presented a Petition from certain Subscribers to the Leeds and Manchester Rail-road, praying that the Bill for completing the Leeds and Manchester Railroad Bill might be re-committed. The petitioners complained, that a Committee in the first instance had declared, that the preamble of the Bill had not been proved, it not having paid a due attention to the evidence, which the petitioners were prepared to maintain had fully borne out the allegations of the preamble. But he should bring the subject better before the House by reading the petition than by any other means. It was as follows:

"To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled.

"The humble petition of the undersigned persons, being subscribers to the proposed Manchester and Leeds Rail-way, "

"Showeth,—That, on the 22nd day of June last, a petition was presented to your honourable House, praying for leave to bring in a Bill for making a rail-road from the town of Manchester, in the county palatine of Lancaster, to Sowerby-bridge, in the West Riding of the county of York; being the first step towards the completion of the undertaking. That such Bill was accordingly brought in, and read a first time on the 24th of June last, and was read a second time, and committed on the 28th day of June last. That the Committee on such Bill met on the 4th day of July instant, and sat to receive evidence in support of the preamble of the Bill for several days; and whilst the case of your petitioners was proceeding, the Committee intimated to your petitioners' counsel, that they were satisfied that sufficient evidence as to trade and population had been already given. That the said Committee, after hearing evidence in opposition to the said Bill, came to a vote and decision on the 12th day of July instant, that the preamble of the Bill was not proved. That your petitioners beg leave to represent to your honourable House, that many Members of the said Committee, who were not present on the day when the before-mentioned intimation was given, and who had not heard the whole evidence, as well as some other Members who had heard no portion of the evidence adduced on the behalf of or in opposition to the Bill, remained in the room whilst the votes were taken on the preamble of the said Bill. That your petitioners respectfully submit, that the evidence given in support of the preamble of the Bill fully established the allegations thereof; and your petitioners beg leave to refer to the minutes of the Committee on the Bill, for evidence given in support of the preamble of such Bill, in full confidence that an examination and consideration of such evidence will show, that the evidence adduced on the behalf of the promoters of the Bill did fully and satisfactorily establish their case. That your petitioners respectfully beg leave to object to the vote and decision of the said Committee, upon the ground, that such vote and decision are in direct opposition to the evidence given before such Committee. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray, that the said Bill may be recommitted, or that a Committee of Appeal may be appointed upon the said vote and decision of the said Committee on the Bill; and that your petitioners may be heard by their counsel or agent against such vote and decision before such Committee of Appeal, or that they may have such other relief in the premises as to your honourable House may seem meet."

The House would see, therefore, that the petition contained imputations on the character and conduct of one of its Committees. He wished, most respectfully, to call the attention of the House to the fact of Members voting in the Committee, who had heard none of the evidence. It was at all times irksome to him to throw any reflections on the character of any Gentlemen, particularly Members of that House; but he could not avoid saying, that such a proceeding as deciding an important question without hearing the evidence, was most improper. Rail-roads were coming most extensively into use, and a vast deal of capital was employed in constructing them. The noble Lord was proceeding to discuss the merits of the petition, when

suggested, that no further discussion should then take place. The petition ought first to be placed in a printed form in the hands of Members.

presented a petition from the inhabitants of Leicester, for the repeal of the Corn-laws, which the petitioners characterized as productive of distress to the artizans and working classes, and, consequently, very injurious to the trade and commerce of the empire. In this opinion he fully concurred.

supported the prayer of the petition, in conformity to the wishes of his constituents: at a more convenient opportunity, which he hoped would shortly be afforded, he should offer his opinion of the impolicy of these laws.

said, that as the petitioners had requested him to support the prayer of this petition, he would state, that he considered the existing system of Corn-laws to be as disadvantageous to the landlords as they were to the people at large.

presented a Petition from 6,000 inhabitants of Huddersfield, praying that they might be Represented in Parliament, that the system of Preston, or Universal Suffrage, should be adopted, and that the suffrage should be taken by ballot. The petitioners were much pleased when the noble Lord first brought in the Bill, but finding that it did not extend to them, they; thought they should be wanting to themselves not to petition for the extension of suffrage to them.

called the attention of the House to this circumstance, that Ministers called their present Reform Bill a final measure, and that petitions were daily presented to the House from large masses of the people complaining that they were excluded under it from the elective franchise.

said, that though these petitions might be against the measure, there were twenty to one of the people throughout the country in its favour, and one hundred to one opposed to the present system.

submitted, that it was quite impossible that any such arrangement as that which the hon. member for Westminster had just suggested, could be carried at present into execution. There were many election committees now sitting, and the Members who were ballotted to serve upon them were compelled by law to give their attendance at ten o'clock in the morning. How, therefore, could such Members be present at a discussion of so much importance as that on the Reform Bill?

assured his hon. friend, the member for Westminster, that the Government, seeing the length to which the discussions in the Committee on the Reform Bill were likely to run, had taken this very suggestion into consideration. He thought that nothing had, at present, occurred which would justify such an extraordinary departure from the customs of the House as the sitting at ten o'clock in the morning. Still, he would say, that if any delay were to be so wilfully created as to make it likely that this all-important Bill would be defeated by the lapse of time, it would be the duty of the House to take measures to expedite the progress of business. With regard to the Committees sitting on election petitions, he admitted, that if those Committees were to be ballotted for, the objection which his right hon. friend had just raised to the House commencing its sitting at ten o'clock in the morning was perfectly insurmountable. There might, however, be circumstances which would render it desirable to make an alteration in that respect. He repeated his conviction, that nothing had yet occurred in the House which would justify him in acceding to his hon. friend's suggestion; still he would not go the length of asserting, that circumstances might not occur which would induce him to accede to it.

thought, that the proposition of the hon. member for Westminster was one which the House ought instantly to adopt. Judging from the little progress which had been made in the Bill during the past week, he would say, that, instead of three weeks, six mouths would not see them at the close of the discussion upon it. Though he felt no less willing from inclination, than from duty to his constituents, to remain at his post in that House, he was afraid that many Members would be weaned out by the vexation and the delay. Besides, the country would grow impatient, and would think, that the parties who had the management of the Bill were not sincere, if they always kept moving: without making any progress. He hoped, that his noble friend would take this suggestion into his consideration. The decision on the election petitions might be postponed without inconvenience or expense to any person, except in one or two of the earliest cases, in which the witnesses were, perhaps, in town.

asserted, that what had just fallen from the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had the appearance of a threat to the House, which he had not expected from such a quarter. The noble Lord had said, that circumstances had not yet occurred which rendered the adoption of such a course necessary; but he had suggested, that if the progress of the Bill were further delayed, such a course would be followed. He did not wish to misrepresent the noble Lord, but he understood him in that sense. The noble Lord had said, that nothing had yet rendered the course suggested by the hon. member for Westminster necessary; but that, if any thing did render it necessary, he would unquestionably adopt it. One word as to the observation of the hon. member for Worcester, that despatch was necessary in order to satisfy the people of the sincerity of the parties who joined in the discussion of this Bill. Now, if there was one thing more to be deprecated than another in the discussion of this measure, it was the introduction of haste, and of any thing like a pressure on the House from without. That House, as at present constituted, how it might be hereafter constituted was a very different question, but the House, as at present constituted, consisted of individuals of all classes and professions in the country. There were many members of the profession to which he had the honour to belong, who were also Members of the House. They could not attend at ten o'clock in the morning. Was it intended to disqualify them, and others in similar situations, from attending their duties in Parliament? or was it intended to compel them to give up all their other occupations for the performance of their public duty alone? It appeared to him that the measure was proceeding through the House with all possible haste. It had been proposed, that they should have, in future, two Speakers, one to sit by night, and the other to sit by day. Were they, then, determined to sit by clay as well as by night? If so, that would be a novelty as great even as the existence of a reformed Parliament; and to enable them to go on with it, they must get, not a new Constitution for the country, but a new Constitution for themselves. Or were they to have two sets of Members? If they had not, he did not know how the work which the hon. member for Westminster had cut out for them could be got through. He, for one, had not strength for it; he could not sit in the House any longer than he did at present; he came in at its first meeting, and remained till its rising, from a wish, to perform his duty honestly by his country in this important crisis. With a view to the favourable reception of the Bill in the country, the noble Lord could not inflict a greater injury upon it than by forcing it precipitately through the House. Instead of exciting and agitating the people more and more every day, let the House and the Ministers pause, and give them time for a fair, a calm, and a dispassionate investigation of this measure.

appealed to the House whether he had said any thing which could justify the extraordinary speech of the hon. and learned member for St. Mawes? He meant no threat, nor had his words implied a threat. He had said before, and he would repeat the observation, that he had not seen any such loss of time yet occasioned to the Committee as required the application of the suggestion made by his hon. friend, the member for Westminster. He had, however, added, that if such obstruction should be offered in the shape of delay to the progress of this Bill, as would render it impossible to get it through the House in any reasonable time, it might then be necessary to resort to such a measure. He was well aware of the inconvenience of meeting at ten o'clock in the morning; but he must nevertheless remind the hon. member for St. Mawes, that it had always been the doctrine of that House, that the first, and by far the most paramount duty of a Member of Parliament, was, to give his attendance regularly in that House upon all questions of public importance. He meant, certainly, to do all that was right and proper to facilitate the progress of the Bill, and nothing beyond that.

said, as this was a measure of the utmost importance, it ought on no account to be hurried forward so quickly as to prevent its receiving all the consideration possible. Such a comprehensive measure if it was properly considered, would necessarily take much time in passing. He regretted, that the measure had not been divided into parts, as that would have materially tended to shorten the discussion, and facilitate its progress.

then rose, and said:— "I have to acquaint the House, that on Saturday last, I received a Letter from the Lord High Chancellor, dated ' High Court of Chancery, July 6th, 1831,' which, with their permission, I will now read."

"Mr. Speaker,—I have the honour of making known to you, for the information of the House of Commons, that I have issued my Warrant for the commitment of the Hon. W. Long Wellesley, Knight of the Shire for the County of Essex, for a contempt of this Court, confessed by him in open Court, in having taken his infant daughter, a ward of this Court, from the custody of those persons to whom she had been committed by order of this Court, and in having refused to deliver up the said infant ward, when served with an Order so to do, and in having stated, that he had resolved not to deliver her up, and that he had taken steps to withdraw her from the jurisdiction of this Court.

"The right of this Court to commit in such cases is unquestionable, and it has been enforced against the Peers of the realm; but I have thought fit to make this communication to you, for the purpose of bringing the House of Commons acquainted with the fact, and thus accounting for the absence of Mr. Long Wellesley, and also to testify my profound respect for the honourable House.

"BROUGHAM, Chancellor."

then continued.—I have this day received the following Letter from Mr. Long Wellesley:—

"London, July 18th, 1831.

"Mr. Speaker,—I have the honour to inform you, that on Saturday last I was ordered by the Lord Chancellor into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms of the Court of Chancery. I am not aware that I am so confined for any breach of law which could subject a Member of Parliament to such detention. I therefore beg leave to submit to you, Sir, and the House, the consideration of this act, as being an infringement of the privileges of Parliament, of those of my constituency, of the people generally, and of myself.

"I have the honour further to request, that you will lay this, my complaint, before the House, hoping that they will find cause to direct my immediate discharge, in order that I may be able, without delay, to attend in my place there to perform my public duties. I have the honour to be, Mr. Speaker, your faithful and obedient servant,

"W.L. WELLESLEY.

"The Right Hon. Mr. Speaker."

having made the communication of these Letters to the House, resumed the Chair.

said, that it appeared from the Letters which the Speaker had just read to them, that Peers of this realm had been committed under circumstances similar to those under which Mr. Long Wellesley had been committed. He believed, however, that this was the first case in which any Member of the House of Commons had been committed for a contempt of Court. He believed, that the distinction drawn in cases of this description was simply this;—That in civil actions, the privilege of Parliament protected a Member from arrest; but that in criminal proceedings, it did not. The present was a peculiar case, which partook of the nature both of a civil and of a criminal proceeding; for, undoubtedly, any person being guilty of such a contempt of Court, as in the presence of its Judge to avow his determination not to obey the will of the Court, and to state, that he had taken steps to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Court, one of its wards, did appear to be guilty of something like a criminal action. It appeared to him, that this was a case to which the Privilege of Parliament did not apply. But as there might be some difficulty, though he did not anticipate any, as to the course which the House ought to pursue, he thought it would be advisable to refer the consideration of the whole of this matter to a Committee of Privileges. He would not, however, make a proposition to that effect, unless there should be some opposition to the opinion which he had just expressed.

was of opinion, that the suggestion which the noble Lord had just thrown out, was the only proper proposition for the consideration of the House. If the present case were, as it had been stated, a case primæ impressionis, it was fitting that it should be fully and maturely discussed, before the House came to any decision upon it. The question involved in this case was not whether the proceeding was civil or criminal, but whether the principle on which the decision of it was to rest, was in accordance with those principles on which the House had always acted hitherto,—namely, that the privilege of Parliament extended to all cases, save those of treason, felony, and breach of the peace. Under those principles every decision of the House of Commons, in cases of this nature, had been hitherto framed. Cases had occurred in which the House had decided how far the exception to the protection of privilege in cases of breach of the peace could be carried. One of them was decided by a Resolution to which the House came on the 14th of April, 1697. That Resolution was as follows:—" That no Member of Parliament hath any privilege in case of a breach of the peace, or a forcible entry, or a forcible detainer." On the ground of that Resolution, he conceived that a contempt of Court, accompanied by a breach of the peace or any exercise of force, would deprive a Member of that House of all protection from arrest on the score of his privilege. There was a case, in the other House of Parliament, in which it had been decided, that no privilege of Parliament should withstand the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Here, however, was a case, in which it became necessary for the House of Commons to decide whether any contempt of Court would justify that Court in arresting a Member of the House of Commons, who had been guilty of such contempt. On that point he would deliver no opinion. Perhaps the particular case of contempt then under consideration, would go far to justify a commitment; but certainly the point was a new one, and the House was called on, in assenting to the arrest, to go further than it had ever before gone. As it was, therefore, a matter of some doubt, he concurred in the propriety of the noble Lord's suggestion, that the whole consideration of this matter be referred to a Committee of Privileges.

thought this case very similar to that of Lord Cochrane, in which the noble Lord was arrested in that House after his escape from the King's Bench prison, and in which the House determined that the Marshal was not guilty of any breach of privilege in so arresting him. The Committee of Privileges, to which that question was referred, stated that they could find no case analogous to it; but added, that it was their opinion, that in the arrest of Lord Cochrane, none of the privileges of Parliament had been violated. To say, that Members of that House were not to pay the same respect as the rest of their fellow-subjects to the Courts of the country, which were instituted for the general protection of the community, was quite absurd. It would tend more than anything which could be devised to paralyse the working of the Courts throughout the country; and he should be amazingly sorry to learn, that any Member of that House could oppose, thwart, and obstruct, the Court of the Lord High Chancellor.

thought, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. W. Wynn), had put a wrong construction on the passage which he read from a Resolution of the House passed in 1697. Mr. Wellesley had only been guilty of a constructive contempt of Court without force. Gentlemen should recollect, that the words in the Resolution, "forcible entry, and forcible detainer," alluded to entry and detainers of land only. In this case there was no indictment for trespass on lands, and therefore no criminal process could issue against Mr. Wellesley. Besides, it would be a dangerous doctrine to assert, that a Member of Parliament should be liable to arrest for everything which a Judge might determine to be contempt of Court. Every Court of Record had a right to commit for contempt, or constructive contempt, and that doctrine had, to his knowledge, been carried so far, that a Court of Quarter Sessions had declared the proprietor of a newspaper, who had published some comments on its proceeding, to be guilty of a contempt, and had punished him accordingly. Unless great care, therefore, were taken in the decision in the present case, it might serve as a precedent hereafter to a Court of Quarter Sessions to exercise the same power with respect to a Member of Parliament. Under these circumstances it was obvious, that the subject required mature consideration.

said, that instead of calling this a constructive contempt, he must call it a matter of fact contempt of Court. For his own part, he must say that he, as a Member of Parliament, should be sorry to have a privilege which would enable him not to yield the same obedience as the rest of his countrymen to the Orders of a Court, which were intended for the benefit of the country.

moved, that the Order of committal be also submitted to the said Committee.

said, that the Motion was unnecessary, as the Committee must inspect that committal, as a matter of course.

said, the origin of the protection given to Members arose from certain unfair practices which were had recourse to in former times, to prevent them from attending and discharging their duties. This was the cause why they were protected from arrest, but it never could be intended that this protection should extend to shield them from the consequences of a direct violation of the law. If that were the case, all sorts of crimes might be committed by Members of Parliament with impunity; it was, therefore, quite clear that this privilege did not extend to protect a Member who had been guilty of violent and improper conduct.

concurred with what had been said by the hon. member for Sussex, as to the injustice of extending the privileges of Parliament to protect any species of crime; and so strongly did he feel on the subject, that if he were a Member of that House in the next Parliament, he would introduce a motion to prevent Members from pleading their privilege as a bar to imprisonment for debt. He thought, that it was very detrimental to the public weal, as well as a great scandal, that any set of men should enjoy privileges which enabled them to set their creditors at defiance. It was then ordered, that the Warden of the Fleet Prison, or any other officer, in whose custody the hon. William Pole Tylney Long Wellesley may be, do bring the said hon. William Pole Tylney Long Wellesley in safe custody, to-morrow, to the Committee of Privileges, and so, from time to time, as often as his attendance shall be thought necessary; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly.

begged to say a few words before the House went into Committee, on the subject of shooting dogs in Hyde Park. A few days since, he had taken an opportunity of mentioning to the noble Lord (Duncannon), the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, that he had seen no less than seven dogs shot in Hyde Park, in one day, by the keepers; and that he was convinced, so cruel and needless an act was entirely unsanctioned by, and unknown to, his royal highness the Duke of Sussex, the Ranger of that Park. He made this communication, because he thought, that it was within the province of the Board of Woods and Forests to give orders that such a practice as this should be discontinued. He was informed, however that only the day before yesterday, two other dogs had been shot in Hyde Park by the keepers, and he therefore took this opportunity of asking the noble Lord, whether the keepers were au- thorized to shoot these dogs; and if so, to submit to him the propriety of suggesting to the royal Duke the necessity of ordering that no more dogs be shot. The practice was not only cruel and disgusting, but was actually attended with great danger, for children were constantly playing about in that part of the Park where the keepers were stationed to shoot the dogs, and an accident might happen to them of serious consequences. Independent, however, of this consideration, it might be asked, what right the keepers had to shoot any dogs which were roaming about in the Park, any more than they had to shoot them on the high road? He knew of no law by which they were authorized to do so; and if they took this license upon themselves, why should they not take to shooting horses as well as dogs? That such an undue exercise of authority had been practised by the keepers, was certain, for he was credibly informed, that they spared no dogs whatever which they found straying or roaming in the Park, but shot them all indiscriminately, from the lady's lap dog up to the Newfoundland dog.

acknowledged having been favoured by a communication from the right hon. Member opposite, on the subject of the dogs that were shot in Hyde Park; and he had reported the observations that had been made to him, to the Superintendent of the Ranger's establishment, who replied, that the keepers had orders to shoot no dogs whatever, except when they were chasing the deer. He was convinced, upon the statement of the right hon. Member, that the keepers must have exceeded their orders; and he should take an early opportunity of representing the matter to his royal highness, the Ranger, who, he was sure, was most anxious that no such unnecessary cruelty should continue to be practised.

observed, that the right hon. Member had expressed some doubts as to the legality of the keepers shooting dogs in Hyde Park. He could confirm those doubts; for he would take upon him to say, that they had no more right to shoot dogs in Hyde Park, unless they were chasing deer, than they had to fire upon them in the highway.

begged leave to invite the attention of the noble Lord below him to a subject of considerable interest and importance, which, he could assure him, he did not bring forward, on the present occasion, under any feeling of disrespect or disloyalty to the illustrious personage who now filled the Throne of these Realms. Economy, however, was an essential part of the compact between himself and his constituents; and he was, therefore, induced to allude to the expense which the public was to soon about to incur, on account of his Majesty's coronation, which he saw was fixed to take place on the 8th of September next. He might be allowed to express a hope, that it would be conducted on principles very different from those which had regulated the enormous expenditure at the coronation of George the 4th. Whether it should be a solemn ceremony, of national interest and political importance, or a mere empty and ostentatious parade, in his opinion, in a great measure depended on the amount of outlay it would occasion. The present King, he was sure, was a monarch who would content himself with reigning in the hearts and affections of his subjects, without requiring a wasteful prodigality of public money, which the country could ill afford. He thought, under all circumstances, that the House should endeavour to ascertain what would be the expense before they subjected the country to it; and hoped, that the noble Lord would be able at least to inform them, what would be the probable amount of the expenditure, if he could not at present undertake to name the exact sum.

stated, in reply, that the coronation was a state form, which had taken place in every reign, and, he believed, in every country in Europe; but in England, since the period of the Revolution, it had been customary for the King to take an oath on the occasion, which rendered it thenceforth a ceremonial of high political importance. He quite agreed with the hon. Member, that extravagance on such an occasion, in the present circumstances of the country, was peculiarly unfitting; and felt happy to be enabled to add, that the Sovereign himself was desirous that the public should not be required to be at any expense upon his account, that was not absolutely necessary. The cost of the former coronation, it was true, had been enormous, but that of the present, he trusted, would not prove one-fifth so extravagant; for the Treasury had already given orders, that no estimate should be issued, which had not previously been submitted to their consideration. He hoped, therefore, that the House would see reason to be satisfied, that the expenditure had been regulated by a due regard for economy, so soon as they should have an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the amount of the estimates, and the extent of the retrenchments. More, how ever, he could not then state for the information of the House, the estimates not having been yet prepared.

said, if the hon. member for Surrey was anxious to have the accounts of the expenses of the last coronation, he would recommend him to move for them.

was glad to hear the statement which had just been made by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and hoped, that Ministers would cause these estimates to be laid before the House, and procure the assent of the House to them, before the expense, as on former occasions, should be irretrievably incurred. It was usual, unfortunately for the country, at the celebration of such ceremonies, to issue a considerable brevet commission, which cost not less than 10,000l.increase of pay, independent of the various other expenses which it had been thought so convenient an opportunity to introduce. He trusted, however, that we now lived in better times, and that promotions, with increase of pay, as well as every other idle extravagance, heretofore put in practice, would be dispensed with.

replied, that that subject, also, was under the consideration of his Majesty's Government.

said, he should next beg leave to solicit the noble Lord's attention to the opportunity of introducing a partial Church Reform, in consequence of the vacancy recently occasioned in the see of Derry, by the death of the Bishop of that diocese. Reform, he submitted, should be introduced there as well as elsewhere; and, to be effectual as a conciliatory measure, it should be immediate, or a sweeping and universal measure of Church Reform must be the consequence. As they stood much upon precedents in that House, he was happy to be enabled to supply one, which would sufficiently authorize the course he had recommended. In 1807, long after we obtained possession of the Island of Malta, the Bishop of that diocese died, on which Sir Alexander Ball had recommended, in a letter bearing date the 1st of May, that the income should be reduced from 3,800l. per annum to 2,000l., proposing at the same time, that the surplus should be appropriated, partly to the education of the people, partly to increase the salaries of the inferior clergy, who were not sufficiently well provided for, and partly to other charitable purposes. To which advice Lord Castlereagh had assented without hesitation, and directed, that the Bishop's income should be limited to 2,000l. In a subsequent despatch, Sir Alexander Ball informed the Government, that he had carried this arrangement into effect, and that it had given general satisfaction. Now, the income of the Bishoprick which had just become vacant amounted to from 14,000l. to 20,000l. a year, besides forty-two perferments in the gift of the Bishop of various amounts, from 450l. to l,400l. per annum, including many glebes, some of which consisted of not less than 900 or 1,000 acres. In this instance he thought that his Majesty's Ministers could not do better than follow the example of Lord Castlereagh, and as it was not often that he could adduce that statesman as an example for imitation, he was happy, on that occasion, to say that his authority was in favour of a most important principle. By following it, he was sure Ministers would occasion as much rejoicing in Ireland as his Lordship had formerly produced by a similar reform amongst the inhabitants of Malta.

did not consider the case quoted as one in point, and, therefore, did not recognize the propriety of the comparison.

said, he should take the present opportunity to make known to the House a communication of some interest in connexion with the recent accession of Prince Leopold to the throne of Belgium. Hon. Members were, of course, aware, that certain expectations had been held out respecting the annuity granted to his royal Highness by Parliament, at the period of his marriage with the Princess Charlotte. That annuity, however, was unquestionably the property of his Royal Highness, to dispose of as he thought proper; it had been settled on him by Act of Parliament, and Government, therefore, could not possibly take any step to induce him to resign it. His Majesty's Ministers accordingly had never made any suggestion, or offered any advice, to his Royal Highness upon the subject; but this morning that illustrious individual had transmitted to Karl Grey a resignation of that pension in terms which it was but right that he should read expressly to the House. [The noble Lord accordingly read the letter, for which see the report of the Debate in the House of Lords, ante, p. 1384.] His Lordship said, that his Royal Highness, equally considerate on another point, had also placed his colonelcy at the disposal of Lord Hill. He felt assured that the House would do justice to the liberality of his Royal Highness.

was understood to express his satisfaction that this spontaneous concession on the part of his Royal Highness had superseded the necessity for a question which he had meant to ask on this subject. He was sure his royal High ness's liberality would be received with the respect and admiration which his virtues in other respects entitled him to. A reign which had begun so well, could not, he hoped, be other than a long and happy one.

conceived, that there could be but one feeling in that House as to the extreme liberality of Prince Leopold, in thus foregoing his pension, to which he had as clear and undoubted a right as any one Member of that House had to his own estate. he was, therefore, glad that the hon. member for Worcester had had no opportunity of asking any questions on the subject. As to his Royal High ness's compulsory resignation of his allowance, or any part of it, that was a thing that could not have been thought of, and the wise conduct which had just been announced to the House could only be considered an act of voluntary and unqualified liberality on the part of Prince Leopold. To him it seemed a very wise act, and well calculated to recommend him to the affections of those who were about to place him on the throne of their country.

could not deny himself the pleasure of expressing the satisfaction which he felt, and which he was sure the country would feel, at the communication just made by the noble Lord, which was one in accordance with the whole conduct of the illustrious Prince who was called to a new destiny. That Prince had embarked in a new career, which would contribute, he trusted, to his own glory and happiness, and to the prosperity of the Belgian people, whom he had been called upon to govern. That this was a pure act of magnanimous generosity on the part of that illustrious person, no one could doubt, for he was as fully and justly entitled to this income as any one of them to their estates, and he had no doubt that his generous conduct would be justly appreciated from one end of this kingdom to the other, although to those who had had the honour of coining in contact with, and knowing the sentiments of, that illustrious individual, this last act of his Would only be felt as in unison with every part of his conduct, which had procured for him the respect and the good wishes of every individual, and every class in the community.

trusted, the right hon. Baronet would believe him when he stated, that he was by no means anxious to ask the question with respect to Prince Leopold's annuity. On the contrary, he had waited until the last moment, in order, that if the noble Lord had any statement to make on the subject, he might do so before he had said a word in reference to it.

wished to advert to a subject in which he felt a deep interest. When the subject of the Irish Yeomanry was formerly before the House, he had understood, that the right hon. Gentleman had pledged himself that the issuing of arms to the Orange Yeomanry should be discontinued. But he had been informed, that on the 11th of July a new company had been organized, called the Ogle Blues, and had received arms from the Government. That company did not stand high in the estimation of the county of Wexford, in which it was formed. However, on the 11th of July it received its arms in the town of Wexford — the men had gone up the river afterwards in a boat, bearing Orange flags, firing shots on both sides of the river, having a band playing party tunes. Such was the pledge which he understood had been given, and such was the manner in which it had been redeemed. More blood had been shed in Ireland. At Banbridge four men and one woman had been shot, and it was said, that two or three Orangemen had been shot. The latter was doubtful, but it was quite certain that the Catholics had been killed. In the town of Enniskillen, General Officers had joined the procession of the Orangemen in their regimentals; and how was it possible, he would ask, to preserve tranquillity in Ireland if such things were practised, and arms were put into the hands of one party? That more blood had been shed was not, he believed the fault of the Catholics, who had acted with a degree of forbearance which entitled them to the protection of the Government. In Enniskillen the proclamation had been disregarded, and disregarded by the Magistrates, who had attended the procession which the proclamation forbad. As Lord Redesdale said long ago, there was in Ireland one law for the poor and another for the rich. Let the House look at what had happened at Newtownbarry. The Government, indeed, had done its duty on that occasion, and deserved his thanks. But what had happened there? Why the private Yeomanry had been sent to gaol, while the officer, who had given orders to fire, according to the testimony of three or four witnesses, was let out on bail. This was extraordinary, too, because, of the three Magistrates who had conducted the investigation, two were for committing all the parties to gaol, but three or four Magistrates were let in from the county, and they over-ruled the decision of the two Magistrates who had gone through the whole investigation. That fact was only one of a family, and it might give the House a clue to the disturbances in Ireland. One class of persons despised the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant —acted against it—encouraged processions—and saw the land deluged with blood. Ought these Magistrates, ought the people who did these things, to be intrusted with arms? On such a subject it was impossible for the Representatives of Ireland to do their duty and remain silent. The processions of the Catholics were not joined by any one gentleman of family or influence; they were exclusively processions of the people; hut the instant the proclamation was issued, the Catholic gentlemen used their influence to suppress these processions, and succeeded. There were no processions this year of the Catholics. The Catholic population had obeyed the Government; the loyal population—the population who called themselves exclusively the friends of the Government— had disobeyed the law and defied the proclamation. He felt it his duty to ask, therefore, if he had misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, and if he had not pledged himself, that no more arms should be issued to the Yeomanry? If the right hon. Gentleman had, as he understood, given such a pledge, he was sure that it was not the fault of the right hon. Gentleman if arms had since been issued to the Yeomanry.

said, this was the first time that he had ever heard of the existence of such a corps as the Ogle Blues, and, a fortiori, he could not have known of their having received arms. The pledge which he had already given, he would again repeat. Arms were certainly in process of delivery to the Yeomanry in lieu of those which had been pronounced unserviceable, when the affray at Newtownbarry caused the Government to direct, that the issue should be discontinued, till further orders should be received upon the subject. He hoped, therefore, that the information which the hon. Member had just stated would be found, on inquiry, to prove incorrect. The greatest satisfaction, he believed, had been occasioned by the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers, in sending down a stipendiary Magistrate to investigate the merits of that transaction, the result of which had been, that out of forty-one persons against whom informations were laid, seven were committed, and the remainder were let out on bail to different amounts, according to the nature and extent of the allegations affecting them. The evidence against Captain Graham had been found so imperfect and contradictory, that the Magistrate, in the exercise of his discretion, had felt himself justified in taking bail, in his case, to the amount of 1,000l., with two sureties in 500l. each; and, in fact, no one could entertain the smallest doubt that a man of such respectability, under the circumstances, would be forthcoming to take his trial. With respect to the affair at Banbridge on the 12th of July, he was informed that it was a preconcerted affair between both the parties, who were determined to fight it out. The Protestants were determined to have the procession, and the Catholics were determined to prevent it, and it was agreed between the two parties, that they should meet at a certain place, and settle their difference by a fight. When the procession took place, the party which attacked it were not of the neighbourhood, but a faction called the Threshers, that were wandering about there, and laid wait for the procession. They were regularly dislodged, and though a great many shots were fired, he believed, that no person was killed, and that those who died, were drowned in the river. He had not heard, that any person had died of a gun-shot wound, though three or four hundred shots were fired. A stipendiary Magistrate was sent down from the Castle to inquire into the matter, but a Coroner's Inquest, composed of six Catholics and six Protestants, had found such a verdict that further inquiry was unnecessary. Government had acted in the affair with the utmost impartiality. With regard to the processions, the Government had expressed a strong feeling on the subject; but it must be remembered that there was no law which made the Orange processions illegal. The Government had discouraged such processions, but did not think it necessary to resort to any new laws for this purpose.

regretted to be obliged to observe, that those unhappy Orange processions had found their way into Scotland. He had just received notice, that in attempting to check the proceedings of certain Irishmen, which were contrary to the feelings of the people of Scotland, one constable had been killed, and several people severely wounded. If such was the result of these political processions, it was high time for the Legislature to put them down.

urged, that it was the duty of the Legislature to provide by law against the recurrence of these scenes of wanton violence and Outrage, in commemoration of that which had occurred considerably more than a century back. Had similar celebrations followed up the battle of Culloden, no one could doubt, that Scotland would exhibit as bitter religious animosities as had now afflicted Ireland for more than a similar period. It was, therefore, obviously the duty of Parliament to make it penal to join in any of these processions from this time forth. He had seen a letter that had been received by the hon. member for Ayr, describing the riot in Scotland, and stating, that it was caused by Irishmen of the neighbourhood celebrating the 12th of July.

had heard of the unhappy affray to which the hon. Member had alluded. It arose from a procession which took place at Girvan, on the I2thof July, where several bands of Orangemen had resolved to have a procession. Some stones were thrown, and on two constables stepping forward to remonstrate with the Orangemen, the latter fired at them, and one of the constables was instantly shot. More shots were fired, and several persons were wounded. He did not wish to enter further into the subject, as it was his duty, and the duty of those who exercised his authority in his absence, to institute a public inquiry into this transaction. He wished to add, that the ordinary police of the country ought to be strengthened by some law, to put an end to processions wherever there was a large portion of the Irish population.

observed, that it was high time Government should take some decided step, and put an end to the processions, which disturbed the peace of Ireland, and appeared to gather increased strength, and were attended with more aggravated circumstances in each succeeding year. If it were true, that officers in the military service of his Majesty had disgraced themselves so far as to countenance the processions of the Orangemen, and if, also, the Magistrates had not done their duty, they ought to be dismissed from their employment with disgrace; and he must express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would not overlook such conduct.

said, that, as yet, no representation had been made to Government of Magistrates having been concerned in these processions—but, in case any were made, he assured the House that the authorities would deal with the offenders most severely, and inflict that punishment which such an offence would warrant.

begged to deny the truth of the statement made by the hon. and learned member for Clare, in so far as it related to the Orange processions in Enniskillen.

did not wish to prolong the discussion, but he really could not hear the recommendations of the right hon. member for Waterford (Sir John Newport), backed as they were by the hon. member for Preston (Mr. J. Wood), without entering against them his strongest and most earnest protest. He believed, from his knowledge of the Orangemen of the North of Ireland, that any attempt to put them down, and to prevent their processions by legislative enactments, would utterly fail. ["hear, hear!" from Mr. O'Connell.] The hon. member for Kerry cheered that, and he might do so with good reason, for no one had been more successful in violating the law, as a member of illegal associations, than that hon. Member. He repeated, however, his firm conviction, that the Orangemen were not to be put down in that manner, and that nothing would be more likely to perpetuate the evils of processions, than to attempt to put down, by the means of legislative enactments, those privileges which they believed themselves to have derived from their forefathers, who shed their blood to obtain them. He was no Orangeman himself, but he knew much of them from his connection with the county of Derry, and he believed he could say with truth, that in the North of Ireland, and particularly in that part of it to which he belonged, there was the strongest disposition to comply with the views of the Government, and to put an end to all processions. Everything that could be done had been done in former years by the Protestant Gentlemen and Magistrates to stop the processions, but they had not succeeded until the present year, when, he believed, for the first time in the memory of man, no procession had taken place, except that one at Banbridge, which had produced such painful consequences. He had the strongest reason to believe, that these processions would now be put an end to, but he repeated, that the course recommended would be dangerous and ineffectual.

was surprised at the advice given by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, who had himself admitted, that these men had risen in large bodies, in hostile array against their fellow-subjects, and who yet contended that no attempt ought to be made by the Legislature to put them down. "Why, the very fact of such meetings of large bodies of armed men, as constituted these processions, was itself a reason that such meetings should be stopped. In his opinion, these men should not be [allowed to have arms; and if any farther riot or bloodshed arose from Orange processions, or from the violence of the Yeomanry, he would say, that the blood would be on the head of the Government which did not deprive them of the means of doing mischief. AH classes of his Majesty's subjects in Ireland ought to he placed on the same footing. Why should one class of men be armed to insult and domineer over their fellow-men? From the present Government he hoped better things, but from the late Government he had no such hope, as their policy was to keep up party distinctions. He was, however, surprised, that the present Government had not altered the system. It was monstrous that out of twenty-one Magistrates in one county, who had to settle the disputes between these parties, not one was a Roman Catholic. Was that fair? Was it likely to promote the ends of justice? The better way would be, to have the Government of Ireland carried on here, and we should then get rid of all those local and party distinctions, and have justice fairly administered. He asked what reason could be given for continuing arms in the hands of a body of men, who, when told they should not have the use of them, on a particular occasion, declared they would go and take them? After such a statement, what excuse could the Government offer for continuing arms in the hands of these corps? He could only attribute such conduct to some preponderating influence, which Government were ashamed to acknowledge. The Irish people must have justice dealt out impartially to them, and these local influences, which were so grossly abused, must be done away with. These Orange processions, and other party displays, must be put down by law, before they could hope to see the country tranquil.

regretted to hear such language as that which had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex on this subject. There never was a time, for years, when so little display had been made by Orangemen as this year. As to the melancholy affair at Banbridge, which had been alluded to, no authentic account had yet been received, and it was most unfair to attack the Magistrates and Yeomanry by irritating language, until such an account was before the House. It was, however, to him, who, as an Irishman, was well acquainted with what had formerly occurred on that day, some consolation to think, that this was the only occasion, this year, in which blood had been shed. The day, in general, had passed overmuch more quietly than formerly. As to the hon. Member's suggestion, to get rid of the Government of Ireland, he would only say, that the hon. Member could not advise any step which would be more effectual for promoting the question of a Repeal of the Union. Any one who took the trouble to look back to the exertions of the Yeomanry in 1798, must acknowledge we owed mainly to their services the continuance of the connexion between the countries. When imputations were thrown on the conduct of the right hon. Secretary, and the Government of Ireland, he thought it right to say, that as far as the Orangemen and processions were concerned, it had been strictly impartial. If it pursued the same course on all occasions, it would be supported by all the friends of Ireland. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Dawson) that any attempt to put down the Orangemen of Ireland by force, would be exceedingly impolitic, and would not have the intended effect.

observed, that the hon. member for Middlesex, not knowing, or leaving out of consideration, the facts of a case, had charged the late Government with keeping up religious dissensions in Ireland. He denied, that the policy of the late Government had been to encourage any such dissensions. The measures to put down Orange Societies with secret oaths, were recommended and carried into execution by the late Government, which did every thing in its power to put down party distinctions and dissensions. He wished with all his heart, that these processions and party displays were put an end to.

regretted, that arms should be continued in the hands of such men as those who had taken part in the late proceedings in Ireland, for it was lamentable that such men should have the power to produce such mischief. He admitted, that the prevailing opinion amongst these men was, that these processions were not illegal. In a case which occurred some time ago in the county of Down, an Orange procession was put down by the aid of the civil power, and some of the men who were taken into custody, and sent to trial, in order to have the opinion of the Judge as to whether such meetings were illegal, produced warrants, signed by the Duke of Cumberland, and having also the names of many gentlemen of rank and station, as a sort of justification of their meeting. It was not unnatural, that when a man conceived himself authorized to hold an Orange Lodge, he was likewise authorized to join an Orange procession. The Magistrates who met on the occasion, thought the affair of sufficient importance to send an account of it to Government, but they received no answer. The men, when brought to trial, which was only effected by the determination of the Magistrates, after much opposition, submitted, but no sentence was prayed for, as the prosecutors only wished to have the opinion of the Court as to the illegality of those assemblies. The Judge on that occasion (Mr. Justice Jebb) stated generally, that which they all knew before, that any meeting calculated to excite terror, and tending to a breach of the peace, was illegal. The steps taken by the Magistracy on that occasion had, however, this effect—that the peace of that part of the country had not been disturbed since, by any such meetings, and he had no doubt that a little active exertion, and a patient and conciliatory disposition on the part of the Magistrates, would put an end to them in every part of the country. He regretted, that the wish of Government, that these processions should be discontinued, was not communicated to the Magistrates, instead of being expressed only to Orange Lodges and Orange Yeomanry; and he was certain, that with the assistance of two or three active right-minded Magistrates, he could stop all such meetings in the county of Down. But while Magistrates avowed themselves in courts of justice as office bearers in Orange Lodges, as he had heard on one occasion, in the presence of one of the Judges of Assize, who never noticed the circumstance, it was impossible to expect that Orange processions could be put down. What gave them additional importance was, that they were mailer of military parade, and when a Magistrate acted as Grand Master, or Deputy Grand Master, he gave a sanction to them. He admitted, readily, that it would be impossible to put down such processions, unless the country gentlemen assisted, and as they could put them down, he said the blame of their existence attached to them. He must express a hope, that the attention of Government, which had hitherto been so little directed to this subject, might be now called to it. While he was upon this matter, he begged to remark, that the practice of inquiring into the religion of men belonging to any corps, had a very bad effect, he himself had heard such inquiries made. The Yeomanry had expected the countenance and sanction of the Government, they expected to be put on immediate pay. He was well acquainted with the feelings of the people, and be was convinced, that nothing would effectually promote peace in Ireland, until these corps were suppressed.

deprecated this desultory discussion in a case where no result could be come to. There was, in fact, no difference of opinion, for every Gentleman had expressed his disapprobation of these processions. He thought, therefore, that the sooner the House proceeded to the business of the Day the better.

said, he did not think they ought to put an end to a discussion in which the innocent had been condemned, and the guilty praised, without the former being vindicated, and the latter condemned. In the late affair, a body of Orangemen were proceeding quietly along in a procession, as they were accustomed, on July 12th, when they were attacked and fired upon by a set of persons calling themselves Threshers, who were ready prepared with arms for the purpose, and secreted behind hedges. The Orangemen were thus compelled to act in their own defence. There was nothing criminal in their processions, and no justification of this attack made on them, by men assembled in military array, could be invented. When the innocent party were stigmatized, and the guilty were praised, hon. Members on his (the Opposition) side of the House, were called upon to defend the right.

said, there was no necessity for a new enactment on the subject; all that was wanting was, that the existing law should be declared and put in force. For his own part, he had no doubt whatever, that Orange processions were illegal. He know, indeed, that the directions and authority of Government had been unable to prevent them in some places; at the same time he was aware the late Government had taken active steps to put them down, and had issued orders in June, 1829 —that no person connected with the Yeomanry should join these processions. In consequence of those orders, a captain of one of these corps had issued such directions to his men, but the lieutenant suppressed them, and several men attended the processions — gross outrages were committed, and yet the lieutenant was not censured, although these facts came out on inquiry.

said, that Orange processions, on the late occasion, were not by one-tenth so numerous as in former years. The explanation of the right hon. Secretary ought to have saved them from this discussion, particularly as the matter was still under investigation.

said, that as the speech of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) in the case of Sir Abraham Bradley King, seemed to have made a great impression on the House on a former night, he (Mr. Dawson) wished to make a brief statement on the present occasion. From the statement of the noble Lord, on the evening of the motion for a remuneration to Sir Abraham Bradley King, in consequence of the loss of his patent situation, as Government stationer, it would appear, that the Committee on the Irish Miscellaneous Estimates, in 1829, was not aware that his was a patent held during pleasure; but imagined, as it had been said again am again, that it was a patent for his life, and that, therefore, the Committee, having recommended that his existing vested rights should not be invaded, also recommended that no such contract or monopoly should be concluded in future. The argument of the noble Lord, therefore, was, that the Committee had acted in ignorance of the exact nature of the patent, and had only, on that account, sanctioned the recommendation indirectly for a compensation to that worthy Baronet, He had then stated, that he had a strong' recollection that the Committee was well acquainted with the fact. In that recollection he was fortified by referring to the volume of the proceedings of the House in their own library up-stairs, in which, by a singular coincidence, in the very page which contained a copy of that patent, printed by order of the House, he found a note from the Secretary of the Committee of 1829, to the Librarian, requesting him to send the Committee that volume which contained Sir Abraham Bradley King's patent, which appeared to have laid on the Committee's Table three weeks. He hoped the hon. and learned member for Newark would, after this explanation, feel there was no ground for charging the Government of that day with neglect of duty, by omitting to give the Committee this important information. He was happy, therefore, to be able to assert, that when the Committee declared Sir A. B. King had a vested right, they were in possession of all the facts of the case: and even had the patent before them when they gave their decision. Some hon. Gentlemen supposed, from what had been said by several members of the Committee, that they had insufficient evidence to go upon, and were not cognisant of the nature of the patent. He did not wish to open the question again, but felt called upon to make this statement, in justice to the Committee, to himself, and more particularly to the Government of the day. When the hon. and learned member for Newark heard this explanation, he would regret the language he had used formerly, charging the late Government with having endeavoured to delude and deceive the Committee. The patent, it was evident, had been open to the inspection of all; and the decision of the House the other night was, therefore, unsupported, in as much as that was, in a great degree, founded upon the supposition that the Committee, when it made the report, was not aware that the patent was revocable at pleasure. For his part, he felt the case to be one of the greatest injustice; and he had great apprehension it might hereafter be perverted as a precedent to commit similar acts of injustice with respect to other patent rights.

said, he had not been a member of the Committee, and, of course, his statement on a former evening was derived from the information of others. When the case was first taken into consideration at the Treasury, it was thought expedient to consult the Law Officers of the Crown as to the nature of the patent, and the reasons on which they decided were furnished by the report on record. He had opposed the motion for a grant on public grounds, and had formed his opinion, that no compensation ought to be granted to Sir A. B. Xing, not merely on the ground that the Committee were kept in ignorance that the patent was revocable at pleasure, but on a consideration of the whole facts of the case.

said, that he and the hon. member for Middlesex, and he believed the hon. Gentleman opposite himself, were ignorant that the patent was revocable at pleasure. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, that he had seen a paper, in the hand-writing of the Clerk of the Committee, was no evidence, that the patent had been read and discussed by the members of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had, on a former evening, stated, that Sir A. B. King's patent was similar to all other Irish patents; but, on looking over the King's Printer's patent, he found that that was not revocable at pleasure, but was held for life, while that of the King's Stationer was held only during pleasure. What vested right could there be in such a patent? Would any Government have entered into a treaty for the purchase of it, if it had known it could be revoked?

said, that he had also looked over the King's Printer's patent, but he found that it was not held for life, but for a term of forty years. This was a decided proof how difficult it was to take anything on assertion.

said, that the difference between the patent of the King's Printer and that of Sir A. B. King was, that the latter was revocable, and the former was not; he only spoke generally, and did not use the words in the sense applied by the right, hon. Gentleman.

was not aware, while a member of the Committee up-stairs, that Sir A. B. King's patent was not a patent for life; and he had had a considerable share in drawing up the report. Indeed, it was not until such a large sum was claimed for compensation, that he had looked at the patent, and then found that it was revocable at pleasure. The Go- vernment, on that account, thought it expedient to refer the subject to the Law Officers of the Crown, and the revocation of the patent was the result of their unanimous opinion.

had been a member of the Committee, and could positively assert, that he was not aware of the nature of the patent, he had been constant in his attendance at the meetings of the Committee.

thought it extraordinary, that the Members of a Committee should have agreed to a report without once looking at the patent on which it was founded. There had also been a debate on the subject of this very patent, if he were not mistaken; and the nature and tenure of the office of King's Stationer in Ireland had been frequently alluded to.

apprehended, from the statement of the noble Lord (Althorp), that a claim had been made for remuneration on the revocation of an office held during pleasure; and he considered, that no just or legal claim could be made for compensation in such a case. It had been said, that the members of the Committee acted, and assented to the report, under the mistaken impression, that the patent was for life; he had therefore asserted, that, on public grounds and in law, there was no right to grant compensation. There was a still stronger reason why it should not be given: he meant because it had been made out, that the patent had been abused, and that, under its protection, fraud had been committed. The Committee, in his mind, should have been furnished with the information which had very properly been laid before the legal authorities. Upon that alone, however, it would have been impossible they could have come to any other decision. He meant to bring no charge against the late Government, but he thought the present had acted most properly in consulting the Law Officers of the Crown, by which means it had been found, that Sir A. B. King had neither an equitable nor legal claim to compensation. The late reference to the patent, which ought to have been made long ago, was a very fortunate circumstance, and rather a God-send than a piece of wisdom.

thought the House overlooked the fact, that a positive contract had been made between the late Government and Sir A. B. King respecting his claim to remuneration. Articles for the appointment of arbitrators had been entered into, and it would have been impossible for Sir A. B. King to have receded, as he was compelled to give security to abide by their decision. The present Ministry, therefore, ought not to have broken the contract which the other party could not break. He thought the House had acted unjustly, and ought to retrace its steps.

said, he had to propose to the House to grant a vote of money to pay up the Civil Services of the country to the 5th of July. He hoped there would be no objection to agreeing to the vote, namely, 240,000l., because he should be willing to refer the different items to the consideration of a Select Committee. It was, however, absolutely necessary that the Civil services should be paid up to the time he had mentioned. The items which made up the amount were as follows:—The salaries of the Lord Chancellor and the Judges of England; the Civil List Pensions; the salaries of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the Irish Judges; the pensions in Ireland, the salaries of the Commissioners of the General Assembly of the Church in Scotland, of the Governors of the West-Indian Colonies, and the expenses of the works of the Royal Palaces. It was not his intention to detain the Committee by going into any details of these items, because he thought, that a Committee upstairs would be the best place for a minute examination of them. He must, however, in candour state, that he did not propose to refer the question of the pensions to the Committee up-stairs, because that was a question not at all fit for the examination of a Committee, but it was for the House to say whether they would, or would not, upon principle, vote for the pensions. He had, in the last Parliament, stated his opinion most decidedly on this subject. He thought the House was bound to vote the pensions, but it was a question of principle, and not for the investigation of a Committee. The other items were matters of detail, and he therefore had no objection to refer them to a Committee. He had now stated the grounds on which he asked the Mouse to agree to this vote. In point of fact, the money was already due, and it would be an ex post facto proceeding if they refused to grant it. The noble Lord then moved, that 240,000l. be granted to his Majesty, to provide for the payment of certain Salaries, Allowances, Pensions, and Services, heretofore provided for out of the Civil List.

did not rise to oppose the vote, although the noble Lord had expressed himself disposed to resist the question of these pensions going to a Committee; but he wished it to be understood that, by declining to give the vote any opposition at this stage, he should not be precluded from opposing the same vote hereafter, when it should be brought before them, were he dissatisfied with the arrangement or recommendation of the Committee.

objected to the mode of putting the vote, as for 240,000l. in the gross sum. It was applicable to five heads of service, and should form five several votes. He hoped the noble Lord would not persist in putting the vote in this objectionable way. Of these five items, three were paid from the Consolidated Fund, and two by votes of the Committee of Supply, and yet they were all crowded into one total. The vote for pensions it was most important to submit to a Committee. A sum of 75,0001. had been already voted for that purpose, but when as much more was required, ought Parliament to consider that these pensions were irrevocable? All that had been said against the remuneration of Sir A. B. King, applied to them. Many of them were benevolent, but others were quite the contrary. The serious attention of the House ought to be called to the subject.

believed it was usual, when a vote on account was brought forward, to propose the whole in one sum; he had not divided it, because he had not anticipated any objection would be made to the Resolution. The vote was not for the whole of the year, but merely up to the 5th of July, and the opposition was, therefore, too late, whatever objections there might be to these pensions. The House could never sanction such an injustice as not to pay the portion actually due.

felt the manner and mode now adopted by the noble Lord was one which, to say the least of it, was very objectionable. Two things should be recollected; first, that the pensions had been so granted, that they expired on the demise of George 4th; secondly, that the noble Lord himself had said, he was sorry to find that many of those pensions were very objectionable, and he regretted, that they had ever been granted. Those to which this latter observation, in fact, applied, were of a class amounting to about 75,0001.; and, if the vote were acceded to, he felt an injurious precedent would be established by this acquiescence in the recommendation of the noble Lord. He was, therefore, disposed to strike out 75,0001., and give the noble Lord the rest of his vole. By this mode it would be referred to the Committee, whether such a sum should be granted, on the score of pensions, in the first year of this King's reign, which had avowedly been put an end to by the demise of the late King. The hon. Member concluded by moving, "That the vote required by the noble Lord should be reduced by 75,0001."

seconded the amendment with the utmost cordiality, because he felt they must oppose the precedent attempted to be established now, or it would be too late to turn round hereafter, if they acquiesced in the vote to-night. He was not so partial to the Bill on Reform that he should not frankly avow he felt none of that exquisite sensitiveness whether a motion embarrassed his Majesty's Ministers or not. He did not see how hon. Members could face their constituents, if they voted for the motion in question without inquiry into the public services of those among whom the money was to be distributed. They were about to take from the poor, to give to the rich, and that was a principle he should always oppose.

described these as Monarchial Grants; but were not also the grants to the poor freemen of great Grimsby monarchial grants, and monarchial grants for past services? Were these last monarchial grants to his constituents not conveyed to them through the medium of their corporate rights? How could the Ministers reconcile it to themselves, or to sound principles, to come forward and support these monarchial grants, at some risk, by proposing that vote, and by one Act of the Session attempt to rob all the freemen of Great Grimsby of their share in the mo- narchial grant of the franchise. Was there a difference between the right of the rich and the right of the poor to a monarchial grant? And was that the principle on which Ministers proceeded, when attempting at one stroke to sweep away from the poor freemen of the borough he represented their monarchial grant.

said, that the amount of the pensions was not 75,000l. but 56,000l.; and therefore the hon. Member, if he persevered in his amendment, would be more correct in moving, that the vote be diminished by the amount of the latter sum. He wished the House to understand, that by agreeing to the present vote, they were not precluded, when the pensions came again under consideration, from sending them up to a Committee for investigation. He thought, however, that the question was one more of principle than detail: he considered that they were bound in honour to continue these pensions and he did not see in what manner an investigation before a Committee would lead to a satisfactory result. The hon. Gentleman had stated, that on a former occasion he (Lord Althorp), had declared, that some of these pensions ought never to have been granted. He, however, did not think, that the House would, on that account, be justified in going back, and taking them away. The parallel between these pensions and the case of Sir A. B. King did not hold good, because the public were losing 20,000l. per annum by his patent, and he thought it his duty to stop the contract, and the House had justified him in doing so. It had, however, already sanctioned the one-half of the pensions, and he did not see how the remainder could be refused.

said, that he should support Ministers, but only on the understanding that he should not be pledged to any particular course hereafter.

felt himself bound, by the pledges which he had given to his constituents, to support economical measures, to vote against Ministers on the present occasion. The people considered these pensions as bribes, and it was not only the amount but the principle they objected to. He hoped the noble Lord would reconsider the proposition, and allow it to be referred to a Committee.

said, that no Member who might vote with Ministers on the present occasion, would be pledged to support any ulterior measure. Gentlemen should recollect, that the present proposition was, only to pay the pensions up to the 5th of July, and under no circumstances could this be refused. He was surprised at the comparison which had teen drawn between this case and that of Sir A. B. King's patent, the suppression of which was the only means of attaining the object of saving 20,000l. a-year to the public.

said, he was disposed to support the original motion, without entering into any discussion. At the same time he thought it would have been convenient to have divided the sum into various items. He had referred to some of the printed accounts for last session, and could not make them agree. If the pensions had all been paid up since the death of the late King, a larger sum would be necessary, and he should, therefore, like to know from what resources they had been supplied. When the question should arise for referring the Pension-list to a select Committee, he would be prepared to abide by the opinion which he had always expressed—namely, that the House had no right to adopt any such proceeding. They had already placed one half of these pensions, from A to H, upon the Consoliated Fund, and it would be absurd to refuse the payment of the remainder, because the names of the parties began with a late letter. These pensions had been previously sanctioned up to January in the present year.

said, he would answer the question that had been proposed to him, how these sums were made up. They consisted of the salary of the Lord Chancellors of England and Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the Board of Public Works.

said, that he did not consider himself bound by anything which took place in the last Parliament, and no power on earth should induce him to vote a single shilling for pensions, unless it were shown that they were granted for services performed to the country. This was the first occasion on which he had been asked to vote money for pensions, and he would not consent to it. He would cordially support the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester.

said, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued that they were precluded from the course he proposed to take, because the pensions had been recognised by a former vote. He did not, however, think they were bound by what took place in a previous Parliament. The noble Lord had now repeated the language he had then used, namely, that these pensions had been granted for the King to dispose of according to his pleasure, and had no reference to the public services of the receivers. That might be the theory, but did they not know, that in practice they were disposed of by the Minister of the day, to suit his purposes? If they agreed now to pay these pensions up to the 5th of July, the chances were, that they would be hereafter told that such a grant prevented them from referring the future payments to a Committee. He begged to withdraw his first amendment, and in its place to substitute another, to the effect, that the vote proposed should be reduced by 56,000l. and the grant would then stand 184,000l.

hoped, that the hon. Member would not divide the Committee on the present occasion; but he wished it to be understood, that he would support a motion for referring all pensions to the consideration of a Select Committee.

said, that a very strong feeling prevailed throughout the country with respect to pensions. The people would rather give millions to reward services performed than 10l. to persons who were entitled to no remuneration. As, however, it appeared that some of the pensions were due, he would support the original motion, on the distinct understanding that the Government would not object to refer the subject to the consideration of a Select Committee.

said, a Committee, soon after the accession of the present Ministers to office, decided in favour of these pensions, and although the House had not, by a distinct vote, yet approved of them, yet it had more solemnly sanctioned them by introducing the greater part of them into the Civil List Act. If the subject was to be again discussed, he should object to refer them to a Select Committee: he should therefore oppose any motion made one. It had been stated that some of these pensions ought never to have been granted, but it was not fair to extend that observation to all. He believed that no pension, during the last thirty or forty years had been granted from corrupt motives in respect to parliamentary influence.

thought it would be doing an act of injustice to the people to divide the Committee on the question. The grant proposed was of a temporary nature, and would not preclude Members from voting to refer all pensions to a Select Committee. It would be unjust and unwise to argue such an interesting subject without notice. He meant to take an opportunity of bringing it regularly forward, and should then be glad to hear all the objections that could be made to the appointment of a Select Committee. He should be sorry to act oppressively towards any individual, and if he were convinced, that his motion would have that effect, he would not urge it forward. They had been told by the lute Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they were precluded from this course by the alphabetical arrangement that had taken place; but he was no party to such an engagement. His object was, to inquire into the half of these pensions, and got rid of those not granted for public services.

said, the parties who had hitherto received these pensions would have little cause to complain that they had been continued until July, when they ought to have been stopped at the beginning of the year. He saw no objection, to refer them to a Select Committee.

said, that no Member who should vote for the grant would be precluded from voting hereafter that the pensions should be brought under the consideration of a Select Committee; but at the same time it must be distinctly understood, that he did not give any pledge that Government would support that proposition. The hon. member for Middlesex had said, that he was not a party to the alphabetical arrangement; that might be, but he believed the hon. Member was in the House when he (Lord Althorp) had proposed this, and expressly stated it to the House.

said, the noble Lord had intimated that the plan might be alphabetically arranged, but if he had known it had been so decided, he should have asked for a return of the pensions on the new list.

was quite confident he had stated the arrangement, and it might be satisfactory to his hon. friend to know, that it came to the middle of the letter H.

said, the members for Yorkshire, Kent, and Middlesex, declared they did not approve of these pensions, and wished to refer them to a Committee, yet they voted for them, although the noble Lord had positively declared, that it was his intention these pensions should neither be reduced nor examined. Did these Gentlemen expect these pensions, therefore, would be ever brought before a Committee? No, certainly not, there was no chance of it so long as the present Government continued, and Gentlemen did not oppose its proceedings from fear of the Reform Bill being delayed. He thought it would be more delicate to the ladies to refer their claims to a Select Committee. They had been told these pensions were granted as favours by the late Sovereign, but it turned out they we're Ministerial favours. There was no doubt the late Chancellor of the Exchequer would vote for them; there was no such grant but what he had agreed to. For his part, he would oppose them to the utmost of his power.

wished these pensions to be referred to a Committee, but reluctantly felt himself obliged to vote against the amendment, for fear injustice might be clone to individuals.

wished, if any charge was made against the propriety of granting any one of these pensions, it might be brought forward, and openly discussed in the House.

would feel himself bound to vote for the amendment, should the hon. Member-press it to a division; at the same lime he should prefer his withdrawing it for the present. He had never heard of the alphabetical arrangement nor the division founded upon it. There were no documents on the Table to apprize them of the fact, and if an examination were to be undertaken, it should certainly extend to the whole of the pensions.

was prepared to vote for the payment of the pensions, but if a motion was hereafter made to refer them to a Committee, he should support it.

was one who would willingly vole for every pension founded on a claim of public service, while he would rigidly cut down such aristocracy-pauper allowances as the Irish pension-list was composed of, with the single exception of Admiral Rodney: 58,000l. per annum of the public money was disgracefully squandered away under the head of Irish pensions. He believed the present House of Commons would not vote away one shilling of the public money without receiving services for it.

regretted, that he had not been as audible as he could have wished, and felt thankful to the hon. Member for the hint to raise his voice in future. His explanation, in answer to the hon. Member's question, would, he trusted, be found satisfactory. It might be recollected, that under Mr. Burke's celebrated Act, a sum of money was placed at the disposal of the Crown, for defraying the charge of pensions on the Civil List; and this was the sum he had alluded to in his statement. That sum had been reduced to 140,000l. for the Civil List Pensions of the three kingdoms; and to that amount his late Majesty had enjoyed the right of granting pensions. In point of law, these grants could only hold good during the lifetime of the granting monarch, and therefore legally expired with his demise. But though this was legally the case, yet, practically, at least during the reigns of George 3rd, and 4th, the pensions on the Civil List were, by a tacit consent, admitted to be during the life of the pensioner, instead of the life of the King who granted the pension; and such was the state of these pensions on his accession to office. On that occasion he found that, unless he departed very widely indeed from the usage of his predecessors, he had no remedy but to re-cast the Pension-list in the manner which he had done; that is, to reduce the sum at the disposal of the Crown from 140,000l., the amount enjoyed by the late King, to 75,000l., and to place the charge of the remaining pension on the Consolidated Fund. The effect of this arrangement would be, that as the pensions on the 75,000l., placed at the disposal of the Crown fell in, his Majesty would enjoy the power of filling them up to that amount; while the country would have the benefit of the saving of those which fell in on the Consolidated Fund.

supported the Amendment, on the ground, that unless a beginning were at once made towards a reduction of the Pension-list, the plea of justice and humanity, which had been raised in its defence, would act as a perpetual obstacle.

hoped, that Ministers would see, from the satisfaction of the Opposition side of the House at the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, and from the alacrity with which its support would be bestowed against the hon. member for Worcester's amendment, that the Opposition to their Reform Bill was not based on factious or personal feelings.

was not disposed to press his amendment to a division, but was at the discretion of the Committee. He thought the argument of the hon. member for Middlesex, that no notice had been given, came with a bad grace from him who had frequently made motions without giving notice.

would himself take the sense of the Committee on the amendment, should the hon. Member not press it to a division. The Pension-list was a burthen on the industry of the people which could no longer be borne, and could not stand a moment before a Reformed Parliament. They were told, night after night, that the Poor-laws had had a demoralizing effect on the labouring classes, from accustoming them to rely on other means of subsistence than their own industry; and that, too, while the higher classes set them the unblushing and disgraceful example of living as paupers in idleness at the expense of the people.

said, he entirely concurred with the hon. Member who spoke last, as to the disgraceful example which the titled paupers on the Pension-list held out to the working classes. He was not surprised at the zeal with which the ex-Ministers opposite had defended the Pension-list, for in doing so, they were only defending their own shares of the public spoils. They were, to a man, pensioners, and for what? Why, for neither more nor less than bringing the country to the brink of ruin. He would not vote one farthing for pensions of any description.

meant to vote for the present grant, on the ground just stated by the hon. member for Newark (Mr. Serjeant Wilde), at the same time that he was ready to go into an inquiry as to the most efficacious means of reducing the Pension-list.

said, the country required a strict inquiry into the cause why each of these pensions had been granted, but did not require injustice to be committed.

wished to know, whether this vote was for expenses already incurred at home, or for secret services abroad. The vote was rather a large amount.

said, that most of this amount was for foreign services. If it was compared to the grants for former years, it would be found to be very considerably reduced. I n 1826 it was 260,000l., in 1829 it was 45,000l., and at present, 41,000l.

was surprised they could want even such a sum as that for secret services. In a time of peace, they ought to act above-board, and with clean hands.

said, the vote was on account of public services, and the hon. Gentleman was in error if he supposed they wanted to do any clandestine act.

did not believe any gentleman applied the money to his own use.

thought, sufficient confidence ought to be placed in those who had the disposal of this money, to remove any suspicion of its being applied improperly.

could not possibly understand what occasion there was to vote this money. He could not comprehend, if people acted fairly, what they could want with it.

inquired, if the Irish Secret Service money had been diminished?

said, that it was taken at an average. The sum was 4,300l.

observed, that formerly, Secret Pensions had been given out of this source, to persons connected with the Irish Press. He believed the government of the United States required no expenditure of this description for secret services.

said, he wanted to know the way in which this secret service money was disposed of?

said, hon. Gentlemen must be aware it was impossible to carry on a government without a vote of money for such purposes; and he was surprised the hon. and learned Gentleman should compare the Government of this country with that of the United States, which he believed to be as corrupt as any under the sun.

was surprised at this assertion of the hon. Baronet. Was he aware that an embezzlement of a small sum of money was considered in the United States, of sufficient importance for a State prosecution.

said, he believed what he had asserted, from information he had received.

said, 104,300l. was required, for printing Acts and Reports in both Houses of Parliament. There had been a considerable reduction in this account.

said, there was a great waste of the public money in printing memorials relative to certain boroughs, with large numbers of names attached.

said, the Ministry had reduced the amount in the expenditure of the Stationery office 5,000l. or 6,000l., and that was greatly to their credit.

was satisfied that an unnecessary expense was incurred for printing. He could affirm this from the papers which came under his own inspection; and he believed considerable savings could be made, if they had better accounts made out.

said, that considerable expense might be avoided, if more judgment was exercised in moving the printing of papers. The document alluded to by the hon. member for Preston, was of such importance as to justify the expense of printing it.

was quite satisfied the expenses of printing might be considerably reduced, by engaging an active printer, with an adequate salary, to superintend an establishment which the House ought to have belonging to itself.

observed, an unnecessary expense was often incurred by printing papers several times over. The same returns were often moved for by hon. Gentlemen, and each was printed. This caused much additional trouble to the persons who had the making them out, as well as an increased expense.

complained, that gilt paper was unnecessarily used in some departments, and the expenses were most extravagant. He had occasion to observe this in the Committee.

remarked, the expenses of this department had considerably increased since last year. He wished to inquire, if the prosecutions had been more numerous?

said, in reply, the prosecutions had increased in proportion to the vote. The Solicitor of the Mint was paid by salary. He could, therefore, have no interest in augmenting the prosecutions, The number of convictions in proportion to prosecutions were, out of 587 persons prosecuted, during the last two years, 531 were convicted. This was itself sufficient proof that no trivial or unnecessary prosecutions had been undertaken.

had asked the question, because the expense had increased. In 1826, it was 6,000l.; in 1827, 5,000l.

said, the longer coin was in circulation, the easier it was to counter felt the impression. That was probably one reason for the increased number of crimes and of prosecutions.

found there was frequently an unwillingness to prosecute in cases of this description.

stated, that the expenses of convicts at home, amounted, a short time ago, to 70,5542.; at present, it did not exceed 63,700l.—the expenses of convicts at Bermuda, 31,384l.; now it was 29,642l.—the total amount of the Vote had, therefore, been reduced 8,596l. for both services. A sum of 15,000l. was voted for Law charges; 108,165l. was voted to defray the expense of maintaining and employing Convicts, at home and at Bermuda, for the year 1831.

complained of the disgraceful continuance of the slave-trade, on the coast of Africa, and of the expense to which this country was subjected, by the culpable conduct of other Powers, in suffering their subjects to prosecute the Trade. No expense or trouble, on our parts, had been spared, to put down this most detestable traffic. But at length we were compelled to make this painful confession— that after all these exertions, and expenditure of treasure, and human life, we were thwarted by other countries. He had the authority of the Secretary of War for asserting, that since 1814, the expenses incurred had been nearly 5,000,000l. The several charges for the establishments we maintained, was not less than 400,000l. He therefore requested Ministers to maturely examine this ques- tion in all its bearings; and consider whether it was advisable to continue such heavy expenses, without a prospect of success, while unsupported or opposed by other nations.

regretted to understand that the Foreign Slave-trade had been considerably increased, and was carried on in the most inhuman and revolting manner. He had given notice of a motion, on a previous night, to inquire into the whole subject of the Slave-trade, which had been postponed at the instance of the noble Lord, but the matter, he hoped, would not escape the vigilant attention of Government.

was convinced this expense might be very much reduced, or altogether spared. There was no good reason for this country supporting Africans in idleness, in Sierra Leone, and they ought to have some explanation, whether any captured Negroes had been actually so supported. We had made this trade much worse by our interference. If other countries resisted the right of search of vessels on the African Coast, it was much more advisable for this country to give up this enormous expenditure of money, than to continue it, in the vain hope of abating the Slave-trade.

would be glad to give the information desired by the hon. member for Middlesex, at a future opportunity. The observation of the hon. member for Hastings involved the question of the Foreign Slave-trade, into which it was not expedient to enter.

wished a Committee to be appointed, to follow up the inquiries that had been commenced. That was the information he required. Every information connected with the subject should be obtained. They had heard of slave-trading vessels being crowded with four or five times the number of unhappy creatures which ought to be on board them, and misery and death had much increased in consequence.

said, very great attention had been paid by Ministers to this subject, and it was still under their consideration.

explained, that the settle- ment at Sierra Leone had been removed to Fernando Po, where it was necessary to establish buildings for the Commissioners and Officers, but it now appeared that Fernando Po belonged to the Spaniards. They had not attempted, therefore, to remove the settlement from Sierra Leone, until this question was settled; for it would be absurd to lay out money at a place under such circumstances.

said, in this vote there was a reduction of 5,735l.

despaired, while we had such brigades of Consuls, of seeing reductions of any moment made in this department of expenditure. In France we supported twelve Consuls; for what purposes were they required, except for the exercise of patronage, and to enjoy comfortable pensions on their return? If any hon. Member would propose a reduction of nine-tenths of these Consuls, he would support him.

assured the hon. Gentleman that no such practice prevailed, as appointing persons to obtain pensions. The retired list had been examined, and considerable expense saved to the country, by recalling into active service, at reduced salaries, persons who had been improperly placed on it.

thought, that Consuls should be paid by fees, rather than by salaries. We had Consuls at Rotterdam and Amsterdam, both of whom were paid the same sum, but the former had three times as much work as the latter. The Consul-general at Paris, was paid 1,600l., the same as the Consul-general at Madrid; but what had the latter to do? The list abounded with the same objectionable items; he wished, therefore, to understand whether the present system was to continue, or the whole to be referred to a Committee?

would repeat what he had before declared, that the present system of paying Consuls was not a proper one, but a majority of that House had thought otherwise. His noble friend, the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, would, from the inquiries he had made, be able to state whether it was advisable for the system of payment to be by salaries, or fees, in future. The vote, at all events, was intended only to apply this year. A reduction of five per cent had been made, but probably it would be better if the vote were withdrawn for the present.

should make no remark if it was intended to withdraw the vote.

objected, that no account of this expenditure was laid before the House. They went on year after year pursuing the same course, voting money without knowing how it was to be applied; they had been promised a Colonial Budget, and nothing could be more simple than giving an account of receipts and payments, which would enable the House to comprehend the cost of each colony: such an account ought to be furnished.

said, this was a usual vote, but he admitted that, so far as it was paid out of the Army Extra ordinaries, nothing could be more unsatisfactory; for, by the manner of making up their accounts, charges of various sorts were mixed up together. The Government were in communication with the home and local authorities, and they hoped next year to present an intelligible account.

stated, that this service would be remodelled, and regular accounts laid before the House; he assured the hon. member for Middlesex, that there was much business to do in the Colonial Department.

said, that within the last four years they had had several Colonial Secretaries and Under Secretaries, which was the cause why the most important business was deferred, neglected, or not understood. It would be utterly impossible to carry on our colonial affairs, if the persons at the head of them were continually changed, and had the business of the office continually to learn. There was, no doubt, much to do in the Colonial Office, but he protested against the manner in which it was at present attempted to be performed. They never could have the Colonial Budget, which had been promised, until an alteration was made.

said, that a Colonial Budget had been recommended by the Finance Committee, and he hoped it would be produced as soon as possible, as it would much facilitate their proceedings.

said, it was the proper business of the Colonial Secretary to make out a budget. He hoped, in future, that this vote would not be connected with the Army Extraordinaries in the colonies, which in New South Wales alone cost 400,000l. There must necessarily be great mismanagement somewhere. The value of convict labour was great, and might be advantageously applied to tillage; there were many settlers willing to employ them, but Government monopolised their labour, and the country had to pay for it. Another evil was, granting tracts of land to Government officers, who were thereby objects of suspicion and envy, on account of their being supposed able to procure Government labourers.

assured the hon. Gentleman, that the most positive orders had been given, that convicts, immediately on their arrival in the settlements, should be assigned by the civil power to settlers. The report of the Commissioners on the subject of New South Wales, recommended an assessment of 10s. per head on each convict. Lord Goderich thought a larger sum might be raised, but felt it impossible to transmit precise orders. The setters certainly should have the benefit of the convicts' labour. No grants whatever of land had been made for some time, but the whole had been put up for sale.

believed there must be a large expenditure to maintain the colony. The fairest method, however, was, to allow the convicts to be sold to the highest bidder among the settlers. A large revenue might thus, he believed, be obtained by the sale of convict labour.

understood, from the statement of the noble Lord, that a tax was to be imposed on the labour of convicts: he doubted the propriety of taxing the agricultural produce of such a colony as New South Wales.

contended, that it was owing to the grossest mismanagement if these colonies were of the smallest expense to the mother country. He would undertake, by the sale of colonial lands, under proper regulations, not only to furnish sufficient funds for the maintenance of the colonies, but to yield a consider- able surplus. All the colonies ought, also, gradually to be removed from under our control.

said, the great objection to such a plan was, it would take away the patronage of Government. He, for one, however, was perfectly satisfied, that the nation could do without that patronage.

thought the expanses enormous, and to him it was wonderful how they had increased to such a frightful and ruinous extent.

did not know know public benefit had been derived from this expensive Commission, from which several reports had been received, but not acted on. This service could have been performed gratuitously, and the Commissioners had effected no useful object.

replied, that the Commissioners had pursued a useful inquiry into the obtaining of cheap and speedy justice. The Commission had been forced upon, the preceding Government by the former Opposition, and it was obliged to find means for carrying it into effect.

thought, the Commissioners had made great progress in mystifying the subject. Their whole machinery was most expensive, and would never lead to cheap and expeditious justice. Our system of law ought to remodelled. It was of no use to attempt to patch up the old system. With all the expense attending this Commission, only four or five bills had been brought in—and cases would be decided before these could be understood, or known to be in operation. It would on the whole, be infinitely better, to form a new and complete code, particularly as an after had been made by a celebrated individual to devote his time and attention to this subject.

understood there were twelve Commissioners, who received 1,200l. a-year each. He should, therefore, he glad, to know the quantity of labour the public received in return for this expense.

said, in the last Parliament, five or six Acts, had been formed, on the reports of these Commissioners, which reports cost a great sacrifice of time, labour, and talent. The eminent persons who devoted their acquirements to so valuable an object as that of effecting a tranquil and complete reform in the law, so as to enable the people to obtain speedy and cheap justice, ought to be well paid for their trouble

wished hon. Gentlemen would allow the Reform Bill to be first carried, before they made these objections. After that, he should be very glad to listen to their arguments, however long they might be.

said, the public had not received one practical advantage from the labours of the Commissioners., and had neither obtained more cheap, nor more expeditious law than before, At no former period had, the law Courts been so full of causes remaining to be tried.

said, that 1,500,000l. ad been raised by taxation for building of churches, and he should wish to know, before the present grant was passed, whether all that money had been expended. He was afraid the money had been thrown away, or even worse employed, by the Commissioners forcing churches upon the people, which had earned discord into many parishes.

thought hon. Gentlemen should, be acquainted with facts before they made assertions. In one parish only had there been a dispute as to the propriety of building a church; and when the real benefit these grants had conferred was, considered, their utility ought not to be questioned upon slight grounds,

thought no further grant was required. Much money had been already spent, and it was not denied, that disputes had taken place, and that discord had been engendered.

moved, this Bill be read a third time.

had several objections to the Bill, which, however, bore more upon the subject of Pensions in general, than this Bill in particular. He thought, he should be able to shew, at a proper opportunity, that the reduction of salaries proposed by the present Ministry had been unwise. He would not further oppose the bill, but begged to inquire of the noble Lord, if he intended to submit any proposition to the House, for carrying into effect the reduction of salaries recommended by the report of a Committee presented in April last.

could not at present answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman, as he was wholly unprepared for it.

was sure, that, taking into consideration the salary of the Master of the Mint, and the duties he had to perform, he was not deserving of much consideration, or entitled to expect much. He had long formed an opinion, that persons employed in public offices should be allowed, while they were able to work, sufficient to enable them to maintain themselves when they were no longer capable of performing their duties.

said, several Members, who were not then present, had determined to oppose the Bill; in their absence, he thought it ought to be postponed. He himself did not entertain a favourable opinion of it, but he believed it might be improved in a Committee. The Bill was unknown in Ireland and Scotland. If his hon. friend would consent to omit these two countries for the present, and in the meantime have its contents circulated, he could have no objection to its going formally into a Committee. If this could not be done, he must suggest that it be postponed to a future day.

was anxious the Bill should be allowed to go into a Committee, even for a few minutes, and he would then be ready to attend to the suggestions of his hon. friend.

said, this was a perfectly new enactment for Ireland and Scotland, and it was now too late to go into it. These countries must be struck out, and the Bill proceeded with as regarded England only. If the hon. member for Westminster intended to proceed with it, several Members from Scotland were anxious to have an opportunity of discussing its details, and if it was likely to be of any benefit to that country, they would be most ready to adopt it.

could affirm, that great apprehensions were entertained of the measure in several parts of the country. He had received several applications from those interested, to transmit the Bill to them, that they might examine its details. As yet he had received no information in return. He would not object to the Bill going formally into a Committee, but he must suggest the propriety of not proceeding further until their constituents had apprized them whether any of the details were considered objectionable.

rose to bring forward the subject of which he had given notice, which related to applying Buckingham Palace to a profitable purpose. Everyone would admit, that there had been a most injudicious and extravagant outlay at Buckingham House; and it was his object to shew how, instead of being a dead loss, it might be made convenient to the public, and profitable to the Crown. The words of his notice were as follows:—"That it be an instruction to the Committee on Buckingham Palace, to consider whether the building now erected for a Palace, may not be more advantageously applied to other purposes, and to what purposes?" The foundation of all his speculation was a decided con- viction of the utter impossibility that this Palace could ever be made a residence fit for the accommodation of a King and Queen of this country. He had stated that opinion, even in the very commencement of the building, and over and over again during its progress; he had always contemplated with the deepest regret, an expenditure so enormous, and so useless. The Palace was surrounded by nuisances of every description; and placed between two ponds of water, and a great mound of earth which masks the Mews, but impedes the circulation of air. Close to it is a steam-engine and a great brewery; and within thirty feet of the chapel, is a sort of a great Caravansera, where persons coming from the country on business put up their carriages and horses. Besides which, rows of very small houses, and lanes and alleys surround it, and must, sooner or later be cleared away, at an enormous expense. The main sewer, too, passes close to the front of the Palace. The building being decidedly unfit for a palace, he would venture to suggest how it might be disposed of to useful and profitable purposes. In the first place, a National Picture Gallery was wanted: a very splendid and beautiful one could be obtained, of no less than 526 feet in length, of which the actual picture gallery of Buckingham Palace would form a part. Towards the garden front, a statue gallery might be formed, of smaller dimensions, but of unequalled beauty and fitness, and at a very trifling expense. The building now erecting to form the east wing of Somerset House, and intended for the King's College, is peculiarly unsuited to such a purpose; and he proposed, therefore, that whatever accommodation that building was capable of affording to the King's College at a future day, should be given to that institution forthwith at Buckingham House, in exchange for this new building, which, in the hands of the Government, would afford admirable accommodation for public offices, where they ought to be placed, and would save the public a sum of 15,000l. per annum, now paid for offices and houses in different parts of the town, exclusive of the establishments in Downing-street, with which no one could think of interfering. At twenty years' purchase, this saving would produce 300,000l, of which he took 200,000l. to the credit of the King's Fund, leaving 100,000l. a saving to the public. He had then to state the accommodation which would be required in exchange for the King's College. He had made some inquiries and calculations on the subject, and found that there would be ample accommodation at Buckingham Palace, equal to the accommodation of the King's College, leaving, besides the picture gallery, the statue gallery, and the attics, a considerable portion of the building to spare, which might be appropriated to bring in a revenue, or to save expense. He would then shortly state the amount which might be recovered for the Crown out of the immense and extravagant disbursements on account of this palace. On account of the King's College, he took credit for a sum of 200,000l. The building itself might have cost about 100,000l.; but the possession of it for public offices would save the nation 15,000l. per annum—at twenty years' purchase, 300,000l. Of this he only took 200,000l., leaving 100,000l. for the benefit of the public. The picture gallery he estimated at 80,000l.—the statue gallery at 50,000l.—130,000l. The remainder of the building, including the attics, might be appropriated to the Public Records—for a Public Library—to the Heralds' College—Royal Society—Antiquarian Society—Royal Academy—Asiatic Institution, &c., 70,000l.: making on the whole, an amount of 400,000l. To this, various items of decoration, which ought to be removed, as unfit for any building but a royal palace, must, be added, which would amount to 94,081l. The cellarage, under the whole of the building, 2,000l. per annum, at twenty years' purchase, amount to 40,000l.; the garden, if laid out judiciously, would give 15,000 feet of frontage, which, at, 3l. per foot, amounts to 45,000l. per annum, of ground rent; and this, at twenty-seven years' purchase, would produce 1,215,000l.; so that the Crown would thus be possessed of a fund for building a royal palace in a proper situation, and without imposing any new burthen on the people, of 1,749,081l. Seeing the hon. member for Middlesex in his place, he would state, for his information, a short and simple fact. The property in question cost originally 32,000l. Now, after adding 600,000l., or, for the sake of round numbers, 668,000l of expenditure equally lavish and absurd, still, if appropriated as he had suggested, and producing 1,700,000l., it would have increased in value 1,000,000l. Admitting a wasteful and extravagant expenditure, that it would bring back into the Treasury of the Crown so considerable a portion, was, in his mind, a subject of congratulation for the House and for the country. There would thus be a large sum of money ready to apply for the accommodation of the Sovereign, in such manner as might hereafter be deemed advisable, and without taking one single shilling from the people. He knew how this money might be employed, so as equally to contribute to the splendor of the Crown, and conciliate the feelings of the people; but he would not abuse the kindness of the House, and would therefore abstain from entering further into detail, only observing, that after making ample allowance for a too sanguine view, there would remain a sum quite sufficient to make a suitable royal residence wherever it might be most agreeable to our gracious Sovereign. He could not refrain from lamenting over the mischief arising from the want of well-digested general plans of improvement, and of a system which should make every expenditure, however trifling, contribute its mite towards the completion of some general and well-considered designs. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by making the Motion of which he had above given notice.

begged to second the motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and was anxious the inquiry for which he moved should take place. Numerous complaints had been promulgated of the expenditure in the erection of the Palace, and the only way to stifle them, and prevent the enormous outlay lavished on this building from becoming a dead public loss, was to appropriate it to the purposes recommended by the hon. Gentleman.

had heard with much pleasure his hon. friend's plan to employ Buckingham Palace in a way likely to give the public some return for the vast sums squandered in its erection. Great abuses, he was afraid, had been committed by the persons employed on it, and very little light had yet been thrown upon the subject. He thought, however, it was not right for the House to dispose of the Crown property, unless the responsible advisers of the Crown proposed such appropriation.

saw no difficulty in the matter, as connected with any interests the Crown might be supposed to have in it.

declared, that he was most particularly anxious not to treat the Crown slightingly, but as it was impossible to occupy Buckingham Palace as a royal residence, he had made the present proposition. He had submitted it to the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests, and he saw no difficulty in realizing a considerable revenue, by appro- priating the gardens to building, as in the Regent's Park. He had also consulted some of those who were at the head of the Committee of the King's College, and they appeared to be inclined to listen to such arrangements as he had proposed.