said, he wished to mention a circumstance which most nearly affected the rights of a Gentleman who had been elected a Member of that House. The Gentleman he alluded to had been elected for the town of Newport, in the Isle of Wight, and had been returned to that House under the name of "John Hope Vere, of Craigie Hall," when, in fact, his real name was James Joseph Hope Vere. While the mistake existed unconnected, the Gentleman in question could not take his seat; and it therefore became necessary to mention the matter to the House, that their pleasure might be taken upon it. He (the Lord Advocate) was perfectly able to speak to the fact, that this was the Gentleman who had been returned for the place in question, and there were many other hon. Members equally able to give their testimony to the same point.

said, that all the House required in such cases was the proof necessary to indentify the Gentleman applying to the House with the Gentleman who had been elected. That proof, it seemed, was abundant in the present instance, not only from the knowledge of Members of that House and of others, but from the description of the residence which, in the return, exactly answered to that of the hon. applicant; and residence was a most important part of description, especially with respect to Scotch Gentlemen, who were as often known by the names of their residences as of their families. Under these circumstances the course would be, upon sufficient identification of the Member, to call the Clerk of the Crown to the Table, and direct him to amend the return. Ordered accordingly.

presented a Petition from the working-classes being members of the north west division of the National Political Union, meeting at Marylebone-lane, complaining of the restrictions which particular taxes now imposed upon the Liberty of the Press. The petition he stated to be couched in very respectful language, which, however, condemned most strongly the existence of these taxes. The hon. Member referred to the various shackles which, at different times, had been imposed upon the Press, and particularly to the Six Acts which had been passed some years ago, which, in his opinion, ought to be repealed, and which were a blot upon the Statute Book. If that House did not repeal them, it would disgrace itself. He wished the Press to be allowed to publish truth, and only to be punished when it published falsehood.

did not rise to oppose the reception of the petition, though it was perhaps irregular to receive it; but with a view of showing the House what sort of ideas the Society from which this petition had emanated entertained, and what sort of publications they were, against which the Acts complained of operated, he would beg leave to read to the House some extracts of the publications which he believed the Society fostered. The first was a publication entitled," The Poor Man's Guardian" and he would read from it a specimen of the manner in which these writers spoke of the laws they now asked to have repealed. "We maintain that the act of Messrs. Capet, Polignac, &c, which so deservedly lost Charles 10th of France his throne, and consigned Polignac, &c, to imprisonment, was not more arbitrary nor atrocious than the present proceedings of Messrs. Guelph, Grey, Brougham, Denman, &c. The French tyrants intended to destroy the liberty of the press (which is the very key and safeguard of every other liberty) —the English tyrants intend the same. What difference is there then between the act of Capet, &c, and this Act of Guelph, &c.? Why there is this, and this only difference. The act of Capet, &c, was the act of a hero, and the Act of Guelph, &c., is the Act of a dastardly assassin. But William Guelph and his minions, although they think they have the right, and also the power, to 'do as they please with their own' people, yet have not courage enough to bite with their own teeth. They have not courage to fight with their own weapons. They will not sully their own bright sword, but they will mangle us with the teeth of a deceased bloodhound. They will stab us with the dagger of a dead assassin. Cowardly tyrants!" The following was the advice given to the people. "Charles Capet and his minions deliberated and ordered, or caused their armed slaves to violate, in endeavouring to suppress their popular papers, not the laws, but the rights and liberties of the whole people of France; and William Guelph and his minions have, doubtless, deliberated and ordered, or caused the violation, not of the laws, but the rights and liberties of the whole people of England, by their present endeavours to destroy these penny papers. The people of France resisted the tyrannical attempt, hurled the tyrant from the Throne, and caged, as they would tigers, his minions. And are the people of England such sorry slaves, that they can only talk and sing of freedom? Will not they, too, resist the law of these tyrants? Will not they, too, have a glorious revolution? We must resist it, for, be the laws binding on you, they are not on us. We have not consented to them. We have always condemned them. We have never author- ised, but have ever denied the power of any man, or any set of men, or any William Guelph, or any other Guelph, to control our actions and make laws for us. We deny such power now, and we will not be bound by their laws." In another publication, called The Republican; or, the Sovereignty of the People, he found the case described of the Editor of the Poor Man's Guardian, was the case that called forth the petition. The description was as follows: —The friend Castlereagh's ordinances.— Fellow Citizens—An honest British Citizen, for having published untaxed useful knowledge, tending to open the eyes of the bamboozled multitude, has been summoned to Bow-street office, there put on a footing with pickpockets, and has been condemned to pay the penalty mentioned in the Act of Parliament. But Citizen Hetherington does not acknowledge the validity of the Act of Parliament under which he has been convicted. It is not binding on him. He has nothing to do with it except to defy it. And why does he defy it? Because he had no Representative in the Parliament in which this villanous ordinance was passed. He considers the damnable knowledge-taxing mandate of the borough mongering parliamentarians as much binding on the unrepresented people of England, as the contemptible, impotent, ordinances of Charles Capet were binding on the people of France. He who approves or enforces them must be a devilish malignant fiend, and ought to be hunted out of civilized society. He who submits to them is a contemptible, abject and cowardly slave—a disgrace to his country, and an enemy to his fellow-citizens. Acting on this incontrovertible principle, he defies the ordinances of self-elected tyrants. He appeals to his fellow-citizens to support him in his honest, public-spirited exertions. His publications were instituted for the sole benefit of the cheated, plundered, and insulted multitude? to them he appeals for protection against the diabolical machinations of the villains in power." The hon. Member observed, that this was a specimen of the knowledge, the wide circulation of which was so much desired, and that was a specimen too of the light in which these petitioners viewed what they called the Liberty of the Press. There were other publications of the same class. There was The Prompter of Saturday, June 18th, which contained a paragraph directed against all Kings and Priests whatever, and expressly declaring, that the writer did not exempt from his censures the present King of England. "I make no exception. The Royal Family of England is as great an evil in England as the Royal Family of Spain is in Spain—of Portugal in Portugal—of France in France—of Russia in Russia—of Turkey in Turkey…. With the voice of a man, with the spirit of a good man and a citizen, struggling to be free, I cry out to all Europe, and more particularly to my own countrymen, down with Kings, Priests, and Lords…. Either in war or in peace, Kingcraft, Priestcraft, or Lordcraft, is a system of murder, plunder, and spoliation—then down with Kings, Priests, and Lords." He must say, that for himself, he differed from the hon. member for Preston, and was not at all inclined to give his assistance to the dissemination of works of this kind. It seemed that some Stamp prosecutions had been instituted against some of these publications. All that he regretted was, that those prosecutions had not been of a different sort, and that, instead of being instituted by the Stamp Office, they had not been commenced under the direction of the King's Attorney-General, for the offence of having published such seditious language. He hoped, that this matter would soon be taken up in the proper quarter; for if it were not, he should most assuredly take an early opportunity of putting the subject into the shape of a motion.

said, he had a Petition of a similar nature to that presented by the hon. member for Preston, to present to the House, though from different persons, but he would take that opportunity of stating his sentiments upon it. Hitherto those extracts, quoted by the hon. Member in his enthusiastic zeal, had been read by only one or two hundred persons, but now he might congratulate the hon. Member that they would be read by thousands. All the prosecutions now undertaken by the Government were prosecutions under laws which the members of that Government themselves condemned. There was not one member of the present Government, except, indeed, the Secretary for the Home Department(Viscount Melbourne), who had manfully supported these Bills; there was not one member of the Government who had not given the measures under which those prosecutions were instituted his deter- mined opposition. The noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), and every other member of the present Government, had raised their voices, loud and often, against those enactments, which, in his own opinion, should have been repealed long ago. For his part he had obeyed those laws because they were the law, but he obeyed them reluctantly. The laws under which those prosecutions were instituted were against the very essence of the Constitution. The publication of conflicting opinions, against which those prosecutions were directed, was calculated to elicit the truth, and he was happy that those laws had been so long a dead letter. The House ought not to forget the origin of those laws which the hon. Member now thought ought to be enforced. After the melancholy catastrophe which occurred at Manchester, in which he would not say hundreds, but certainly a score of his Majesty's subjects were destroyed, those laws were enacted, which were known under the name of the Six Acts. Those Acts he considered a disgrace to the country; and he had hoped that the present Ministry would not have been six months in office without repealing them. As to the particular Act under which those prosecutions were instituted, when it was brought forward by the then Attorney-general, he candidly declared, that he could not defend the measure on its own merits, because he felt that it was against the liberty of the Press, and he believed the liberty of the Press to be essential to the preservation of the liberty of the country. He called upon the House, therefore, to take the Six Acts as one measure, of which this Bill was a part; and upon that ground alone the Bill was carried through Parliament. When the hon. Member opposite, therefore, who had expatiated at such length on these publications, called upon the Ministry to act upon this measure, he called upon them to act in contradiction to the opinions they had given when they occupied the Opposition benches. On the 5th of December, 1819, the present Lord Chancellor (Lord Brougham), then a Member of the House of Commons, stated, that, in his opinion, the Bill under which those prosecutions were instituted went "to abridge the liberty of the Press, which he conceived to be the great pillar of the Constitution,"^✶ and, therefore, that

^✶ Hansard's Debates, vol. xli. p. 705.

he could not suffer it to pass without distinctly stating his objections to it. The present member for Hampshire (Sir James Macdonald) at the same time stated his opinion in very forcible language. After saying very justly, that a more important measure was never brought before Parliament, he added, "the services rendered by the public Press to the cause of the country throughout the late war, were scarcely calculable; and, yet, upon this Press, it was now proposed to impose a most galling chain." ^✶ The hon. Member also said, "He held it to be a primary principle of the English Constitution, that an Englishman might publish what he pleased on his own responsibility; but now, for the first time, it was required of him to find others to share in the responsibility. While one spark of the spirit of liberty remained in the country such measures could not be tolerated."† The members of the present Government, not only opposed these Bills by the expression of their opinions, but also recorded their feelings by frequent divisions against them. Was it a matter of surprise, therefore, that those Members, now that they were become Ministers, should be against prosecutions under this Statute. The only surprise which he felt was, that the Act should still be allowed to disgrace the Statute Book of the country; and he could tell the hon. Member, that if he thought to stifle discussion, or to stop the progress of information, he came too late. The day was past when he could hope to have ignorance for his supporter, or to muzzle the people of England. The hon. Member, or any one else, might publish what he pleased, in an octavo volume, provided that it exceeded two sheets, and cost more than 6d.; but the present law refused to grant the same liberty to any one who published at 2d. or 3d., no matter how valuable, how moral, or how religious, the character of the publication. The law, therefore, operated as a tax against the poor man, leaving the rich to do what they pleased. He fully agreed with what had been stated, not only by Sir James Macdonald, but by nearly every one of those who occupied the Ministerial benches, that this law was a disgrace to the country. Mr. Primrose, a Gentleman not now in the House, laid down his opinions on the passing of this

^✶ Hansard's Debates, vo xli. p. 1322.

† Ibid. p. 1323.

Act, in a manner which no man could peruse without advantage; and even Mr. Canning, who was never the advocate of popular measures, declared that nothing but urgent necessity could induce him to give his consent to such a measure, and that he gave it, not to the measure taken separately, but as one of several measures taken as a whole, as stated by Sir John Copley, who was then Solicitor-general, and a Member of that House. The hon. Member, he was told, was an advocate for educating and teaching the poor in another country; but where was the use of teaching to read, if publishing was prevented. Publishing was often the only means of eliciting truth, and freedom of publication promoted discussion on any opinions that were brought forward. If any hon. Member found that the arguments he used were misrepresented, and falsified by sophistical statements, it was his duty to make the best answer he could; but, as things at present stood, he could not do so without subjecting himself to the penalties of the law. The consequence was, that mischievous publications were often allowed to maintain undisturbed possession of the public mind, because any one attempting to answer them was liable to prosecution, if his answer consisted of less than two sheets. The present Government ought to remove the shackles upon the public Press, instead of being called upon to prosecute persons connected with it. He (Mr. Hume) was one of those who joined in blaming the Duke of Wellington's Government for ruining an individual by prosecutions; but that Government had never disgraced itself by prosecuting small publishers, as the present Ministry had done. There was not one person prosecuted for publishing without a stamp under the Duke of Wellington's Government, which was the ground of prosecution now. The predecessors of the present Ministry, with great credit to themselves, refrained from prosecuting. He (Mr. Hume) held in his hand several publications winch took place under that Administration, but which he should not read, for he would not be the medium of disseminating poison. If the 60th of George 3rd, chaps. viii. and ix., were repealed, however, all those publications might be answered. All cheap publications, however, were not mischievous; many of them disseminated most im- portant truths among the community. That strange opinions should sometimes be put forward in those works did not derogate from their general utility. But what he objected to particularly was, that noxious publications under the present state of the law, could not be answered in a cheap form. This he had felt in one case himself, where he wished to answer a publication, but upon taking the opinion of Mr. Tindal, then a Member of the House, that learned Gentleman said, that no such publication could take place without the liability of prosecution under the Six Acts. He had always contended, and was disposed still to contend, that it was best to let ultra papers have their run, and exhaust themselves. To put down free discussion, however, was, in effect, to allow ignorance to have the upper hand, and to encourage mischievous publications. He was for eliciting truth, and truth was only to be elicited by free discussion, which could not take place unless all the shackles were removed from the Press. The right hon. member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel), when Secretary of State, had prosecuted Mr. Carlile for blasphemy. It was found, that the blasphemous publications increased tenfold during the prosecutions. In a few days the sale, which was then diminishing, increased to 20,000 copies; thus proving that the most ready way to disseminate noxious publications was by prosecuting the authors and publishers. The late Secretary for the Home Department, gathering experience from what had occurred, sensibly directed that no more prosecutions should be instituted against Mr. Carlile, and the consequence was, that the sale of the blasphemous publications diminished, and Mr. Carlile was brought down to the verge of poverty, so as scarcely to have the means of subsistence. When the late prosecution took place, two gentlemen applied to Government not to press the prosecution—an application which unfortunately was not complied with; but when Mr. Carlile heard of the interference of these gentlemen he was enraged. What he wanted was notoriety, and that would have been defeated if the prosecution had not been proceeded with. In consequence of the prosecution the publication increased tenfold, and an annuity of 50l. per year was settled on Mr. Carlile and his wife, to enable them to bear up against what was called the cruelty of Government. It would be the same with the publication of Hetherington. At present it was little known; but by prosecuting and endeavouring to bring it under the Stamp Act, it would be sought for in the country. Those who advocated such prosecutions said, in effect, "We will spread evil far and wide, and prevent that moral influence which may neutralise its virulence; we will spread the poison and prevent the antidote." He therefore protested against the principle as mischievous, injurious, and ill-timed. The petition which he had to present was from the National Working Union, holding its meetings at the Bazaar Coffee-house, in Castle-street. The petitioners prayed for the repeal of the remainder of the Six Acts. He concurred with them in reprobating those Acts, which had the effect of perpetuating ignorance and oppressing the poor, and when he heard an allusion made to what had been done in France, he must say, that he saw no difference between the Ordonnances of the French king, and those Acts of Parliament. He said, he saw no difference but in degree; and as the French people drove out Charles, so he hoped the English people would not be satisfied until they caused those Acts to be driven from the Statute Book. The hon. and learned Lord Advocate seemed to think that he (Mr. Hume) was not serious; but he would assure him that he was so. When he saw a poor man like Carpenter, a common printer, prosecuted, what could he think but that the object was, to keep the poor in ignorance? Charles 10th, endeavoured to put down the Press in France by an ordinance— here it was done by Act of Parliament. If there was any difference it was only in degree, and those who always opposed the measures against the Press could not have much satisfaction in witnessing such prosecutions. Let those who were not friends to discussion, but who wished to stifle truth, object to the shackles being taken off the Press, and they would be consistent; but he could not expect such principles from the present liberal Ministry. At all events, if it was right to put down one man, it was equally necessary to put clown others. Now, he understood that if Hetherington, the printer and publisher of The Poor Man's Guardian was prosecuted and sent to prison, the next morning another man would be found to supply his place, and that there were plenty of candidates willing to have the honour of being made the subjects of a prosecution by the Attorney General. The attempt, therefore, to put down those publications was hopeless, and he rejoiced at it. It was too much to expect, that when Acts were passed against sound principles they could be enforced. Every attempt to compel obedience to such measures was productive of an increase of the evil which it was proposed to remedy. The only way was, to allow Hetherington and Carpenter, and such men to proceed, and hon. Members might answer them, if they thought proper. In conclusion, he had only to hope that it would not be long before the Ministry moved for the repeal of the Six Acts.

declared, that he was not opposed to the freedom of the Press; but a distinction should be made between its freedom and its licentiousness. It was not to ignorance alone that the crimes which prevailed in this country were to be ascribed. Many offences could be traced to the abominable advice contained in those publications—advice which had brought more than one individual to expiate his crimes on the scaffold. He was not one who wished to keep the people in ignorance; but he could not see publications sent forth which sowed the seeds of disloyalty, atheism, and rebellion, without apprehension and regret. There was no country in the world where greater freedom was allowed; but he believed that, as the use of the Press was one of the greatest blessings, and the greatest glory which this country enjoyed, its abuse was the greatest curse, and the parent of many crimes.

concurred in the prayer of both petitions. He thought that the better course would be, for some hon. Member to make a motion for the repeal of those Acts. He had heard no one say a word in favour of those Statutes, nor had it been shown how they could have had one beneficial effect. He wished that a motion should be made—not in the spirit of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down—not for the purpose of censuring the Government for omitting to prosecute, but for the purpose of restoring the ancient law of the land. He hoped, therefore, that a proposition would shortly be brought forward to repeal them, and to place the Law and the Constitution upon the footing on which they stood before such innovations had been introduced. He did not think that much mischief could be occasioned by the publication to which reference had been made. He had never heard of it before, and it really appeared to him that the poison which was circulated in such a trashy publication was not calculated to affect the minds of any men except those of exceedingly great stupidity indeed. In fact, he took this publication, and things of the sort, to be a weak and miserable invention of the enemy, for the purpose of bringing discredit upon the popular party and a popular Administration. Such sinister modes of warfare were sometimes adopted, and he should not be surprised to find that this was one of them, for he did not suppose it possible that any man could suppose that any cause could be advanced by the absurd and ridiculous trash which those publications contained. He did not think that there was any danger to be apprehended from the circulation of such trash, for its only effect would be to excite the disgust of the community. The proper mode of meeting such things was, to alter the law with regard to the press, which, as it at present stood, was in his opinion of a. most evil tendency. It had been once a delightful object of contemplation to him (Sir Francis Burdett), to behold persons in the class of life to which those petitioners belonged applying the information which they possessed through the means of cheap publications, to the promotion of the welfare of the community. Such publications had been frequently sent to him, and he read them with pride, pleasure, and satisfaction, and he was sorry, that they had been put an end to by this law. There was nothing-more simple, as he had already said, than for the hon. member for Middlesex to move for the repeal of that law, and he was satisfied that his Majesty's Ministers, who in their present places had not abandoned the opinions which they had expressed while on the other side of the House, would not fail to support such a proposition. The matter appeared to him to be one of great importance, and he trusted it would be speedily brought forward, he hoped even in the course of the present session. The House was engaged, it was true, with the great and all-absorbing question of Reform, and until it was disposed of, certainly nothing of importance should be introduced. But, as soon as that great question was settled, a motion for the repeal of those laws ought to be at once brought forward, and it should have his (Sir F. Burdett's) cordial support.

said, that entertaining strong opinions on the subject of libel, he wished to make a few observations on this question. He totally differed from the hon. member for Dundalk (Mr. Gordon), who thought that his Majesty's Ministers should prosecute such publications as he had referred to. He did not think that any notice should be taken of the ridiculous and disgusting trash which such publications contained, and the only way to disseminate such trash was to take notice of it. The only true definition that any man could give of licentiousness of the Press was, the utterance of opinions of which he disapproved. Prosecutions might succeed in smothering the expression of obnoxious opinions at one time, and at one particular place, but they were sure to rise again with an additional excitement, from their having been suppressed by force. Opinions would always be met by counter-opinions, and a notion was sure to prevail that the prosecutor was in the wrong. The Press was free in England only from the unwillingness of Government to prosecute when the Government was possessed of common sense—it was free only because the Government was not disposed to curb it, and because the public mind was strongly set against the prosecution of it. The Press was free in America, and yet than it there was no part of the world in which public opinion would more certainly crush the Carliles and writers of that class. Carlile made his fortune by prosecutions. When he was prosecuted, he became rich; when he was left alone, he sunk into poverty; and he rose to competence again directly the Government attempted to crush him by means of the law. The maiden speech of the member for Dundalk against the Press would make the fortune of The Republican, and turn The Poor Man's Guardian into a rich speculation. It was an excellent puff for what the hon. Member called seditious publications, and the author must be much obliged to him for having pitied the sorrows of a poor old libeller, who must otherwise have starved.

said, that the proposition he had just heard was, that every man was to be at liberty to publish whatever excitement to crime he thought fit. Whether the excitement were conveyed in one of the papers which had been shown to him that morning, and which contained the advice to the people to put down Kings, Lords, and Priests; or whether it were to appear in the shape of advice to the labourers of Kent and Sussex to set fire to their neighbours' ricks, it appeared to him that the excitement was exactly the same. Both of them were equally guilty according to the law of this country, and he believed of every other country that ever existed. It had been urged, that if these things were conveyed in moderate language, it amounted to only fair discussion. In this case it was to be allowed to pass merely as the exposition of the hardships and grievances which the people suffered; and if it assumed the language which he had just mentioned, then the argument was, that it ought to be let alone, for it was too absurd to do any mischief. Was it, then, to be maintained, that no writing that could excite to crime was an offence, or an offence that ought to be suppressed by law? He trusted, that the House would never sanction any such absurd and dangerous doctrine.

said, that although the Government was armed with very extraordinary power in such cases, yet since he had held the situation which he had the honour to fill, nothing had been done against any publication but what any individual might legally have done who thought that such a publication ought to be put down. He had filed no ex-officio informations, but had proceeded so that the opinion of the Grand Jury should be taken in the first instance. It was on the very strong feeling of the absolute necessity of having public opinion to go along with him, that he had acted. In answer to what had just been said, he would declare, that most undoubtedly no Ministers could give up the right to proceed, when they thought it their duty to proceed, against publications which tended immediately to disturb the public peace, and to give the people an excitement to crime. Whether that excitement were in a written letter, or in a publication addressed to the passions of the multitude, in every case where immediate danger followed, he did apprehend that he was bound by the necessity of considering what was the best mode of preventing the offence. But still this was a matter of nice discretion, and one that required the greatest caution in applying the remedy. One inevitable evil of all such prosecutions was, the wider and legalised diffusion of the mischief, which was originally confined to but a small number of persons. The public could hardly desire a diffusion of those publications, which justly met with their scorn, disgust, and horror, and which but for prosecutions might be confined to a few. He had felt it his duty to weigh the several cases in the balance of conveniences and inconveniences, and he had come to the thorough conviction, that it was infinitely better to let such publications dwindle into insignificance from a want of all encouragement, than to give them a wider publicity, and to force them into notice by means of prosecutions. He would not shrink from the performance of his duty, but as a trial of this nature was to come on in a few days, he was much fettered in entering into the question before the House. If any papers of an innocent description had been proceeded against under this Stamp Act, he should say that the proceedings had been very improperly instituted, and he was not aware; of the fact. When, however, he had found that a paper of a contrary nature went on from day to day, and that a law existed by which it could be suppressed, he had no hesitation in availing himself of that Act. He objected to the passing of the law, but still, as the law was in his hands, he felt himself justified in resorting to it in this case, and this without its restraining him, or any person connected with him, from uttering their free opinions if the subject of the Six Acts should be brought before the House. No person who looked to the interest of the public in prosecutions for libels could disregard the speculations of the individual prosecuted, who calculated upon a general feeling being roused in favour of any case of supposed martyrdom. With respect to the prosecution of Carpenter, that was commenced several weeks ago, and had only been delayed by his proceedings. He endeavoured by fraud to evade an Act of Parliament, and so his conduct appeared to the Jury, who gave a verdict against him. As to Mr. Carlile having grown rich by prosecution, he knew nothing of the fact, but it showed that a sound discretion was necessary in instituting prosecutions. Anonymous letters were constantly sent to him, in order to provoke him to give the authors and. their cause the benefits of a Government prosecution. These letters attacked the highest character in the State, and all the establishments and institutions in the country—even the institution of property itself. He thought that these might be left with great safety to the public sentiment, even to the lowest classes. If the whole public were disposed to rush into palaces, and mansions, and dwellings, and destroy all the rights of property, he was sure, that prosecutions could not prevent them, but society even to the lowest degree would prevent this on the principle of self-interest, for even the poorest labourer who put his weekly wages into his pocket, would feel himself arrayed against such persons. He felt that it was throwing away the strength of Government to prosecute publications against which the public could better protect themselves.

had heard, with great satisfaction, from the right hon. Gentleman who filled the high situation of Attorney General, so complete a denial of the doctrine of the hon. member for Middlesex, and the learned and hon. Gentleman the representative of Kerry—that let what might be published, no law was necessary to check it—it might find its level by means of free discussion—all encouragements to blasphemy might pass unnoticed by the law, and that confidence might be reposed in the progress of public opinion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, his Majesty's Attorney General, had said, that he never would consent that Government should lose the power of checking such crimes by law, and of punishing the instigators; and he (Sir R. Peel) agreed with the learned Gentleman in that opinion; as he also concurred in the opinion that the law on such occasions ought not to be called into operation too frequently, and without the exercise of great caution and circumspection. He protested against the extraordinary, absurd, and wicked doctrine held in these publications, and espoused by some hon. Members, that in no case ought Government to prosecute. The hon. member for Middlesex had said, that prosecutions in many cases made the fortunes of the individuals prosecuted, and that the fact of additional publicity being given to the original matter was to be considered; but the learned Gentleman opposite, by avail-himself of the Stamp Act, had effected his object without inflicting upon the public the mischief of giving publicity to the objectionable matter. It must be most painful to any officer of the Crown to appear to connive at such a person as Carlile and his infamous publications; but the Attorney General had judged between the evil of perpetual prosecutions and of his apparent connivance, and he had been satisfied that more advantage was to be derived to the public from this apparent indifference or connivance, than from a series of improvident prosecutions. The publications alluded to were calculated to rouse the just indignation of society. When windows were broken by a riotous mob, it was insinuated that persons adverse to Reform had joined the crowd, and had effected the mischief, in order to cast an obloquy on the other party; and now that these infamous publications were set forth and acknowledged by the authors, up rose the hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster, and insinuated that other parties were at the bottom of these works. The hon. Baronet must be aware that the persons whose names were put to the publications were the authors of them. The hon. member for Middlesex had called himself the great advocate for the diffusion of truth and knowledge. He (Sir R. Peel) would agree, that constitutional knowledge was a very good thing; but when he heard this great advocate for constitutional knowledge inform the public of England that there was no difference between the ordinances of Charles 10th, for suppressing the Press, and the English Six Acts, he must confess, that he had great distrust in those doctrines, and he could not expect that great benefits would result from a diffusion by the Press of what this great advocate of knowledge might utter. He had thought the hon. member for Middlesex so wise, that he would have proceeded to advise the people of England to do something; or other. He had expected that the hon. Member would have excited the people of England to follow the example of the people of France, and to perform some tremendous acts; and he had felt greatly relieved when the hon. Member contented himself with recommending them to chase the statutes from the Statute-book. Did the hon. Member, who had been selected as the Representative of the intelligence of the metropolitan county, see no distinction between Acts of Parliament constitutionally passed, and formally ratified by the three branches of the Legis- lature, and the Ordinances of Charles 10th, passed in defiance of the Legislature, and in destruction of the Constitution? He would recommend the hon. Member to refrain from drawing parallels between what he appeared not to be thoroughly acquainted with. He should refrain from saying more until the whole question came regularly before the House, which he supposed it would; and he hoped that, in the meahwhile, it would receive the serious consideration of Members. He did hope also that his Majesty's Government would revise the opinion they formerly maintained —an opinion which they maintained upon less information than they might now be supposed to possess, being in office. He hoped, then, with their present information and with the knowledge which they must possess of the efforts which were now making to undermine the morals, religious faith, and loyalty of the country, they would not be averse from reconsidering the opinions maintained by them in 1819; and if, from their experience in office, they saw any reason to alter those sentiments, there was no man who would be so unworthy as to taunt them with inconsistency.

said, that he had hitherto made but a very few observations, and in what he had to offer he should strictly confine himself to the matter in hand. The object of the petitioners was, to procure the abolition of the Six Acts, and to remove those restraints which interfered with the liberty of the Press. His opinion of the liberty of the Press was, that men should be at liberty to publish everything that was not untrue [murmurs]. He was perfectly ready to wait with patience until it should prove the pleasure of hon. Members to give him a hearing. The petitioners, whose prayer he had the honour to present to the House, were highly respectable, and their representations were, he thought, entitled to attention. They and he held, that the laws against which they complained were passed by a borough mongering faction, and by their nominees; and they held, as he conceived most properly, that the people were not bound to obey such laws. To be sure he might be told, that he could move to have those laws repealed; but the petitioners prayed that the Government would do so themselves. He hoped, notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, that the members of his Majesty's Government would take the same view of those Acts which they had taken when they sat on the Opposition side of the House. For his part, if they did not move for a repeal of those Acts, he most certainly would; but he was resolved to wait till the great measure which was then before the House was completed, and immediately upon its passing, he, if no one else did, would move for the repeal of those Acts.

wished to explain. He had only said, that the effect of those laws, and of the ordinances of Charles 10th, were the same, the tendency of both was, to lessen and destroy the liberty of the Press. He did not concur with what fell from the hon. member for Preston as to obeying these laws, for if they had no authority, he was afraid the authority of the Parliament to pass the Reform Bill might be equally disputed.

said, that the hon. Member did not comprehend the French Revolution. The people of France did not rise for the purpose of supporting the liberty of the Press—they rose against an illegal assumption of authority, under which Charles 10th sought to destroy the independence and authority of the two Chambers of Legislature; therefore, the parallel drawn by the hon. member for Middlesex was most unjust. As to what the hon. member for Preston had said about the Acts in question being void, he would ask that hon. Member whether he, in going from that House, would seek for no redress against assault and robbery, merely because the statutes punishing those offences had been enacted by an unreformed Parliament?

again rose for the purpose of moving that the petition be printed, when he was assailed by much interruption. He said, that if he was out of order he would sit down: but the young Members who endeavoured to cough him down ought to inquire of the Speaker whether he was really out of order or not. As to what the right hon. Baronet near him had said, about his (Mr. Hunt) appealing to the law in a case of assault and robbery, he should certainly have recourse to the law, but not to any statute; he should prosecute under the common law of the land.

said, he rose to present to the House a Petition upon a subject of very great importance; it was a petition from the British Merchants and Traders who were resident at Canton. At the present period, when the commercial intercourse of British subjects with the possessions of the British Crown in India, and with the countries adjacent to them, was to be brought before the House, and to be regulated, the petitioners expressed an earnest hope, that the great interests which they represented would not be neglected or abandoned. The petitioners complained that it was in vain to seek redress from the local authorities at Canton, unless they spoke in such a tone as only those armed with the sanction of the Government at home could assume; and they added, that it would be needless to seek to influence the Chinese by an appeal to their judgments and notions of right and justice; or, indeed, to influence them through any motives not derived from their fears or their avarice. They stated, in corroboration of this assertion, that whenever the English had assumed a haughty and peremptory tone of menace, the Chinese had ceased to impose their exactions, and had afforded some redress; but that whenever we addressed them in a tone of mere remonstrance, the grievances of our merchants were sure to remain unrequited. In the several attempts which they had in vain made to obtain redress from Chinese oppression, the petitioners begged to state, that they had received the cordial support of the resident officers of the East-India Company, who, moreover, had facilitated as much as in them lay the forwarding of the present petition. The petitioners looked forward to the most beneficial results from the appointment of a resident British civil officer, in an ambassadorial capacity, or rather, perhaps, as a diplomatic agent at Canton, to whom the British residents might seek for redress at the court of China, for injuries to their persons or property, should Parliament in its wisdom recommend such an appointment. In presenting this important petition, he would not himself venture to offer any opinion on the several topics to which it referred; the subject was of too complex and important a character to be lightly touched upon, and would be brought under the consideration of a Committee to be expressly appointed (that evening, as he understood) to continue the examination commenced last session into the question of our East-Indian relations in all their hearings. Till the evidence of that Committee was before the House, he thought all discussion on our East-Indian trade or policy would be premature, if not mischievous; and therefore he would studiously avoid provoking such a discussion on the present occasion. There were two points specified in the petition, which, however, he could not pass over in silence, as the petitioners laid great stress on them, as urging the expediency—indeed, necessity—of the diplomatic agent they wished to have appointed. By the law of China no difference existed, so far as punishment was concerned, between the crimes of murder and manslaughter; so that the murder of an Englishman was a matter of little moment in the eyes of a Chinese, apart from their general ill-treatment of all foreigners. Then the Chinese regarded every subject of the celestial empire who had departed from the bounds of the empire as an alien and an outcast, who was ipso facto not entitled to any protection of the law—as one who had, in fact, forfeited every legal and political right. They regarded all foreigners as in the same way outcasts and aliens from their respective countries, and, as such, no longer within the protection of their laws. Under the influence of this erroneous impression, they oppressed these foreigners without remorse shame, or fear; and, according to the petitioners, would continue to do so till we had disabused them by sending out a diplomatic agent as representative of the home government. The right hon. Baronet concluded by saying, that he should refer the petition to the Committee to be re-appointed that evening, trusting that from its great importance it would meet with its best attention.

thought the petition well worthy the consideration of the House, and concurred in much of what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet opposite. But he entertained no great hopes that any benefits would accrue from the proposed appointment of a diplomatic agent at Canton. He believed, that the petitioners were incorrect in saying that the Chinese regarded all foreigners as outlaws, though he knew that they did not pay the same respect to them as was paid in Europe. He cordially approved of the suggestion to refer this petition to the Committee.

ventured to express a hope that no discussion would take place on presenting the petition. He fully concurred with his right hon. friend, that the petition was entitled to the most attentive consideration of that House, for the petitioners were not only respectable, but were British subjects, promoting British prosperity in a remote quarter of the world, and exposed to very serious and distressing inconveniences. The petition, he felt satisfied, would be received as it deserved; and as a member of the Government he would say, that the prayers of the petitioners would be acceded to, so far as was consistent with prudence and justice. He had no sort of doubt that the petitioners were exposed to great inconvenience, and he had also no doubt that some of the exactions to which they were subjected might be checked. This had occupied the attention of Government for a series of years, and two embassies, as was well known, had been sent to China to facilitate our commercial intercourse. Considerable efforts had been made, and were, in fact, continuing to be made, for the purpose of giving increased protection to his Majesty's subjects who were in China. On the question of again sending to China a representative of his Majesty, he should refrain from pronouncing an opinion; but he would undertake to say, that the matter should meet with the attentive consideration of the Government, and he trusted, that the House, as well as the Government, would show how truly they appreciated the inconveniences to which that class of his Majesty's subjects was exposed.

admitted, that the petitioners were persons of respectability, and be thought, that the improvement of our commercial relations with China, to which they wished to draw the attention of the House, a very proper one. He had twice traversed that extensive and populous empire, and always found himself surrounded by an industrious and wealthy people: to cultivate extended commercial relations with that country would be like opening a new world to British enterprise. At the same time he thought, that a system of conciliation would be our best policy in our intercourse with China, and not intimidation, as the petitioners recommended. The course already pursued by the servants of the East-India Company ought to be Followed, and the interest of the Chinese, lot their fears, should be operated on. He believed it would be practicable and advantageous to appoint a commission for the trial of homicides in that country. In conclusion he must say, that this petition, proceeding from a class of men not connected with the East-India Company, and who, having had an opportunity to see the conduct of its servants, did not object to its system, was a strong testimony in its favour, and should be a warning to the House not hastily to alter that monopoly as it was called, which had been attended with such decided advantages to the trade of the country.

, as well as those who preceded him, would abstain from offering any opinion upon the question of sending out an Ambassador to China. He thought that there ought to be a determined assertion of the rights of our fellow-subjects at Canton, who were now exposed to numerous petty vexations; but anything beyond that he should be decidedly averse from. There should on no account be even a threat of an appeal to arms, for the matter could easily be arranged by much better means.

thought, that great benefit would arise from the appointment of an Ambassador to the Court of Pekin, and though there might be difficulties at first, they were difficulties which would give way in time. He was sure that there did not exist in any quarter a disposition to regard as trifling the commercial relations subsisting between this country and China. With respect to himself, he thought it necessary to state, that during the present short Session he had no intention of bringing forward any motion on the subject of our trade with China. He had been informed that the subject was under the serious attention of his Majesty's Government, and that was with him a strong reason for not troubling the House relative to it during the present year. Whenever the time came, however, for discussing the subject, he should be prepared to show, that this question was inferior in importance to none, and that our trade to the East might be placed on a much more advantageous footing than at present.

was sure the evidence of the Committee to be re-appointed that evening would show, that the hon. member for Bridgenorth's statements were ill supported by the facts of the case, and that his free-trade doctrines would ill apply to the peculiar circumstances under which we held dominion in India, and carried on a commercial intercourse with China.

was of opinion, that a determined assertion of our rights by an authorized agent, was the course most worthy of a great country like our own. He was also of opinion, that evidence taken before the Committee on East-Indian affairs would not support, as the hon. Member who spoke last seemed to think, the East-India Company's monopoly. He must maintain, that there were three propositions most distinctly made out by that evidence. The first was, —that the Chinese were a trading and an intelligent people, and that therefore they would prefer an open trade with this country. The second was—that the efforts of the Chinese Government were futile in endeavouring to prevent its subjects from pursuing their trade in the best mode which their intelligence suggested to them. Indeed, one of the witnesses had stated, that the Chinese only observed the edicts of their governors when it suited their own interests. The third proposition was, —that British goods were finding their way into the Celestial Empire; for the fact was, that most of their principal men were now clothed in stuffs of British manufacture. He thought that, in consequence of these propositions being now fully established, the British Government was bound to give every encouragement in its power to the capital and the trade of the country, which were now turned in that direction. By opening the trade to China, they would increase both to an unparalleled degree.

said, that if there were an indiscriminate approach of our countrymen to China, he was afraid that private adventurers would be trampled on and oppressed. If, then, the diplomacy which the East-India Company exercised at present with the Chinese Government, through the Factory, were got rid of by any alteration in the terms of the Company's charter, it must be supplied in some other way. If it were supplied by the appointment of a Consul or an Ambassador, he was afraid that we should often be called upon to interfere, as the French had recently been called upon to interfere for their consul at Algiers, and be obliged to vindicate our rights and dignity. He saw no reason why the House should not do something practical on the subject, instead of heaping, for three consecutive sessions, reports upon reports, which he would undertake to say, no ten Gentlemen in the House would read when they were completed In fact, while they were discussing what they should do, individuals were trading, and one gentleman who had given evidence before the Committee that an advantageous trade might be opened through Sincapore, had been out there since he gave his evidence and made a successful voyage. Now that part of the trade might, at least, be thrown open with advantage to all parties.

said, that he would not say a word as to the propriety of our having a Consul at Canton; but this he knew, that the Americans were carrying on a direct trade with China, with every advantage to themselves, and yet they had no Consul or representative there. The Chinese were quite willing to carry on smuggling; to an enormous extent, and as it was not the business of this country to protect the revenue of the Celestial Empire, he did not see why that smuggling should not be encouraged. If that were done, he was sure the Chinese authorities would soon consent to our having an open trade with China, and would refrain from insulting our merchants.

complained of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baring) not having confined himself to the purport of the petition before the House. That had led the last hon. Member further than he ought to have gone. For his part, however, though he did not wish to avoid discussion, he must deprecate it at that time.

said, that our trade with China met with great liberality on the part of that Government; and he should like to ask those from whom this petition came, whether they would rather be treated there according to the laws of that empire, or according to the laws of Great Britain? There were edicts in force there, by which the natives of the Celestial Empire were prohibited from cheating the poor strangers, as they were called, who went thither to procure the necessaries of life; and with respect to smuggling, though there were numberless Custom-house boats passing round and round the ships that lay at anchor at Canton, they never attempted to make any search, as the law was content with the confiscation of the vessel, in the event of the actual landing of opium, or any other prohibited article. If a Chinese Junk should come into the port of London, and the people, he meant the captain and crew, did not choose to comply with the regulations which were in force, they would be told to go about their business, and he did not see why British vessels should complain of being used in the same way in the port of Canton.

moved the re-appointment of the Committee to inquire into the state of Trade, &c. with the East Indies. The right hon. Gentleman observed, that it would be unnecessary for him to enlarge on the necessity that there was for the appointment of that Committee; for he believed, that in making the proposal for its appointment, he was acting in consonance with the general feeling of the country. He therefore trusted, that its appointment, would not occupy much of the time of the House, as, in fact, the debate on it had already taken place, on the petition that had just been presented by the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Gentleman accordingly moved "that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present state of the affairs of the East-India Company, and to inquire into the state of Trade between Great Britain, the East Indies, and China; and to report their observations thereupon to the House."

expressed a hope, that the powers of this Committee would be greater than the powers of the last—for the last Committee had not gone into the most important consideration connected with the government of India—namely, how far the administration of justice, and the government of the country generally, were suited to the wants and wishes of the in habitants of that great continent. Now that point could only be ascertained by an examination of the illustrious individuals who had been, and might still be, employed in conducting it. They alone could give the House the best information on the point; and without their evidence it would be impossible for any Committee to ascertain what course would be the best for the country to take. He had proposed in the last Committee that they should inquire into this point; but a technical objection had been raised to it by those who had the management of the examination on behalf of the East-India Company. The objection was, that the Company was not then petitioning for the renewal of its charter, and that therefore it was not the duty of its Directors to give to the Committee that information which every Government had a right to ask for. He did not know whether the Company would now be petitioners for the renewal of their charter; but whether they were or not, he hoped that no such objection as that which he had mentioned, would be raised again to the examination which he now proposed.

said, that he could not sit quiet under the direct charge which the hon. Member had brought, not only against the Directors of the East-India Company, but also against the late East-India Committee, of which he had been a member. The hon. Member ought to have recollected, that the inquiries of that Committee were limited, by the terms of its appointment, to the state of trade between England and the East Indies and China, and that no Member had a right to extend them to an investigation of the mode in which India was governed. He wholly denied the statement that either the Directors of the East-India Company, or the members of the Committee, had been negligent of their duty to the public when they refused to enter into so wide a subject of inquiry, for which a better opportunity would be afforded when the Company petitioned for a renewal of its charter.

only wished to express a hope, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would not appoint so many Members upon this Committee as he had appointed upon the last. The last Committee had been so large, that there had been more of desultory conversation than of regular investigation in its proceedings. He suggested, that it would be better to appoint two or three Committees to examine different blanches of this great question. He was sure that they would find them of sufficient importance to attract their undivided attention.

thought, that in common fairness, the hon. member for Bridgenorth should have given the members of the late East-India Committee some notice of the attack which he was going to make upon them. So far were the Directors of the East-India Company from throwing any obstruction in the way of the hon. Member's inquiries, that they had given him every facility, by allowing him to have access to all their records. Certainly there should be some person to conduct the inquiries, and to preserve method and order in the proceedings of the Committee, for in consequence of the method, or rather the want of method, in which the hon. Member had conducted his inquiries, he had thrown every thing into confusion. If the East-India Company should petition for the renewal of its Charter, as ho had every reason to believe that it would, the time would then arrive for calling upon it to explain the manner in which it conducted the administration of India.

, in explanation, said, that he had a right to complain of the Company as a body, for it was understood last Session that the state of India and the government should be gone into, and the Company had refused the necessary information.

begged to suggest, that it would be unnecessary to go into aconsideration of the question in the way recommended by the hon. member for Bridgenorth, as it could be more regularly brought under the notice of the House by means of a formal petition from the East-India Company itself. He had stated that in the Committee, and thought that his arguments then had been assented to.

said, he owed it to the Directors of the Company to state, that they invariably avoided throwing the slightest obstruction in the way of any inquiry which the Committee had hitherto considered it their duty to institute. He thought any further discussion of the subject on that occasion unnecessary, but trusted that the Committee would resume their labours with the candour and impartiality which they had heretofore so scrupulously observed. It had been attempted to reduce the numbers of the Committee within the smallest possible limits, because many hon. Members last Session had urged, that it was too numerous; and for that reason he had felt himself compelled to forego the assistance of several gentlemen, whose services it would have been otherwise desirable to secure. He found, however, that looking to all considerations, they would not be justified in diminishing the Committee beyond thirty-six, and of that number it was accordingly proposed that it should consist.

said, that he felt bound to support the statement which had been made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Astell) who had clearly stated in the Committee, that till the Company petitioned, the matter was in the hands of the Govern- ment; and he (Mr. Hume) would take the liberty, in furtherance of this idea, to suggest, that till that petition was presented, the Government should prepare a form of business for the use of the Committee, by which means much desultory matter would be got rid of, and the Committee would proceed at once to the business which really ought to occupy its attention.

wished that the inquiries should be conducted so as to throw light on each other, and he entreated the House always to recollect, that the government of India must be looked on as a whole. If all its parts were separately considered by different branches of the Committee, the House never would come to a right decision on the subject, unless they considered all those parts in their relation to each other.

hoped, that the Committee would be assiduously attended. He had attended the former Committee every day it sat, but that was not the case with other Members, who sometimes took part in its discussions. It happened that Members dropped in occasionally, and put questions without being fully aware of what had previously been done. He remembered one question had been put, about the training of elephants, that only excited a smile. He hoped some other system would be adopted; and he would recommend that the name of every Member who asked a question, should be pre-fixed to that question. He hoped, too, that in the inquiries and discussions, the interest of the East-India Company would be attended to, for the country in general, and he, in particular, owed that Company a debt of gratitude.

recommended the gallant Officer (Sir John Malcolm) to read the evidence which had been given before the Committee, as he could assure him, well acquainted as he was with India, he would find it worth his attention. He believed that the discussion arose from the mode in which the inquiries in the Committee were conducted; the two parties having fenced a good deal. There was, on the one hand, the free-trade party, and on the other, the East-India Company; and as the East-India Company were not called upon, as they thought, to establish a case, they had not called any evidence. To avoid the desultory inquiries which had formerly been carried on, his hon. friend (the member for Middlesex) recommended that his right hon. friend should chalk out the course of the Committee; but the observation of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cutlar Ferguson), which be believed expressed the intention of the Directors, would prevent the necessity of acting on this recommendation. If the Company petitioned for the renewal of the Charter, they would lead evidence, and all doubt as to the order of the proceedings of the Committee would be at an end.

explained, that he had carefully read the evidence, but that had not altered his opinion, though he admitted that it contained much valuable information.

thought, the whole difficulty arose from the members of the Committee going into the inquiry with their opinions previously formed, he might even say, having previously taken up very strong prejudices on the subject, which they had promulgated and published to the world. He doubted if such persons were the best qualified to come to a sound conclusion. There was one class of Members decidedly friends to a free trade with India and China; and there was another class, closely connected with the East-India Company, and who fancied themselves bound to support that Company. Let any man read the evidence given before the Committee as to the China trade, and he might form an opinion either way. He had read that evidence, being previously unacquainted with the subject, and he found it so contradictory, the inquiries and the evidence were all of such a nature, that with very little care, they might be made to tell equally on either side. He was sure that any ingenious man in that House would make that evidence support his opinions whatever they might be. He must, therefore, deprecate going into the Committee with opinions previously formed, as only likely to obscure, rather than elucidate, the truth.

said, that if the East-India Company came before the Committee as a petitioner, as he believed it would, it must be treated by the Committee like any other petitioner who came before it, and must make out its own case.

wished to put a question to the noble Lord opposite. At the close of the last Parliament, a Report was made by the Committee appointed to inquire into Public Salaries, which recommended that the salary of the President of the Board of Control should be reduced from 5,000l. to 3,500l. The Report assigned no reason whatever for this proposed reduction, but he conceived it was recommended from supposing that the President was not called upon to do the same quantity of active duty in that House as the other members of the Government. He did not know whether or not that was the reason, but if it were, it was an error, for the President of that Board had a very laborious office. He wished to ask, therefore, whether the Government had given any directions for fixing the amount of the salary at the sum recommended by the Committee? If that were the case, he was sure that it would conduce to lower the efficiency of the Board. It would cause the appointment to be given to inferior persons, and would degrade the office so as to be looked on as a mere stepping-stone to a higher place. In justice to our Indian Empire this ought not to be done, for the government of that empire should certainly be considered as one of the very highest offices of the State. If his question was answered in the affirmative, he should at some future time bring the subject before the House.

replied, that it was impossible for him to say, as he was not a member of the Committee, on what ground it had made the recommendation in question. He could, however, say, that it was the wish of the Government to comply with that recommendation; and he believed, that in compliance with that recommendation instructions had been issued.

said, the hon. Member who asked the question knew that the salaries were paid by sending a quarterly account to the India House of the money required. He had a few days before given directions to send such an account; and in that a deduction was made in proportion to the recommendation of the Committee.

also wished to put to the noble Lord a question as to a decision of that Committee relative to General Officers. He wished to know if the Government, from the evidence given before that Committee, had come to a decision that General Officers who held regiments should be deprived of the emoluments of those commands during the time they held civil offices? He had given his opinion on the subject to the Committee, and had stated, that it would be most unjust to deprive such officers of their regiments; though no reference was made to his evidence in the Report of the Committee. It was understood that Naval Officers were to be allowed to hold their half-pay with their salary as Lords of the Admiralty. That was giving an advantage to one branch of the service which was denied to the other. He hoped, that the Government would come to a decision favourable to the claims of the army. He did not wish to say anything of the different branches of the service, but he must say, that the army had a stronger claim than the navy, inasmuch as the Officers of the Army purchased their commissions. Moreover, the Officers of the Navy had opportunities of making much larger sums of prize money than Officers of the Army. If there were any jealousy of a standing army in that House, he would remark, that such an army was more likely to be harmless if the officers were connected with the civil service than if they were excluded from it.

, in reply to the gallant Officer, was understood to say, that the Government had as yet come to no decision on the subject, and that he could give no pledge as to what course it would adopt.

defended the recommendation of the Committee with respect to the salary of the President of the Board of Control. He was one of the Committee and cordially concurred in that recommendation. The salary had at first been 2,000l. a year, and it had been gradually raised to 5,000l. He thought 3,000l. would be sufficient, but the Committee had at length decided in favour of 3,500l. The extensive patronage enjoyed by the holder of the office, rendered the situation particularly valuable.

would not then enter into the subject; but would, at some future time, state his strong objections to reducing the salary of the President of the Board of Control.

believed, that the recommendation to reduce the salary of the First Commissioner of the Board of Control, was given, from supposing that the office was not one of much labour. But this was a mistake. It was an office of great labour, and its duties required a man of much experience. Before a man could exactly perform those duties, a particular training was necessary. He wished also to say, that if the Generals and Admirals were allowed to retain their half-pay and their regiments, when they accepted civil situations, it would be a very great hardship on the subalterns to make them give up their half-pay when they took a civil office. He did not think even that such a rule was economical, as it prevented these officers from accepting civil offices which they were otherwise well qualified to fill.

, as a member of the Committee, could say, that the principle which guided its decisions was, that the best possible talents should be obtained for the service of the State, and that they should be adequately remunerated. The Committee had not decided on any case without having sufficient evidence before it. As to the office in question, that of President of the Board of Control, he must say, that it was not considered as one of much labour. It was plain that persons could not be trained to the office from the manner in which they were frequently changed. Let them look also at the Secretaries, who had nothing to do. They were even changed more frequently and more whimsically than the President. If their duties were well performed, it must be by a miracle. He believed, that one reason why the reduction of the President's salary was recommended was, because that office had a great deal of patronage. He was glad to find that the Government had redeemed its pledge on this point, and he hoped that it would go on and reduce other salaries. The Committee only inquired into those enjoyed by Members of that House, but he hoped the Ministers would reduce the greater number of salaries belonging to offices, of which the holders had not seats in Parliament.

, though he had been a member of the Committee, did not feel himself qualified to speak on that particular point, as he had not very frequently attended the sittings of the Committee. He only rose to protest against the principle of regarding patronage as part of the emoluments of office, to compensate for a deficient salary. He could not conceive anything more dangerous than that of giving public men insufficient salaries, and leaving them to make up the deficiency by patronage.

also thought nothing could be more detrimental to the public interest than to consider patronage as a substitute for a salary. He considered the proper use of patronage one of the most sacred duties of a public officer. When he was in office, he had so employed his patronage. He had given places to officers' sons and to those who had a claim upon the public. He did not mention this as a merit in him, for he had only followed the example of his eminent predecessors. As for the lowering the salary, he believed that the consequence of that would be, that the office would become lowered also, and would be regarded only as a stepping-stone to the higher offices. That ought to be avoided. There were in a Government like our's quite changes enough in offices, and frequent changes must render the persons inadequate to perform their duty. Considering the very arduous nature of the duties of the President of the Board of Control, he thought no motives ought to be created, by reducing the salary of the office, for those who held it to be solicitous of obtaining a higher place. In this particular office, that was most desirable, for its duties required a particular species of knowledge, and there was in the execution of them no display necessary, which was occasionally so gratifying to the ambition of public men.

explained. Something had been said about the sweets of office influencing the judgment of those who opposed the view taken by the Committee. He could say for himself, that he was poorer than when he took office; and had only 300l. a year from the public, which was not more than the interest of the money he had paid for his commission. He believed, therefore, that the sweets of office could not have influenced his opinion. He begged to bear his testimony to the very proper manner in which the right hon. Gentleman who had last spoke, had disposed of his patronage while in office. He knew, from having a son there, that the right hon. Gentleman had given a Writership to Westminster School, and to each of the Universities, to be bestowed on the young man who should best deserve it by his industry; and knowing this, he could not do otherwise than bes- tow on him the just tribute of his applause.

said, nothing could be more injurious to the public service, than to hold up the Members of that House, and public men, as having nothing to do, and as only seeking to fill their pockets at the public expense.

had only one word to say. It was objected to the reduction of the salary, that it would make the President of the Board of Control desire to obtain a higher place. To remedy that, he would recommend that the salaries of the other offices should be reduced to the same level of 3,500l.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to prevent the spreading of Canine Madness. Neither the smiles of one party nor the frowns of another should prevent him from doing his duty. He had, at the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet then Secretary of State (Sir Robert Peel), moved for a Committee to inquire into the subject, and it was proved before that Committee that the disease was spreading. He did not know whether it was intended to offer any opposition to the motion, but if it was so, he should certainly take the sense of the House on the question, in order to see if they were more disposed to favour brute animals than the human species. On the question of the necessity of some legislative provision, there was, in his opinion, no doubt, and he therefore moved for leave to bring in a Bill to prevent the spreading of Canine Madness.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to explain and amend the law of Settlement by Hiring and Service, observed, that it was the duty of a government to adopt such regulations as should be generally beneficial to all classes of the community. It was clear, that no country could be safe in which the condition of the labouring classes was degraded and servile, and for society to be lasting, it must, like a temple, be based upon a broad and solid foundation. The middle and the upper classes were in a favourable condition, but if we looked at the situation, moral and political, of the labouring classes in these countries, we should find it decidedly bad. In Ireland the people were actually starving in the midst of plenty, and in England crimes were rapidly multiplying, because the people found it difficult to obtain a livelihood. There was, too, a growing spirit of discontent, which not unfrequently extended to outrage. Perhaps it had been fomented by some infamous publications, but it undoubtedly had its chief cause in the fact, that the labourers shared in none of the advantages of an improving community. He did not mean to enter into all the causes for them, but would confine himself to that which he proposed to remove, he meant the impediments thrown in the way of a free circulation of labour by the operation of the law of Settlement, and the Poor-laws. In many parishes there was a glut of labourers, which could be removed and taken up by employment in other places, were the obstacles alluded to clone away with. Such an observation was the result of his own experience, but he was able to corroborate it by the testimony of others. A petition then on the Table of the House said— "Your petitioners feel themselves justified in stating, that the laws of Settlement are opposed to such free circulation of labour, as is essential to the peace and lasting prosperity of the country, because, amongst other pernicious results, they congregate indefinite numbers of people able to work in spots where frequently no work is to be obtained; and the result, therefore, is, that the property of the inhabitants of such parishes, is sacrificed to provide an unearned maintenance for the idle and dissolute. Their experience proves that the law of Settlement is fatally opposed to that unrestrained circulation of labour which ought to be admitted in every free country, as being essential to its prosperity." They said also—"That they believe that the late alarming disturbances in this kingdom, were occasioned (at least in part) by the operation of the Poor-laws, by which an undue accumulation of the working classes is concentrated in many of our towns and villages, and which also unreasonably decree the performance of what is morally and physically impossible—namely, that an indefinite and rapidly increasing population, should for ever be provided with work and maintenance within certain fixed parochial boundaries." The object of his Bill was, to remedy this defect, and secure a free interchange of labour between agricultural parishes in which labourers were superabundant, and other places where labourers were in request. At present, the fear of conferring a Settlement, by hiring, and thus of entailing a burthen on the parish, prevented men from freely hiring labourers. One provision of the Bill was, that after its passing no person should be taken to have a settlement from being hired a certain time in any place. He trusted to see the time when the law of Settlement would be altogether done away with, and when poverty would be relieved wherever found, as he believed was the case in Scotland. The change which he proposed, too, would remove that litigation and great expense now incurred to determine Settlement by hiring. It was a fact, that four-fifths of the appeals as to Settlements to the Quarter Sessions, were on questions arising out of hiring and service. The expense thus incurred, and which was all to be paid out of the Poor-rates, was estimated at not less than 400,000l. in the year. If he were asked why he did not make his Bill more extensive, he must reply, that he did not think it fair to expose the agricultural districts to be burthened, as they then would be, with all the persons whose best days had been employed in promoting the prosperity, not of the landed-interest, in the place where they were born, but of the manufacturers in distant towns. The alteration which he proposed to make, would tend greatly to improve the character of our labouring population, more particularly those engaged in husbandry—an object in which every man who regarded the welfare of his country must feel an interest. In fact, the moral and political condition of the poorer classes could no longer be neglected with safety to the State, and if success did not attend their deliberations, he could look forward to nothing but calamity and continual danger. If, indeed, their condition could be improved, he saw before the country a long career of prosperity, solid and lasting, because it would be founded on the principles of justice, and might be expected to meet the approbation, and draw down the blessings of Him, who was justice itself. The hon. Member concluded, by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the law relating to Settlement by Hiring and Service.

seconded the Motion. He observed, that the Bill introduced by his hon. friend was nearly the same as that which he had introduced in the last Session, and which, like many others, was stopped by the dissolution. One object of the Bill was an improvement in the character and condition of the labouring classes, and on that ground alone it deserved the support of the House. If its object were an amendment of the Poor-laws, he would oppose it, because he felt that no palliatives would do for that system. The principle on which our Poor-laws rested was erroneous, and the whole system should be altered, but that could be done only by Government. From what he had recently heard, however, in another place, he was disposed to believe, that it meant to take the matter up, and in its hands he was willing to leave it, merely observing, that there was no branch of legislation from which the country would derive more benefit, than from an entire and judicious revision of the Poor-laws.

admitted the importance of attending to the condition of the labouring classes, and declared, that any measure calculated to effect that, in ever so slight a degree, should have his support. Earnestly, indeed, did he hope, that the Government would take up the subject, and in particular, after what had happened last year, would endeavour to improve the condition of the labourers in the South of England. It was, indeed, lamentable to contemplate the state in which the labourers of sixteen of the southern counties of England were placed by the manner in which the Poor-laws were administered; and if he had not, either in this Session or the last, called attention to the subject, it was because he hoped, that the Government were about to take the matter into their own hands. In the North, the wages were high, and rates low, and the poor man was in a situation of comparative comfort; while in the South, the system of paying wages out of the poor-rates had reduced both labourer and farmer to great difficulty and distress. The system of roundsmen was there adopted, and the poor labourer, though willing to work, and actually employed, was degraded to the condition of a pauper. He could mention a variety of instances in illustration of this system, but would state only one. In a parish in the county of Northampton, there was lately a turn out amongst the labourers for higher wages. On inquiry, he learned that these men were paid 6d. a day wages, and that the remainder was made up out of the Poor-rates. Could such a system be continued, without degrading the condition of the labouring poor? No attention, however great, paid to them in other respects, could prevent their depression and degradation while exposed to the evils of such a system. If Gentlemen would view this matter merely as a question affecting their own interests, they would find, that those interests would be promoted in a much greater degree, by giving to the labourers high wages, and having low Poor-rates, than by the present system. He was fully convinced, for example, that the landowners of Northumberland, with their high rate of wages and their better system, were in a flourishing condition compared with the landlords of Sussex, where wages were reduced to the lowest pittance which would support life; and he hoped the time was not distant, when the landlords of the South would be satisfied of that fact, and labour to assimilate their system to that of the North. With respect to the Bill of the hon. Member, he would only observe, that by taking away a settlement by hiring, an additional burthen and additional expense of litigation was thrown on the other methods of obtaining a settlement—those of the derivative character, for instance, which required a man's parentage to be fully established; but that, as well as other questions of greater nicety, were matter for future consideration, Without, however, going into details, he would observe, in reference to the principle, that the man who had no settlement in the place where he worked, was generally found to be the most diligent workman. He felt, that he was thrown upon his own resources, and that neglect or inattention, causing an application to the parish officers, would be followed by his removal; he therefore used all his diligence to prevent it, and was generally successful. However, attending to this part of the question would not cure the great evil felt in the southern districts, where the population of labourers was greater than the demand, and where, from the system on which the Poor-laws were administered, it was almost impossible for the redundant population to get work. For instance, in a place which would require the labour of twenty men, twenty-five were kept, and the extra five were prevented from obtaining work elsewhere. That was combined with the erroneous system of giving a fixed sum in money to a man according to the number of his children, which was a bonus upon improvident marriages, and where this system prevailed, marriages were entered into, in reliance on the parish, which was bound to provide relief according to the size of a family, and in this way the evil went on increasing, until it would be too great for any remedy. In the northern counties— as for example Northumberland—no such bonus was held out, and improvident marriages were not contracted. If a man applied to his parish for relief, he was set to work at a fixed rate, much less than what he would get if he had employment elsewhere: he soon got tired of such unprofitable labour, and, generally speaking, was then sure to find work for himself, and the parish got rid of him. If, however, he were sent out to work at reduced wages, the parish making up the difference to him out of the Poor-rates—and giving him an increase according to the number of his children—the burthen would be continued, and, in a short lime, instead of affording relief to an industrious man, unable for the moment to get work elsewhere, the parish would have to support a degraded, discontented and profligate being. The whole system of the southern counties was bad, and he was certain that the Government and the House would be compelled to do something more for the poor than build cottages, and that the time was not distant, when, if they did not bestir themselves, the state of the labouring classes would be such as to lay waste the morality and the prosperity of the country.

expressed a hope that Ministers would not lend their sanction to the proposed measure, which he was sure would fail of its effect. Could any thing be a greater hardship, than to deprive a man of a settlement in a parish in which he had resided, and worked honestly and industriously, for twenty-five or thirty years, and send him back to the place of his birth? He was aware of the evil, not of the Poor-laws, but of their misapplication. The Poor-laws he believed to be the wisest and most humane set of laws that were ever devised; and if they were properly administered, would be a blessing instead of a curse, as they were now too often found to be. The fault lay with those Magistrates who, instead of providing labour for those willing to work, gave them money. He did not believe, that the Bill would be of any use, but, giving the hon. Member credit for his exertions, he would not oppose the Motion.

agreed that it would be a good thing to get rid of the Settlement by hiring, but not that by service. He thought that a settlement by service would be most salutary, for he agreed with the hon. member for Preston, that it would be a great hardship to deny a settlement to a man who had worked in a parish for several years. It would be a matter of extreme difficulty to amend the Poor-laws. Many attempts of the kind had been made of late years, and all of them had failed. The first, he remembered, was that made by Sir James Scarlett, who gave up his Bill. Mr. Nolan subsequently took the matter in hand, he was followed by Mr. Sturges Bourne, who was followed by the hon. member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Slaney), but none of them had succeeded. He agreed that the Poor-laws were a wise and salutary code; but the mal-administration of them led to serious evils. Objections had been made to the system in the southern and western counties, but he denied that the Magistrates there were to blame. They gave money as relief, but what could be clone where a man had eight or ten children, and only 8s. or 10s. a week? The children could not work, but must be supported. If an extra demand for labour was created at one time, population would increase, but when the persons employed were thrown out of work, either by the effect of machinery, or by a change in the fashions, they must be supported, or the greatest distress and misery would prevail in the country. If people would have children—in England depending on the Poor-laws— and in Ireland on the potatoe—he did not see how we could avoid giving them support. He was glad to find, that the hon. member for Kerry at last admitted that the time was come, when some kind of Poor-laws should be established in Ire-lane; but, he hoped, that if introduced there, it would be on a system different from the Poor-laws of England, or, at least, that the application of the principle would be different.

said, that previous to Christmas, he asked the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) whether Government intended to institute any inquiry into the state of the labouring classes. The noble Lord then stated, that no such intention was entertained by Government, because there had been already sufficient evidence given on the subject, and that Government would rather proceed to the consideration of some measure. He now wished to know from the noble Lord whether Government was prepared to submit any measure to the House for the amendment of the Poor-laws, or the relief of the labouring classes?

stated, that the subject alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman had received, as it undoubtedly required, the serious attention of Government; but there was no measure in such a state of preparation as to justify him in saying that it would be brought forward by Government. With respect to the Bill under the consideration oft he House, he, for one, would offer no opposition to its introduction. He considered that it would be advantageous to get rid of the obstruction which was opposed to the free circulation of labour by the settlement obtained from service. At the same time he did not see how that good could be affected by the Bill, without increasing the causes of litigation. Another great improvement would be, to bring the administration of the Poor-laws in the southern part of the kingdom to the state in which it was in the northern part. But the difficulty of the task, always great, would be increased at the present moment; because the change could not be effected without, in the first instance, pressing severely on the labouring classes. He was sure that the House would agree with him in thinking; that the present was not the time to adopt any measure which would have such an effect. Still he believed that until the Poor-laws were administered in the manner in which they were in the northern part of the country, and until money ceased to be paid to labourers on account of the number of their children, or as an assistance to the farmers, no effectual amelioration of the present state of the labouring classes could be effected. But, as he said before, any attempt to remedy the evils of the Poor-laws, upon correct principles, would be attended by severe pressure upon the poor, and an attempt at relief made upon incorrect principles would only render it more difficult for them to retrace their steps.

wished it to be under-Stood that his question was intended solely to elicit information, and he had no wish to cast any censure on his Majesty's Government.

maintained, that the chief intention of the Poor-laws was to relieve the poor man who was overcharged with children, as was evident from the very first clause of the celebrated Act of Elizabeth. That, too, was the opinion of men of the highest authority. The merciful consideration of the community ought always to be extended to an individual in that situation. Who could be more entitled to admiration and relief than the man with a large family who, after long struggling with difficulties, was at length compelled to full recumbent on the charity of his country? Locke, however some hon. Gentlemen might smile at his name, was of a similar opinion. The Government of that day committed the consideration of the Poor-laws to him, and he came to the conclusion, that a poor man with more than a certain number of children was entitled, on grounds of policy as well as humanity, to relief. It was argued, that the perversion of the Poor-laws led to numerous and improvident marriages. Now, it would be found that in the northern counties, where such abuses were said not to exist, the marriages were more numerous in proportion to the population, than in the counties where the mal-ad-ministration of the Poor-laws was said to produce those effects. He had voluntarily engaged in the administration of the Poor-laws, and his experience enabled him to deny the justice of the censures cast upon the mode of administering them. He was of opinion with Sir Frederick Morton Eden, that although there might be occasional exceptions, the general administration of the Poor-laws in this country was liable to as few objections as the general administration of any other system of laws whatever.

said, he had never argued that a poor man with a large family ought not to receive assistance, but only that that assistance ought not to be rendered him in money, and Mr. Locke, whom his hon. friend had quoted, expressly said so. His object was, not to lower the condition of the poor, but to raise their wages.

had no intention of imputing to the hon. Member any designs inimical to the poor; to whom, on the contrary, he was well aware that the hon. Gentleman was a sincere, genuine, and indefatigable friend; but he thought him wrong on one point.

supported the proposed measure, which he considered one of sound sense. No great change could be accomplished in the Poor-laws without time and caution. In his opinion Poor-laws ought to be introduced into Ireland; but that must be done with great care. He was sorry to say, that the evils which existed on this subject in the South of England were creeping into the north. One of those evils was that of a settlement being obtained by one year's service. Numerous devices were adopted to escape granting this settlement. Some farmers hired their servants only for fifty weeks. The most injurious plan was, to suspend hiring them for a month, which subjected the labourers to great want and distress. He thought that eventually there ought to be no settlement except by birth; but such an object must be aimed at with great deliberation and caution.

stated, that in many parts of England the effect of the Poor-laws was an absolute confiscation of the lands. Could such a system go on? The national faith was dwelt upon with reference to some subjects. No one was more disposed to maintain it than he was; but he hoped the principle would be extended to every description of property. The present system of Poor-laws pressed heavily, not only on the once happy farmers and land proprietors of this once happy country, but also on the poor themselves, since it produced in every man a disposition to throw the burthen off from his own shoulders to those of his neighbour. The time was approaching when in many parishes the landed proprietors would be unable to give the poor subsistence. The pressure was at present unequally distributed. If it were spread over the whole country, it would be comparatively light; but at present, in many cases, it amounted to confiscation.

said, that Mr. Sturges Bourne's Vestry Act had had a great effect upon the operation of the Poor-laws. Previous to the passing of that Act, the Magistrates possessed the power to order what relief they thought proper to be given to the poor; but that power was now, in many instances, exercised by the Select Vestries; and they very often neg- lected to allow a sufficient provision to be made.

had some doubts, since he had heard the observations of hon. Members, whether his Bill would diminish litigation as much as he expected. As to the Poor-laws he highly approved of them in principle, and would never consent to part with them.

recalled to the recollection of the House the Committee which last Session had been appointed to inquire into the Patent of the King's Printer. That Committee he wished to have re-appointed, with this addition to their instructions: that they should ascertain in what manner the drawback affected the price of the article produced. He moved "that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the nature and extent of the Patents of the King's Printers in England, Scotland, and Ireland, the authority under which they have acted, and now act, and how far they have been beneficial to the Government or to the country, and whether proper to be continued; also, to ascertain the effect of any drawback now allowed on paper used by the King's Printers or in the Universities; also, to inquire whether the printing for both Houses of Parliament can be effected with greater economy; and to report their observations and opinions thereupon, together with the minutes of evidence taken before them to the House." Committee appointed.

moved for a "return of all Steam-Engines made use of in Great Britain and Ireland, or in vessels belonging to their respective ports and harbours, setting forth their numbers in the following different classes, viz.—those under twenty-horse power; those from twenty to forty horsepower; those from forty to sixty horsepower; those from sixty to 100 horsepower; those above 100 horse-power; and specifying the respective shires, counties, or other denominations in which they have been employed." The hon. Member stated, that his object in wishing to obtain this information, was, to satisfy the House of the propriety of taxing Steam-Engines.

thought it impossible that such a Return as this could be procured, and on that ground alone he should oppose the Motion, though undoubtedly it would be advisable to obtain the information if it were possible.

suggested to the hon. Member, that if he proposed to tax machinery, he should include wind-mills and water-wheels.

said, no obstacle ought to be thrown in the way of the increase of Steam-engines, at a moment when we were engaged in a disadvantageous competition with the rest of the world. Besides this, it would be impossible to get the information; Government had no power to compel such a Return; it had no right to enter any man's house and ask him whether he had a Steam-engine of twenty or thirty horse-power.

took occasion, on the Motion for bringing up the Report of the Committee of Supply, to ask why no mention had been made in the King's Speech, or otherwise, by his Majesty's Ministers, respecting the arrangement of the Civil List, and the provision for the Queen.

said, that the subjects alluded to should be brought forward at the earliest opportunity; and observed that the reason they were not mentioned in the King's Speech, was the desire of his Majesty that nothing personal to himself should be introduced during the present important Session.

said, he had great satisfaction in calling the notice of the House to an act of splendid disinterestedness on the part of a public servant, proving that generosity in the reward of public services was not always thrown away. No words of his could so well explain the circumstance as the Letter written on the subject by the individual himself, which the House would perhaps allow him to read. The right hon. Baronet accordingly read the following Letter, which he stated was addressed to Lord Althorp:—

"Aldenham, Watford, Jan. 30.

"My dear Lord,—Having been called into office under the auspices of your noble and excellent father, it is with a peculiar satisfaction that I now address his son, as Chancellor of his Majesty's Exchequer, on the subject of the remuneration that my services were thought to merit, upon my retiring from the post of First Secretary of the Admiralty.

"During the chief period of a naval war, on the most extensive scale, the most arduous, and attended with the most brilliant results of any recorded in the annals of the country (virtually terminating with the destruction of the combined fleets of France and Spain, in October, 1805), I laboured with the utmost assiduity and zeal in the performance of the duties of Second and First Secretary, under seven different naval Administrations; when, feeling my constitution to be materially injured by the close and unremitting confinement which those duties demanded, I was under the necessity (at Midsummer, 1807), of applying for leave to retire; on which occasion a pension of 1,500l. per annum was granted to me under the King's Order in Council.

"This pension, together with the blessing of restored health, I have enjoyed for many years; and now, finding that the means I possess are adequate to furnishing me with all the comforts that belong to my period of life, I am sensible of the propriety of ceasing to trespass on the national liberality, and therefore trouble your Lordship with the intimation, that after the payment at Midsummer next, it is not my intention to apply, in the customary manner, at the Navy-office for its continuance. With the strongest impression of gratitude for the bounty I have hitherto experienced from the public, I have the honour to remain, my dear Lord,

"Your Lordship's most faithful and

"Obedient servant.

"WILLIAM MARSDES."

"The Viscount Althorp."

Nothing which he could say would add to the admiration which all who heard him must feel at the conduct of this gentleman, and any expressions he could use would fall very short of the sentiments contained in this Letter, but he should not have done his duty if he had not given expression to the feelings which it had produced on his mind.

had looked over the Bill, and confessed he could not understand it. On whom would the tax fall now the clause was omitted which was contained in the former bill, and made the Crown liable to parish rates?

replied, that the Bill was the same as that introduced last. Ses- sion, with the exception of a clause which was then inserted by mistake, and was not intended to form part of the Bill.

again asked, upon whom would the tax be thrown by the proposed Act?

.—By the clause which was introduced into the former bill, unknown to the authors of it, the right of the Crown not to pay taxes was, for the first time, controverted. The effect of this Bill would be, to throw the burthen on the parish.

saw no reason why private property should be taxed, and that of the King not,

repeated, this was the first occasion in which an attempt to tax the Crown had been made. The clause proposed to be introduced was declined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being, without obtaining the consent of the Crown. He did not see how the proposed object could be better effected than by the Bill.

said, the clause now omitted was introduced by surprise. His hon. friend talked of the Crown not contributing to pay taxes. Why, to whom did the taxes go? To the Crown itself. But, passing that by, the clause was introduced without due notice, and contrary to the understanding between the parties. The Crown was taken by surprise, and so were those who were responsible for the Bill, for the obnoxious clause was introduced in the Committee without their knowledge; and it was for the purpose of guarding the Crown against that surprise that the present Bill was brought forward.

fully agreed in the impropriety of taking any unfair advantage, still he thought this might be done without the assistance of the parish.

said, his hon. friend was quite mistaken in his view of the subject; the taxes were paid to the King, and why should he pay them again? Would that be in accordance with the laws and constitution of the country.

said, his noble friend did not exactly understand his objection. If the King's property was not to be taxed, well and good; but then the whole community should be equally taxed for this purpose, not the immediate neighbourhood.

said, parishes had always to pay this description of tax. This Bill would not have been brought in if the clause had not been contained in the other enactment.

thought the parish should be allowed an opportunity of inquiring into the subject. Had notice been given it of this Bill?

could not say he had given the parish direct notice of his intention to bring in this Bill, but he could assure his hon. friend, that the parish was perfectly aware of it. An individual in office had been spoken to, and had been informed that the Bill would this evening be considered in Committee, and he was satisfied that the Bill should pass in its present state.

said, there was no doubt but that the clause had been surreptitiously introduced, and an early opportunity had been taken to strike it out. Independently, however, of the question of charging any description of property, he should say, it was most important for the House, on the general principle, to mark its disapprobation of discussing public questions, affecting the interests of the Crown, on private bills. Nothing could be more improper, for if public matters were to be introduced into private bills, they would be delayed in every stage. He, therefore, said, independently of the question of taxing property, that they were really bound to pass this Bill to mark their disapprobation of such proceedings.

begged to know, whether any other Crown property was treated in a similar manner.

replied, certainly. On general principles, all royal residences were free from this description of tax. It was the universal practice of parishes to pay all these rates, until the clause so frequently referred to was introduced.

said, it appeared rather a singular principle to tax one parish one year, and another parish another year. Looked at in this way, he was convinced the doctrine was unsound, and the course adopted by the noble Lord was open to many objections.

replied, the hon. Gentleman must see that it would be inconsistent with the Constitution to tax the Crown. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose, that all Crown property, even in the hands of individuals, was exempt from the payment of rates; that was not the case, but only that part of it which was in possession of the Crown itself.