Mr. Hunt) had made an attack upon him. Attack! what attack did he make on the hon. and learned Member? He should not have said a word, unless he had been previously attacked. The hon. Member did not charge him openly with any thing, but he insinuated something in the same way as he had accused the hon. member for Weymouth. "Now Sir (said Mr. Hunt), I do not insinuate, but I boldly and plainly tell him, in the face of this House, and in the face of the country, that he trafficked with the Marquis of Anglesey for the very office which Mr. Doherty now holds. There would have been no agitation about the Union, if Mr. Doherty had not got the situation instead of him. Mr. Bennett was the go-between in the negotiation. The hon. and learned Member accused him of having sold himself to the Tories — let him prove that. Whatever the hon. and learned Member for Waterford might say about his being no Reformer, and about the hon. and learned Member himself being a real Reformer, he knew that he had shown himself a Reformer. He appealed to the House —he would not appeal to the hon. and learned Member —yes, he would appeal to the hon. Member whether he had a double way of shooting? He would appeal to the country whether he had expressed one sentiment to-day and another to-morrow? He had always been the advocate of Universal Suffrage and Vote by Ballot. The hon. member stated at Clare that he was in favour of Vote by Ballot and Universal Suffrage. It was the hon. and learned Member, therefore, that was the shifter and not he. The hon. and learned Member had declared at the election for Clare, that he was the advocate of Universal Suffrage and Vote by Ballot; and it was therefore, the hon. Member that had shifted his ground. The hon. and learned Member agreed with the Ministers —so did he to a certain extent —but he was not satisfied that their measure was an unmixed good, and, therefore, he could not say so. He could not change his sentiments because the hon. member for Waterford did. There was a discussion last night. on the discontent which existed in Clare. Did that hon. and learned Member not think, that a great part of the discontent in Clare arose from his having broken his promises? He had promised them, that when he was in Parliament he would move for a Repeal of the Act for disfranchising the 40s. freeholders. The hon. Member had not done any such thing. For his own part he had never consented to disfranchise any man. He must unequivocally say, that the people of England, who had been running wild in favour of the Reform Bill, were recovering their senses, and that the seven millions of adults who were not to receive any share of the franchise by this Bill, were no further in favour of it than, as he had before stated, because it would make an inroad into that system which was disgraceful to the whole country. With regard to the measure itself, though what he might say of it would be said to be a proof that he had joined the Tories, he must observe, that alterations in it were necessary, and alterations had been announced. The noble Lord who announced them gave one version of those alterations, the hon. Secretary for Ireland had given another, and the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had given a third, which was different from the two others. Probably all these Gentlemen meant the same, but, from want of consulting with each other, they did not agree in their stories. He begged to ask, then, what they did mean? A petition had been presented from Warwick for the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill —yet now the Bill was to be altered. Nothing of that which he had always contended for was to be granted by the Bill, and he, therefore, was not content with the measure. He had attended a meeting in Somersetshire a fortnight ago, and at the close of that meeting the people had come to an unanimous resolution in favour of Vote by Ballot. The members for Somersetshire were not then attending their duty in the House, as they had not attended their duty at the meeting, he would not, therefore, present the petition. As to his constituents, he was not afraid to meet them —he was not afraid of the threat held out in The Times of this morning, of a dissolution; he did not object to a dissolution, and was not afraid of his seat. If his constituents objected to his conduct, let them only say so, and he would accept the Chiltern Hundreds. What did he gain by sitting there till two o'clock in the morning, or what could he gain? Neither the Tories nor the Whigs had anything to give him which he would accept of. If ever he should accept anything, let the House and the country form such an opinion of him as he had of the hon. member for Waterford.

said, that he was on the hustings at Clare, at the election of 1829, and then the hon. member for Waterford had made no such promises as had been stated by the hon. member for Preston.

said, that the petition could afford no evidence of what were the feelings of the people of Scotland as to the Reform Bill; for it was dated March the 4th, before the people who had signed it could have known the contents of that Bill.

would not have taken any notice of the observations of the hon. member for Preston, had he not introduced the names of the Marquis of Anglesey and of Mr. Bennett. As he was quite sure that, as to them, the charge was unfounded, as far as Mr. Bennett was concerned, he said, unequivocally, that it was totally without foundation. As to the Marquis of Anglesey, the hon. Member probably knew nothing more of him, than that he had seen him ride about the streets on horseback; and be was sure, that as to him the charge was also unfounded. As to himself, he would assert, that since that House had been constituted, a charge more completely unfounded never had been made. The hon. Member must now shift his ground.

rose to say, that the report alluded to by the hon. member for Kirkcudbright was a false report. He had stated nothing at Manchester that he had not staled in that House. He had stated in that House, that what fell from the member for Calne was, that in the opinion of Ministers the Bill was calculated to unite the middle classes to the higher classes and the Government, and keep down the rabble. That was stated by the hon. member for Calne. He had repeated it; and it was placed on record in The Times. The principle he had stated was, that with the proposed Reform there would be a perpetual Corn-law, and therefore bread would be no cheaper; but that, with a properly reformed Parliament, the Corn-laws would be abolished, and bread would be cheaper. A reformed Parliament would get rid of the Corn-laws, but a Parliament reformed by the Bill, would only make the Corn-laws perpetual. A Parliament reformed as it ought to be, would make corn cheap, clothing cheap, and labour less. He had stated that; and he had stated that, with a reformed Parliament, it would not be necessary to work sixteen hours a day. A reformed Parliament would relieve the people from pensions and taxes. A reformed Parliament would not have voted away the money of the people as the present Parliament did last night when the Civil List was before them; and, therefore, he was friendly to Reform of any kind. He meant nothing offensive to either party, but he must say he was neither Whig nor Tory, and he expected nothing, and would take nothing which it was in the power of either party to give. He required no protection from any one, for he hoped, as long as he had a seat in that House, that he should be able to protect himself. With regard to the hon. member for Waterford (Mr. O'Connell), he repeated, that there had been propositions to give a place to that hon. and learned Member sent to Lord Anglesey by that hon. Member, not only once, but twice or three times; and he was satisfied, that if they had been successful, there would have been no agita- tion in Ireland. He did not know this of his own knowledge, but he had seen Mr. Bennett, who was acquainted with the whole proceedings. The member for Waterford called on the hon. member for Weymouth to allow his case to be brought before Parliament. Was the member for Waterford ready to allow these proceedings of his to be brought before the House? Let him call for an inquiry, and he (Mr. Hunt) should be able, he thought, to produce abundant evidence of the transactions to which he alluded. He could name two Members of that House who were present with him at the time when Mr. Bennett told the whole of the story. The member for Waterford accused him of a desire to get place; let him answer now for himself. He (Mr. Hunt) had never asked for any thing in his life, nor had he ever desired to have any thing offered to him; for, he repeated, he could not, and would not accept it.

said, he had a Petition to present from 700 Shipwrights of the Thames, in favour of the Reform Bill. He particularly wished to direct the attention of the House to this petition, because it gave an answer to those who asserted, that the lower classes were adverse to the Bill. These petitioners declared, that they expected the advantage of good Government from the progress of Reform. They were satisfied that their condition would be improved by it; and he very much doubted whether there were 200,000 persons in the country who did not believe that the Bill would be advantageous, and that a great boon was given to them by the measures of the Government.

said, the petition presented by the noble Lord was agreed to at a meeting, which was not numerously attended, and on a division, thirty-six persons voted against, and twenty-five in favour of, the Reform Bill. The petition, therefore, emanated from a very small majority. A meeting of a different description —a meeting of the landholders, and including a great portion of the wealth and respectability of the county — was about, however, to be convened, and he was confident that the result of their decision would show a very different feeling with respect to the Reform.

reminded the noble Lord, that the majority which decided at the late meeting against the Reform Bill, was composed of men who had twice the amount of landed property in the county which could be claimed by the minority.

said, that the county of Dumbarton contained 27,000 inhabitants, according to the Census of 1821, and under a new system, of which population was one of the bases, it was certainly entitled to a larger number of Members than that allotted to it by the Bill.

was surprised to hear so much importance attached to the petitions from the counties of Scotland. A few gentlemen assembled in a room in Edinburgh, and determined to oppose Reform, presented a petition from the city of Edin- burgh. Then they got up another petition, which they called the petition of the county of Edinburgh, and, being Magistrates of various counties, they proceeded afterwards to them for the purpose of swelling the majorities in favour of petitions of the same description. He entreated the House to look at the divisions which had taken place in different counties on the subject of the Bill, and to take into their consideration the number of persons who decided the fate of the petitions compared with the real amount of the inhabitants. In Banffshire, where there were 43,000 inhabitants, a petition was agreed to against the Bill, at a meeting where there were thirteen persons, four of whom were in favour of Reform, and nine against it. In Berwickshire, with 33,000 inhabitants, thirty-three persons met, and there certainly they were unanimous against the Bill. Then came Dumbartonshire, in which the petition against Reform was carried, as stated by the Lord Advocate, by thirty-six to twenty-five. He admitted there was a majority of persons of property against the Bill, but the members of the minority had greater property elsewhere. Then came the county of Elgin, with 31,000 inhabitants, in which there was a meeting of nine persons. Haddington, with 35,000, in which there were eight in favour and four against; and Roxburghshire, in which the petition was carried by forty-seven to twenty-three. In that county, however, there was a real meeting of the landholders and inhabitants on the next day, and they were unanimous in favour of the Bill. In fact, wherever the real opinions of the people could be collected, apart from those of the voters for the rotten borough system of Scotland, they were unanimous in favour of the Bill. It appeared, indeed, to him most extraordinary that, under such a system, so many persons of property should be found to vote at county meetings in favour of the plan of Reform.

deprecated the use of such language with reference to the county votes of Scotland. The hon. Member, sitting as he did for a set of close boroughs, had been decrying the counties of Scotland, and applying to them, most improperly, the same language which he would use with respect to the rotten boroughs of England. If the hon. member for Preston had used such language with respect to Scotland, he could have under- stood him, for it was consistent with his avowed opinions on the subject of Universal Suffrage; but it certainly appeared strange that an hon. Member, well acquainted with the nature of the mode of election in Scotland, should characterise the county voters in such terms as those used by the hon. member for Ayr, and decry property, while he cried up the influence of numbers. The hon. Member, in his attempt to prove that all Scotland was in favour of the Bill, had alluded to the county of Roxburgh. Now he happened, by accident, to have in his pocket a letter from Sir Thomas Brisbane, the gentleman who presided at the second county meeting, to which the hon. Member alluded. Great importance had been attached to the opinions of that second meeting, and he would therefore, with the permission of the House, read a short extract from the letter. Sir Thomas said in it, "When I attended the meeting of the county of Roxburgh, to petition in favour of Reform, it was because I believed it to be a Government measure, and before the introduction of the Bill which, I must say now, I consider far too sweeping in its provisions." This was a specimen of that re-action among a higher class, which the member for Preston had already described as having taken place among a lower. That change had taken place among men of education and property, as well as among the lower classes. He never denied that some amendment could be made in the system of Representation in Scotland; but he was satisfied that the plan of substituting for the old a totally new system of Representation would be productive of very injurious consequences. He applied himself particularly to Scotland, because he was better acquainted with that country than any other. He could say of it with sincerity, that its county Representation was as pure and independent as any to be found in England. For himself, he could declare that he was as free to act according to his judgment as any Member of that House. When he was solicited to stand for his native county, for which he had now been returned four times, and the honour of representing which he prized above all other honors, he had expressly stated, that he would connect himself with no party, and bind himself to follow no course of political conduct, save that which appeared best calculated to promote the interests of his country.

observed, that the fact of Sir Thomas Brisbane having presided at a second meeting, after attending the first, proved beyond question, that he did not think the first meeting expressed the true opinion of the county of Roxburgh. If the right hon. Baronet spoke of the freeholders of Scotland as being properly represented, or as not desiring some better Representation, he laid himself open to a total contradiction. In some cases they did agree with the opinions of the people of property against the Bill, as other persons agreed with its opponents; but the great majority were decidedly in its favour. The reason why Scotland had increased in prosperity and wealth under the present system, was not because it was a sound one, but because the Constitution of England protected her, and the Representation of England was spread over her as a shield, to guard her from the consequences which might have followed the defects of her own.

was not a little surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman extol the merits of the English Constitution, and speak of the Representation of England as forming a shield for the protection of Scotland, at the very moment when he was using his utmost exertions in support of the Bill which totally changed the nature of that Constitution, and the Representative system which was connected with it. How, he would ask, could the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his praises in the one case with his censure in the other, and say, that system of Representation should be destroyed which he at the same moment admitted to have formed the protection of Scotland from the abuses of the system which prevailed in that country. He contended that those who were opposed to the Scotch Reform Bill formed a vast majority of the men of property of that country; and although the Bill was drawn by the Lord Advocate, and the Government declared they would have that Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, he believed that not a single individual in Scotland was fully satisfied with its details, and he suspected that the noble Lord himself contemplated many alterations and modifications of its provisions in the Committee. If the Bill passed in its present shape, every person in the country saw that it would be impossible to refuse any, even the most extensive changes which might afterwards be demanded from them.

defended the Representation of Scotland, and contended that its Members were returned by a constituency as pure and incorruptible as any in the empire. The counties of Scotland, although they had few voters, were never bought and sold like the boroughs of England. No man ever came into the market to dispose of the Representation of a Scotch county. The voters were men of integrity and independence, and their property secured them from all improper influence.

remarked on the inconsistency of the hon. Baronet, who said he approved of the principle of the Bill, while at the same time he disapproved of the disfranchisement of the boroughs. For himself, he was strongly opposed to the measure. The people of Scotland were in the enjoyment of property, intelligence, and happiness; but the learned Lord was not satisfied, he wished to give them politics.

gave his cordial support to the Scotch Bill. He was opposed to the English Bill, which took a great deal away, and gave very little; but the Bill for Scotland took little or nothing away, and gave a great deal. As an instance of the absurdity of the present system, he stated, that in one of the counties of Scotland he had what was called a Superiority, the value of which was only a few shillings, but which gave him a vote; while in the same county he had an estate worth a thousand a year, in right of which he had no vote at all.

said, that among the landed proprietors of Scotland, there was undoubtedly a strong feeling against the measure which the Government had introduced. They looked upon it as violent and sweeping, and calculated to place the whole power of the elections in the hands of persons of little or no property.

stated, that a large majority of the county of Fife was in favour of the measure. There had been no meeting of that county, because the convener, by whom alone a meeting could be called, being hostile to the Reform Bill, resolutely refused to call a meeting.

said, that it was evi- dent the gallant General wished to avail himself of his (Lord J. Russell's) answer to his question, as an assistance to him in his plan of defeating the Bill. On Monday he would state explicitly what were the alterations which it was proposed to make in the Bill; and when the House had heard that statement, they would be better able to say what course of proceeding ought to be adopted.

observed, that if his Majesty's Ministers had made up their minds with respect to the alteration which they intended to propose, it was their duty at once to state it; if, however, they were merely watching the shifting of every blast of public opinion, they were adopting a wise course. On a subject of such vast importance, it was surely not too much to ask for a few days' deliberation. In his opinion, the real principle of the proposed Bill was, to traffic in the suffrages of the people of England; to sell one man and buy another; to sell one country and buy another; to induce Scotland and Ireland to support the Bill by reducing the Representation of England. He begged to put these distinct questions to the noble Lord —whether it was in contemplation to propose any alterations in the Bill? and, if so, whether they were to be absolute, or to depend on contingent circumstances?

brought down a Message from his Majesty, which was read by the Speaker, and which was to the following effect: —

moved for leave to bring in Bills to amend the law respecting Inheritance and Descent, respecting Dower, the Courtesy of England, Fines and Recoveries, and Limitations of Actions. The hon. and learned Member said, that the measures he was about to submit to the House were the results of the inquiries of the Commissioners appointed to investigate the laws as to Real Property. He did not expect, therefore, that they would meet with any opposition. The first Bill to which he wished to call the attention of Members respected the law of Inheritance and Descent. He did not propose to touch the law of primogeniture, which, as it prevailed in this country, was infinitely to be preferred to the law of equal participation, now prevailing in France, where its unfavourable effects upon agriculture were already making themselves felt. But some anomalies connected with that law it was desirable to remove. A father, for example, could not inherit from his child; so that, if a son died without a will, his estate would rather vest in the Crown than go to the father, pursuant to the maxim of law, that land cannot lineally ascend. He proposed to remove that anomaly, and allow a father to be the heir of his own child. Another anomaly was the exclusion of the half-blood; so that if there were two sons by different marriages, and the estate went to the eldest, and he died the second son could not inherit of him, and the estate would rather vest in the Crown. He proposed that the half-blood, under, such circumstances, should be entitled to inherit, with this restriction, that the full-blood of the first possessor should be preferred. Thus, if three sons, the eldest by one marriage, and the two others by another, one of the younger children should have an estate, and die intestate, the father should in the first instance inherit, and afterwards the descent should be, not to the eldest son, but to the youngest, so that the full-blood of the first possessor might have the preference. The next point was, the law of Dower, by which a widow was at present entitled for her life to one-third of any land of which her husband was seised at any time during the coverture. That, perhaps, was a convenient rule in ancient times, when land was the only property: but now it was most inconvenient, being always evaded by conveyances and limitations to trustees to bar dower. Such proceedings to evade a bad law were, however, productive of great delay, inconvenience, and expense. He proposed, that the widow should only be entitled to a life-interest in one-third of the real property of which her husband was seised at his death, undisposed of by will, thereby assimilating this part of the law to the law of copyhold property. He should propose that a widow should be entitled to dower out of the trust estates of which the husband dies seised, which she is not at present; and which would be an ample compensation for any loss widows might sustain by the other part of his proposition. The next subject to which he wished to call the attention of the House was that of Courtesy; —that is, the right the husband has to the lands of his wife on her death. At present he was entitled to the whole of her land for his life, if he has had issue by her, and although her children by a former husband might be wholly unprovided for. He proposed that the husband should be entitled to the whole of the wife's lands for his life, whether there were issue or not. Such was the disposition of the property naturally prompted by affection, and it was absurd to say, that it should depend upon there being issue of the marriage, a rule founded in the customs of feudal times. But children by a former marriage ought to have some provision from the mother's land; and he, therefore, proposed in such cases that the husband should have a life-interest only in one half, the other half going at once to such children. Fines and Recoveries were the next subject to which he should allude, and it was most marvellous, that such barbarous modes of conveying property should have so long held their ground. It could only be accounted for, by lawyers, like other people, being reconciled to anything, however absurd and extravagant, to which they had been long accustomed; by many persons, having a private interest in preventing a reformation in the law; and by a number of officers depending for fees on Fines and Recoveries. Many persons in the profession were attached to the present system, and he had heard of one who said, he would rather suffer death than consent to its abolition. He meant to propose a mode of conveyance, by means of which a person would be able to accomplish in a few hours that which it required a considerable time to do by fine or recovery, and which was accompanied with great expense. There was another subject, respecting Property and Estates, he alluded to the limitation of right, upon which the law was most ineffective. Nominally, there was a limitation in the right of possession for sixty years, which was considered to give a good right; but, in consequence of the state of the law, even after sixty years' possession, a claimant might start up and deprive a man of his property. In case an alienation had taken place, or in case of lunacy on the part of a possessor, this period was held to be not sufficient. Thus, in every transfer of property, it was necessary to look into the title for a long series of years; which was attended with great expense, and great anxiety. He meant to propose, that the period of limitation should be twenty years, and that the undisputed possession of property for that time should, with some exceptions in cases of disabilities, give a complete legal title. Under some circumstances of dispute, this term was to be extended to forty years, but at the end of that period the title was to be unassailable. The hon. and learned Member, after complimenting Lord Tenterden for having brought in a Bill to settle the time of prescription as to Church Property, and after expressing his regret that the heads of the Church were opposed, as he had heard, to the noble and learned Lord's Bill, who was a firm and warm friend to the Church of England, concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the Descent of Real Property.

seconded the Motion. He expressed his satisfaction at the measure taken by his hon. friend, no man being more satisfied than he was, that these anomalies required to be removed, and no one was more willing than he was, that these unnecessary and antiquated forms should be removed. He was not quite certain considering that fines and recoveries were invented by lawyers to prevent property changing hands, that they ought to be wholly done away with. There were also certain persons who had vested rights under the present law which could not be taken away without compensation, and he wished, therefore, to learn from his hon. and learned friend whether he had calculated the expense of his proposed alterations.

stated, that he had the greatest confidence in the recommendations of the Commissioners, but he hoped that by none of these Bills would any patent places be created which it would be necessary hereafter for the public to buy up. He was afraid, that most of the Bills lately introduced to reform the law might be attended with some such effect. He alluded particularly to the Fraudulent Debtors' Bill which came from the other House under which receivers were appointed who in any future alteration of the law might demand compensation. He trusted that the noble Lord (Lord Al-thorp) would take care that no such places were made by any of these Bills. He saw much to approve of in the measures proposed, but he wished to reserve his opinion as to their details.

also expressed his general approbation of the measures, but suggested whether fines might not be advantageously retained. He would also take the liberty of saying, in reference to one remark which fell from his learned friend at the close of his speech, that he was one of those who thought like the heads of the Church, that the Bill introduced into the other House relative to prescription as far as it regarded Church property, might be productive of mischief. He had the highest opinion of the Law Commissioners, but he did not think himself bound to assent to their recommendations, and should therefore examine the Bills closely before he pledged himself either to support or oppose them.

approved most highly of the proposed, measures, and hoped that they might be extended with some necessary modifications to Ireland. He must at the same time say, that all the details of the measures would require to be maturely weighed, and the greatest caution ought to be used in adopting them.

also expressed his approbation of the measures, and in particular of the other Bill brought in by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the General Register Act, which he thought would greatly enhance the value of landed property. He could only attribute the opposition which had been got up out of doors to that Bill to interested motives, and trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would persevere in his plan and bring forward the Bill as soon as possible.

said, that it would be extremely unfair to the hon. member for Weymouth (Mr. F. Buxton), if any thing were permitted to take precedence of the Slavery Question to-morrow. He therefore trusted the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would use his utmost influence, to postpone the second reading of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill. Unless the Slavery Question had precedence, it would be impossible to discuss it to-morrow.

declared, that certainly no exertion should be wanting on his part to endeavour to induce the hon. and learned Gentleman to postpone his Motion. He felt himself bound in honour to the hon. member for Weymouth to do his best to secure him the precedence.

was not aware of the difference in the privilege of Government, and of individual Members; nor did he know whether Government had or had not authority in such matters [none, none.!]. But he certainly did still feel disposed to press for the second reading of the Bill.

requested to know what course was to be pursued as to the Slavery Question?

said, that the importance of the measures he wished to bring under the consideration of the House was so great, that nothing but force should compel him to yield precedence to any other; and he reminded the noble Lord near him, that he had been before disappointed in his endeavours to procure a night for the discussion.

observed, that as the Reform Bill stood for discussion in the early part of next week, it would be impossible for him to promise that any particular day should be afforded to the hon. and learned Gentleman; but as the hon. and learned Gentleman was aware that the Ministers viewed the Bills he wished to introduce in a favourable manner, he might rest assured that they would do what they could to facilitate the object he had in view.

knew so well the candour of the noble Lord, that he should feel perfectly easy at putting himself into his hands.

moved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Civil List Bill. He stated, that he had drawn up a clause according to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which he should now lay before the House, proposing to add it as a rider to the Bill. He saw no necessity for it but as it could do no harm he had complied with the suggestion.

said, that, as far as he was able to observe, he did not see any objection to such a clause. With respect to the Bill itself, he must say, that it seemed to him to differ from every one that had preceded it. This Bill, for the first time, dissociated the expenses of the Civil Government of the country from those that were required to maintain the dignity of the Crown. When he proposed the bill uniting both these objects, he had not done it merely because he desired not to depart from former precedents, though he certainly had no wish to depart from them, but because he thought that the welfare of the country would be best consulted by uniting both. In his opinion both reason and good sense required that union, for he did not think it advisable to present the Monarch of this country to the people for grants merely for his personal dignity and comfort, but as dispensing favours and offices, and as dispensing rewards for the performance of the business of the country. As this bill had presented the King in the former light only, it appeared to him objectionable. It might, indeed, be thought that at first it would be supposed the Crown had given up 400,000l. of its expenditure, but in the present state of the information of the public upon this subject, it must be clear that no one in or out of the House could suppose for a moment that such a saving had been effected. The present arrangement of the Civil List had been made at the desire of those who said they wished to be able to compare the charges of the present Civil List with those of the Civil Lists of former periods; but he believed that when the present Civil List came to be examined, those who had desired the new arrangement would have little reason to view it with approbation. So far was it from being simplified, that he would venture to assert, it was more complicated and involved than it had ever been before. In a Paper, which he unfortunately had not seen till this morning, he found that arrangements had been made for those sums which had not been provided for in the Civil List; and that circumstance alone was sufficient to show that no simplification had taken place. He would give some examples of this. In the first instance, it was intended in the present Civil List that the Crown should retain the power of superintending not only the business but the sports of the country. The Crown, therefore, had the disposal of sums of money for plate to be run for at races, and 4,500l. were annually expended in that manner, in order to encourage the breed of horses. Now that sum was made up in the following manner:—The larger portion, or sum of 2,400l., was taken from the Civil List, 1,880l. were to be voted in the Committee of Supply, and 220l. were fixed as a charge upon the Consolidated Fund; so that on one item alone, which was, strictly speaking, an item of royal expenditure, there were no less than three different sources from which the gross amount was drawn. With respect to the Yeomen Guard in Ireland, the arrangement of the payment to that body had been made for the convenience of the House, as the annual discussions on that branch of expenditure had been found highly inconvenient, yet the present Civil List Bill proposed to go back to the old system which had before been given up at the desire of the House itself. The same was the case with respect to the Royal Palaces, for which a sum of 51,400l. was to be given from the Civil List, and 1,300l. was charged upon the Consolidated Fund. With respect to charitable donations, the confusion was very great—13,200l. were to be taken from the Civil List, 4,500l. were to be voted in the Committee of Supply, and 2,250l. were charged upon the Consolidated Fund. He should ask those who were the advocates of simplification, whether these instances exhibited any improvement in that respect? It might be supposed that the expenses for the offices of the several Orders of the Garter, the Bath, and St. Patrick might be all put upon the same footing—but that was not the case; for while some were charged upon the Civil List, others were fixed upon the Consolidated Fund. Me thought, therefore, that under these circumstances those who looked for a simplified expenditure would find themselves much mistaken. The real amount of the Civil List was what it had been before. The provision for the King was much the same as that which he had proposed. He felt numerous objections to the present Bill; but, as he thought that the grant to the Crown ought to be made in as gracious and considerate a manner as possible, he should offer no objection to it; and, therefore, he cordially gave his approbation to the Bill notwithstanding its many defects.

said, that if he had expected the right hon. Gentleman would have made this charge, he would have brought down papers that would have answered it. The whole of the last Civil List Bill was one mass of incongruities. He wondered that the right hon. Gentleman could stand up in his place and defend such a plan of the Civil List, against one which was founded on a plain and intelligible principle. The former mode of conducting the public accounts had been one mass of mystification, so that he did not wonder the right hon. Gentleman should feel regret that the plan was now so altered, that any man out of doors could understand what had formerly been quite unintelligible to the greater number of Members of that House. The right hon. Gentleman was in a dilemma, for no man could take up the present Bill without knowing what was the amount of that branch of the expenditure of the country, but if he had looked at former Civil Lists, or at that which had been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman in the beginning of last November, he would find that it was impossible to discover any one principle of classification. He (Mr. Hume) bad never been able to understand the principle of the distinction made with respect to various public officers, some of whose salaries were charged upon the Civil List, while others were differently provided for. He was so far from agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman as to the impropriety of the present principle of the Civil List, that he thought it was for the honour and interest of the Monarchy that all the items of the Civil List should be fairly laid before the public, so that the people should not attribute to the King an expenditure with which his Majesty had really nothing to do. Under the old system the public saw 1,057,000l. voted for the Civil List, and great numbers among them believed that all that amount was required for the personal expenses of the Monarch, for his Majesty and his household. The change effected was calculated to put an end to this error. The right hon. Gentleman was the only man in the country who thought that the change was not beneficial. The late Pension List was not, as it affected to be, the Pension List of the Crown, but of the creatures of the Ministry; and pensions were granted to ladies among the rest, most of which pensions, he would venture to say, were unknown to his Majesty. He regretted that the present Civil List so far imitated the old as to retain the Pension List. He had wished to get rid of it, and was sorry to say, that he had been left in a miserable minority on the point. He was, however, so thoroughly convinced of the necessity of removing this Pension List from the other items of the Civil List, that when the opportunity occurred he should move to reduce the amount of the sum to be granted to his Majesty by the whole amount required for these pensions. He trusted, that the House would then show that they wished to conform to the opinion of the country on that point. He thought that the present Government was entitled to the thanks of that House and of the people, for the reduction they had effected in the hitherto overwhelming amount of money paid for our Embassies to Foreign Courts. The expenditure on that head had never been in the least degree diminished during the two last reigns, and the salaries, by being fixed in the Civil List, could not be interfered with by that House, which could not review a grant for the Civil List after it had been once made. He thanked the present Ministers, therefore, for having so far adopted the recommendation of the Committee, as to put the salaries of Ambassadors on a footing that would enable that House to regulate them in future. The salaries of the present Ministers were about to' be reduced, and the Ministers would take care that the salaries of other men should be brought under the review of that House, which never could have taken place under the old system. The next item to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) objected, was the taking of 100,000l. from the Irish establishment; and it was very true, that if the Civil List of the right hon. Gentleman had been carried, the House would have had no control over that part of the expenditure. After that, the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to the hereditary payments in Scotland, 51,000l.; but he (Mr. Hume) should be glad to know why any of them should be placed out of the cognizance of Parliament? The present arrangement, by which the Civil List beyond the control of Parliament was reduced from 970,000l. to 510,000l., was a most important advantage to the community; and he hoped,. therefore, that the House would sanction the change. He hardly knew how to notice seriously the remarks to which the right hon. Gentleman had been driven, when he lamented so bitterly 4,000l. hitherto given, as he contended, for the encouragement of the breed of horses, should be taken from the Civil List. The Civil List, as it formerly existed, was certainly well calculated for the encouragement of the breed of another and an inferior description of animal? but, under the new system, he (Mr. Hume) saw no sufficient reason for retaining even the plates for running horses. It was not it that the public money should be so spent, while the people were starving; and if country gentlemen liked to have sport, it ought to be at their own expense. After lamenting over the decay in the breed of horses, the right hon. Gentleman very naturally descended to the Board of Works, and bemoaned the change that was to be made in this department.

interposed to save time; he had not bemoaned the Board of Works, but merely expressed an opinion that the new arrangement would not simplify the matter. His remark regarding the breed of horses was of the same nature.

was very glad to find, that he was mistaken on the point, but really the right hon. Gentleman had no very extraordinary talent at rendering himself intelligible. Perhaps he (Mr. Hume) was in error also as to the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's positions; he had understood him to bemoan the departure from the good old sinecure system of our ancestors; but, after all, he might be well satisfied with its abolition; and he (Mr. Hume) should sit down in the expectation that the vote in favour of the third reading of the Bill would be unanimous.

observed, that if hon. Members would so condescend, it would be easy at any time to obtain such a triumph as had been just achieved by the hon. member for Middlesex. The cheers of the three or four hon. Gentlemen round him were certainly an ample recompense, and worthy of his ambition. He was not aware that he had made any admission in favour of the alteration in the Civil List, which, among others, was open to the great leading objection, that the money was to be paid out of three funds instead of one. This change was anything but a simplification.

admitted, that the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward two or three instances of want of simplicity in the present plan, but he had studiously omitted the enormous confusion of his own miscalled arrangement. To show the doubt that was thus created, he would mention, that when he (Lord Althorp) came into office, he did not know the amount of his own salary—a point upon which, probably, the right hon. Gentleman was not equally in the dark. He had thought that it was something more than 3,358l. a year, but to his great surprise he found that it was 5,000l. a year. The difficulty arose out of the complication of accounts. It had been thought right to separate from the Civil List all that related to the general government of the country, and this point had been gradually approached ever since the passing of Mr. Burke's bill. The five heads into which the Civil List was divided were these— first, Privy Purse; second, Salaries of the Household; third, Expenses of the Household; fourth, Special Services; fifth, Pensions; and what had been done regarding running horses was merely this— to remove from the Civil List the sums paid for this purpose in Ireland and Scotland. It would be for the House to decide whether it would continue this arrangement, for it was one of the benefits of the proposed change, that if it were hereafter found disadvantageous, a different course might be adopted. One principle on which Ministers had proceeded was, to let the people see that the enormous sum hitherto supposed to be expended by the King, was not in fact all for the support of royalty. For this reason, the sum for charities in Ireland and Scotland had been removed from the Civil List, and the salaries of the Board of Works would also be voted in Supply. He did not mean to say, that the accounts were now as simple as they might be rendered, but he contended that they were a great improvement upon those which the right hon. Gentleman had laid upon the Table.

said, that the noble Lord might have readily ascertained what his salary was, through the patents in his office. The noble Lord, in addition to being Chancellor of the Exchequer, held an appointment as a Lord of the Treasury; and thus the salary was enhanced to the amount the noble Lord had mentioned.

observed, that in the country, nothing was less understood than the payments for the Civil List; it was generally supposed that the King had, hitherto, had the uncontrolled command of 1,200,000l. per annum. Such, in future, would not be the fact, even with regard to the much smaller sum of 510,000l.; but of this he was sure—that the people of England would think the benefit of a Kingly Government cheaply purchased at that expense.

gave notice, that after the Bill had been read a third time, and before it was passed, he would move an Amendment, to render it more precisely what it pretended to be.

was astonished that even the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) should be so bigotted to his own plan as not to admit at once the superior advantages of that by which it was superseded. The Monarch was thus relieved from a degree of odium that hitherto had been most unjustly attached to him. It was true that in the Committee he (Mr. Maberly) had supported the proposition of the hon. member for Middlesex, for discontinuing pensions even to the reduced amount of 75,000l. upon the Civil List. He still adhered to that opinion; but he saw, nevertheless, the clear benefits of the other parts of the measure of the noble Lord, and he was ready also to admit the impossibility of making calculations on this subject with nicety so as to avoid the necessity of a contingent account to the amount of 5,000l. or even 10,000l. If the present Government had proposed a plan for the Civil List much more ob- jectionable than that in the Bill, he should have felt himself called upon to support them, as the servants of a Monarch who had already done so much for his people, and who, by the great measure now pending, was about to confer on the country one of the greatest blessings it had received from the hands of a Monarch, since the era of Magna Charta. No Government had ever stood so well, or deserved to stand so well, with the public, or had redeemed its pledges so fully and so faithfully.

proposed a Clause, to provide expressly that the charges in Schedules 2, 3, and 8, and no others, should be chargeable upon the Civil List.

proposed a short clause, by way of rider, to the effect that no branch of the Civil Government was to be provided for by the Bill.

referred to a motion he had formerly made regarding the department of the Woods and Forests, and stated his intention hereafter to renew it. His principal object in rising was, however, that it might not be supposed by his silence that he concurred in the arrangement made in the Bill regarding the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. He thought himself at liberty, though he assented to the Bill, to bring forward any motion he might think proper hereafter on the subject of Crown Lands.

was afraid that, under this new Bill, part of the sum of 510,000l. a-year might be applied to swell the salaries of the great Officers of State, instead of being devoted, as it was intended, to support the dignity and provide for the" comfort of the Crown. He must also complain of the disrespectful mode in which Ministers had treated the Report of the Select Committee on the Civil List; they had, in fact, thrown it in the face of the Members, and had declared that they would not be bound by any of its recommendations.

said, his hon. friend was in error. The excess in any branch of the Civil List might be appropriated to make good the deficiencies on any other. It was quite a mistake to represent the Government as flinging the report of the Committee in the face of the Members.

also regretted that Ministers had not attended to the recommendation of retrenchment contained in the Report of the Select Committee. The country had a right to expect that every practicable saving, however small, should be made. Nevertheless, he supported the measure, for the reason stated by the hon. member for Abingdon (Mr. Maberly), that Ministers deserved well of their country for the great improvement they were about to effect in the Representation.

rose for the purpose of proposing that something be struck out of the Bill, the effect of which would be, to take from 510,000l. the whole proposed amount of the Civil List, the sum of 75,000l. allowed for pensions. This reduction would leave 435,000l. per annum Nott, at the disposal of the King, and would relieve him from a degree of painful responsibility in the distribution of the Royal bounty. He held in his hand a paper shewing the individuals to whom George 4th had granted pensions, and hence it appeared that many had been given to persons whose services had deserved no reward. Did hon. Members consider how much the pensions had increased the National Debt? In the late reign the amount of the sums granted in the way of pensions in England was 890,000l.., in Ireland 194,000l., and in Scotland 349,000l.; making altogether 1,939,000l. paid in pensions, not one in ten of which was merited. Notwithstanding all the pledges which various Administrations had made of economy, here was nearly two millions of the public money thrown to the dogs, for scarcely one of these pensions was merited. The pensions, instead of being rewards for services, were given for other purposes; for the instances were few in which any services whatever had been performed. He altogether reprobated the system of giving pensions, except for great services and meritorious conduct; and it would be far better to pay people liberal salaries, and compel them to provide, out of those salaries, for their maintenance in their old age. In America they gave no pensions to public servants, and yet public business was as efficiently performed as in any other country whatever. He should, therefore, move that the sum of 435,000l. be inserted in the Bill instead of the sum of 510,000l. thus excluding the sum of 75,000l. appropriated for pensions.

seconded the amendment, and said, that he was induced to do so because he had presented no less than sixty petitions to that House, praying for a reduction in the public expenditure; and he thought few items called for reduction more loudly than those on the Pension-list. He should divide the House upon the amendment of the hon. member for Middlesex; for he was aware that out of doors those discussions were called sham debates in which no division took place.

said, that he had so often stated his opinions upon this matter, that he should decline, at the present time, to enter into any arguments on the subject. He should only remind the House, that the present amount of pensions was only about half what had been formerly proposed, and he trusted, therefore, that, it would be considered that a sufficient reduction had been made.

regretted that he should be under the necessity of voting against Ministers on the present occasion. He could not avoid doing so, however, when he witnessed the distress of the country. No less than 300 persons had recently been summoned before him, for the purpose of being compelled to pay the taxes; and their poverty was such that they were wholly unable to do so, unless indulgence was granted to them. He was obliged to give them fourteen days' time, or else to send them to prison or seize their goods. When he had witnessed all this so recently, he felt bound to vote against the application of money, wrung from such persons, to persons who had no right to it, and who were wholly undeserving of it.

said, he understood the hon. member for Middlesex to contend that no pensions should be granted until they were, in the first instance, submitted to the consideration of that House. He was opposed to his proposition, for there would be no economy in it. On the contrary, if every pension were to be submitted to party discussion from time to time in that House, it would be found in the end that the Pension-list would be far greater in amount than the sum now proposed. The amendment involved a most important principle. If it was meant to be contended that the Crown should be stripped altogether of the power of re- warding merit by means of a pension, without applying to that House, he must say that he could not consent to such a proposition. At present these pensions were not beyond the control of Parliament, for any Member might call for a return of the manner in which the funds had been distributed. He gave this explanation lest a silent vote should be misconstrued; and he meant to oppose the amendment on principle.

said, that he could not agree with the argument of the hon. member for Colchester, that submitting pensions to be canvassed by that House, as guardians of the public purse, before they were granted, could have the effect of increasing their amount. To hold such a doctrine was actually a libel on the Parliament, for, imperfect as it was in its formation, it still could not be said that it would so wholly abandon its duty. It should be remembered that it was more than probable, at least it was the general expectation, that we should have a new Parliament within the year. Now these pensions were granted for the life of the King; and as every one must expect, as well as hope, that his Majesty would live much longer than a year, it would be far better to establish the Civil List without the pensions and leave them to be dealt with by the new Parliament called under a new and a better system, in which Parliament they would doubtless meet with proper investigation.

said, that he should feel it his duty, as a guardian of the public purse, to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Middlesex. He felt confident that if the matter were to be submitted to Parliament, though the pensioners would be liberally dealt with where pensions were merited, yet a stop would be put to the wasteful and unwarrantable expenditure which had been carried on under the present system.

then called the attention of the House to the vote of 45,000l. for three Princes of the Royal Blood. He wished that this vote had been contained in another Bill, for he did not see how it was connected with the Civil List. He should be glad if all the items which were clearly exclusive of the Civil List had been kept out of it. The three items to which he al- luded were 15,000l. to the Duke of Cumberland, over and above the sum of 6,000l. to Prince George; 15,000l.. to the Duke of Cambridge; and 15,000l. to the Duke of Sussex. Three times he had known resolutions passed in Committees to the effect that it was necessary to bring back all these allowances in a degree proportionate to the old value of the currency. When prices were very high, in the year 1806, the House of Commons, expressly on that ground, granted an addition of 6,000l. a year to the salaries of each of the Princes of the Blood, and the state of the country at that time gave those Princes a fair claim to such increase of their salaries. In 1822 that House had moved an Address to the Crown, that all salaries might be reduced as he had stated. A Committee which had recently sat had reduced the salaries of Ministers; and, upon similar grounds, he thought the House was called upon to reduce also the salaries of Royal Dukes, now that prices were below what they were in 1806. He thought they ought to be dealt with in the same manner as other individuals. The hon. Member then moved that the salaries of the three Royal Princes I whom he had named should be reduced in j the sum of 5,000l. each. They had been j raised in 1806 from 12,000l. to 18,000l.,! but he now moved, that they should be brought back to 13,000l. each.

admitted, that it was the province of the House to reduce salaries; but, in this instance, the House had not the power to do it. These particular allowances were by Act of Parliament, the 18th of George 3rd, which empowered him to divide 60,000/. amongst his younger children; the grant not to take effect till after his death. This was part of the hereditary revenues which it was not in the power of his present Majesty to give up to the public; and it was on that ground only that this particular charge came into the Civil List.

agreed that the reduction could not take place without repealing an Act of Parliament. He should be sorry to take away a moderate allowance granted by Act of Parliament. He thought his Majesty's Ministers had distinctly redeemed all the pledges they had given to the country; he knew that further measures of economy were in progress, and he had the greatest confidence in Ministers.

would vote against the hon. member for Middlesex, as he did not think the sum granted too much.

said, that these salaries, as he well remembered, had been increased in the year 1806 or 1807, on account of the high price of provisions, and ought now to be reduced.

observed, that as his motion could not effect his object, he would withdraw it.

moved an Amendment, that the second class be reduced to 118,700l., and that there should be added to the third class the sum deducted from the second class, 11,300l. He could not do otherwise than complain of the conduct of Government, who in the course they were pursuing with respect to the Civil List, were doing precisely the same thing which lost the former Ministers their places. They were acting in direct opposition to the recommendation of the Select Committee, who called for a certain reduction, though a small one. In wishing to take from the second, and to add to the third class, he was anxious to provide for the splendor and dignity of the Crown, instead of making a large provision for noblemen whose incomes were already very large.

suggested that the Motion ought to stand as follows: — "That 130,300l. be omitted, and 118,700l. be inserted in its stead."

said, that the Motion was not, in fact, diminishing the amount of the grant. The object of the Motion was, to prevent his Majesty granting salaries to household officers as they hitherto had been granted. The Bill, as it stood, did not prevent his Majesty from doing it, nor did it compel him to do it. He certainly never had pledged himself one way or the other that salaries should be reduced, or kept to what they were. He wished it to be left to the discretion of his Majesty. If his Majesty chose to reduce the salaries, there would be a surplus to be applied to the Third Class.

was surprised that the gallant Colonel had made a proposition so unbecoming in the House to adopt, and so insulting to his Majesty—viz. to take it out of the power of his Majesty to make such disbursements as he might please. The House, he was sure, would not approve of any proposal of the kind. It was, in fact, saying, "We will give you so much, but we will restrict you from the absolute disposal of that sum of money, which must be expended as we think fit."

said, that as the late Ministers had gone out upon this question, he thought his Majesty's present Government would be acting a most inconvenient part if they did not uphold the decision of the Committee. He would move that a sum of 12,000l. be deducted from the Second Class of 119,000l., and he should not think of transferring it to any other class. He should not be deterred from dividing on the question now, because the Reform measure was coming on next week. He concluded by moving, as an amendment, that 11,500l. be deducted from the Second Class.

said, that although the sum was small, it would be great in the eyes of the people. He hoped his Majesty's Ministers would not let it go forth to the country that on this occasion they had resisted this small economy.

said, the proposition of the gallant Officer would not benefit the country at large, as it would only shift the expense from the second to the third class, at the same time that it would appear most ungracious to his Majesty.

said, he would vote for the original proposition.

said, that as the proposition of the hon. member for Londonderry went to remove entirely the sum of 11,500l. from the aggregate of the Civil List, and not merely to shift it from Class Two to Class Three he should support it, because he would never sanction the principle on which Ministers were acting—that of opposing the recommendation of a Select Committee.

wished, before the discussion proceeded further, to explain to the House the situation in which it was placed. The first proposition was, to take 11,500l. from the Second Class, and add it to the Third Class, and this they could do. But then came the second proposition, which was, to take away altogether the sum of 11,500l. Now, as the whole amount of the Civil List was voted, if this amendment were agreed to, it would have the effect of leaving that sum wholly unappropriated.

said, that on the principles of economy and reform, which he had always maintained in and out of the House, he must support the amendment of his hon. friend, the member for Londonderry. In supporting his amendment, he did not conceive he was in any degree restricting the comforts or conveniences of the Royal person. If he did, he would not support it.

thought it not derogatory from the dignity of the Monarch, or in any manner lessening those comforts which the people of this country were disposed to allow him, to give a vote in support of the recommendation of the Select Committee,—that 11,529l. should be reduced from the salaries of the officers of the Second Class. The House, he admitted, was not bound by the recommendation of the Select Committee, but he thought some cogent reason should be given why it should not be attended to; and he, not having heard any such reasons, would give his vote in favour of the amendment.