presented a Petition from the Mechanics' Institution of Bolton, praying, that as shortly as possible after the passing of the Reform Bill, measures might be adopted to remove the duties on paper, upon advertisements, and the other Taxes on Knowledge. The hon. Member expressed his entire concurrence in the prayer of the Petition.

must also support the prayer of the Petition. He hoped Government would afford every facility to the acquisition of useful knowledge to the working classes, for in proportion as the people possessed constitutional rights, they ought to be furnished with the means of enabling them to exercise these rights intelligently, which would materially contribute to the advantage of the country. The taxes of which the petitioners complained, were already evaded to a great extent, and he was persuaded their repeal would be beneficial to the public, without material injury to the revenue.

presented Petitions from Leeds, Halifax, and Dewsbury, recommending the adoption of a system of Permanent Relief for the Poor of Ireland. The persons from whom these Petitions proceeded, belonged to the great manufacturing districts, from which large contributions had been drawn for the relief of the distressed Irish. The Petitioners attributed the frequent recurrence of this distress to the state of society in Ireland, and expressed their opinions, that the destitute persons of that country ought not to be supported by perpetual drafts on English charity. Although the principles of Christian charity were universal, yet the application of the means must necessarily be confined to particular countries and neighbourhoods.

supported the prayer of the petition. The meeting at which the Dewsbury petition was agreed to, was highly respectable, and the general feeling was, that it was a most improper and insufficient method of obtaining relief, to carry a begging-box round the country; for the consequence was, that the utmost distress had been endured before relief could be administered. He entirely agreed with that part of the petition which suggested the necessity of establishing a compulsory provision for the relief of the Irish Poor, and expressed his readiness to concur in the adoption of means calculated to put an end to the necessity which so frequently arose, of resorting to voluntary contribution for the relief of such dreadful distresses as seemed now to be almost periodical. A distinction had been taken between affording relief to the aged and impotent, and those able to work, but who could not find employment. This point had been made the subject of discussion at the meeting to which he alluded at Dewsbury—and it had been unanimously resolved, that no mode of relief would be satisfactory which did not include an efficient and practicable plan for affording assistance to persons able and willing to work, but who were deprived of employment by the peculiar circumstances of their country. Distress, accompanied by crime, formed a dreadful, but a per- petual feature, in the history of Ireland. Private charity only reached the extremity of the evil when the previous sufferings could no longer be borne. Humanity, common sense, and justice, all combined to shew the impropriety of permitting a starving multitude to depend upon such uncertain and slender resources. He had no wish to provoke premature discussion, but he was convinced that the feelings he had uttered would soon prevail throughout the kingdom. There was, however, one circumstance to which he must revert, he meant the excitement which prevailed in the minds of English labourers, at the approach of the migratory mass of labour which, about the present time, was periodically thrown into the market of this country from Ireland. Considering the unhappy circumstances of these people at home, no man of humanity would wish to prevent them obtaining employment here, but it could not be concealed that their presence caused strong feelings of discontent, which was greatly augmenting in the minds of the English peasantry. On all these grounds, therefore, it was necessary that some efficient means should be adopted for improving the condition of the poor of Ireland, and doing away with the necessity of making them dependent on the casual charity of the humane, which, after all, was a poor resource, and only afforded a mockery of relief. He trusted the House would bear in mind, that the petition spoke the sentiments of a respectable and well-educated class of the community.

was surprised that the hon. member should found an argument for the establishment of Poor-laws in Ireland, on the excitement which the presence of Irish labourers created in the minds of the English peasantry. He was of opinion, that the establishment of Poor-laws in Ireland would not raise the wages of labour in that country. It would rather tend to reduce wages. At all events, he was satisfied that it would not keep a single Irish labourer from visiting this country; so long as an Irishman could earn 12s. or 15s. a week by crossing the Channel, he would never remain at home, to starve on a miserable pittance, doled out to him by the operation of Poor-laws.

did not think the prevention of Irish labourers coming into this country was a proper motive for the establishment of Poor-laws in Ireland, The decision of the House must be guided by higher considerations. When the subject was regularly brought forward, he should be fully prepared to state the grounds on which he concluded, that it was not only necessary, but just and expedient, that some legal provision should be made for the poor of Ireland, in their own country.

must also take the opportunity of stating, that, in his opinion, it was absolutely necessary to establish Poor-laws in Ireland.

wished to call the attention of the House to the unfortunate condition of the people of England, who were driven out of their own markets by labourers from Ireland. When he was a farmer, there was such a scarcity of hands, that farmers would have been glad to procure extra labour at any expense; but the case was now reversed. From the enormous pressure of taxation, the farmers could not employ sufficient labour properly to cultivate their land. He hoped, that measures would be adopted with a view to stimulate agriculture in this country, and was satisfied, that by such a course, sufficient employment would be afforded, not only to our own population, but to every Irish labourer who should visit England.

regretted to observe in the public prints, a disposition to create dissension between the English and Irish labourers, and he therefore gladly availed himself of that opportunity to refer to an outrage said to have been committed by a part of the population of Lincolnshire, on some Irish labourers. He was happy to say, that the story of the mutilation, which had been published in some of the newspapers, had received a complete contradiction in the county paper, where the report was described to be completely false and scandalous.

begged to be permitted to observe, as it might be inferred from the course the conversation had taken, that he objected to the Irish coming to this country to seek for employment, that he had not the least desire to prevent their doing so. They had a right to seek elsewhere for the subsistence of which they were deprived at home by the unnatural conduct of the rich. Those persons who opposed the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland were extremely inconsistent in their reasoning. Formerly they contended such a measure would raise the price of labour, and thereby prove injurious to the buyers of labour, or to those who employed the people. Now it was said, the measure would reduce the value of labour. It was not possible that both of these opposite arguments could be well founded. Any measure which created capital, must naturally increase the demand for labour, and in the same proportion augment the value of the remuneration.

was much gratified by the increasing interest this subject acquired upon every fresh discussion; it was a question which yielded to none in importance.

presented Petitions from the Churchwardens and Overseers of the poor of Leeds and Halifax, against the Settlement by Hiring and Service Bill. He wished to know from the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Bill, whether it was his intention to press it during the present Session?

said, the object of the Bill was, to promote a free circulation of labour in the agricultural parts of the country, and that the measure would not affect the manufacturing interests, and he did not understand what reason they had to petition against a measure which was not to affect them. He was extremely reluctant to relinquish the Bill, but if he found no chance of making any progress in it in a few weeks, he should withdraw it, with the intention of bringing it forward at another opportunity.

hoped the hon. Member would persevere with the Bill, and not think of abandoning it, because certain manufacturers, in a particular part of the country, thought proper to oppose it. Those persons who were acquainted with the situation of agricultural labourers, well knew the evils they endured were much increased by the present laws of settlement. The object of the Bill was, to give the labourer a free market for his only commodity, labour, and the House might find time to discuss a measure of so much importance.

intended to persevere with the Bill, if the business of the House would permit his doing so: if the hon. Member could obtain him an opportunity for forwarding his measure, he should be happy to avail himself of it. He hoped that some day might be set apart for the consideration of the important subjects connected with the existing state of the agricultural labourers.

knew the petitioners were men well acquainted with the interests of the country, and he thought their objections to the Bill worthy of the consideration of the House.

recommended the hon. Member to postpone his Bill, until an opportunity could be had, to obtain for it that full consideration which its importance deserved.

felt it necessary to move that these petitions be printed, in order that the House might have an opportunity fully to appreciate the arguments of the petitioners, as the hon. Gentleman was not disposed to withdraw his Bill. The petitioners did not so much object to its general principle, as to that clause which confined the operation of the measure to towns the population of which did not exceed 1,000 persons.

presented a Petition from Leeds, praying, that Marriages celebrated in Roman Catholic Chapels, by persons professing that religion, might be legalized. This Petition directed the attention of the House to a great defect in the existing law, for the consequence of these marriages being invalid was, that the issue were considered bastards, whereby the parishes in the manufacturing districts were seriously burthened.

said, that in consequence of the state of the law respecting Roman Catholic Marriages, husbands were induced to desert their wives. This subject, in a moral point of view, well deserved the consideration of the House.

begged to be permitted to move, that Sir John Wrottesley and Lord Tullamore be added to the Committee appointed to inquire into the propriety of making some Architectural Improvements in the House. As the Committee had been originally appointed without a full explanation being given, he was anxious to avail himself of the present opportunity of briefly stating an outline of the improvements contemplated. When other reforms were in progress, of a most important nature, it was not, he hoped, presumptuous in him to suggest modes for improving the approaches, accommodation, and atmosphere, of the House of Commons. The principal points to which the attention of the Committee appointed at his suggestion had been directed, were—first, that from want of sufficient room in the seats on crowded nights, the Members were in the habit of collecting on the floor; next, that the voice was continually, in consequence of the current of air from the eastern windows, carried into the lantern or loft above, and lost to all but the persons, generally females, seated there, whom the gentlest and softest sigh uttered by Gentlemen below never escaped. He had, in the Estimate of the improvement, received representations which led him at first to believe that 2,000l. would have been equal to the expense. He had since been led to infer, on juster grounds, by an architect, who, strange to say, had the rare quality of keeping the expense within the precise calculations of the Estimate, that the alteration would amount to 3,000l. The Estimate embraced the project of extending the House and the gallery back to the lobby, so as to enable the House to contain, with convenience, about 120 Members more. By carrying the lobby forward to the entrance of the House of Lords, there would be a space gained for the new lobby of 500 square feet, which would be a great improvement; and a passage would be secured round the House and the galleries, so as to prevent the constant interruption occasioned now by hon. Members rising and crossing each other, so as to escape through the north and south doors into the lobby, without passing through the. House. There was yet an important feature relative to the communication of the voice, which he hoped the plan would materially improve. At present, the Speaker's part of the House was remarkable for giving effect to the voice—that near the gallery was directly the reverse; the reason was, that the voice was wafted directly across the House by the draught of air from the windows, and was lost in the lantern above—it was thus abstracted not to return. His project was, to substitute for the even flat-surfaced roof a broken and slanting roof, which would retain the voice within the House—like that of a well-known lately-erected music-room at Brighton. It was desirable that this roof should correspond, in the style of its breaking and its ornaments, with the ancient character of the venerable Chapel of St. Stephen, so as to render the alteration consistent with the rest of the building. He should say no more at present, because he had taken other means to call the attention of Members to this subject, and he hoped they would be able to ascertain from the Estimates annexed to the plans and specifications, the object he proposed to accomplish.

was sure every hon. Member must feel grateful for the pains taken by the gallant Officer for their future accommodation. He begged to ask the hon. Gentleman, how his plan would affect the accommodation for strangers?

said, the proposed alteration would much enlarge the accommodation for strangers. The back of the present gallery would, if the alterations were made, be the front of the future gallery.

cordially agreed with the proposed improvement, and considered that the thanks of the House would be due to the hon. and gallant Member even if the expense amounted to double what he estimated it at.

said, he would take that opportunity of bringing under the notice of the House one of the most atrocious Breaches of the Privileges of the House that had ever been committed against any of its Members. It was not his intention to follow up his statement with any motion on the subject, for he had taken a much more effectual means of setting himself right with the public. It would be recollected, that some time ago he had called the attention of the House to some blasphemous publications, which he then and still thought, ought not to be allowed to escape without the visitation of the law. Alluding to that circumstance, the Breach of Privilege to which he referred had been committed in a public print of the very lowest class. The hon. Member here read the passage, which began by alluding to his notice of the blasphemous publications, and to the part taken by the hon. member for Preston (Mr. Hunt) on that occasion. It described the hon. Member as the opponent of the rights of the people—as the purchased agent of the Tory party against the Reform Bill. The hon. Member was proceeding, when—

said, it was quite clear that the hon. Member who rose to order was himself out of order. There was a Motion before the House, so that the hon. Member (Mr. James E. Gordon) could not make a new motion on it. He was quite in order, in taking that opportunity of adverting to the subject which he had introduced to the House; and if, in his doing so, the hon. Member (Mr. Ruthven) had seen anything disorderly, he had discovered more than had yet appeared to him (the Speaker).

resumed.—The article, of which he had read only a small part, after alluding in very offensive terms to the hon. member for Preston, as the mouth-piece of the Tories against the Bill, and as the pot-companion of Hetherington (the reputed writer of one of these low publications), went on to describe him (Mr. James E. Gordon), as the author of many of those blasphemous articles in that low print, and the correspondent of the editor; and then it gave two pretended Letters—gross forgeries—purporting to be from him to the editor. He had felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to this subject, but would take no further notice of it here, having adopted other means of setting himself right with the public.

said, it seemed as if the object of the hon. and gallant Member was rather to promulgate the libels against him (Mr. Hunt) than to defend himself, for he had read some of the offensive terms that had been applied to him, though he had carefully avoided reading the contents of the Letters that were imputed to himself. For his own part, he totally disregarded the libellous attacks of the Press. It was well known that in nineteen cases out of twenty what it stated was grossly false. The Press attacked any and every one who presumed to have an opinion of his own, or to venture to differ from the opinions which it chose to deliver on any subject, but particularly on the Reform Bill. Every man was held up as an enemy of the people who ventured to offer an opinion hostile to any part of the Bill; but for his own part he despised such attacks, and therefore took no notice of them. By the way, if Ministers were in their places, he would inform them, that they themselves had fallen under the displeasure of the editor of The Times on this subject, as appeared by an article in that paper of this morning.

said, that the hon. Member should take that fact as an answer to the charge that had been made, of The Times being in the pay of the Government.

said, the wisest course would be, to take no notice of such low publications, and they would speedily sink into oblivion. It was the object of the authors to have their scurrility noticed in the House, which very materially tended to increase the sale.

appeared at the Bar with the report of the general Turnpike Tolls (Scotland) Bill.

objected to bringing up the Bill, as it proposed to impose such duties on Steam Carriages as would amount to a complete prohibition. All he was anxious to do now was, to propose that the consideration of this Report should be postponed until the Committee which was sitting on Steam Carriages had made its report.

suggested to the hon. Member, that the House could know nothing of the Report until it was brought up. The hon. Member might afterwards make his objection on the question that the Report be agreed to.

objected to the enormous tolls which the Bill proposed on steam-carriages, which would, in effect, be three times the amount of other carriages carrying the same weight. By the enactments of this Bill 2s. 6d. must be paid for thirty-four cwt. of coals, which would tend in the infancy of a most useful invention to prohibit it from coming into operation. Without going into the question of the policy of those tolls, he wished that this Bill should not proceed further until the Committee alluded to should have made its report.

suggested, that the Bill should be recommitted for that day week. In the interim, the steam-carriage Committee would probably make its report.

denied, that the Committee on the Bill had imposed anything like a prohibitory toll on steam-carriages. On the contrary, it adopted the scale of tolls suggested for such carriages by the very individual who had invented them, and they, in reality, would be the same as if the carriages were drawn by horses. His object was to have this Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House. He would have it committed nominally for Monday, and printed, but he was unwilling to postpone it to any time which might risk its chance of passing this session.

said, that Mr. Gurney, the inventor of steam-carriages, considered the proposed scale of tolls very fair.

said, that if the hon. member for Glasgow (Mr. Dixon) would study a little the principles of friction and draught, he would find reason to alter his opinion with respect to the tolls on steam-carriages.

said, that hon. Members were mistaken as to the opinion of Mr. Gurney. It did not go to the case of heavy goods. He thought the House would do very wrong to legislate upon a matter concerning which, to a great extent, it must be deficient in proper information. Would it not be better to wait until they had the report of the steam-carriage Committee before them? The country suffered more from ignorant legislation than from any other cause, and he thought, that to put a stop to such legislation was of more importance than the Reform Bill itself.

seeing the learned Lord (the Lord Advocate) in his place, wished to put a question to him. As Chairman of the Committee which sat on the Jedburgh Election Petition, it was his (Sir George Clerk's) intention, to have brought some of the circumstances which appeared before the Committee, under the notice of the House, but understanding that the learned Lord, as public prosecutor in Scotland, had directed proceedings to be commenced against some of the parties, he thought it better to leave the matter to the regular tribunals. He wished to know from the learned Lord, whether it was his intention to go on with the proceedings against those parties?

said, he had instituted proceedings against some of the parties, but the case was prevented from coming on by the absence of some witnesses. It was his intention to go on with the proceedings.

under those circumstances would not bring the matter before the House.

presented a Petition from Linlithgow, praying the House to accelerate the progress of the Reform Bill.

, on the Petition being brought up, called the attention of the hon. Member to some erasures that appeared on the face of the petition, and asked him to explain how they occurred.

said, that the petitioners having used some strong language, which he thought might not be favourably received by the House, he had, not having much experience on the subject, not thought it unparliamentary to make the alteration by erasing those words.

said, that a little consideration would have served to show the hon. Member, that the petition, so altered, and not by the petitioners themselves, ceased to be the petition of those whose names were annexed, and therefore could not be received by the House. If the hon. Member saw anything objectionable in the language of the petition, he should either have abstained from presenting it, or, calling the attention of the House to the objectionable passage, should have left it to the House to dispose of it as it should see fit. It was quite clear, that he should not have made any alteration in it himself, but having done so, it from that moment ceased to be the petition of the parties who signed it.

said, he was not aware that he had been acting wrong. The petition, however, showed that the people of Scotland were not as lukewarm on the Bill as—

called the hon. Member to order: having presented a petition which the House could not receive, there was now no question on which the hon. Member could address the House.

was proceeding to address the House when—

said, that the rising of the hon. Member afforded an illustration of the inconvenience against which he wished to guard, when he reminded the preceding speaker that there was no question before the House.

said, he had several Petitions in his hand from Preston against the Corn Laws, but as they were expressed in rather strong terms, he hardly knew how to present them, until he should learn whether the noble Lord would reject them or not. He would read the strong parts of the petition. The petitioners stated, that one of the most unequal, unjust, partial, and oppressive Acts that ever passed, was that which was called by those who suffered from it, the Starvation Bill, but by the landowners the Corn Bill. It was passed at the point of the bayonet, in the year 1815, for the purpose of enabling the farmers to pay large rents to their landlords, &c. He was much of the same opinion as the petitioners. To him it appeared, that the Act in question was a gross, unjust, and inhuman law; and he well remembered, that the presence of the military had been necessary to its passing. He hoped the time had not arrived when the present liberal Ministry were about to set an example of a course of conduct never before practised in that House— namely, when the people prayed for redress of their grievances, to reject their petitions because they considered them erroneous. The prayer of the petition was, that the Corn-law should be repealed.

said, that the Act of which the petitioners complained was no longer in existence. They prayed for the repeal of an Act which, they say, passed at the point of the bayonet in 1815, which had since been repealed. The Corn-laws of the present day were not those of which the petitioners complained.

observed, that the House could not consent to receive a petition which declared, that one of the Acts of the Legislature had been passed at the point of the bayonet. It seemed to be the object of the hon. member for Preston, to see how far the House would be submissive in suffering itself to be insulted. Day after day he presented petitions which only tended to degrade the House and all the institutions of the country, and which would certainly eventually injure the right of petitioning itself. He therefore called upon the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to concur with him in rejecting this disrespectful petition.

was of opinion, that to print such a petition would be wrong. He had no objection to its being laid on the Table, but would never be a party to printing such expressions as it contained. He differed from the hon. Member and the petitioners as to the effect of the Corn-laws. He believed they had benefitted, instead of injuring the poor, or any other part of the community. The question had been examined in every point of view, when the Bill passed. He should vote against printing such a petition.

said, there was nothing so disrespectful to the House as should induce them to reject the petition. He thought it better to receive the petition than have the time of the House wasted by a useless discussion, though he wished the hon. member for Preston would not present petitions likely to provoke discussion, when he had a motion on the subject of the Corn-laws to bring forward. He would not object to receive the petition, but he could never agree to allow a petition so extremely absurd, and evidently founded on such erroneous impressions as that now before them, to be printed.

remarked, that the hon. member for Preston had not, as he stated, read the strongest passage in the petition. He would read a passage to the House, which would bear out this fact; it was in these terms—"Your petitioners beg leave respectfully to petition your honourable House to take this matter of just complaint into your consideration, with a view to the complete removal of the duty on corn, knowing, as your petitioners do, that the productive classes of this country cannot, and will not, much longer submit quietly to a system of such gross injustice and oppression; and your petitioners add, that if their just hopes should continue to be disappointed, the bonds of society would burst asunder, and the British lion would, perhaps, trample into dust an obstinate Parliament, and Peers and Prelates find their level amongst the crowd of their fellow-men." He suggested to the hon. Member the propriety of withdrawing the petition.

replied, that he certainly would not withdraw it. There was not, in his opinion, any danger in figurative language. He moved, that the petition be brought up, and hoped somebody would second his Motion.

seconded it, and declared, great allowances ought to be made for the language used by starving men.

thought the petition ought to be rejected; and the fault of its being rejected, lay with the petitioners themselves, and with the hon. Member, who, it was to be presumed, had made himself acquainted with its contents. If the petitioners really wished to have their case considered, they would not have employed language, which either they themselves must know, or their Members could inform them, must ensure the rejection of their petition by that House. Whatever their distresses might be, they could describe them in decent and respectful language at least.

On Friday.

resumed. On Friday, the 5th of August, the country was surprised by the announcement that his Majesty the king of the Netherlands had entered the newly-created kingdom of Belgium with an armed force. His hon. friend, the member for Oakhampton (Sir R. Vyvyan), on the meeting of the House on that day, as was natural, inquired of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who happened to be in his place, his noble friend (Viscount Palmerston) not being in his, whether it was true that the Dutch troops had thus hostilely entered the new kingdom of Belgium? The noble Lord (Lord Althorp) in reply, answered to the following effect.—He (Mr. Croker) would not, in matters of such delicacy, trust too much to his own recollection, but would read the noble Lord's reply, as it had gone forth to the world in the daily reports of their debates: "His Majesty's Government had received from Sir Charles Bagot, official information of the intention of the king of Holland to put an end to the armistice between Holland and Belgium."^* The pointed statement

^*See ante, p. 829.

of the noble Lord, that the information concerning the breaking of the armistice was received from Sir Charles Bagot, excited his attention, because it seemed passing strange, that a great measure of this kind should have been left to be communicated at second-hand, as it were, to the great mediating Powers, by the king of the Netherlands. Common justice, natural humanity, the courtesy due among nations, forbade the belief, that the king of Holland should decide upon recommencing hostilities, and act upon that decision, without directly announcing it to them. He therefore took the liberty of stating to the noble Lord, that the emphatic mention of Sir Charles Bagot's name induced him (Mr. Croker) to inquire, whether the Dutch government had forwarded any communication upon the subject to his Majesty's Government? The noble Lord gave him an answer, which, he would do him the justice to say, was, like all his answers, full of propriety and prudence. The noble Lord said, "a reply to this question might lead him into further details than he should be justified in entering upon at that time; but that certainly the first information received was from Sir Charles Bagot." But then the noble Lord, upon sitting down, received a communication from the only other Minister in the House, and it was not too much to assume, that the communication related to this subject; for the noble Lord then rose a second time, and said he would give him (Mr. Croker) a more explicit answer, and this answer was: "It was with the greatest surprise that his Majesty's Government learned from Sir Charles Bagot, that it was the intention of the king of Holland to put an end to the armistice; for at that moment a Minister was sent to the British Court by the king of Holland, with orders to enter into a negotiation on the matters pending between Holland and Belgium. That Minister had an interview with my noble friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in which interview he did not mention a word of the probability that the armistice would be broken; and it was not until the evening, and after a question had been put on the subject in Parliament by a noble Lord, that my noble friend received despatches from Sir Charles Bagot, informing him that it was the intention of the king of Holland to terminate the armistice between Holland and Belgium."

^*See ante, p. 830.

There was nobody who heard this answer, who was not deeply surprised at the conduct of the king of Holland; the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) having positively denied, that any communication had been made, and having added a strong insinuation of perfidy on the part of the king of Holland, when he stated that that Sovereign had determined on commencing hostilities without giving any notice to our Government, at the very moment when a Minister had been sent by him to this country, in order to enter into negotiations. He had now stated the prima-facie facts of this stage of the case; but he believed it could be proved, that the real facts did not bear out the impression which naturally might be created by the statements and the insinuations of the noble Lord. But the matter did not rest there; for the hon. member for Oakhampton (Sir R. Vyvyan) gave notice, that he would bring the subject forward next day (Saturday), and on that day he had the advantage, and a great advantage it must be considered, of the presence of his noble friend (Viscount Palmerston), who then went through a kind of political catechism with exceeding good humour. He himself, however, did not think of embarrassing his noble friend with any question, for he was convinced, by what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the previous day, that the Ministers had received no information; convinced, but not satisfied; and he felt greatly surprised that our ancient and esteemed ally, the king of Holland, had been guilty of such perfidy. He was silenced, however, by the statement of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Others, however, did put questions to his noble friend (Viscount Palmerston), who repeated the statement in general terms, that there was no doubt the king of Holland had broken the armistice, and without giving notice. He remembered then stretching across the Table to his noble friend, when he used the words "broken the armistice," and suggested to him the propriety of saying "denounced the armistice." But his noble friend disregarded this suggestion, and even rose and repeated in a more solemn way, that the Dutch had violated the armistice. The right hon. member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) then stated to his noble friend (Viscount Palmerston) "that he (Viscount Palmerston) had used, perhaps through inadvertence, the terms "violated the armistice," and "broken the armistice," which implied bad faith on the part of the Dutch government, and therefore, he (Sir Robert Peel) was desirous of asking him, whether he really did mean to say, that the king of the Netherlands had broken the armistice, for that his (Sir Robert Peel's) view of the case was different?" His noble friend (Lord Palmerston) expressly replied, that he believed his right hon. friend was in error, and observed, there were two armistices, one of which was local, and formed between the Dutch commander at Antwerp, and the Belgian commander at Antwerp, and which might be terminated by a notice of three days; the other was more general, as it extended along the whole frontier line, and was formed under the sanction of the five Powers; and it was of this latter he had spoken when he observed the Dutch had violated the armistice. Here then were the Dutch accused of not only having violated the armistice without giving notice to the Belgians, the party against which hostilities were to commence, but likewise of violating it without notice to the mediating Powers. Moreover, his noble friend added, that up to the moment at which he was speaking, no communication had been made to his Majesty's Government on the subject by the plenipotentiary of the king of the Netherlands. On Tuesday, again his noble friend was put into the confessional, and again the same facts in general were enumerated. Now, such being the statements made, he wanted words to describe his surprise, after all the questioning in that House, and, after long and protracted debate in another place, when he and other Members of that House, in their individual inquiries, and also by the ordinary channels of information, ascertained that the Dutch, not only had not been guilty of the perfidy with which they had been charged, but that they had absolutely done that which he and other Members of this House had understood his noble friend had accused them of not doing. In another place, to which he could not more distinctly allude, that avowal had been made. He knew it, because he had read in the public papers an ingenious treatise on the subject, introduced in the shape of a dialogue, in which his Majesty's Ministers and their opponents in the upper House of Parliament were supposed to bear a part; and in that treatise it was stated, that his Majesty's Ministers admitted, that on Wednesday morning, the 3rd of August (his narration, it would be remembered, began with Friday evening, the 5th)—that on Wednesday morning the minister of Holland had waited upon his noble friend, and after some conversation, delivered to him a certain letter. It appeared, also, that that letter had remained unopened for above twenty-four hours. The reason that was alleged, in the dialogue to which he had before alluded, for this apparent neglect was, that the letter was not addressed to his noble friend, but to the Conference at large. His noble friend made a difference between letters addressed to the Conference, and to himself, though he must say, that the Conference without his noble friend, would be like the play of Hamlet, with the Prince of Denmark left out. If his noble friend would assure him, that it was not the habit of our Ministers to take notice of papers addressed, not to them individually, but to the Conference, of which they formed a part—if his noble friend would tell him, that it was not the practice to look into the contents of such papers till the whole Conference should be assembled, he should pardon his noble friend for not having opened that letter; but he should at the same time think, that it was a part of his noble friend's duty to have watched the receipt of such communications; and, on the instant, to have taken some steps with respect to them, and not to wait for twenty-four hours, when the greatest interests of the European world, then trembling in the balance, might depend on the letter which had been thus received, and he must add, thus neglected. If, however, such was the form, he had only to regret that such forms should be suffered to operate against what he would call the peaceful interests of mankind. Nothing gave him greater public pain than that a British Minister—and nothing could give him greater private pain, than that his noble friend should, upon a principle of mistaken etiquette, have left this important letter unopened. That letter was most important, especially with reference to the charges which had afterwards been brought forward against the king of Holland. In that letter the king of Holland said, that in compliance with the demand of the five Ministers at the Conference, he had sent new powers to his plenipoten- tiaries. Now, who would not have believed—nay, more, who did not believe—from the assertions of Ministers when this subject was under consideration on a former occasion, that the king of Holland had voluntarily sent these new powers to his minister as a blind, as a curtain, behind which his military movements were to be made. That was the belief produced in that House, and produced in the country, and which must be produced throughout Europe by the successive statements of his Majesty's Ministers. He did not accuse his noble friend of wishing to create such an impression, but that it had been created by his statements, was undeniable. Now, what was the fact? The king of Holland did not volunteer to send any minister, nor any new powers, nor did he select the particular moment at which the minister was sent. The Conference of London had sent to the Dutch government to desire, that new powers should be sent to its ministers. The renewal of hostilities happened to occur at the same time with this demand of the Conference, and with the consequent journey of the Minister charged with the new powers; but, except that accidental coincidence in time, these two events had nothing to do with each other. This plain fact completely relieved the Dutch monarch from the charge of perfidy, which had been implied against him, by representing the journey of his minister, as a deceitful attempt to conceal from the Conference the march of his army. So directly the reverse were the real motives and conduct of the king of Holland, that in the letter, which was produced and read to our Prime Minister, and our Secretary of State for Foreign affairs, on Thursday, the 4th of August, the Dutch minister stated, that in obedience to the commands of his master, he desired to inform the Conference, that the king of Holland would support the negotiations by his military means. In the dialogue in the other place, to which he had before alluded, it was said, that the words were, "by military measures," and a considerable discussion took place on some fanciful distinction between means and measures. To his plain understanding, however, it seemed much the same thing, whichever of these meanings they might affix to the words, and he should not stop to investigate the difference. It should be observed, however, that the Dutch minister did not say his muster would have recourse to his military means if negotiation should fail, but that he would support the negotiations as they went on by his military means. Now, his noble friend was in possession of that letter on Wednesday, at noon, though it seems that he did not open it till the following day, and he also had a verbal communication from the Dutch minister in this country to the same effect, before the question had been stirred in Parliament; then how could he assume to charge the Dutch government with having broken the armistice without notice? His noble friend might, be able to explain this—it was a difficult task, but he might do it, and certainly it was requisite to be explained, for in the dialogue supposed to have occurred in another place, no explanation of the matter was given. The letter, after speaking of supporting the negotiations by military means, which, be it remembered, were to be brought into operation simultaneously with the negotiations, went on to state, "as the plan of establishing an armistice has never been realised, there exists at the present moment only a cessation of hostilities." With that letter, of which they were in possession on Wednesday the 3rd, and knew the contents on Thursday the 4th, at noon, how could his Majesty's Ministers come down to Parliament, and on Friday the 5th assert, and on Saturday the 6th reiterate the assertion, that the Dutch government had violated the armistice, and without notice? Why, the Dutch government said, that it was no armistice. How could Ministers say, that the Dutch had violated an armistice, when the Dutch denied that an armistice existed. He knew there were often great differences about words—there had been much dispute about the meaning of the word Protocol, and a treatise had been written on the subject; and there might be an equal dispute about the meaning of the word Armistice; but such cavils, though they might possibly do well enough for diplomacy, would not do in the House of Commons. The imputations against the king of Holland was no light matter, for he trusted the violation of a solemn treaty, and an armistice was a treaty to a certain extent, would never be mentioned in that House without exciting indignation. His noble friend had an opportunity to make a full explanation when his right hon. friend (Sir R. Peel) put his subsequent questions to him, and called his particular attention to the very point which it now appears was so much misrepresented. His noble friend ought at least to have stated, that though they accused the Dutch government of having broken the armistice, that government asserted, that there was no armistice whatever. His noble friend ought to have said, "I am able to prove that there was an armistice, although the Dutch government denies that there was;" but still he ought to have said, that the denial was made. When he was charging a great, aye, and an honest nation, with such an offence as that of the breach of an armistice, he should have been most cautious in his mode of proceeding; he should have been careful to guard their character as well as his own, and in stating their acts, he should have given those acts the guarantee of their previously expressed opinion. But, instead of that, his noble friend had left the Dutch nation and government, suffering for seven days under an imputation most injurious to their character—for seven days, at a more eventful period of their history than any that had occurred to them since the Duke of Alva was thundering at their gates, they had lain under a charge, made by a British Minister of violating their engagements—a charge which from any mouth ought to be intolerable to a nation as to an individual, and which was only the more intolerable when proceeding from so high and hitherto so friendly an authority. Having said thus much, he thought he had made out something of a prima facie case to justify him in saying, that his noble friend should have been more or less communicative, and that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should still have persevered in the prudent silence he had maintained on the first occasion when this subject was mentioned to the House; or that, when he had resolved to deviate from that silence, he should have done justice to the unfortunate Dutch. He came now to the second scene of this—he hoped not tragedy—but most extraordinary drama. If the neglect of the first letter, dated August 1st, afforded ground for complaint, what must the House think of the absolute oblivion of the second letter into which Ministers seem to have fallen? He felt himself personally called upon to ask his noble friend for some explanation on this letter, though he readily acquitted his noble friend of intentional deception. It would be recollected, that when he (Mr. Croker) had in his place, made some inquiries respecting that letter, his noble friend professed to know nothing about it. (They had hitherto been talking of the letter of August 1st; he was now speaking of a letter of August 2nd.) He had asked his noble friend about that letter, but his noble friend at first only remembered the letter of the 1st of August. He called his noble friend's attention in a particular manner to this second letter, and then his noble friend, with that courtesy of manner which so much distinguished him, got up, and expressed a wish that his right hon. friend (for so his noble friend called him, and so he trusted his noble friend would still call him) would explain a little more precisely what letter he meant. It was clear, that his noble friend had either wholly forgotten that letter to which he (Mr. Croker) at that moment referred, or else had confounded it with the first letter, which had remained twenty-four hours unopened. His noble friend, like other diplomatists on this occasion, endeavoured to conceal his incapacity, to reply to the question by an ambiguous answer. His answer, in effect, was, "Oh, before I tell you what I know about that letter, I should wish to know what you know about it." But his noble friend need not have exercised so much caution with regard to that letter, for it was impossible but that all the world must know something about it, as it had been published in a well-informed and influential Journal, The Times of that very morning. His noble friend thus reminded, at last said, that "he recollected the letter, but that it had been read by the Dutch minister to himself, and his noble friend at the head of affairs, in a very hurried manner." What! a Dutchman in a hurry—great changes had of late taken place in national characters, but he never expected to hear as an excuse for a diplomatic error, that the Dutch negotiator was in a hurry! But if the Dutchman was in a hurry, that was no reason for the Englishman being in a hurry. The phenomenon of a Dutchman in a hurry ought to have awakened the attention of his noble friend. He should have said, there must be something in the wind—something strange in this matter, thus to awaken the sensibility of a Dutchman—to arouse the vivacity of a Netherlander. Had it done so? No such thing. His noble friend had been in a hurry too— he remembered nothing of the contents of the letter, and concluded by saying, that, he forgot whether the letter was received; on Friday or on Saturday! Here was a doubt of forty-eight hours, when there ought not to have been a delay of one; and the hurry or the inattention which occasioned these doubts and delays, were the more to be regretted, as it did not appear, that France had lost an hour, or even hesitated for the fourth of that time, to take her active and decided part. When the French minister was applied to by the Belgian ambassador, he at once granted an aid of 50,000 men; he did not forget the application, nor doubt on what day it was made; he attended to it at the moment, and the application having been made at one o'clock in the day, the hour of two had not struck by the clock of Notre Dame when the telegraph at Paris replied to the invitation, by an immediate assent, and, for aught he knew, the garrison of Lisle was within an hour afterwards not merely under arms, but upon the march. It was not for the men to whom the destinies of the world were committed, to say, that they had received papers, but did not know what the contents of those papers were. It was difficult for him to conceive how the British Minister to whose care such important interests were intrusted, could have stated, that he did not know on what day he had received a particular paper, which, he would fearlessly assert, was the key-stone of the whole business, the real explanation of all the diplomacy that had taken place. Let not the noble Lord tell them, as if it would be any excuse, that the letter was read in a hurry. So far from being an excuse, it only seemed to make the matter worse. Were communications of such vast importance to be slurr'd over in a hurry? Was a matter to be left to verbal intercourse between two Ministers, which was to decide the fate of nations and the peace of the world? Was it credible that such interviews should have taken place, and that such documents should have been read at them without any official copy or note or memorandum of them being retained? They were told, that both Ministers were in a hurry, and the one hardly recollected what the other said. He was surprised beyond measure that his noble friend should have listened to a document like that to which he referred, and not have demanded instantly a copy of it. The communication was said to have been made at five o'clock on the Friday evening. Would Gentlemen recollect how they had come down to that House, on that evening, in great numbers, expecting to hear something most momentous, and would they recollect the great anxiety of London and Westminster at that moment? He would assert, that he never recollected to have seen the public mind more agitated by any public event than upon the subject of the information then believed to have been received from Belgium; and yet even then, when public expectation was upon the tiptoe—when the noble Lord himself was in wonder at having received no communication from the Dutch Government—at that moment was it not to be expected that when the Dutch minister did at length come to make his statement, he, would have been received with anxiety—he would have been heard with attention, and his statement would have been sifted with the closest accuracy? At that important moment he came with an important document—with a despatch from his government; yet instead of his noble friend saying, "thank God, here is the Dutch minister to put an end to this suspense," he listened to the Minister with such nonchalance, and the document was read in such a hurried manner, that his noble friend not only did not know the contents of it, but did not even recollect that such a transaction had ever occurred; and when at last it was forced upon his recollection, it appeared that the thing was considered so trivial, that his noble friend did not know whether the occurrence had taken place on a Friday or a Saturday. This was a fit prologue to what followed. The second letter, which went in at one ear and out at the other, was more formal than the first; it was an appeal by Holland to the whole of Europe, in defence of her conduct—it repeated some of the same expressions—it was addressed not merely to the Dutch Ambassador here, to be laid before the Conference, but it was directed to the Governments themselves. It would travel to St. Petersburg—it would be sent to Vienna—it would be despatched to Berlin—it would be conveyed to Paris, and it was therefore drawn up with greater care, and with more formality, than the letter of the 1st of August; it ought, therefore, to have attracted the attention of the noble Lord. But besides these claims to notice, it explained the meaning of the first letter—it said, "The King is determined to support his negotiations by military means." Why, this was the same expression which it seems had puzzled our Cabinet and the Conference in the first letter. He, therefore, the more wondered at the inarticulate hurry of the Dutch minister, and the impatient haste of his noble friend. "Military means" was a catch-word that should have struck the ear of his noble friend—for his colleagues of the Cabinet and himself had been for twenty-four hours debating what moyens militaries meant, and they had resolved that it meant—nothing at all. It was a misfortune that they did not understand it better; for at the Conference there was a person who had the reputation of understanding pretty well the meaning of words, and especially of French words; but unfortunately that person, among his other great qualifications, was not a proficient in the English language, and it was probably through that circumstance that he induced the Conference to believe that the words moyens militaries meant nothing at all. He was bound in justice to his noble friend's character to believe, that he had not spoken with this indifference of the letter with any intention to deceive; but that what he had said, really arose from an ignorance of the contents of the letter. But surely the words "moyens militaries" ought to have awakened his attention; they should have been talismanic words. He should have felt that they haunted him; he should have said, "Let us ask this Dutchman what those words mean?" Perhaps the noble Lord disdained the assistance of a Dutch interpreter; but if he would not ask the Dutchman the meaning of the words, he should, at least, have listened with attention to the rest of the letter. But he had not done so. This letter, about the meaning of some words in which there was so much doubt, had now appeared before the public in good English, done by the hand of that ingenious person—the editor of The Times—and whether originally written in good French or good Dutch was now of no consequence. In that letter the king of Holland said, he was sorry he was obliged to have recourse to coercive measures, but that he had been compelled to do so, and that this was "the more indispensable, because the existing crisis could not be prolonged without at once endangering our public spirit, our finances, our army, and our political existence." He would not enter into the question, whether the king of Holland was right in the view he thus took of the matter. It was sufficient to show that such was his view, and that he had fully and frankly explained it to the Governments of the five Powers. The letter then went on to show that Holland was under no obligation not to proceed in its own course, by commencing hostilities if it pleased; the letter entered into a vindication, in detail, of the conduct of the Dutch government in doing that which it was now accused of doing without notice. It then stated this conclusion—"Thence unquestionably the king's resolution to move his army simultaneously with the negotiations carrying on in London, ought not to inspire disquietude—and was, in fact, indispensable to the safety and honour of his country." And yet, notwithstanding this letter, this full and distinct notice previously communicated both in writing and verbally to his Majesty's Ministers, Parliament had been told by those very Ministers, both on Friday and Saturday, that the attack upon Belgium was a surprise, that Ministers were taken wholly unawares, and that no notice had been given of the attack, though the letter just quoted had been read to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and in that the king of Holland stated his determination to assist his negotiations with his sword. Even on the subsequent day it was stated, in another place, that moyens militaries did not imply an immediate hostile operation, but meant merely a demonstration. He must confess, that his understanding was in despair before such contradictions, and that he could not comprehend them. His noble friend, and the rest of his Majesty's Ministers, were too high-minded men to wish to practise a delusion; but he must candidly say, that he could not understand their conduct in the whole of this affair. He was well aware what diplomacy generally signified; translated into plain English, it meant double-dealing, and he knew it had been held that double-dealing was justifiable in diplomacy. He admitted, that a Minister, in the performance of his duty, might refuse to answer questions propounded to him in either House of Parliament, if he thought the answer might prejudice the public service; but if he did answer in the Home of Lords—if he did condescend to reply in the House of Commons—there should be no diplomacy, no double-dealing, in his statements in either of those places; with discretion, prudence, and reserve on the part of British Ministers no one could find fault, but when they did speak it should be with perfect candor and generous sincerity. Such was the history of this extraordinary affair—such was the history of "the three great days" of the noble Lord, in which he had defeated the Dutch Minister—had exposed on the gibbet of infamy the Dutch character—and for his triumph he had to exhibit the occupation of the fortresses in Flanders, won with English blood, and built with English money, by the tri-coloured flag of France. That tri-coloured flag had not triumphed more in the three days of July last year at Paris, than in the three days of August this year in London. At times like the present, when the dependence of Government on public opinion was one of the prevailing dogmas, it was most necessary, that national character should stand high, and charges ought not hastily, nor carelessly, or without the strongest reasons, to be made against a nation. At a moment when public principle was so much esteemed, and when the government of France was said to be entirely founded upon it—at such a time, he repeated, the Dutch ought not gratuitously and unjustly to have been censured and maligned. That the Dutch government had been unjustly and injuriously lowered in public opinion by errors and misstatements of his Majesty's Ministers, he would now prove. He would appeal to one of the organs of public opinion; he thought he might do so without offence; for, however he might differ from it as to the extent to which it was an organ of public opinion, or as to its right to take upon itself the expression of public opinion, he might venture to appeal to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, that, at least, he did not select his evidence with any undue partiality. He would read the successive opinions of the able and influential newspaper to which he had already referred, in order to show what was the state of public opinion on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman smiled, and he might smile, if he (Mr. Croker) were to quote The Times as an authority on general questions of politics; but he was not looking at it in that light, he quoted it as authority ad hoc as being the organ of public opinion the most favourable to the politics of his Majesty's Ministers; and, therefore, the best evidence of the effect their statements were calculated to produce, and although, therefore, he might not be inclined to consider it the best authority in morals or politics, he thought he could hardly select a better guide for the news or a better criterion of the public feeling of the day. Well, then, let them hear what The Times said, when this atrocity of Holland first burst out with such a sombre and suspicious appearance. "The whole conduct of 'our ancient ally' for the last twelve months, seems better to accord with the unfortunate condition of moon-stricken madness, than with the character of a prince whom we had been accustomed to treat with respect and confidence, for the previous fifteen years." Madness, however, was pitiable and excuseable; but the same could not be said for "falsehood," with which the same Paper, on the same day, went on to charge the king of Holland:—"His Dutch Majesty, in his obstinate adherence to his old prejudices, or his eagerness to gratify his personal spleen, has entered upon a dishonest course, and is playing a very dangerous game. His conduct displays such strong symptoms of duplicity and falsehood, that it must forfeit the support and favour of England, which has hitherto been his chief protection." As to the "duplicity and falsehood," he had shown there was no ground for such a charge, beyond the noble Lord's neglect of the letter of the 1st of August, and his forgetting the letter of the 2nd of August; and the threat founded on this misunderstanding thus denounced against Holland, that her king, by his conduct, must forfeit the favour and protection of England was a most important and alarming menace. Louis 14th at the gates of Utrecht, Buonaparte in possession of the city of Amsterdam—could be scarcely more fatal to Dutch interests and infinitely less injurious to Dutch character than this authoritative assertion, that "the falsehood and duplicity" of their king must forfeit for them the favour and protection of England, who, he might almost take the liberty of saying, had been the mother and the nurse of the liberties and prosperity of Holland. So exactly did those sentiments of the editor of The Times seem to accord with the opinions of Ministers, that it might almost be supposed they had condescended to pen the paragraph—and no great condescension neither, for those articles were written with more consistency and logic, and, as it afterwards appeared, with more candour and judgment, than had been displayed by Ministers in their speeches on the same subject. The article to which he was alluding, further said, "At the very time that the Governor at Antwerp is declaring the armistice at an end, and threatening a bombardment of the city, in which some of his countrymen would be the chief sufferers, he (the king) has sent an extra Ambassador (M. Zuylen von Nyevelt) to London, to re-open the negotiations with the Conference. This Special Ambassador, ostensibly sent to negociate in order to secure the peace of Europe, suppresses, of course, all mention of his master's hostile intentions and preparations. What useless perfidy!" The Times, it seems, knew, that a Special Ambassador had been sent, and for what purpose. "This Special Ambassador, ostensibly sent to negociate, in order to secure the peace of Europe, suppresses, of course, all mention of his master's hostile intentions and preparations:" almost the identical words repeated by the noble Lords opposite, twice, thrice, and even four times over on different evenings; and it terminates the tirade with the exclamation, "What useless perfidy!" All the collected venom was reserved for this last shaft—the confident and slanderous assertion, that the king of Holland had been guilty of "useless perfidy." The same able Paper went on on Monday (and no wonder it should go on, considering what had passed in Parliament on Saturday), in the following strain. [Some symptoms of impatience were here expressed.] He was not surprised at this interruption, for he knew how unpleasant it must be to some Gentlemen to hear the king of Holland defended, and he also knew, that about that hour, (nearly seven) hon. Gentlemen were wont to indulge in a different and more palatable species of entertainment; nevertheless, he would read to those who would do him the favour to remain, and please to give him their attention, what The Times said on Monday:—"While (said The Times) the king of Holland was pretending to revive, or continue with the five great Powers the negotiations for a pacific settlement of his disputes with Belgium, he was at the same moment, and without any announcement to those Powers, actually marching his troops into the Belgic territory, for the purpose of taking by force into his own hands the very questions which he professed to submit to their friendly arbitration." That assertion then was made, though the fact was, that Ministers were in possession of a double announcement of the intentions of the king of Holland. From thence the Paper went on to censure the foul, audacious, and offensive course of the king of Holland, and to reiterate the charges of phrenzy, depravity, and falsehood. It said—"Many presume that the king of Holland, in his perfect knowledge of the spirit by which all France, like a single man is actuated, would not have dared to adopt his violent, audacious, and offensive course, without a full assurance of support from some powerful military quarter. We are not satisfied of the justice of such conjectures. The question lies between utter phrenzy in the head of the House of Orange, and an excess of perfidy and depravity in one or more of the Powers, parties to the Protocols, which we acknowledge seems to us the most incredible of all solutions of the difficulty." Such was the state of public opinion—such the degree of inflammation; and he quoted what he had read as an indication of the way the wind of public sentiment set. Such was the state of affairs when that very able—and to give it due praise—that very diligent Paper, contrived to get possession of one of the letters. He would now advert to what was said in The Times of yesterday [murmurs]. He heard some Gentlemen murmur—no wonder: they knew that he was about to shew that the editor of The Times was better informed of what had passed in Downing-street than their noble leaders, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. He was tracing by the newspaper the course of public opinion—and what did it say yesterday? The Times, then, of yesterday, said—"The king of Holland, it appears by Tuesday's debate, has been charged with something not far short of perfidy, for attacking Belgium without notice of any design." Such was the gloss put upon the business by public opinion. "But (continued The Times) the Duke of Wellington affirmed, that his Dutch Majesty had apprised the Conference, time enough for such an interposition as might have stopped the march of the French troops, that he did intend to support his negotiations by arms. This was denied in the House, and on high authority;" (let Gentlemen mark what followed)—"it being alleged that none of those who had access to the Dutch King's letter, could agree in giving it such an interpretation. We have now the terms of the despatch before us, and those of our readers who can ferret out mysteries where we, for our part, do not see any, are now at liberty to judge for themselves." After having quoted the letter, with which he should not trouble the House, The Times proceeds to say—"Now, from the above and other passages of this remarkable letter, we are compelled to say, that the king of Holland cannot, with any fairness, be accused of an intention to disguise from the Powers in Conference, the nature of his hostile policy towards Belgium." He had, it should be remembered, been previously charged with treachery and falsehood. "The king (continued The Times) said, that he had resolved on employing arms simultaneously with negotiations, at the very time when he was sending M. de Nyevelt to this country, who, in fact, was the bearer of this very letter. On the point, therefore, of alleged bad faith, he appears to us to be altogether blameless." In selecting these observations from The Times, he could not be supposed to intend any attack on this organ of public information: on the contrary, the moment the letter alluded to was seen, it hastened, with great candour to declare its belief, that on the point of bad faith, the king of Holland appeared to be extremely blameless. But such were the shifting grounds on which public opinion was formed. Now he would ask, whether the keeping in obscurity, for some days, such documents as these, did not occasion the injustice and calumny against the king of Holland, which were so fully refuted when the documents came to be produced? He demanded whether, on reading these documents, every Gentleman's mind was not relieved from a great weight, and whether he did not now more favourably appreciate the character of the trust-worthy and excellent monarch who had been so much misrepresented? What he (Mr. Croker) complained of was, the suspicious silence of Ministers when they might have explained; and their imperfect explanation, when they ought rather to have been silent. They could not have clone any injury to British interests, if they had acted towards the king of Holland with that fairness and candour which they would have extended to the Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, though their political antagonists. They ought not to have let the Dutch monarch lie under so grievous an imputation for several days—they ought not to have left it to a public Journal to be the arbiter of his conduct, and to unsay what had been gravely stated by his Majesty's Ministers. They had done him grievous injustice—by error, by inattention, or by negligence—he would not say which, but the injustice had been done by them, and they ought to have shown a candid readiness to repair it which they had not done: and his object was, to oblige them to do so, or, at least, to put the public in possession of the facts, on which the full and complete justification of the king of Holland was established. He apologized for having troubled the House so long, but he was anxious that this question should be placed on its proper basis. In bringing this question forward, he had alluded to no document which was not to be found in the public Journals—he had not anticipated events—he had spoken only of things that had already been done. He had, he conceived, made out a case, and showed, that injustice—cruel injustice—had been done to the king of Holland. He had, he thought, made out a sufficient case to call on his Majesty's Ministers to explain the share they might, perhaps involuntarily, have had in creating that injustice. It was not his intention to ask for the letter of the 2nd of August, which the noble Lord did not appear to carry in his head, much less should he expect to rind it in his office. He should therefore move as an amendment to the Motion, "That the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider further of the Bill be now, read:"—to leave out all the words after the word "that," in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a copy of a letter of 1st of August, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the kingdom of the Netherlands, to the Minister of the five Powers."

said: The right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, that he would not finish his speech with an epigram, but he seems to me to have made something very like a bull: wishing to prove something by a letter of the second of August, he moves for a copy of a letter of the first. I think the House has seldom heard a more discursive speech, or a more illogical conclusion. I shall not be able to comply with the right hon. Gentleman's wishes, for obvious reasons; for, although the paper may have been printed in the public journals, we cannot pick out this document from the rest, unless we are prepared to submit to Parliament the whole series, displaying the entire course of the negotiation. I am not about to enter into any explanation, much less into any defence, of the numerous and long quotations the right hon. Gentleman made from the newspapers. I can assure him that I, for one, do not write in the newspapers. I am neither editor nor part proprietor of any newspaper, and I do not pretend to be responsible for anything that appears in those channels of information. Another thing: I shall not be led away from the path of my duty by the attacks of the right hon. Gentleman, however they may have been accompanied by the most unreserved declarations of personal friendship. He has certainly taken a very extraordinary (though, possibly, to him, satisfactory) mode of displaying his regard for me. He has indulged himself, if not the House, with a speech of at least an hour and a half; two-thirds of that time having been occupied very agreeably to him, and certainly not at all disagreeably to its object, in personal attacks upon me. He has laid to my charge all sorts of misconduct, both as an individual and as a Minister; with carelessness out of office, and negligence in it—with betraying the interests of my country—with injustice to an independent sovereign,—and other trifling offences of the same kind; but they were prefaced by the most flattering demonstrations (as far as declarations can be so considered) of personal esteem and respect, with the evident design of drawing me into a discussion of the whole Belgic question. He did what in him lay, by provocation, accusation, and, by what is worse, exculpation; for I can forgive him anything better than the tender mercies of his exculpation; but were I to advert to many of the points he has touched, I must necessarily enter into the whole of the transactions—a course which, as a Minister of the Crown, I feel myself bound to avoid. I think he might have acted with greater credit to himself, and with more advantage to his country; but it seems, that in the absence of the principal performers, he has been to-night allowed a whole benefit to himself. He has given us a display, part tragedy, part comedy, and I wish I could encourage him by stating, that he sustained each portion with equal success. Everybody knows, that he is an excellent joker—and while he confines himself to the light and comic strain, he makes himself agreeable to everybody; but he is not equally successful in the tragic strain; and if I may be allowed to do so, I should recommend him in future to stick to farce; but however well he may have performed his part, I apprehend that he would better have performed his duty as a Member of Parliament, if he had acquiesced in the course so judiciously pursued by the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Vyvyan), who postponed the discussion of these transactions at this most important and decisive crisis. I leave him, however, in full possession of whatever advantage he may gain by this forward movement—this resumption of hostilities—this breaking of the armistice; but he shall not drag me into a debate upon the conduct of the king of the Netherlands, or into a defence of our own. If I could prove, that the Dutch King had acted in an unbecoming manner, I should refrain from doing so, because I feel, that he has been unfortunate, and that he is therefore entitled to respect and forbearance. I had, therefore, rather lie under the whole weight of the right hon. Gentleman's imputations—the heavy burthen of his charges—than run the risk of doing that which might be considered unhandsome by the king of the Netherlands. I beg to say, that I never charged his government with perfidy. I stated facts to the House, not opinions; and I again say, that I am not answerable for the extracts which the right hon. Gentleman has employed his leisure in culling from the newspapers. I shall not follow him through the statements he has made; but the fact is, that while the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were in office, previous to the 17th November, an armistice, or a suspension of arms, was agreed upon, which has now been broken by the Dutch government. I will state the fact, and leave it to others to draw the inference. When did the Dutch king renew hostilities? On Tuesday, the 2nd of August; and yet the right hon. Gentleman asks, "Can you pretend that you had no notice that they would be renewed, when, on the Wednesday following, a letter was read to you, communicating the fact?" This may be the right hon. Gentleman's method of reasoning, but it is a strange application of the ordinary rules of logic, to contend that a notice of an event is to be given a day after the event has happened. I can only say, that if he pursues such a course in this House, and gives his notices of motions the day after he has made them, he may certainly obtain decisive advantages over his adversaries. That advantage the king of Holland expected to obtain; for the fact is, that his notice of intending to break the armistice did not arrive until after it had been broken. What are the words in the letter of the 1st of August, on which so much reliance has been placed? "That the king will support his negotiations by his military means." First, as to the manner in which this supposed notice was given. The right hon. Gentleman expresses his astonishment that any man with two eyes in his head and two hands at the ends of his arms, could keep a letter, directed to another person, in his pocket for twenty four hours without knowing what it contained. I do not know what might be the official habits of the right hon. Gentleman; but this I know, that what he recommends are not mine. If I, as a member of the Conference, receive a letter addressed to the Conference, I do not think myself justified in opening it but in the presence of the other members. "But (says he), how could a Minister of England, at such a perilous moment—when the fate of Europe was hanging not on hours but on minutes—receive a communication, brought by a special messenger, by the Lightning steam-boat, and keep it unopened until the following day?" This was, by the bye, his best piece of pathos, but it wanted the foundation of fact. The Conference had invited the king of the Netherlands to send a Plenipotentiary to negociate a treaty of peace; and if, in reply, his Envoy had said, "My master will not treat, but fight, and here is a letter explaining his motives"—I should have lost no time in summoning the members of the Conference to receive so important a communication. But what did the Dutch minister say in half an hour's conversation?—that he had come to negociate peace, and that his powers were so ample, that he hoped to be able to conclude a treaty, without a reference even for further in- structions. At that time also, he delivered the letter of August 1st; and although he certainly stated, in some detail, the grievances of his master as regarded Belgium, he parted from me without giving me the slightest reason to suppose that, twenty-four hours before, the Dutch troops had entered Belgium. So far, therefore, I think I have satisfactorily explained why I did not then proceed with Dutch haste to summon the Plenipotentiaries to the Conference. If I had summoned them, what effect could have been produced? We cannot judge by the result, because, on Wednesday evening, an account was received in London from Sir Charles Bagot, that the Dutch army had marched, and therefore that fact was known before the letter of the 1st was opened. But the experiment was tried on the ministers at the Hague; for this letter, which, the right hon. Gentleman says, is such a clear announcement of hostilities, was successively put into the hands of the ministers of the five Powers at the Hague; and, without any thing in the air of that place peculiarly to blunt or obscure the faculties, it did not occur to them that it indicated the march of the Dutch forces. When our Ambassador at the Hague heard, in the afternoon, from a private source, that the troops had crossed the Belgic frontier, he went to the Dutch minister, and, in answer to his demand for explanation, was informed, that hostilities were actually begun. The resumption of hostilities took place, in fact, at the very moment when the Dutch government was sending a minister to negociate. "But," exclaimed the right hon. Gentleman, "what did the French minister do upon this same occasion? The telegraphs were put in motion, and, with the speed of light, the French troops were put in motion too." Give me leave to tell him, that the English minister was not much less active. The news of the march of the Dutch troops was received on Wednesday evening, and on that very night, the First Lord of the Admiralty despatched an express to the Fleet under Sir Edward Codrington, ordering it to the Downs, that it might be ready to act as circumstances required. Did we wait for the reading of the sealed letter of the 1st of August, or for the most un-Dutch reading of that of the 2nd of August by the Dutch ambassador? No; the measures that seemed indispensable were taken on the instant. What becomes then of the cobweb sophistry of the right hon. Gentleman? Its flimsiness is blown to atoms by a mere breath? He has been as mistaken in his facts, as he has been illogical in his reasoning? The fact of the resumption of hostilities was communicated to the Conference on Thursday, and what was thought necessary was then done. Thus, I hope I have answered, as far as my duty will allow, the very friendly charges of the right hon. Gentleman; but let me remark, that there cannot be a more unfair position for a Minister of State to be placed in, than to be put upon his trial by personal accusations, and to have his lips necessarily sealed against the disclosure of facts most necessary to his vindication. Let me observe, however, that when the letter of the 1st August was read, in Conference on the Thursday with the passage about supporting negotiations by military means, I thought it my duty to ask the Plenipotentiaries, not one, but both, whether they knew the fact that hostilities had begun? They replied, that as individuals, they might know much, but that, as ministers, they had no official information to communicate. I inquired whether they had any explanation to afford as to the meaning of that passage? and their reply was, that they were not instructed to give any explanation. I am not accusing the Plenipotentiaries of any thing like improper concealment; they were sent to negociate, not to announce that hostilities had actually commenced. The right hon. Gentleman has triumphantly said, that if our intellects were so obtuse as not to understand the words "military means" as a renewal of war, there was the Dutch minister, why was he not asked the question? Why, Sir, he was asked, and I have told the House his answer. With respect to the manner in which the letter of the 2nd day was communicated, the facts were as follows: on my way to the House, on Friday, I called upon my noble friend at the head of the Government, and I found with him one of the ministers of the Netherlands; and, after much conversation, and just as we were about to repair to the House of Parliament, the minister took out the letter, which has appeared in the newspapers, and read it hastily. Perhaps it ought to have made a greater impression on my mind; but it was not addressed to the English Government, and the minister had no intention to deliver a copy of it. Of course, it is not in my possession, and if the right hon. Gentleman had moved for it, I could only have returned nil. I confess that, when the question was put to me last night, that letter was not present to my mind; but, now I remember it, I am at a loss to see in what respect it alters the case. A communication on Friday could not, except by the convenient logic of the right hon. Gentleman, be regarded as a notice of an event that had already taken place on Tuesday. The mode of reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman, would, indeed, have been greatly aided, if the Dutch minister had not read that letter to my noble friend and myself until a week after the march of the army for the Belgic frontiers. Then, indeed, we must have been deprived of all possible defence, and the right hon. Gentleman would have enjoyed a signal triumph of his peculiar logic. As I said in the outset, I will not enter into the general discussion: the time has not yet arrived when we can do so without prejudice to great pending interests; and if this were true some days ago, it must be doubly so now, as all must be aware who read the newspapers—the pleasant, but profitless study of the right hon. Gentleman. Any man who looks at the mighty events now passing in Europe—any man who has even the slightest knowledge of business—not the long official experience of the right hon. Gentleman—who is governed by good sense, and not misguided by passion—must be aware, that an attempt to drag me into debate may afford an opportunity for the gratification of personal vanity, when the appointed leaders and officers of a party are absent, or for the display of personal friendship, but it will not receive the public approbation; and an individual who adopts such a course will not perform good service to his country.

expressed his regret that the bias of the minds of Ministers was clearly against the king of Holland, although he saw nothing reprehensible in his conduct. As a Member of the English House of Commons he would say, that the first shot fired by the British forces, on land or water, against our ancient ally, would be an indelible disgrace to the country. He thought it impossible that any Ministers, filling the situations of responsible advisers of the Crown, could, at the present moment, more completely lay themselves open to the accusation brought by his right hon. friend, than did the noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had been guilty of the grossest injustice towards our old and faithful allies, the Portuguese in the South and the Dutch in the North—a French fleet occupied the Tagus, and the tricoloured flag was planted in the soil of Holland. He lamented to say, that the conduct of the British Ministry had been inconsistent with itself, and marked by a levity unworthy the executive government of a great country. He thought the House and the country had a right to complain that Great Britain should have lent her sanction to the entrance of the French fleet into the Tagus. Passing from that subject, however, he would put this question to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite—why had they done nothing to assist the Poles? But there it would seem that we should have had to deal with a different sort of enemy. It was one thing to abandon a weak country like Portugal or Holland, and quite another to encounter so formidable a power as that of Russia. The fact was, and he confessed it with humiliation, that the tendency of our foreign policy now was to oppress the weak, and truckle to the strong. It must be full in the recollection of the House, that noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen were in the habit of quoting Lord Chatham's remarkable words, "that if that House did not reform itself from within, it would be reformed with a vengeance from without." In his apprehension, there was nothing so ill became the present Ministers, as quoting the celebrated Lord Chatham. If that distinguished Statesman lived in the present times, he certainly would never have gone the length of the present Reform Bill, however strong his views might have been on that subject. But be that as it might, the bare mention of Lord Chatham's name was a reproach to the foreign policy of the present Administration. In the days of Lord Chatham England was respected by all the nations of Europe, but in these days she had abandoned all her ancient principles, and ought to blush at the name of Chatham—she had abandoned her old and faithful allies, rushing forward to grapple with the weak, and perfectly ready to truckle to the strong. If this system were continued, the English name would be a by-word for all that was base and dishonourable.

could assure the House, that he did not rise for the purpose of saying a word about Portugal, or Russia, or the Poles, or parliamentary Reform. Indeed, after the assurance which the noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston) had given that the explanations sought on that side of the House could not be afforded without injury to the public service, he should not have troubled the House with a single remark, had it not been for the circumstance, that the noble Viscount had himself departed from that reserve which, on a former evening, the noble Viscount told them he could not break through. The only point on which he desired to offer any observation was this—the noble Viscount had fixed upon the king of the Netherlands the stigma of the want of good faith and honour. He did not think this stigma just. It appeared from documents which had been published, that the king of the Netherlands clearly intimated, that he should, under certain circumstances, have recourse to hostilities. It was, therefore, a question of policy merely, and not of right, whether the king of the Netherlands should have recourse to hostilities or not. The king of the Netherlands had put this hypothesis—namely, that if a foreign prince should come as sovereign of Belgium, under certain circumstances, he would have recourse to hostilities against Belgium. But, besides this stigma, which, if he had read the documents rightly, was not justly laid upon the king of Holland, the noble Lord had appeared to him to deal in innuendoes against that prince. The noble Lord had given them to understand that the Dutch Plenipotentiaries, upon being called on to explain what was meant by moyens militaires, had declined to do so. Now his authority might not be very good—anti if it were wrong, perhaps the noble Lord would correct it—but he had it upon authority that one of the plenipotentiaries distinctly stated—"We (meaning the Dutch) are at war with Prince Leopold." He would not detain thè House any longer, and he should not have said thus much if the noble Lord had not departed from that precept, which on a former occasion the noble Lord had prescribed to himself and others.

would not persevere in the motion of which he had given notice, but he wished to ask his noble friend, whether a communication had not been made on the part of the king of Holland, so far back as the 23rd of June, the effect of which was, that, if a king were put upon the throne of Belgium without a treaty—the terms of which were defined—being signed—the king of Holland would have recourse to military measures (he was not sure whether the words "military measures" were used—or whether the phrase was "coercive measures," or something to that purpose) in order to support his rights? There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of the House, namely, that on the 1st of August, the noble Lord opposite (the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) was in possession of a sealed communication of the utmost importance, as it turned out, which he retained unopened for twenty-four hours. Under the circumstances, the noble Lord might well have supposed, that it contained matter of importance; it might, therefore, very naturally be supposed, that the noble Lord would not have lost a moment in calling together the members of the Conference, and ascertaining its contents. It accordingly could be no matter of surprise, that his right hon. friend should express his surprise, that the communication in question should so long have remained unopened. There could be no sort of doubt, that in the whole of these matters, the noble Lord opposite had taken things too easily; and he felt perfectly assured, that the occurrence referred to, ought to be a lesson for the noble Lord, from which, it was to be hoped, that in future he would profit. If another occasion of the same sort occurred, he would venture to predict, that the noble Lord would take special care not to lose a moment in summoning a Conference. It was quite a mistake in the noble Lord to suppose, that his right hon. friend meant to blame him for not opening the seal of the packet. The complaint was, not that the noble Lord was unwilling to break the seal, but that he neglected to call the Conference together, for the purpose of ascertaining the contents of these documents. The noble Lord, and his right hon. friend, were educated in the same official school, and the House must know, that to break sealed communications, was not the practice of that school; and, therefore, he was justified in assuming, that his right hon. friend would be as slow to recommend, as the noble Lord himself could be to adopt, such a practice.

did not wish to prolong this discussion, but thought, that the subject was one of sufficient importance, to justify him in making a few observations upon it. The noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston) had complained, that he was put upon his defence, at a time when it was utterly impossible to produce the documents that were essential to that defence. But, had the noble Viscount dealt in the same manner with another party? Had not the noble Viscount acted towards the king of the Netherlands in the very way which he complained of, when that way was pursued with regard to himself? Surely the noble Viscount had so acted, in bringing a direct accusation of bad faith against the king of the Netherlands. On Saturday last, the noble Viscount said, that an "armistice had been broken," and afterwards, that "an armistice had been violated," by the king of Holland. That was certainly a very grave charge against an old ally of the country; and when his right hon. friend, the member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel), put it to the noble Viscount, whether those expressions were not too strong, and whether they might not have been used inadvertently, the noble Viscount adhered to them, observing, that there had been two armistices, the latter of which had been broken, and adding, that up to the moment in which he was speaking, no official notice had been received of an intention to break it. On the following Tuesday, the noble Viscount, stated, that no communication had been made by the Dutch minister to the noble Viscount, or to the Conference, either verbally, or in writing, which could give them ground to suppose, that the Dutch troops were to be moved beyond the limits of their own territories. He heard the noble Viscount state this in that House; and in another place, a few minutes afterwards, he heard it stated, that the Dutch king had communicated his intention of using military means. Now the document in which this expression "military means" was used, he could interpret only as a document, which distinctly announced, that the Dutch king intended to employ his army in support of negotiations, on which, during their continuance of nine months, the Dutch king had found, that his interests were invariably made subservient to the interests of Belgium. Under these circumstances, he could not understand how this Government could say, that no notice had been given of the king of Holland's intention to break the armistice. Let the House also observe what the Dutch minister said to all the Ministers engaged in the Conference. The Dutch minister said, "as the plan of establishing an armistice has never been realized, there exists only a cessation of hostilities." Thus the chief Minister of Holland was at issue with the noble Viscount, and declared, that in fact there existed no armistice, while the noble Viscount declared, that an armistice had been broken. He had also understood the noble Viscount to say, that hostilities, and the letter which had been so much canvassed, were simultaneous, but he confessed, that from all that had been stated, he could not see how there was any ground for this statement. In a word, throughout the whole transaction, he conceived that there was not the shadow of ground for imputing a breach of faith to the king of the Netherlands. He had thought it necessary to say thus much, because the public attention ought to be strongly directed to this matter. For this reason only did he make any remarks, and was so far from having any desire to call for information upon this subject, that he should be very sorry to incur the responsibility of pressing Ministers for documents, the production of which, Ministers declared, would be injurious to the public service. He fully admitted, not only that the Ministers were justified in withholding such information, but that it was their duty to withhold it. Still, however, he did think, as public attention was directed to these things, that it ought to have the means of judging correctly. He thought also, that the public attention ought to be directed to the recent transactions with regard to Portugal—another old ally of this country—because there was an appearance, that our policy in those transactions was subordinate to that of a neighbouring power—he meant France—a power of which he should be the last man to speak with disrespect, especially so far as regarded that part of it which consisted of the profession to which he belonged, the military part of it. It was very possible, that when the proper time arrived, the Ministers might be able to adduce a sufficient ground of justification of their conduct. He had no right to doubt, that the Ministers could adduce grounds which would justify them; yet, let him tell them, that it would be necessary to adduce very strong grounds indeed, to satisfy the British nation of the propriety of a British fleet performing evolutions in the Channel, when a French fleet was forcing the harbour of an ancient ally of England. With regard to the separation of Holland and Belgium, he had no hesitation in saying, that he felt no objection to the disunion of those places which had been united in 1814 and 1815, if such disunion were expedient, and if the disunited portions of the kingdom of the Netherlands were protected against the encroachments of France. Public rumour had stated, that the British fleet was at the disposal of the Congress. Now he should be glad to know, if the army under General Girard was also at the disposal of the Congress, and if that army would be as easily withdrawn upon an intimation from the Congress, as the British fleet would be upon a similar intimation? It had been boasted in the French King's speech, that Belgium was not to form a part of the Germanic Confederation. He thought, however, that it would have been more satisfactory to this country, as well as more advantageous to Belgium, if Belgium had formed part of the Germanic Confederation, instead of being, as thus announced, wholly dependent for assistance on France. There was another point to which he thought the public attention ought to be directed. The king of Belgium was now exposed to danger, and, if it should unfortunately happen, that that prince should fall, he begged to know, whether any arrangement had been made respecting the appointment of a successor. A French army had now advanced into Belgium, accompanied by that prince who had been the first choice of the Belgians—the prince whom they had originally chosen in preference to king Leopold; and he wished, therefore, to know whether, in the event of such a misfortune as that to which he had alluded, occurring, such steps had been resolved upon, as would secure the independence of Belgium, and prevent that country from falling into the hands of France. In conclusion, he had only to observe, that although the Congress was not responsible to that House, yet, that there was in the Congress a British Minister, who was responsible to the House, and whom the country would expect to do his duty, thereby keeping up the character of England as the protector of the weak against the strong, and as a vigilant and efficient check upon the ambition of France.

said, that, after the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down, he must, however reluctantly, prolong this discussion by one or two observations. The speeches of the hon. and gallant Gentleman were generally remarkable for candour and for fairness, but he must say that, on the present occasion, the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was remarkable for the absence both of candour and of fairness. For the hon. and gallant Gentleman, knowing and admitting, that circumstances precluded the Ministers from entering, at that time, upon their defence, had thrown out, in the way of caution and suspicion, certain hints and surmises, that the conduct of Ministers had not been consistent with their duty. This, he must say, was most unfair to the Ministers, especially when the hon. and gallant Gentleman had admitted, that the materials of the justification of Ministers ought not to be produced, if the production of them would be disadvantageous to the public service, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been told that the production of them would be; and he must further say, that if the public were to be infected with the doubts and surmises of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, which, however, he did not think very likely, the course which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had taken might prove exceedingly injurious to the general interests of the country. He hoped and believed, that the public would suspend their judgment, until they had before them the only certain means of forming a correct opinion upon the whole transactions to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman alluded. Whatever doubts the hon. and gallant Gentleman might entertain, as to the Ministers having acted consistently with the honour and the interests of the country, he trusted, that the country would entertain no such doubts, and that the House and the country would recollect, that these doubts had been stated at a time when the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had stated them, knew and admitted, that the means of refuting them were necessarily withheld. He would not detain the House by adverting to a single topic of the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman; but he had thought it necessary, as well for his own character, as for that of his colleagues, publicly to protest against those doubts and surmises to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had thought it so essential that the public attention should be directed.

thought, that the noble Lord had a little overstated the observations which fell from him. He had stated, that the Ministers might have full means of justification, that he hoped they had, and that he had no right to doubt they had, and would produce them at the proper time.

expressed the regret he felt that no information had been afforded by the noble Lord, and no explanation given, of the extraordinary course which the Ministers had pursued in the cases of Portugal and Belgium. Three charges were made against the noble Lord by his right hon. friend (Mr. Croker), and these charges, relative to the statements made by the noble Lord, were, that the noble Lord had said, that the armistice was broken—that no notice of breaking it had been given—and that the king of the Netherlands had acted in a treacherous manner. And how were these charges met? He (Mr. Praed) would venture to say, that, in no one of the three cases, had any explanation been given, or had any facts been stated, upon which the noble Lord could rest a satisfactory defence of having made those accusations. After all that had transpired, of the several communications from Holland, and all that had been said by his Majesty's Ministers, it was now clear, as he thought, that due notice had been given to his Majesty's Ministers of the determination to renew hostilities; and yet the impression the former speech of the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs was calculated to make—and it did produce that impression, was—that Ministers had received no such notice. It was the impression made at the time, as he now thought, most unfairly, in the House, and also throughout the country. He would now ask, whether there was any justification for casting such an imputation as these statements necessarily cast upon the king of the Netherlands? He did not think there was any longer a question, whether a notice had been given or not. That point he looked upon as settled, in the mind of every unprejudiced person; but it was yet a matter of grave consideration, how far Ministers were justifiable in the censures which they cast upon one of the most ancient of British allies. He hoped, that nothing which transpired, either during the late negotiations, or in the discussions in Parliament, would tend in the least to disturb the friendly relations which had so long existed between this country and Holland; and he hoped that, even now at the thirteenth hour, Ministers would revert to our treaties, and adhere to them, as we were bound, in all negotiations and intercourse with other countries. Of our engagements with these countries, he hoped there would be no breach, and that the good faith and honour of England would be preserved unsullied.

said, he hoped that the several Members of the opposite side, who had left the House, had carried with them the conviction that their noble friend had satisfactorily answered all the observations which had been addressed to him; but if they had not thought it necessary to be absent now, and, perhaps, better engaged, conviction in that case might not be so complete. After what had occurred in the preceding part of the Debate, he should not think it necessary to say a word, were it not for a charge made against his right hon. friend, of having alluded, in a tone of asperity, to the noble Lord opposite. Now, he would appeal to the House, whether one word had been said by his right hon. friend, which could, even for a moment, cause an unpleasant sensation, either to the noble Lord, or to any other person. With respect to the main point under discussion, namely, whether due notice had been given by the king of Holland of his intention to resume hostilities, he might be permitted to say a word or two. Having read such of the documents of this negotiation as had been made public; and having listened attentively to all that had been said on behalf of Ministers, he was free to say, that he could not see, upon any principle of the law of nations, or of any code of morality, that in fairness, the king of the Netherlands could be charged with any violation of his engagement, or any breach of armistice. In point of fact, no armistice had existed, and there was no document, no treaty, no paper, nor engagement in existence, by which the king of the Netherlands was bound to give any notice of his intention to recommence hostilities. The charges made against that monarch—unfortunate monarch, as he was called— was peculiarly cruel when coming from a British Minister. True it was, in one sense, that he was unfortunate, but in what sense could he be considered criminal? It was more criminal, at least it was most insulting, to attempt to trample upon him in his misfortunes. A charge came from the other side of the House, that special pleading had been used by the Opposition. Now, the special pleading was with those who complained of want of notice, when, in point of fact, no notice was required by any existing engagement. It was also special pleading to call a cessation of hostilities an armistice; and he would again confidently assert, that a renewal of hostilities on the part of Holland, was not, in point of honour, or according to the law of nations, a violation of any international duty. If there was any document by which the king of the Netherlands was bound to give notice, the noble Lord might be in possession of it; but he had never heard of any, and under such circumstances, it was most unjust, as well as impolitic, to say, that any breach of agreement was imputable to the king of the Netherlands. He did not wish to enter into any inquiry respecting the sealed letter, which the noble Lord did not seem to think himself justifiable in opening. On that subject, which was one of diplomatic etiquette, the noble Lord was the best judge; but if the noble Lord was on the Opposition side of the House, where, by the bye, he never sat, he might have thought, as he (Sir Charles Wetherell) and some of his friends thought, that a letter addressed to a Conference might have been opened by the head or organ of that Conference; but whether the noble Lord was right or not, or whether the king of Holland had or had not given notice, it would be more becoming the Minister of England to show a feeling of sympathy, rather than of acrimony, towards the acts of that monarch. He admitted that the noble Lord had exercised a prudent discretion in not allowing himself to be drawn into a discussion of the whole of the Belgic negotiations, in the present state of the affairs of that country, but it was not right in the noble Lord, nor in any person, to attack the king of the Netherlands; and to rescue him from such an imputation, was the object, and he thought the successful object, of the Motion then before the House. The situation of that monarch was one of peculiar hardship: he could not without alarm, witness, the quick march à cheval of the French towards Holland. At a call, 20,000 French cavalry, and 30,000 infantry marched to the frontiers. Thus was the safety of Holland endangered, and, at the same time, be it recollected, there was a French fleet in the Tagus, menacing the independence of Portugal. This was a state of things which he could not witness without alarm; not that he meant to charge his Majesty's Ministers with any participation in such proceedings on the part of the French; but he partook of those British feelings which, he was sure, pervaded the whole country, when he expressed a hope that neither Portugal nor Belgium would be ever under the dominion of France.

said, he was sure that if ever there was a case in which the indulgence of a reply would not be denied to an hon. Member, this was that case. He hoped, therefore, that the House would permit him to say a few words in reply to his noble friend on that occasion. He would address his noble friend opposite in the same spirit, and with the same feelings, with which he had commenced this debate, and he, for one, should greatly lament indeed, if, in discussing the acts of the Minister, they should not be carefully and distinctly separated from the individual character of the man. Without wishing to give offence, he could not help saying, that one expression had fallen from him which appeared to have been mistaken by the noble Lord, and with regard to which he was desirous to make an observation. His noble friend had said, that he (Mr. Croker) had managed this evening, in the absence of his natural and appointed leaders, to take a benefit for himself. Though the noble Lord had read him a lecture upon oratory, he would confess, that he thought the metaphor which the noble Lord ventured in this instance, was, to say the least of it, a bad one. He supposed, however, that he must accept it as a benefit. Now, both in making this motion to-night, and in giving notice of it last night, he had taken care to guard himself against any imputation of vanity, such as the noble Lord would fix upon him. He had stated last night, that it was his wish to make the motion then, and it was only in consideration of existing circumstances, and out of courtesy to the noble Lord, that he had postponed it. He was anxious to give his noble friend notice of the Motion before he brought it forward, and it was, therefore, not for the purpose of having a benefit to himself that he brought it forward this evening. His noble friend, in the commencement of his speech, had been exceedingly facetious in regard to his (Mr. Croker's) country, and his noble friend would give him leave to say, that such sarcasms, not very becoming in any one, came, with a particular bad grace from his noble friend who to that country owed his ancestry, his property, and his title. His noble friend had said, that he (Mr. Croker) had concluded a speech of blunders with a practical bull, for that he had moved for a copy of a letter of the 1st of August, while in fact, the letter he wanted was that of the 2nd of August. His noble friend, in making that statement, would seem determined to vindicate his own relationship with that country to which he had just before alluded as the parent of blunders, [cries of "oh," from the Ministerial benches.] When he (Mr. Croker) was in office he had always felt it his duty to give a patient hearing to Gentlemen who spoke on the Opposition side of the House. He thought that it was the duty of Gentlemen who were in office to listen with patience to those who spoke from the opposite side of the House, or at least not to interrupt them. Other Gentlemen, independent of Government, might be, perhaps, forgiven a little occasional impatience, but it was not courteous nor decent on the part of members of the Government whose attendance in that House was, he might venture to say salaried, to act in such a manner. He was going to say, when he was thus interrupted, that his noble friend must have fallen into a most singular mistake; for, after telling him, that he had been guilty of a practical bull in not moving for the letter of the 2nd of August, towards the conclusion of his speech his noble friend had said, that if he had moved for that letter, his return to that motion must have been nil. He (Mr. Croker) was well aware of that, better indeed than his noble friend had been when the discussion began; and he therefore had expressly stated in the conclusion of his speech, that he did not move for the letter of the 2nd of August, because his noble friend had been so inattentive as not to have obtained an official copy of it. He saw, that the letter of the 1st of August was sufficient for the vindication of the king of Holland, and that it was in the official possession of his noble friend, and therefore moved for a copy where as he knew that the letter of the 2nd of August was not in his possession, and that, therefore, there would be no use in moving for a copy of it. He said, in bringing forward this Motion, that that letter ought to be in his noble friend's possession, and that was, in fact, one of the charges which he had brought against his noble friend. If his noble friend would maintain, that there was nothing in the letter of the 1st of August that could be considered as a notice from the king of Holland, why had he laboured to show that it was not a notice, and that moyens militaries did not mean military measures? Why had the noble Earl, (Earl Grey), in another place, endeavoured to show that it was not a proper notice? His argument was, that it was a notice plain in its meaning and in its contents; and that, in fact, it was now universally admitted to be so. His noble friend had said, that he (Lord Palmerston) did not write in newspapers. Such an observation from his noble friend was to him (Mr. Croker) a little surprising, if it meant to imply that, in the moment of relaxation from official business, he would not condescend to employ himself in such an occupation as that; and, indeed, the noble Lord's friends around him, cheered the statement with a vociferation, which appeared to imply that the occupation itself was in some degree a degrading one. Now, what he was about to say, he could assure his noble friend he would say in perfect good humour. He would say, that if that cheer meant to insinuate, that those who wrote for newspapers pursued a degrading occupation—[Lord Palmerston nodded dissent.] His noble friend signified that he did not share that opinion, and he should therefore not say what he was about to utter. He might be allowed, however, to observe, in reference to this topic, that if any person should hereafter collect those fugitive pieces which had been attributed to him (Mr. Croker)—with what justice the House would be presently able to judge,—he repeated, that if such a collection should be made, and that the merit of those pieces should continue to be attributed to him, he should feel it his duty to do justice to his noble friend, by declaring that some of the best and most remarkable amongst them were his (Lord Palmerston's) own. He remembered well the days which he spent with his noble friend, not certainly in business of the grave importance which now occupied his noble friend's time, but in lighter and more agreeable occupations. He recalled with pleasure those earlier days, in which they pursued and enjoyed, not indeed the "search of deep philosophy," that the poet delighted to remember, but—

Wit, eloquence, and poesy;

Arts which I lov'd, for they, my friend, were thine.

His noble friend said, that he had expected him to break the seal of a letter which was not addressed to him, and his noble friend had asked, in what school of morals had he learned such a doctrine? But he had distinctly said, that as his noble friend was chairman of the Conference, he supposed it was usual for him to open the letters addressed to the Conference, and he had asked, if such were the custom, why had not his noble friend done so in this instance? He hoped that that statement, would remove the erroneous impression which appeared to be made on his noble friend's mind, that he (Mr. Croker) had asked him to break the seal of a letter which was not addressed to him. He could not help complaining that his noble friend had again in his speech used the words "armistice," and "violation of the armistice," when his noble friend should have recollected, that it was now admitted on all hands that a suspension of hostilities had merely taken place, which was a very different sort of thing. In conclusion, he begged to assure his noble friend, that in the display of ability which he had made in his speech that night, he had done nothing but confirm the high opinion which he had always entertained of his talents, and if, in the bringing forward his motion, any thing which he had addressed to the Minister, had been taken as addressed to the man, his noble friend was completely mistaken in such an application of his observations.

assured his right hon. friend, that, when they had thrown away their foils, and had concluded this discussion, the reciprocal thrusts which they might have given each other in the debate would not leave a wound behind.

felt opposed to the principle of the division of counties which had been carried last night, but as that had been decided by so great a majority, he did not think that it would be courteous towards his Majesty's Ministers to press his opposition to this clause. To that principle, however, his objections remained as strong as before that discussion took place. The very reasons assigned by the defenders increased his disgust and alarm, so much had been said about a necessity to support the influence of property, an influence which one great object of the present Bill went to prevent. As these reasons showed that patronage and nomination would be the certain result, he must deprecate the measure, as tending to subvert the very foundation on which the Bill was raised. He, therefore, upon every fitting occasion, would express his regret at the decision which had been come to on this clause. In particular, he must deplore the division of the county of Lincoln, from which he expected vehement contests and disastrous dissensions. He would endeavour to confine the few observations he had to make to the clause before them. As it had been established that a division of the county of Lincoln must certainly take place, he approved that such division should be made by Parliament, and consist of Lindsay for one part, and Holland and Kesteven for the other, as proposed by the clause, rather than that any other division should be made by Commissioners to be appointed under this Bill, and which he considered as one of its most objectionable parts. He acquiesced in the clause, and the division it would produce, protesting always that while he considered the county of Lincoln fully entitled to four Members, they ought to have been returned by the whole body of freeholders, from an undivided county. Yet he would suggest, that as the Commissioners would not be required to interfere in the division of Lincolnshire, it would be desirable, that nothing relating to that county should be involved in their decisions. By the clause, in pursuance of which they were to be appointed, it was provided, that they should regulate in what towns the elections for the divided counties should take place. To that interference with Lincoln he firmly objected, and proposed that the House should themselves settle the point, by declaring the election of Members for Holland and Kesteven should be held at Boston, the most important town in that part of the county, and very conveniently situated for the purpose, while the elections for Lindsay should be held at Lincoln. He had discharged his duty to his constituents in opposing that principle to which they felt opposed, and he therefore should not, on this occasion, press his opposition to this clause, further than to express a hope, that the suggestions he had thrown out might be adopted.

said, that the county of Lincoln was one, of all others, which required mature and peculiar consideration as to the division of it, to prevent it being reduced to the condition of a nomination borough. In one part, a noble friend of his, for whom he entertained a sincere respect, had a paramount interest; in the other part he also feared something like nomination would prevail; much would depend on the place appointed for the election to be held at; Boston was, in his opinion, an unsuitable place, besides, there was something apparently wrong in the contemplated division. In Kesteven and Holland, the smaller portion of the county, there were now three boroughs, Grantham, Stamford, and Boston; which, with the two Members for the division, would give eight for that portion, while the larger district of Lindsay, including the city of Lincoln, would have only six. These proportions was a reason why he objected to the division, for it would be impossible to draw any line, giving to the freeholders of the city of Lincoln, the rights and privileges they were entitled to, without, at the same time, saddling them with twofold rates, one for the city, the other for the county. He did not believe the proposed division had the general sanction of the county. He wished, on this occasion, to correct a misstatement of what he had said, which had appeared in those Journals that were not very favourable to those who spoke on that side of the House where he sat, and where he hoped to continue to sit. It was stated in those Journals, that he was against giving additional Members to the county of Lincoln. So far from that being the case, he had stated, that the county of Lincoln, in point of acres and of population, had as good a claim as any other county that got four Members, to additional Members. He must complain of the interruption he met with. It was hard that those Members who had not partial and friendly Journals, who would write and publish speeches for them, and who would make up for their deficiencies, should not get a patient hearing. He did not write any speeches for the public Journals, and he begged to say, that he would not be deterred by such discourtesy on the part of the Committee, and such partiality on the part of the Press, from exerting what powers he might possess, in support of his constituents. In conclusion, he said, that though only five Members should divide with him, he would divide the Committee on this clause, in order to prevent the county of Lincoln from being converted into nomination boroughs.

would beg to remind his gallant friend of the real state of the county of Lincoln, for he must deny that the division of the county would cause it to fall into anything like the condition of nomination boroughs. He did not deny, that there was a predominant interest in the northern part of the county, but that was not strong enough to control even that division; on the contrary, he believed that, the public feeling and the spirit of honest independence was so alive there, that, if that great interest he had alluded to, wished to control the free voices of the men of that division, so far from returning two Members, it could not command the election ever of one. In the southern parts of the county there was not any predominant influence—property was equally divided, and there was no power which could suppress the free will of the people. There were, he believed, in Kesteven and Holland more really independent freeholders than in any other equal portion of England; and the same would apply also to Lindsay, where there was a body of 1,200 or 1,500 freeholders, free from any influence, save their own will, and their honest and invincible desire to benefit their country. Now, as to the city of Lincoln being placed in the division of Lindsay, it was hard to say where it ought to be placed, as it, and the villages under its jurisdiction, stood partly in Lindsay, and partly in Kesteven, so that if it had been placed in Kesteven division, his gallant friend might then ask, why it was not placed in Lindsay? As the county was to be divided, he thought that, like the case of Yorkshire, there could not be a better arrangement than that of going according to its ancient, and well-known divisions.

said, that for reasons which he had stated to the Committee on a former evening, when this clause was under discussion, he had then doubted whether he ought to take the sense of the Committee on the proposed division of the county of Lincoln. If he had then doubted as to the course he ought to pursue, the discussion of last night, upon the larger question, involving the unconstitutional mode of effecting divisions which did not apply in this case, where the division was almost natural, compelled him to say, that he could not support the motion of his hon. and gallant friend, the member for Lincoln. He would urge him, indeed, to withdraw it.

suggested to the hon. member for Lincoln, not to press his opposition to this clause, after the principle of the division of the counties had been decided by so large a division last night.

said, the provisions of the clause were, that all the freeholders of the city of Lincoln should vote in the division of Lindsay. The city extended itself into several villages, locally situated in Kesteven, while the city itself was wholly within Lindsay, but the whole was subject to the jurisdiction of the city. As it was provided, therefore, that all within that jurisdiction should vote in Lindsay, it followed, that all the freeholders, of course, would possess the right to vote in that division.

said, that it was useless to resist the phalanx of the noble Lord, and therefore he should not divide the Committee, though the Bill was most partial and unjust with respect to Lincoln, and he rested his hope that Ministers would be defeated in another quarter. He wished to add one word in reply to the noble member for Northamptonshire. He had said, those parts of the dependencies of the city of Lincoln, locally situated in Kesteven, were to possess the right of voting for Lindsay, which would be found rather awkward in practice, as they would have the right of voting in one division, and be exempt from the control of the Magistrates of that part in which they were to vote.

thought, his noble friend had sufficiently explained, that those parts which were tinder the jurisdiction of the city of Lincoln, were to vote in Lindsay.

There are distinct Sheriffs for the city and county of Lincoln; who was, therefore, to be the returning officer for these dependencies? The city Sheriff had authority within them, and yet those parts were to have votes where their Sheriff had no authority.

thought his hon. and gallant friend acted wisely, in not pressing a second division upon a point which had already been decided, however much they might regret it. But as the noble Lord had not given any answer to the suggestion he made, as to the places where the elections were to be held, he begged to repeat, that in this clause he wished it to be made absolute, that the election for Lindsay should be held at Lincoln, and that for Kesteven and Holland at Boston. These were undoubtedly the most convenient places for the purpose.

said, he did not think the places named by the hon. Gentleman were really the most convenient; and besides, the places to be appointed were of comparatively little importance, as the place of nomination was to be provided for.

considered Boston the most inconvenient place that could be selected for holding the elections for Kesteven and Holland.

said, the other boroughs of that part of the county would at least be as convenient as Boston, but he should recommend that part of the county called the Garden of Eden, for the purpose.

said, this clause brought them to the consideration of what were actually to be the rights of freeholders and others; he therefore wished the noble Lord to state, whether persons holding freeholds in two divisions of a county, should have the right of voting for each of those divisions, or whether his right should be confined to only one of them. The clause said, that an elector "shall vote only for a Knight or Knights of that Riding of the county of York, those parts of the county of Lincoln, or that division of the county so to be divided, in which the property, in respect to which he claims to vote, shall be situated." He confessed he did not comprehend this clause, or the necessity for inserting it in the Bill. It was clear that when a county was divided, the party who had property in one division, could not vote for the other. The divisions were to be, in effect, separate counties, for the purpose of elections; therefore, to suppose that property in one division could entitle a man to vote in another, was wholly out of the question. But what he wanted to know was, whether a man having property in two divisions of a county, would be entitled to vote for both? [Noise—cries of "Order, order," and "Bar, bar," from the Opposition benches, and even from the Chair.]

, the Chairman, said, that he was really sorry to be obliged to beg assistance on the part of the Committee to enable him to preserve order. Order being restored,

hoped, that no misrepresentations would be made upon this, and he trusted, that he should not be again told, that what he said in that House was met by loud clamour. The Act ought to declare whether a freehold, divided as it might be by the Commissioners, was to give the right of voting for each of the divisions of the county or not. It was now time for the Committee to consider the cumulative rights of voting. He came to the very essence of the Bill. The Bill would give small freeholders the right of voting in cases where larger freeholders would be deprived of that right. It was provided, "that, not with standing anything herein before contained, no person shall be entitled to vote in the election of a knight or knights of the shire to serve in any future Parliament, in respect of any house, warehouse, or counting-house, or of any land occupied together with a house, warehouse, or counting-house, by reason of the occupation of which respectively, he or any other person shall be entitled to vote in the election of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament, for any city or town being a county of itself, or for any other city or borough." They had now to consider what would be the various rights of the freeholder, the landholder, and the actual tenant, or occupier, with respect to voting. Suppose a man had twenty freeholds, each of them of the annual value of 10l., in a town, and that they were also within the county; take Brighton for example, if a man held such freeholds there, he would be entitled at present to vote for the county of Sussex, but by this clause each tenant would be entitled to vote for the town, and the landlord with a considerable estate would be disfranchised. Again, if a person had only a freehold of the annual value of 40s. situated in the same place, his tenant would not acquire a vote for the town, and the freeholder's rights would remain as they were—he would still possess his right to vote for the county; this could not be correct. He felt sure, that what he was now saying was on a point of great importance, but Gentlemen appeared to be determined to pay no attention to it. The principle never could be right which allowed the small freeholder to retain his rights, and took them from the large freeholder. He therefore submitted to the consideration of the Committee, that it was by no means advisable to throw the small freeholders of the towns to be enfranchised upon the counties. [Great confusion in the House; calls of "Order" and "Bar."]

resumed. He was anxious to say only a very few words. He wished to know what Ministers would do with those freeholds in a city or borough, which were too small to entitle the tenants or occupiers of them to vote for the city or borough. This was really important. There were a certain description of freeholds, good in law, but not in fact, and these nominal freeholders would actually have two votes, while the real 10l. freeholders would have no such privilege; this evil would be made greater by the division of counties. From the county constituencies they were about to take all the borough and town Representation of above a certain value, and retain the 40s. freeholders to make up the county Representation. Now the operation of this principle might be very dangerous, because it would depend upon what towns or boroughs were placed in each division; whether the rural constituency which consisted in general of the larger proprietors, might not be completely overwhelmed by the 40s. freeholders living in the towns. They ought, therefore, to be very cautious, in legislating, to prevent such an effect. This was no party question. He most solemnly addressed himself, in the sincerity of his heart, to Ministers, in order to see what good he could do to the Bill. He was at one time inclined to think the clause might be much improved by giving all freeholders a right to vote for counties, but by proceeding in that way they would destroy other constituencies, and no hon. Gentleman, whatever his opinion on this Bill generally was, could agree that the mischief of nomination, which was said to prevail in certain boroughs, should, under another description of things, be transferred to counties where it had never previously prevailed. County Members always had, and ought to continue to have, great weight in that House, but by the course now proposed to be pursued, the respectability and weight of their constituencies would be much impaired. He should, therefore, propose some modification of the 16th clause.

complained, that the learned Gentleman was out of order in making suggestions which did not apply to the clause before the Committee, but to the 16th clause of the Bill, upon which he would explain himself when the Committee had arrived at the clause.

said, that although he was taking a general view of the right of voting, yet he admitted the observations of the noble Lord were correct, and he was happy to hear that some explanations were to be given; but the House ought, not with standing, to have had some explanation of what was presumed to be the general operation of the principle they were then discussing. This would have prevented him from being obliged to resort to other clauses to explain the one before them. If the object really was, to extend the rights of voting, it should be freely and fully stated. He therefore, in conclusion, begged to press upon the noble Lord the consideration, that a man might possess the freehold of the whole Marine Parade of Brighton, and yet, if these houses were all let to tenants, he would have no vote either for the town or county.

would confine what he had to say to the clause now before the Committee, although he fully appreciated the knowledge and acquirements of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and would, on those accounts, by no means neglect any remarks that came from him. The object of the Bill was obviously to give to freeholders, copyholders, and leaseholders, of a certain description, the right of voting at elections. It was intended that the voters in towns and boroughs should be excluded from voting for counties, and by this means the town and county Representation would be kept distinct, and the landed interest would claim an advantage which at present it did not possess. As the division of counties would make each division of the nature of a separate county, a property in both would give the right of voting for both, in the same way that a person who had a freehold in Lincoln, and another in Nottingham, would have a vote for each of those counties. With respect to non-resident voters, the counties were on a footing different from that of towns, for although it was very desirable that non-residents should not vote for towns, it was impossible to extend this regulation to counties. He would select his own case as an example; he resided the principal part of the year in London, perform- ing his duties in that House, but his house and property were in Northamptonshire, if non-residence, therefore, was to be a bar to his voting, he should lose that privilege; but by confining the right of voting in towns to the bona fide occupiers of houses, they did away completely with the evil of non-residents, as far as the towns were concerned.

said, he understood the noble Lord very clearly; his object was plainly perceived, and he intended, undoubtedly, to give to a man possessing freeholds, even in the separate divisions of a county, the right of voting for each.

doubted if a property ought to have votes for each division of a county, because the line of demarcation drawn by the Commissioners might divide it into two.

said, the question appeared to rest upon this, whether the clause was or was not necessary; but surely its introduction could do no harm. The object the Ministers had in view was, to explain that an individual having two freeholds in separate divisions of a county should have a vote for both. This was the important principle; but as it was provided for by other parts of the Bill, there would be no great objection to dispense with that part of the clause here.

said, the clause was more than unnecessary, it actually tended to obscure the subject, for he did not know what was its object until he heard it explained. He therefore proposed that in lieu of it a short clause should be inserted, explaining, that the several divisions of a county should be considered as wholly separate so far as regarded the right of voting. He would beg to ask the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) a question; he understood there were to be some considerable improvements suggested to a clause which was about to be taken into their consideration. He had many objections to that clause as it stood, but if the alterations that were proposed to be made were not explained previous to their being laid before the House, he should have no time or opportunity to consider their bearings; he therefore called upon the noble Lord to make some arrangements by which Members could have time to consider the amendments before they were obliged to vote. They were about to make and form an entirely new constituency throughout the country, and considering that as the most important part of the Bill, it ought not to be discussed without further notice, and on a Saturday when so many, of the most important Members would necessarily be absent.

was ready to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and would therefore consent that the clause in question should not be gone into to-morrow. They might proceed with other clauses not so likely to provoke discussion, and fill up blanks in the Bill. With respect to the clause now under consideration, he saw no objection to striking it out.

said, that some of the clauses depended so much upon others, that he felt it difficult that such a selection could be made as the noble Lord proposed.

did not think that any great alterations could be intended, or the whole Bill must be recommitted. The clauses which the noble Lord proposed to amend, were the most important of the Bill. They were intended to enact the right and manner of voting; it was, therefore, very important that they should have ample time to consider the proposed amendments.

said, he had given notice of an amendment on one of the Clauses to be considered, and he wished to have a full attendance of Members. He knew many must be absent; he therefore wished the House should adjourn over to-morrow.

must also press an adjournment, as the noble Lord must be aware that clauses 15 and 16 were the most important provisions of the Bill, and it was evident they would create much discussion.

must say, that as he intended to propose certain amendments, it would be necessary to enter into some explanation respecting them, before they were printed and distributed, and on this account he wished the House to meet tomorrow.

was satisfied with the noble Lord's explanation, and would certainly attend to-morrow.

was of opinion the clause now before them was wholly unnecessary; the 16th clause would answer every purpose for which it was intended.

admitted, that the clause was superfluous. It had been in- serted only to leave no doubt respecting the division of counties. As the House seemed to consider that it was not necessary, he should propose to withdraw it, for it was a bad practice to introduce useless matter into an Act of Parliament.

protested against the principle of this clause. It was a proposition which would not be considered as a boon by the freeholders of these counties, for it would involve the different parties it them, at every election, in a constant struggle, which of them should return the third Member. He objected to the clause that it made an invidious distinction between the seven favoured counties, and those which should return only their present amount of two Members, though equally entitled to an increase, so far as wealth and population were concerned. If it was the noble Lord's object to add to the agricultural Representation in that House, his best plan would have been, to have proposed that each county in Wales should return two Members. No man could say the Welsh counties were adequately represented. In England the proportion of Representation to population, was as one to 20,000, but in Wales the ratio was much higher. He could not account for this unfair preference, except by supposing, that as Wales was added to England by conquest, and not by union, the inhabitants were compelled to take what the dominant country thought proper to allow them. He could assure the House, that the Welsh constituency was most respectable and independent. He observed, there was a motion to give Carmarthen another Member. He hoped he might rely on the hon. Gentleman who had given that notice for his support to the proposal to give seven additional Members to Welsh counties, which he thought they ought to have, for two especial reasons—first, that the proposed addition would remove the cause of strife and contention; and second, that Wales had not its due proportion of Members; he therefore hoped his Majesty's Ministers would consider the suggestions he had made, and adopt them in preference to the proposed arrangement.

fully agreed with the hon. and gallant Member, that Wales was entitled to an increase in the number of county Representatives. The Principality was not adequately represented. He could by no means comprehend why Government objected to giving four Members to counties in common, on account of party struggles, and yet proposed the present clause, which would most assuredly, as had been represented by the hon. Gentleman, give rise to the most vehement party struggles who should return the third man. Although he admitted the claim of Wales, yet he could not advocate her interest without pressing the claim of Scotland. On the principles on which the Reform measure was introduced, there were very strong and cogent reasons why that country should have additional Representation. If he understood those principles correctly, every county with a population of 100,000 was to have an increase of Members. By the census of 1821, several of the counties of Scotland, as Aberdeen, Ayr, Fife, Edinburgh, Lanark, Perth, and Renfrew exceeded that amount. In Scotland the ratio of Representation to population was much higher than in England at present. This disparity there was good reason to complain of—Scotland yielded to no country of equal extent in wealth and commercial prosperity, and if it received its due proportion of Members, one to 20,000 souls, it ought to have an increase of eighty Members. He was, however, quite ready to allow, that it was wholly impossible to give such an increase; but he should certainly propose, that every county of Scotland with a population of above 100,000, should have an additional Member, and when the Scotch Reform Bill was before them, he should urge this point, and he hoped with success.

, in reply to the hon. member for Edinburghshire, had only to say, that a county having a population of 100,000 souls, was not the principle which had guided them in giving additional Representation. The real cause was, as had been previously explained, that in the formation of the Bill, it was found necessary to give more Members to boroughs and large manufacturing towns, than was originally contemplated. It therefore became necessary to give the agricultural interests an increase, as a balance, by se- lecting seven counties where it was known the agricultural interests preponderated, and give them each an additional Representative. It was not because these counties contained more than 100,000 souls that they were selected—but because they were likely to return Members dependent on the agricultural interest. He would say a few words in answer to his hon. friend the member for Breconshire (Colonel Wood), who had supposed that Wales had fewer Representatives than England because it was a conquered country. Now what were the real facts? For 250 years after it had been annexed to this country, it had no Representatives, and was perpetually the scene of riot and disorder, being almost in a state of rebellion. In this emergency, it was thought advisable to bestow a small share of the Representation on the principality, and this was attended with the most salutary effects. These circumstances shewed, that the small amount of Members returned by Wales, was not solely on account of its being a conquered country. Again his hon. friend had asserted, that three Members being given to a county would occasion the most violent party struggles to return the third man; but the case of Wales showed, that an odd Member had no such effect. With regard to Scotland, the hon. Baronet had said, Scotland was not fairly treated. It was quite true they had not increased the amount of Representation equally to that of England, but Scotland was to have a large proportional increase, and a better method of returning Members in comparison with what it had at present. With respect to the clause in general, it should have his support, for he thought considerable advantage would be derived from additional county Representatives. It was quite evident, unless precautions were taken to guard against it, that the commercial and manufacturing interests would preponderate under the new Bill.

maintained, that Cambridge-shire would still be deficient in its due share of Representation. By the census of 1821, its population amounted to about 121,000 souls, to represent which, they were to have only five Members, three for the county, and two for Cambridge itself; the University Members, of course, he did not consider. The average proportion of Members to population throughout England, was as one to 15,000, but in Cam- bridge there was only one to 28,000. This at once proved, that it was hardly treated; he should therefore recommend, that Wisbeach, in that county, should be invested with the power of returning at least one Member. Its population and wealth entitled it to this distinction.

, as a Representative of one of the counties to which it was proposed to give an extra Member, must be allowed to express his surprise at the modest proposition of hon. Gentlemen, to increase the Representation of their own counties, at the expense of their friends. He had no objection to Wales and Scotland having an increase, but would never consent, that England should be cut down from her fair proportion. He conceived the clause to be founded on a wise principle, particularly as it applied to Berkshire—a county the wealth, population, and agricultural importance of which, well entitled it loan additional Representative. The Bill had given general satisfaction, and he should support this clause as one of its best enactments.

could assure the Committee, the feeling of satisfaction was not confined to Berkshire, and he quite participated with the hon. Member for that county, in his feeling of surprise at the proposal of the hon. Gentlemen to increase the Welsh Representation at the expense of the English counties. The only evil he could see from a third candidate was, that if the electors were restricted to two votes, there might be a split between the favourite or popular candidates, and that consequently, the most unpopular person might come in as third.

trusted he might be permitted to say a few words with regard to the Representation for Scotland on this occasion. An hon. Gentleman opposite had said, that Cambridge shire had only one Representative to 28,000 inhabitants, and he thought the interests of that county required more to equalize the proportion to that of other counties but throughout Scotland, the ratio was much less than in England, and if the rule laid down by the hon. Gentleman was followed, that country would be entitled to a large increase. The only argument he had heard in favour of giving three Members to certain counties, was, that the inhabitants would be glad to have them, and no doubt the inhabitants of other places had the same desire, and if one was to be gratified, why not the other? It had been asserted, that the whole representative system of Scotland was defective; but leaving out of the question, at present, the manner in which he was elected, he considered himself as much charged to protect the interest of every individual in the county of Perth, as if he had been returned by universal suffrage. He would therefore assert, that he was as much the Representative of the people as any other hon. Gentleman, however broad might be the basis of his constituency. If the manner in which he was elected was made an objection to him, he would tell the noble Lord, he would not be the Representative of the people of England, when elected by 10l. householders, who could only be a small portion of the whole people. It had been said, that the seven additional Members were to be allotted to certain counties, to keep up the balance between the agricultural and manufacturing interests, which otherwise could not be maintained. This applied equally to Scotland. The agriculture of Scotland had flourished in proportion to its manufactures, yet there was nothing like a balance between them kept up by the Reform Bill for that country. It was proposed, on the contrary, to reduce the county Representation, and augment that of the towns and boroughs. He wished to speak at all times with respect of these different interests. He knew the connection between them was so intimate that they were mutually dependent on each other, but the general effects of the proposed alterations, he considered, would be, to give the commercial and manufacturing interests a large increase of I influence, and on that account he wished the Scotch counties to have an increased number of Representatives. He thought it was important that each county should have two Members, for that naturally prevented one interest from overwhelming the others. This doctrine he had maintained whether in or out of office, and he should be prepared, at the proper opportunity to insist upon this measure of justice being dealt to Scotland.

said, it was quite evident that his right hon. and gallant friend had overlooked the vices of the Scotch Representation. While placed in such pure and honourable hands as his, it did not, probably, much matter how the Member was elected, but surely it must have occurred to him, that there was no security generally for the interests of the constituency being adequately attended to, unless they had a voice in the choice of their representative. He thought he might venture to say, that by the proposed improvements, Scotland would not only receive an addition of five Representatives to its manufacturing and commercial interests, but all the Members to be sent for that country would be additional, for they would be returned by the people. Hitherto, from one end of Scotland to the other, there had never been a popular election. With respect to giving additional Members to Wales, he had not yet heard any reasons to satisfy his mind, that they ought to be granted. His noble friend, however, must permit him to say, that of all the clauses of the Bill, this was the oddest. He objected to the selection of seven counties which were not the most important. If it was the object of his noble and hon. friends to give additional Representatives to the agricultural interests, instead of selecting the counties named in the clause several of which only contained 150,000 or 160,000 inhabitants, on the whole, they ought to have selected the large divisions of Yorkshire and Devonshire for the purpose, which were in every respect agricultural districts, and had a comparatively small portion of Representation. It appeared to him somewhat inconsistent, after several of the large counties, such as Cumberland, Lancaster, and others, had received four Members, and several of the smaller counties two, that a middle class was created which were to have each three. This latter class were selected, if he understood the principle, in order to give additional weight and influence to agriculture; but what was the fact, the counties thus selected were not remarkable as agricultural districts, while the most important divisions connected with that interest were overlooked. But independent wholly of such considerations, he objected to the principle of giving three Representatives, which he thought would have the effect of introducing Members not much connected with the counties or constituencies they were supposed to represent. For these reasons he did not consider the arrangement now before the Committee a judicious one.

objected to the Committee proceeding further at that late hour. He had what was, in his opinion, a most important proviso to propose.

said, the question that this clause stand part of the Bill, should cer- tainly be postponed, for the amendment which a noble friend of his intended to move went to the very essence of the clause itself.

hoped to have been able to get through the clause that night. Was there any objection to fill up the blanks, report progress, and go on with the discussion to-morrow?

said, was he to understand, if that course were adopted, they were to proceed with the discussion of the clause for giving three Members to certain counties, to-morrow; as that was a proposition he should oppose to the utmost.

said, there was no wish in Scotland to obtain additional Members at the expense of England. He was really apprehensive that hon. Gentlemen did not understand the system of Scotch Representation, if they asserted there was no popular elections in that country; the existing methods answered well for such a purpose.

adverted to the close attendance which these meetings on Saturdays occasioned, and the consequent weariness which it produced. Many Gentlemen had understood that the Committee would proceed to-morrow only with clauses of no importance, and therefore had intended to go into the country.

said, he had been misunderstood. What he said was, that he wished those clauses not to be proceeded with to-morrow which required discussion, and where the main principle of the Bill was affected; but this was not one of those clauses. The Committee made considerable progress on Saturdays, and though he was fatigued, he was not exhausted, and should therefore persist in his motion for sitting to-morrow.

had intended to propose an addition to the Representation of Wales, but he could not do it on a Saturday, when so many Members were likely to be absent.

was of the same opinion. The clause was one of great importance, and therefore he implored it might not be discussed to-morrow, when an understanding had already been come to, that no important matter should be brought under consideration. He sincerely believed, that if England and Wales were polled, man by man, upon the specific question, as to whether they would have the number of Members reduced, that there would be twenty to one against any reduction. He therefore hoped that the question would not be decided upon on a Saturday.

said, the question as to any increase in the Representation of Wales did not rest with the noble Lord. An hon. Member had already given notice of his intention to bring that subject forward.

interposed, and said, the question before the Committee was, that the blank be filled up with the word "three."

observed, that if this practice of sitting on Saturdays was to be persevered in, and the hon. and learned Member on the other side (Mr. Robert Grant) intended to bring in his Jew bill, some inconvenience would be felt by hon. Gentlemen of that persuasion.

said, that some of the clauses of the Bill might appear to some hon. Members of less importance, but he considered every line, every word, to be important. The Committees should adjourn over till Tuesday.

said, the speech of a noble Lord (Milton) had relieved him from the necessity of then making any remarks upon the curious, not to say absurd clause before the Committee.

hoped the House would meet to-morrow.

was adverse to meeting on Saturday, but he should attend in his place.

begged to call the attention of the House to this Bill, and to the extraordinary manner in which it was introduced. The ostensible object of the Bill was to prevent several persons, holding judicial situations in Ireland from holding seats in that House, but the real object was, to exclude the Recorder of Dublin from sitting in that House, it being well known that that learned Gentleman was about to become a candidate for the Representation of that city, now vacant. The House would recollect, that on Monday the Dublin Election Committee made its report, declaring the two sitting Members unduly elected, and the election void. At two o'clock on the following morning, without any previous notice, and in a very thin state of the House, a motion was made for leave to bring in a bill to extend the provisions of Act 1 and 2 Geo. IV. c. 44, which prevented Masters in Chancery from holding seats in Parliament, to certain judicial situations in Ireland. Now the object of this was, to exclude the Recorder of Dublin, who, it was well known, was the unsuccessful candidate at the last election, from sitting in Parliament; and in order to defeat his future success this Bill was introduced, in the extraordinary manner he had described. Leave was obtained to bring it in on the Tuesday morning; it was brought in at a late hour on Wednesday night or Thursday morning, and now it stood for a second reading. The votes did not state who brought in the Bill, but the hon. member for Wicklow's name was amongst those who were ordered to bring it in; and as he moved the second reading, he supposed that it was on his motion that leave was given. He could have no other object by such haste, but that of excluding the Recorder, and if that was not the object, the hon. Member would not object to the motion with which he should conclude, viz. that the Bill be read a second time that day fortnight. [A Member said "six months"]. He would not name so long a period, as there might be reasons for supporting the principle of such a Bill; but a fortnight would be sufficient to defeat the object of the Bill if it were to exclude the Recorder of Dublin from becoming a candidate on this occasion.

said, that before the hon. Baronet took upon himself to attribute personal motives, he ought to have made himself acquainted with the facts to which he referred. The hon. Baronet said, that no notice had been given. If he looked at the book he would find, that a notice had been given before the Dublin Election Committee made its report, and that it stood on the Orders for Monday. If the hon. Baronet looked at the reports and returns on the Table, he would find abundant proofs of the necessity of such a measure, which, in fact, if time had served, ought to have been brought in long ago. The Bill would ex- clued all Recorders in Ireland from becoming candidates, but it could not extend at present to the Recorder of Dublin, for before it could be carried through its stages, the election for Dublin would have terminated, and the Recorder, if the successful candidate, would take his seat. If the hon. Baronet looked at the returns, he would find that it was impossible for a man to discharge the duties of Recorder of Dublin, and attend to his duties as a Member of that House. He (Mr. Grattan) could see the cause of the strong muster of the Opposition; the hon. Baronet had no doubt a great respect for the Recorder, but he did not care how the duties of the office were to be discharged, provided he got an addition of a Member whom he knew would sit on the same benches with the hon. Baronet.

bore testimony to the fact of the notice having been given, and he expressed his surprise, that the hon. Baronet should have brought a charge without first making himself acquainted with the facts. The hon. Member for Oxford would bear him out in the statement, that a conversation took place on the introduction of the Bill, in which he (Mr. Spring Rice) said, that he would not give his sanction to the Bill, if he thought it would have the effect of injuring the Recorder in his present canvass, though he approved of the future application of the principle of the Bill to persons holding judicial situations in Ireland. The House would see from this, that nothing was farther from his hon. friend's intention, in bringing in this Bill, than to take it by surprise.

would do the hon. member for Wicklow the justice to say, that, on referring to the Order-book a notice was entered there for the Bill for Monday last, but he not having heard any thing of the matter until the printed Bill was delivered to him that morning, he owned it excited his suspicion; and therefore he felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to the circumstance.

admitted the fact of the conversation to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. He had no complaint to make on that ground; but on looking at the Bill, he found it would have an ex-post facto effect, for one clause stated, that from and after the passing of the Bill, no person holding a judicial situation in Ireland should be eligible as a Member of Parliament, or be capable of sitting and voting as such. This certainly would exclude the Recorder of Dublin, even though he should be returned before the passing of the Bill. Under this impression he would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

seconded this amendment, and was proceeding to contend that the object of the Bill was the exclusion of Mr. Shaw, when

said, he had no objection to withdraw the Bill.

would object to the Bill being withdrawn. No man who had a wish to see the administration of justice duly honoured, would consent to a seat in that House being held by a person holding at the same time an important judicial situation, which required his constant attendance elsewhere.

hoped his hon. friend would allow the Bill to be withdrawn. Certainly, in its present shape, he could not give his vote for it.

said, the defects of the Bill could be cured in the Committee.

took the same view of the subject as the hon. member for Middlesex, and suggested that the discussion of the Bill might be put off to a more convenient time.

said, that the Bill would be an injustice to Mr. Shaw, the Recorder of Dublin, but would not remedy the evil complained of, for the Recorder might appoint a deputy, and there was nothing to hinder him from sitting for a borough in this country.

said, that there were several charges which heretofore were fixed on the Civil List, and for which no provision had yet been made. He had brought in certain papers relating to those charges, which he wished now to refer to a Select Committee, in the same way as the other charges had been referred. The charges were, the salaries of Judges in England and Ireland, the Governors of colonies, the Chief Commissioner to the Church of Scotland, and some others. There were also pensions to the amount of 75,000l. remaining to be provided for, but these he did not intend to refer to the Committee for the reason he had assigned when the subject was last under discussion. He hoped that no discussion might now be gone into on the subject; for any hon. Member who thought proper might move, on any future occasion, that the pensions be also referred to the Committee. At the same time, he felt it his duty to say, that if such motion should be made, he would oppose it. He would now move "That a Select Committee be appointed for the purpose of examining the items of those expenses of the Civil Government of Great Britain and Ireland, heretofore charged on the Civil List, but henceforth to be charged on the Consolidated Fund and the four-and-a-half per cent Barbadoes duties, which still remained to be provided for."

seconded the Motion, but at the same time expressed his regret, that the noble Lord should not also refer the pensions to the Committee. He had more than once stated his opinion against saddling the Consolidated Fund with 75,000l. annual pensions, amounting to half the present pensions of 150,000l., but it never could have been the intention of the House to take these without knowing something of their nature and origin. He thought it better to take the sense of the House after a regular debate, as to whether these pensions should be referred to the Committee, and if no other hon. Gentleman should be induced to do so, it was his intention to make a motion to that effect on Thursday week.

entirely approved of the hon. member for Cricklade's determination.