presented a numerously-signed Petition from the Carpenters and Joiners of this city, stating, that 12,000 of them were out of work at this period of the year, when they were generally fully employed. These Petitioners attributed this slackness of occupation to the frequent application of machinery, and the substitution of cast-iron for timber in recent buildings. They did not assume, that this practice was not a great improvement in the construction of modern edifices, but they suggested that they might be relieved by the erection of some large public building, out of the funds of the State, if Parliament should sanction the project. They further expressed their firm conviction, that the working classes would never feel their condition improved until a Reform in Parliament took place, and each man in the State enjoyed the right of being represented in that House.

believed, that a great proportion of the distress experienced by these persons arose from their own perverseness in attempting to control their masters in the choice of hands; and in raising the price of their labour. At this moment no carpenter would work in the country under 30s. per week. He was sure the House would agree with him, that those persons deserved no commiseration if, through the controlling influence of unions amongst themselves, and clubs which exercised a tyrannical and injurious effect on all the trade, more particularly by preventing the employment of men not banded in these illegal associations, they caused their own distress.

said, he had been assured by the petitioners they had not entered into these clubs, to the principle of which they professed themselves inimical, and had determined to petition in opposition to them.

only spoke from his own knowledge, which certainly did not extend to the individual petitioners.

presented a Petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, Common Council, and Citizens of Dublin, praying for the establishment there of a Board of Trade, which might communicate with Government on the subject of Irish wants and interests, and assist the Irish Government in developing the resources of that country. The Petitioners represented, that distress was generally prevalent throughout Ireland, and that the flax and linen trades in particular, were going to decay. They expressed themselves of opinion, that it was no absence of kind feeling, but because the interests of that country were not well understood, that Parliament adopted measures detrimental to Ireland, and they therefore wished to have some intermediate body established there, whose business would be, to endeavour to promote measures favourable to their interests. He agreed with the petitioners in this opinion, for it was quite obvious, that the people of Ireland suffered great disadvantages by their distance from the seat of legislation. The expenses of private Acts in England were great, but in Ireland the cost was much enhanced. Although he feared the petitioners were too sanguine in their expectation of advantages from the establishment of a local and unpaid Board of Trade in Dublin, yet he hoped such a body might be found useful.

thought, from the difficulty they experienced in understanding Irish questions, the establishment of a Board of unpaid Commissioners, sitting in Dublin, upon these subjects, and communicating with intelligent persons, by letter or by personal examination, would enable Government to recommend, with much greater propriety, measures to Parliament, adapted to the exigencies of trade and commerce. The silk-trade of Dublin was in a most wretched state, as well as all other productive occupations. Such a Board, to be composed of every description of persons, might furnish most useful information on the subject of Poor-laws. It would have every facility fop the examination of witnesses who caused so much trouble and expense when brought to this country. The cost of such an establishment would be but little, chiefly for a Secretary, and he believed an institution of this nature would go far to put a stop to the cry for the Repeal of the Union.

said, that as the city of Dublin had at present no Representative, he felt it his duty to support the prayer of the petition. The affairs of Ireland, which called for legislation, came before the House in a most crude and undigested shape, and if sound and accurate information was essential to good Government, that could only be procured by residents on the spot, acquainted with the peculiar circumstances of the country. One great cause of the embarrassment experienced in legislating for Ireland, was the frequent changes in the Government—since 1817 there had been seven Lord Lieutenants. He well knew, that it was the interest and desire of English Members to assist the sister country, and they were only prevented from doing so by their ignorance of her situation. The materials for better legislation would be found in great profusion in Dublin, and he was convinced that the establishment of such a Board, consisting of about twenty gentlemen, would much assist the endeavours of the Secretary for Ireland, and direct to proper objects the attention of the Legislature. It would also tend to obviate the frequency of well-founded complaints in various classes of society in Ireland, whose interests were inadvertently neglected by the United Parliament.

was not prepared to say, that the establishment of such a Board would reach all the objects alluded to by the petitioners, but he thought some attention should be paid to the subject at a moment when there was such a cry for domestic legislation, in order to meet that wish in some way, if it were only to check the violence of the outcry. The Bill under discussion last night, developed the objects and machinery of a Board which it was proposed to establish, but it did not go far enough. He desired to see some measure established that would embrace all the local departments. The most plausible reason that had been urged for the dissolution of the Union was the difficulty of getting that House to pay attention to Irish questions, from want of time and knowledge to understand them. It was wise to allow self-government, wherever practicable, and he thought local establishments essential for understanding minute subjects, on which the prosperity of a country often depended, as was proved by the provincial establishments of the Netherlands, to which he attributed much of the prosperity of that country. The Board he should desire to see established in Dublin would embrace three objects—the first, the care of public works, trade and agriculture; the second, charities, prisons and police; and the third, public education, and to have branches in the respective counties, to supersede the oligarchical influence of the Grand Jurors, who administered the pro- vincial government in an arbitrary and extravagant manner. When the Catholic Relief Bill was passed, an alteration in this respect became necessary. He would leave the Grand Jury their judicial functions, and give their financial powers to a local Board, in connexion with one in the capital. He was fully persuaded, opinions of this character began to be general throughout Ireland, and the people wished to regulate their own concerns.

believed the condition of Ireland was such, that hardly any change could take place there which would not be for its advantage. This fresh application was symptomatic of the general appetite in Ireland at last for local legislation. Indeed, unless there was something of a local legislature adopted for Ireland, it was now clear, after thirty years experience of the Union, that nothing short of some such project as that now recommended by the Corporation of Dublin, under the advice of a very able and competent gentleman (Mr. Cecil), who had devoted his zeal and talent to this subject for some years, could possibly save Ireland from some fearful and desolating convulsion. They had no other resources but the horrors of famine or the establishment of Poor-laws. It had been said, they would be Agrarian laws, and would have no other effect than to divide the property of the rich among the poor, and ultimately reduce all to the same level. Boards might be of some use as a temporary remedy, but the only permanent cure for the evils of Ireland was a local legislature.

said, it was impossible, whilst the connexion between this country and Ireland was unrestricted, that manufactures should flourish in Ireland. We had decisive proof in this country, that manufactures could not be forced from places possessed of local advantages, to others which wanted them. The woollen trade had wholly declined in the west, while it had prospered amazingly in the north of England, from the superior local advantages of the latter in coal and iron, together with other facilities for carrying on the trade. If such difficulties were found, therefore, in transferring manufactures even from one county to another, how would it be possible to transfer them to a country destitute of all natural advantages for carrying them on? The prayer of the petition, which alluded to the establishment of manufactures in Ireland, took an erroneous view of the question, and to say, that local legislation could overcome such obstacles was absurd. He was no less convinced that separate legislatures would unavoidably occasion, in a very short period, the total separation of the kingdoms. The moment a disputed question, such as a regency, or a doubtful succession arose, there would be an end of the connexion, for the only political union between them would be the executive. If they were to have an independent legislature for Ireland, they must also have one for Scotland, and a third for Wales, and the whole must be united into one federative union. That would be the only rational mode of establishing independent legislatures. In any other way it would be hopeless to attempt to keep up the connexion between the countries now so happily united.

believed the Union with Ireland had neither created nor even aggravated the evils unhappily felt so sensibly in that country. On the contrary, he was prepared to contend, and he hoped at the proper time to be able to prove, that the Union had considerably benefitted Ireland, and he felt perfectly convinced that it could not be dissolved without involving the ruin of both countries. The evils of Ireland had their origin in different and deeper sources.

hoped that Ireland would not indulge in visions of manufacturing wealth and prosperity. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Officer, that she had not the means necessary to secure that description of prosperity, though she certainly possessed ample means of securing another description—namely, agricultural prosperity. To that legitimate object of national interest and ambition her views ought to be confined. She ought to limit her desire for manufactures to the employment of her people at Manchester and Glasgow. Within her own territories she had not the means of carrying on extensive manufactures; she had neither iron nor coal, and imported machinery could not be useful without cheap fuel. Local industry might be promoted, undoubtedly, by private exertions, without the necessity of Boards. On every view the improvement of her agriculture should be her great object, and the chances of success in this way were only to be found and secured in the private exertions of the great landowners, nobility, gentry, and farmers of that eminently fertile island.

agreed with the noble Lord, that Ireland must be essentially an agricultural country, and was not well calculated for a manufacturing country. He believed there was a difficulty interposed to her success in manufactures, because of her want of capital and skill, The proposed alteration in the Corn-laws, for which the noble Lord was an advocate, he altogether deprecated, as likely to materially prejudice Irish agricultural interests.

denied there was such a want of either skill or capital as must frustrate all efforts to succeed in manufactures. He allowed they had neither coals nor iron, and could not compete with England in these respects, but they might avail themselves to a great extent of the power of machinery, for it must be recollected, that Ireland had, at least, the greatest water-power applicable to manufactures of any country in the whole world. To what other cause than the Union could the decay of Ireland be attributed? He should like to hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman who had asserted, that Ireland had been benefitted by it, in what manner that had been effected. They were now about to be driven to the adoption of Poor-laws, to support a starving population, and all persons who had realized property left that unhappy country; were those the proofs of the benefits she had received? When the circumstances of other countries were recollected, there was little reason to doubt that Ireland might continue a constituent portion of this great empire with a separate legislature. It was well known that Austria had for ages retained Brabant, as well as Hungary and Bohemia, constituent parts of that empire, notwithstanding they each possessed separate legislatures. The hon. and gallant Officer had asserted, that in the event of the Union being dissolved, a regency or a disputed succession would put an end to the political connexion between the two countries. A disputed succession had divided England itself into contending parties; it was a case against which no legislative authority could guard. A disputed regency might be obviated by an Act declaring that the person who should be declared Regent of England, should, de facto, be Regent of Ireland. He therefore denied the positions of the hon. and gallant Officer, and fully expected that petitions would yet come from the Corporation of Dublin for a local Legislature instead of local Boards.

said, he had some acquaintance with Ireland, where much distress undoubtedly prevailed, particularly in the south and west, but he hoped it was not increasing, and he was sure the cause of it could not be traced to the Union.

Rose wished the hon. and learned member for Kerry to recollect, that the Union with Scotland prevented a much more severe contest than actually took place upon the occasion of a disputed succession.

said, that the repeal of the Corn-laws might have the effect of reducing the price of corn, and lowering rents in Ireland, but that result, though it might be felt as a grievance by the Irish landlords, he believed would be found to be beneficial to the Irish population at large.

begged to present a petition with which he had been intrusted by the noble Lord, who was one of the members for Kilkenny, who was prevented from presenting it by a domestic calamity. The petitioners complained of the tithe system in Ireland, and stated, that they paid more for tithes than they did for the land as rent, and that the clergy distrained continually for tithes, and sold not only their cattle and pigs, but also the very blankets from their beds. The Rector had generally a police force ready to support his demands, and in case of being aggrieved, the petitioners could only obtain redress by applying to the Ecclesiastical Courts, the expense and delay of which were so intolerable as to be a denial of justice, and forced them to submit to the exactions of the tithe-collector, however exorbitant. The petitioners went on to state, that unless some remedy was afforded to relieve them from the oppression they now suffered from the operation of the tithe-laws, they should be compelled to abandon their country, and take refuge in other lands. He understood from the noble Lord who had intrusted him with the petition, that the petitioners were respectable persons. He would remark, that the allegation that tithe surpassed the rent of land, was a circumstance well worthy of the consideration of the House.

took the opportunity of explaining, that all the assertions made in that House some time since, respecting the trial concerning tithes in Kilkenny, were unfounded. The House would recollect, that the case was a prosecution against certain persons for conspiring to compel a Protestant clergyman to lower his tithes; and it had been asserted by an hon. and learned Member, that the Crown Solicitor had publicly declared, that he had been instructed to exclude Catholics from the Jury, and that they had been, along with several liberal Protestants, excluded accordingly, and that the verdict was obtained by these means. This statement conveyed such a serious charge, that, at the instant, he had pronounced it wholly unfounded. He had since thought it his duty to inquire into all the circumstances of the trial; and, he was happy to say, his assertion had been completely borne out, that no such statement had been ever made, much less acted upon. The Crown Solicitor positively denied that he ever had, as was stated, declared, either in Court, or elsewhere, that he was directed by Government to exclude Catholics and liberal Protestants from the Jury. He could also state, that the fact was, one Catholic and several liberal Protestants were on the Jury, and that nobody was challenged on account of his political opinions, and also, that the traversers were allowed to put aside several persons, and do all that they pleased, without assigning any reason whatsoever. He would now take the liberty of reading a letter which he had received from Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor, who was a most respectable gentleman, in corroboration of his assertions. That letter was as follows:—

"Kildare-street, 13thAugust, 1831.

"Dear Sir;—In reference to my note of yesterday evening, relative to the trial of Blanchfield and Byrne, at the last assizes of Kilkenny, I beg you will state to the Solicitor General, that I never received instructions from any person whatever to challenge Catholics; nor did I ever declare at Kilkenny, or anywhere else, that I had received such instructions. On inquiry, I find that one of the Jury, but not the Foreman, as I mentioned in my note, was a Catholic, and several of them liberal Protestants. Several were put by on the part of the Crown, for reasons I thought sufficient, but not because they were Catholics; and, although the traversers had not any right to challenge, they were allowed to do so, and, at their instance, several of the Jury were put by—the Crown allowing them to be set aside without calling upon them to assign any reason for so doing. It has always been my wish, and that of the counsel for the Crown, that the Juries in criminal cases should be composed of the most respectable persons, whether Catholic or Protestant. Except in very few instances, I do not know the religion of the gentlemen composing the Juries.

"I am, dear Sir, your's truly,

"W. KEMMIS."

He had also the authority of two gentlemen of the Bar, who were present, to state, that the Jury was not packed, and that the trial was in all respects conducted with perfect fairness towards the traversers. His learned friend, the Attorney General, did likewise most positively deny having ever given any such directions as were attributed to him, or any directions which would encourage the packing of a Jury. Indeed, when Mr. Costello, the solicitor for the defence, objected to any Juror, without stating any reason for such objection, he was instantly put aside by the Crown. So that this Jury, so much vilified, was one which the traverser's solicitor himself approved. This system of preferring charges against individuals and public officers, in their absence, without notice, and upon hearsay evidence, was most objectionable; for often the charges were heard by persons who had no opportunity of hearing their refutation; and thus permanent injury was inflicted on the characters of innocent and meritorious persons. The same remark applied to the Maghera trials, which had also been referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He could positively assert, that the utmost fairness presided there over the formation of the Juries. It was true that the Protestants were acquitted, and the Catholics convicted. He was disposed to believe the acquitted parties were the most guilty of the two; but the one were found guilty on satisfactory evidence, and the others were acquitted for want of it. It was, therefore, impossible for any man justly to found charges, or to arraign Juries, upon the circumstances of these trials. In future, he hoped any hon. Members who were about to bring charges, would, at least, give notice of their inten- tions, that inquiries might forthwith be made, and the answer promulgated at the same time as the accusation.

said, he had never accused the hon. and learned Member of making statements without authority; he had only said, that the hon. and learned Member was in the habit of making strong assertions, and preferring serious charges against individuals, upon private letters from heated partisans, which were proved generally to be without foundation. But the charges obtained currency, because they could not be contradicted when they were made. He hoped that the discussion on this case would induce hon. Gentlemen not to lend themselves in future to such practices.

said, the hon. and learned Solicitor General had used much unnecessary warmth of expression. The charge was, that the Jury were composed wholly of Protestants, and that Catholics were expressly excluded. The answer received to this was, there was one Catholic upon the Jury—one out of twelve—and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman considered this a triumphant answer. It was not their object to complain of one particular case, but of the working of the whole system generally. He, therefore, hoped, that the Government would take measures to prevent the recurrence of these complaints. In doing so they would be pursuing a better course than that of finding excuses for them.

said, that he objected to the House giving currency to petitions which contained matter of a libellous nature. This petition stated, that certain individuals broke open doors, and ill-treated persons whom it named. Now he thought that that House ought not to be an ulterior court for the redress of evils, that, if capable of being substantiated, might be made the subject of inquiry in a court of law. The hon. and learned Member stated, that the petitioners declared they paid more in tithes than in rent. He had referred to the returns consequently, and he found it there stated, that the income of a clergyman, who, he said, had been alluded to, was not near so great as it was imagined. The aggregate amount of the tithes was about 440l., and the glebe about thirty-one acres. The clergyman besides, it should be recollected, had been a resident in his parish since 1806. He, therefore, trusted the House would not sanction the publication of such statements.

said, he was unacquainted with the facts himself. The petition had been sent him by the noble member for Kilkenny, who had, at the same time, assured him they were correct.

said, that every unprejudiced man in the House must be satisfied, that the hon. and learned Solicitor General had, by a calm and plain statement of facts, utterly upset the charges which had been made upon former occasions; and he had no doubt, if he was to take the trouble of inquiring into the merits of the petition now before them, he would find the allegations contained in it equally unfounded. He recommended the hon. and learned member for Louth to be more cautious how he found fault with the Irish Jury system; such observations did great mischief to the proper administration of justice.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to a subject of much importance, as connected with the privileges of Parliament. The subject he alluded to was, the delay in the return of two Members for the borough of Great Grimsby. It would be in the recollection of the House, that the former election had been declared void by a Committee, and that the Speaker had been called upon, on the third day of this month, to issue his warrant for a new election. The warrant had been issued, and it would seem, that it had been forwarded in the regular manner, and without any delay, to the proper officer; for the election had been held and was completed on Wednesday last, but, although two gentlemen were then elected, no return had been made. Although these two gentlemen who had been elected came, after the election was over, to town, and although they were ready to take their oaths and their seats upon Friday or Saturday last, and yesterday and to-day, they were unable to do so, because, upon inquiry at the Crown-office, it appeared that no return of the election had been made by the Sheriff. There was, he thought, no question on which that House could more properly entertain a strong feeling of jealousy, than that of seeing the numbers of the House kept incomplete. He knew that, although the law relating to the transmission of the lists of voters was considered perfect, that which related to the return was supposed to be in an imperfect state, and by that means, a returning-officer might, as he feared it would be found in this case, commit a gross breach of the privileges of the House. The case which this most resembled was that of Waterford, in 1806, when the right hon. Baronet, Sir John Newport, was elected, after his appointment as Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland. On that occasion, no return appearing to have been made in due time, the course adopted was, to call on the Deputy Clerk of the Crown to appear at the bar, and state whether the return had been received in his office. On the present occasion, he proposed, that the House should pursue the same course, and he should therefore move, "that the Deputy Clerk of the Crown should immediately attend the House, to give information to the House relating to the said Writ, and whether a return of the election of two Members for Great Grimsby had been received by him."

fully agreed with the hon. Baronet, that it was not only a duty, but one of the first duties of that House, to keep their numbers full; but it was, if possible, a still more imperative duty on them to see that their numbers were not prevented from being full by any trick whatever. He thought that the House ought to accede to the Motion, in order at once to know the reason why the return had not been made.

said, that he had, on the former occasion, avoided imputing any improper motives to the High Sheriff of Lincolnshire, or to the Returning-officer of the borough of Great Grimsby, because he wished rather to attribute the omission to make the return to some accidental circumstance, than to any wilful negligence. At the same time, the House must feel, that they were in that state, in which this matter must now be followed up, and that the High Sheriff must give some account to the House of the origin of this delay. He should therefore move, "that the High Sheriff of Lincolnshire do attend this House on Friday next." The case of the borough of Lostwithiel was subsequent to that of Waterford, which he had already cited; and in the Lostwithiel case, both the High and Under Sheriff were ordered to attend. It might be proper for the House to consider whether they would act in the same manner in the present instance, and direct the Mayor of the borough of Great Grimsby to attend at the same time.

believed, that the omission of the return was accidental; but, as he had before said, the matter ought to be inquired into. He should, therefore, support the Motion of the hon. Baronet.

said, he begged to call the attention of the House to a case in which the course now recommended was pursued with regard to Westminster, when the Sheriff of Middlesex and the High Bailiff of Westminster were both ordered to attend at the bar of the House. He therefore wished the Returning-officer of Great Grimsby should be also ordered to attend.

rose to ask a question of the hon. and learned, the Lord Advocate of Scotland. The subject upon which he required information had created a very great sensation in that part of the country with which he was more immediately connected. On the 12th of July last, a riot had occurred at Ayr, in which lives were lost. He wished to know whether, in the case of any of the persons charged with having taken part in that affray, bail had been offered and accepted? He trusted, that the whole of this subject would undergo strict and mature consideration.

did not very well know, whether he ought or ought not to give any answer to the question of his hon. friend. He would not, however, give any answer that was likely to compromise him, individually, in the discharge of his functions, or to prejudice the cause of those who might hereafter be placed on their trial. He could only say, that in the way of general rumour, he had heard of the event to which his hon. friend had alluded; but he had not received any precise or accurate information with respect to that event, or to any proceeding's which might have occurred subsequently to it.

said, that while he admitted the great importance of the subject to which the noble Lord had just called the attention of the House, still he felt himself fully justified in introducing for a moment another topic of much interest, and of calling for explanation with reference to it. He believed, that Ministers were placed, with respect to our foreign relations, in very difficult circumstances; and he also believed, that they were very anxious to preserve peace. But peace might be too dearly purchased, and, assuredly, it would be too dearly purchased, if to preserve it, our honour was compromised. In his opinion, the conduct which had been adopted in the case which he was about to notice did compromise the honour of this country, and was likely most seriously to affect its interests. The transaction to which he alluded was this—the French government, since the attack of their forces upon Lisbon, had taken possession of, and carried away, the whole of the Portuguese fleet, except, he believed, two schooners. Extraordinary as the fact might be, he had learnt it on information which he could not doubt, and he hoped that a satisfactory reason would be given by his Majesty's Ministers for allowing this act of spoliation to be perpetrated. If they could not prevent it, he would say for himself, unskilled as he was in the arts of diplomacy, and merely forming his opinion from the feelings which he entertained, and which he believed he entertained in common with most of his fellow countrymen—he would only say, if Ministers could not give a most satisfactory explanation, that the fleet of Admiral Codrington might have been much better employed than lying in the Downs, prepared, at a moment's notice, to assist in crushing a weak but ancient ally, who was merely striving to gain that which he thought was his just due. The only reason, he believed, that could be assigned for the conduct of Ministers was, that they fitted out this force because the proceedings of the king of Holland were hostile to the revolutionists of Belgium—perhaps, he might say, to the revolutionists of France. On this subject, he requested information from the noble Lord.

would be obliged to the noble Lord, if he would put his question plainly and distinctly. At present he knew not what he was called on to answer.

said, he had it from information which he could not doubt, that the French had taken possession of, and would keep, all the Portuguese fleet which they found in the Tagus at the time of the attack on Lisbon. He wished Ministers to explain to the country, why they had permitted the French to do this, without taking any measures to prevent them?

said, he believed, with reference to the facts, that the noble Lord was correct. All the Portuguese ships of war struck to the French, in consequence of the engagement which took place when the French fleet entered the Tagus. That portion of the fleet which took part in the action, was considered prize of war, and was retained as such. One line-of-battle ship, which was dismantled, and took no part in the action, was given up. He had no further information to give on the subject.

wished to ask the noble Lord, if a war of aggression were waged against one of our allies, whether this country was not bound to interfere?

did not feel himself called upon to answer that question. If any hon. Member thought that his Majesty's Ministers, in their proceedings with foreign Powers, had not consulted the honour and character of the country—if any hon. Member believed that they had not performed their duties honestly and fairly—let him bring forward a distinct motion on the subject, and Ministers would be ready to meet it.

said, he would take an opportunity of stating what his opinion on the subject was, and would submit a motion on the subject in a few days.

called the attention of the noble Lord opposite to the manner in which the Bill was now printed. Some clauses were inserted which ought not to have been there He referred more particularly to the 18th Clause.

understood it was the general wish that the whole Bill should be reprinted, with the proposed alterations; the only material clauses to be altered were the 18th and 21st.

said, he particularly remarked the 24th and 25th, and that the latter clause in the Bill, as well as the 18th, gave the Commissioners a discretion as to the incorporation of parts of parishes, which would, in some cases, operate very disadvantageously. There was the borough of Leicester for instance, in which parts only of certain parishes were within the present limits of the borough, but the whole of these parishes had long been comprised within the town. The borough contained only 16,000 souls, while the town contained 40,000. There were six parishes, a part only of each was in the borough. Now he wished to know from the noble Lord, whether it was the intention of Government to confine the precincts of the new borough to the limits within which the borough now existed, or whether they intended to include other parts of the town?

had answered several times, that where a part of the parish came into the centre of the town, the whole of the parish was to be taken into its limits.

feared, that the 24th clause would not give the Commissioners the power to carry the noble Lord's intentions into effect.

wished to put a question to the noble Lord respecting the Manumission of Slaves. A short time since, he had asked the noble Lord whether orders had not been sent out to emancipate the Slaves in the Colonies belonging to the Crown, when the noble Lord, to his surprise, answered him in the negative. By merely changing the form of his question, he believed he should obtain an answer in the affirmative; and he trusted he should, for such an answer would be hailed with delight throughout the empire. He now wished to ask the noble Lord, whether orders had not been sent out to the Crown colonies to emancipate those slaves that belonged to, and were part of the property of the Crown.

said, that the hon. Member had, sometime ago, asked, whether orders had been sent out to emancipate all the slaves in the Crown colonies. He was surprised, that such a question should have been put, and he answered, that he never heard of any such order, because it was impossible such directions could have been given. Now, however, that the ques- tion was put in a different form, he could at once state, that directions had been given for the emancipation of all slaves who were the property of the Crown.

wished to ask the noble Lord, if his Majesty's Government meant to submit any motion to Parliament on the subject of Slavery in the Colonies?

Not at present.

said, that he had at all times experienced the indulgence of the House when he felt it necessary to deliver his sentiments, and he trusted that the same kindness would be extended to him now, when he was about to bring under its consideration, a Motion relative to neutral Powers, in so far as their conduct affected Poland. Since the Session of 1830, war had been raging in Poland, but not one word had been said on the subject in Parliament from that time to the present. He knew perfectly well, that there were many individuals in that House who were capable of introducing this question in a much more able manner than he could: but as no person had stood forward to bring it under the consideration of Parliament, he felt himself, weak as his abilities might be, justified in taking it up. He was the more especially induced to do so, because this was not a party question, but one on which he believed all persons in that House very nearly coincided in opinion. Every one must see the great importance of this question, which concerned the neutrality of those States that were on the borders of Poland. It appeared to him, from the information which he had received, that the passports granted in this country to individuals wishing to proceed to Poland, had not been treated by Prussia with that respect which they ought to command. Merchandize sent out from England had been stopped by the Prussians in transitu. He collected from a public paper an answer of a most extraordinary nature, which had been given by Prussia to a strong representation made to that government on the subject of its conduct towards Poland. The authorities said, that Prussia was not in a state of neutrality with Poland, but merely in a state of inactivity, and they wished that their good Ally, the Emperor of Russia might triumph over the Poles. They declared, that the principles on which the Polish Revolution was founded, were exceedingly dangerous; and they expressed their fears, that unless the Emperor of Russia, triumphed in this cause, Prussia would lose Posen, and her other Polish provinces. What he was about to state, would not, he believed, afford much information to many Gentlemen in that House; but he had reason to suppose, that the right of Poland to claim at least neutrality from the neighbouring Powers was not generally understood on the Continent of Europe. The rights of the Poles were not only rights to neutrality but rights of the most sacred and special character. Without going into the nature of those original rights which might be made out in favour of Poland, he would proceed at once to those immediate rights which were secured to the Poles by Treaties entered into at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. In 1815, the Minister of England mentioned at that Congress the necessity and propriety of reconstructing the Polish kingdom—that kingdom which had been dismembered, first in 1772, and subsequently in 1795. The grounds on which this doctrine was initiated, and enforced, by the English Minister, were—first, claims and considerations of justice on the part of the Poles, and, secondly, the necessity of interposing a barrier between Russia and the Western States of Europe. It was greatly to the honour and credit of the Minister of England, that he strenuously and perseveringly urged this doctrine at the Congress of Vienna, demanding, on behalf of England, that Poland should be re-established, with all that had belonged to her, under a distinct dynasty of her own, as indispensably necessary for the safety of Europe, in erecting a barrier against Russia, and in maintaining the balance of power, and the principles of public law. And let him observe, that the "balance of power," or the "political equilibrium," of Europe, did not mean any equality of power or of territory—did not mean a balance of the numerical strength and resources of the different States, but an equality of rights and station in the political society of Europe. The object of the doctrine of the balance of power was, to secure the weaker against the more powerful States, in the peaceable enjoyment of all that the weaker States held by a just title; it was purely a defensive, a preservative system; it did not affect to put an end to all wars, but was directed against the usurpation of conquerors and the encroaching ambition of powerful States; holding it as a principle, that no one State should obtain a preponderance which might be dangerous to the liberties of others, and bid defiance to the united efforts of others. This doctrine, as he had already observed, partially influenced Lord Castlereagh in the arrangements which he advocated in favour of Poland at the Congress of Vienna. The views of Lord Castlereagh with respect to Poland were supported in the Congress by Austria and by Prussia. The Emperor of Austria even declared, that far from consenting to the union of the Duchy of Warsaw with Russia, he was disposed to make some sacrifice of his own possessions, for the sake of the entire re-establishment of Poland as an independent kingdom. Prince Talleyrand, too, on the part of France, expressed himself thus, in a note to Prince Metternich, dated Dec. 19th, 1814:—"Of all the questions to be discussed at this Congress, the King would undoubtedly consider the affair of Poland as incomparably the most important to the interests of Europe,"—adding, "the partition which destroyed its existence as a nation was the prelude, in some measure the cause, perhaps—even to a certain degree an apology—for the subsequent commotions to which Europe was exposed." The Emperor Alexander, however, opposed the re-establishment of Poland as a nation under a dynasty of its own, and would consent to no arrangements in regard to Poland, of which the annexation of it to Russia did not form a part. As the troops of Russia were at this period in possession of Poland, the three Powers who were anxious for the re-establishment of Poland as an independent nation, did not consider it safe to urge their proposition beyond a certain point. In consequence, however, of the pressing instances of the three Powers, a free Constitution and the Nationality of Poland were conceded by Russia, but only upon condition, that Poland should be annexed to the Russian dominions. The 1st article of the Treaty of Vienna was this:—"The Duchy of Warsaw, with the exception of those provinces and districts which are otherwise disposed of by the following articles, is united to Russia. It shall be irrevocably bound to the Russian empire by its Constitution." He entreated the House to observe the expression—"shall be irrevocably bound to the Russian empire by its constitution." This condition was reiterated in various treaties, official documents, and diplomatic notes, from one of which the following passage, which alluded to that constitution, was extracted:—"His royal highness the Prince Regent would then no longer have fear that any danger to the liberty of Europe should result from the union of Poland with the Russian empire, already so powerful—a danger which would not be imaginary if the military force of the two countries should ever be united under the command of an ambitious and warlike monarch." The constitution, then, of Poland was to be its bond of union with the Russian empire; and let him now, therefore, read to the House one or two of the articles of the charter which gave that constitution. The second article was this,—"The civil and political relations in which we place it (Poland), and the bond by which this union is to be secured, are determined by the charter which we now grant." The ninth article was this—"In every instance in which Russian troops may be introduced into Poland, or Polish troops into Russia, or in the event of the passage of these troops through any province of either of these kingdoms, the support of such troops, and the expenses attendant upon their journey, shall rest entirely with the nation to which they belong. The Polish army shall never be employed out of Europe." This, as well as many other articles of the charter, proved clearly, that there existed no ground for maintaining that the annexation of Poland to Russia was an incorporation of Poland with the Russian empire. Other articles of the charter provided for the liberty of the press—gave publicity to the proceedings of the diet—declared that no person should be arrested, except according to the forms of and in the cases determined by the laws; and farther, that no taxes should be levied except by the authority of the Diet. Now this charter was guaranteed by all the Powers who constituted the Congress of Vienna. All the stipulations of it were expressly declared to be obligatory upon Russia, not only so far as they regarded the Poles, but with reference also to the other contracting Powers, who had desisted from the re-establishment of Poland upon these conditions. Such was the charter, and such the guarantee for the fulfilment of the conditions of the charter. He need hardly, perhaps, state, what was so universally known, that these conditions had been most flagitiously violated in every respect. They had been observed only for the first two or three years which immediately succeeded the Congress of Vienna. The freedom of the press was at an end; for the fifteen years during which the kingdom had subsisted, not a single budget had been submitted to the Diet; but every thing relative to the subject of taxation had been done arbitrarily, and by royal decrees; and, in a word, the charter was no more regarded than if it had been a piece of waste paper. Personal liberty, under such a condition of circumstances, was, of course, quite out of the question. The gaols had been filled with Poles who had been arrested, almost without pretext, and certainly without the shadow of law. The consequence of these arbitrary proceedings on the part of the Russian autocrat had been the appeal to arms, which the Poles were now so gloriously maintaining against their oppressors. He would not detain the House by detailing the particular circumstances which had provoked and led to this open revolt on the part of the Poles against the tyrannical dominion of Russia. He thought he had slated sufficient to demonstrate to the House, that the Poles had sacred and unalienable rights which demanded the protection of the public law of Europe. Before he concluded, he could not help adverting to the general conduct of the Russian government. There had doubtless been many exaggerations as to the views and the capabilities of this formidable and half-civilized Power; but it was impossible for any observing man, who considered the history of Russia for the last century, not to be struck with the fact that Russia, during that period, had never concluded a single war without acquiring an accession of empire. Each of these successive aggrandizements became more marked than the preceding ones; but when they arrived at the conclusion of the war in 1814, and 1815, they saw, in the conduct of Russia, indications of the most ambitious appetite, and a successful exercise of the most arbitrary power, that ever threatened other states. At that time the Russian autocrat did not hesitate to declare, that he had 480,000 men ready to move, and that he would not give up the hold he had upon the Duchy of Warsaw. Napoleon, in the zenith of his success, had never pursued a more daring or a more unjust course. Again, when Austria evinced a disposition to accede to the wishes of the Italian States, who was it that induced Austria to have recourse to the force of arms instead of to just and conciliatory measures? It was the emperor of Russia: and it was he also who had compelled the French King to send an army into Spain to put down the liberal party in that country. And thus it was, that a semi-barbarous despot had been allowed to influence the affairs of civilized States. He observed, that the present Prime Minister of France, in his published speech, was made to profess a peaceful system of policy, and to say, that the French Government would do all in their power to preserve the peace of Europe undisturbed. This, however, was the language of fallacy. The French Minister could not preserve that which did not exist. The French Minister could not preserve that entire which was already broken. Europe was not in a state of peace, and could not be in a state of peace while the war in Poland continued,—while the Powers of Europe allowed the continuance of that war, which was an outrage and an insult upon all the great potentates who, by their representatives at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, guaranteed the national independence of Poland, upon certain and defined conditions, each of which had been violated. If Russia were successful in the struggle, and Poland were subdued, that country would be garrisoned, not as heretofore, by Polish troops, but by a Russian army. This work effected, it would not be difficult to foretel whither Russia would next direct her encroaching steps. The doctrine of the French Prime Minister, therefore, was a fallacious one, and the fallacy of the French policy must continue while the war between Poland and Russia was suffered to continue. While he was on this subject, he might be allowed, perhaps, to make an observation upon the speech of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs. That Minister was reported to have said,—"Look at the map, and see if it be possible that we can assist Poland." Now this appeared to him to be bad in argument, and to betray a sad want of recollection. The French Minister might have remembered that, be the distance between France and Poland what it might, the armies of France and of Russia had traversed it two or three times within the last twenty years. He would say further, that this speech of the French Minister, if correctly reported in the newspapers, (and it was there that he had read it), was not justifiable—that it contained an important disclosure of the policy of France, which might be highly detrimental to the interests of Europe, and which, although it might furnish a temporary defence for the French Administration, furnished that defence at the expense of their country. He trusted, however, that the French people would recollect, that the same sword which was now reeking with Polish blood, would have been brandished by the despotic barbarians of Russia upon the frontiers of France, for the purpose of putting down the revolution of July, if it had not been for the energy and promptitude which characterized the revolt of the French people against their domestic tyranny. He had now but to add a few words with regard to the conduct of Prussia in this struggle between Poland and Russia. He had not rested his views of this subject upon the statements which had appeared in the newspapers, many of which, however, seemed to be well authenticated, but, as a military man he had been convinced, for the last two months, that the resources of the Russian army must have been derived from some neutral Power. The Russian army had crossed the Vistula; their rear was on Prussia; and for some time their communication with Russia had been cut off. No army, so situated, could have maintained the position which the Russian army had so long maintained, without having derived resources from the neutral power. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving, as an amendment upon the motion before the House, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, that he would be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before the House as early as pending negotiations would admit, information showing how far neutrality may have been observed or violated in the present war by the States bordering on Poland, particularly Prussia, whether in reference to those bodies of troops, that may have taken refuge or passed within neutral frontiers, to supplies of provisions of arms, of munitions, or aid of any kind, or in respect to the free passage of, or obstructions to the passage of merchandize, to and from the territories of the kingdom of Poland."

seconded the amendment.

said, that he could not concur in the Motion, and did not intend to follow the hon. and gallant Member through the discussion into which he had entered, of the various transactions within the last few months connected with the unfortunate war between Russia and Poland. He was sure that the House would believe, that the Ministers of this country could not have witnessed that contest without the deepest regret, and that it would be most satisfactory to them to see it terminated. At the same time he was convinced the House would feel that, if he entered into a discussion of the merits of the cause of the two parties—of the circumstances out of which the war had arisen—of the conduct of other nations in reference to that contest—he should be widely departing from that line which it was his duty as a Minister of the Crown to observe. The Motion in its present form did not require the production of papers: the fitness of laying them before Parliament was made to depend upon a contingency, and he suggested to the hon. and gallant Member, that he might wait until the period arrived when the documents could be produced without injury to pending negotiations. He trusted, that the House and the hon. and gallant Member would not think, that he was wanting in respect to either, if, without going into details, he simply entreated that the Motion should be negatived, without requiring him to enter at all into the question.

was unwilling to prolong the discussion unnecessarily, but he trusted that the noble Lord would not refuse to satisfy the just expectations of those who took a strong interest in the war between Poland and Russia. The noble Lord would not deny, that the five great Powers at the Congress of Vienna (always ready enough to maintain other engagements) bound themselves by treaty to maintain the rights and privileges of the Poles. The Poles were placed under the protection of the States of Europe, and on that ground the British Government ought to show that they had a disposition at least to consider their claims. He (Mr. Hume) was sorry that this country had been a party to the stipulations at the Congress of Vienna; but as Ministers had taken such a Strong interest in the affairs of Holland and Belgium, it became them to take care that the liberty of the Poles was equally secured. He did not require the noble Lord to disclose anything that would interfere with the success of measures in progress, and he was willing to believe the British Cabinet had adopted such as were consistent with the dignity of this country; but he hoped that the noble Lord would declare his intention to maintain the treaties negociated by Lord Castlereagh in 1815. The proceedings of that noble Lord on that occasion did him more honour than perhaps any other act of his life. To him the Poles were mainly indebted for the stipulations to secure them a constitution distinct from that of Russia. He had expected, that the noble Lord would have admitted the rights of the Poles, and that they were entitled at our hands to as much justice as we had endeavoured to secure for Belgium or Holland. He had, therefore, heard with great regret the meagre, or rather the no answer of the noble Lord. He was sorry that more had not been said; and he was sure that what had fallen from the noble Lord did not shew, that the honour and character of England in respect of Poland were unsullied. He thought we were at least bound to insist on the execution of the Treaty of Vienna. He begged to enter his protest against such partiality as the British Government seemed disposed to show in protecting Belgium and resigning Poland to its fate. A nation nobly struggling for its liberties was entitled to all the benefit which latitude of construction could give, and the weight and influence of Great Britain ought to have been thrown into the scale of suffering Poland. As far as had come to his knowledge, not one of the great Powers had shown the least sympathy, or had taken any measures for maintaining good faith towards Poland. No person could be less anxious than he was to drive Ministers into a war, but they ought to interfere for the Poles as well as for the Dutch and Belgians.

hoped that nothing he had said, and nothing he had omitted to say, would lead any man to suppose that the British Government had forgotten any obligations imposed upon it by treaties, or that it was not prepared to fulfil those treaties.

said, that he had fell the utmost indignation at the apathy with which the House had listened to the statement and motion of the hon. and gallant Member. He had hoped to have witnessed more sympathy in favour of the Poles than the House had displayed, and he must say, that he felt grieved for the honour of his country. He was not accustomed to act in concert with the hon. and gallant Member, and he should not have seconded the proposition had any other Member come forward. He had full confidence in the Administration of Earl Grey, the friend and disciple of Charles James Fox, the champion of liberty all over the world; and he hoped that justice would be done to the unhappy and oppressed Poles. He had seconded the Motion, because he wished the subject should be noticed, and he might, therefore, perhaps be allowed to express a wish, that the hon. and gallant Member would withdraw his motion and not press it to a division.

was proceeding to remark that he had done his duty, however the House might think fit to neglect its duty, when he was called to order by

who remarked, that the hon. and gallant Member was doubly out of order—first, because he had not confined himself to explanation; and secondly, because he had no right to say that the rest of the House did not do its duty.

was of opinion, that this was not the precise moment when a question of such a kind could be properly introduced. He believed, however, that the sentiment in favour of a gallant and struggling people was warm and general: it was the anxious desire of all, that they should be able to destroy the foul and grinding despotism to which they had been too long subject. For his part, he devoutly hoped, that the Poles would triumph over their enemies.

was only about to say, when he was interrupted, that the apathy of the House might possibly arise from the cold and feeble manner in which he had brought forward the subject.

rose to submit an important motion to the House, connected with the measure. Every one was aware of the great importance of the colonial interests; and those who were acquainted with the nature, extent, population, and wealth of the colonies, naturally inquired whether they were not entitled to Representatives in Parliament. The population of British India amounted to 80 or 90 millions of souls, and its wealth and commerce were infinite. There were besides thirty-four colonies, including the Canadas, containing a large population and most extensive resources. He asked the House why so important a portion of the King's dominions as the colonies—important both as regards their population and their riches—should not come within the reach of so important a change as that now contemplated in the constitution of that House. It was a clear proposition, as he conceived, that every British interest ought to be represented in that House, according to its population and property; and why were not the colonies to be put in a situation in which they might participate in the power conceded to other portions of his Majesty's dominions? By the common law of the land, every Englishman who expatriated himself to one of the colonies of this country, carried with him all the rights and privileges of an Englishman, subject only to the changes which the local circumstances of the colony in which he resided rendered necessary. The internal regulations of the colonies were placed under the control of the King in Council, until the colonies assumed such a position as to enable the inhabitants to manage their own affairs. The House, however, had never divested itself of the right to manage the external interests even of those colonies which had local legislatures, or to regulate their commercial arrangements, either with the mother State, or with other countries. Every person was aware of the immense importance of the colonies, which naturally divided themselves into distinct classes. The British possessions in India formed one peculiar class, held under a peculiar tenure; the second class consisted of the Crown colonies, under the government of the King in Council, and having no local legislature; and the third and most important class consisted of those colonies which had a legislative assembly for their internal government and the management of their own affairs. He begged the House to keep in mind the distinction which he drew between those separate classes of colonies, as the proposition he was about to submit was in some degree governed by the distinction. He conceived that the Crown colonies should have the same privileges as other colonies, and have assemblies to legislate for their internal regulation. It was sufficient for him now to state, however, that this privilege was denied to nine colonies, which were known as the Crown colonies. Upper and Lower Canada, however, and fourteen of the West-India islands, had legislative assemblies to tax and regulate those colonies. This, then, was an obvious distinction, and one on which depended the difference he proposed to make in the extent of Representation. He proposed to give a more extensive Representation to those colonies which had no local legislatures, but were governed by the King in Council; and at the same time he did not intend that the colonies which had local legislatures should be wholly unrepresented in the Imperial Parliament. By the statute of the 18th Geo. 3, c. 12, the British Legislature was prevented from interfering with the internal affairs of the colonies which obtained local legislatures, but power was reserved by the same Act to the Legislature of Great Britain to make such regulations as it should deem expedient with regard to the commerce of the colonies, however much those regulations might affect the interest of one or all the colonies. It was, therefore, in the power of the British Legislature, to reduce any one or all the colonies to beggary, or greatly to promote their prosperity—a power of immense importance to the whole of the colonial interests. What he now proposed was, to give the colonies a partial Representation—such a Representation as would place a person in that House capable of stating the grievances and wants of each particular colony, and of giving information on questions which perhaps affected the existence of those colonies, as colonies of this country. In looking to the state of misgovernment into which the colonies had fallen, more appeared to have taken place from the ignorance of the House and the country, as to the real interests of the colonies, than from any design to pass laws which would produce evil consequences. It was important that the House should be placed in a situation in which the best information might be obtained with regard to the colonies, if it were only to avoid the re- currence of those evils which the British Legislature had before inadvertently and unadvisedly fallen into. He conceived that such an alteration would place England in a much better relative situation as regarded its colonies. Twenty millions nearly were now paid annually by this country for the support of its civil and military establishments (putting out of view the sum paid for the interest and management of the Debt); and of that enormous sum raised out of the taxes of this country, how large a portion arose from the expenses entailed on the country by its colonies? Either as regarded the financial view which the question presented, or the rights of the colonists as English subjects, he submitted, that this subject was most important, and deserving of the most serious consideration. Hitherto a large portion of British subjects, resident in the colonies, were deprived of any legitimate mode of laying their wants and wishes before that House. It was true, some Gentlemen connected with the colonies found their way into the House. But one of the greatest and most striking objections to the Reform Bill had been, that, when it came into operation, the same means would not exist for enabling Gentlemen connected with the colonies to obtain seats; and a large portion, if not the whole, of the colonies, would be left without any legitimate mode of conveying their wishes or wants to the Imperial Legislature. He (Mr. Hume) did not mean to say, that, even after the Bill came into operation, some Gentlemen connected with the colonies might not obtain seats for populous places in the United Kingdom; but that was a very different thing from having a member for each of the colonies, or a number of the colonies united, who would sit as the representative of the colonial population, and be ready at all times to state the wishes of his constituents, and support their interests. He was, at the same time, of opinion, that when such an important change was about being effected in the Representation of the country, it was but just and right that they should give the colonies the power of deputing Members to that House, who would be better enabled to represent their feelings and interests than persons who had, as it were, only a chance and indirect connection with them. In proposing to give a certain number of Members to the colonies, he did not want to add to the actually existing number of Members in that House; and he meant to limit his proposition to the smallest number of Members that could efficiently represent the colonies. It would be seen that by the Reform Bill proposed by his Majesty's Ministers, the number of Members would be lessened by about thirty-two, and he did not intend to ask for so many Members for the colonies. He would only ask for nineteen Representatives for the colonies, and he did hope that hon. Members would not be so niggardly as to deny that proportion to them. He had said, that he would call for nineteen Members for our colonial possessions, and he would propose to allot them in the following manner:—He would propose to give to

said, it was not his intention to trespass long upon the House. He was sure the hon. member for Middlesex would acquit him of levity or indifference to the interests of the North American colonies, when he assured the hon. Gentleman, that he had strong, indeed insuperable objections, to give a direct Representation in the British House of Commons to those colonies. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that his plan was altogether novel; but he (Mr. Labouchere) could show him that it was not so. Mr. Burke had entertained some notion of a very similar plan; but the same great authority not only abandoned the plan himself, but gave a complete answer to all similar propositions in the words "Posuit natura." It was impossible, that countries so far separated from England could be effectually represented in that House. It was impossible that Members from the colonies could discharge their double duties. They could not, at the same time, give proper attention, as part of the Representatives of the whole empire, to the general interests of the country, and also the necessary attention to their subordinate duty of promoting the interest of the colonies. It would be quite as improper that Gentlemen sent from the colonies should vote for the taxation of this country, as that the House of Commons here should regulate the local taxation of the colonies. He thought that twenty Gentlemen from the colonies, sitting in that House, would form a little knot, combining together to carry some particular measures, and totally indifferent about every other. They would be at the disposal of every Minister, and ready to enter as a body into a compact with the Minister to this effect, that, if he supported them on some colonial question, they would support him, in return, upon every other occasion. He admitted, that there was some weight in the objections which had been urged, and the complaints made on the subject of that want of Representation of the colonies in this country; but he thought much of the ground upon which those objections and complaints rested would be destroyed, were the system of colonial agency placed upon an improved footing. He was the furthest in the world from wishing that the mother country should interfere with the internal regulation of colonies; for it would be utterly impossible to find a Legislature at home, possessing the information requisite for the sound and good government of a distant colony. It had been said, that Parliament was omnipotent; he would add, that it was not omniscient; and that upon the subject of colonial policy and regulation, it had committed the greatest blunders. Having said so much upon those topics, he Should now address himself to a different branch of the subject—he meant the importance attached to their having the assistance of colonial Members in the discussion of great and important Imperial Questions—an assistance which, though he was far from undervaluing, did appear to him not to be required in that House. As long as they had assembled within those walls the best and noblest portion of the British nation, he had no apprehension but that a high sense of their duty would at all times induce them to advocate colonial interests, and leave nothing to be wished for upon that point. If it were so, as he presumed would not be doubted, he scarcely expected that they would want the assistance of colonial Members upon any other subjects. He had heard it said, that in making so great a change in the Representation of the country, as by the present Bill it was proposed to effect, measures ought to be taken for giving Representatives to the great monied and banking interests of the country, so as to grant some substitute for the virtual Representation which the Bill went to destroy. That was a subject materially connected with the question which the hon. member for Middlesex had brought under consideration, for both had reference to what was called indirect Representation. He confessed himself one of those who thought that the great monied and banking interests ought to be represented in that House, and represented without bribery or corruption. He never could be brought to think, that bribery and corruption were necessary to the Representation of the monied interests in that House. Ten of twelve Members sent in from that class, would be a very valuable addition to that House, but as to the plan of giving direct Representation to the colonies, he entertained the strongest objection to it.

said, that in the present times of wide and sweeping change, the plan of the hon. member for Middlesex was a subject of the very highest importance. The idea of giving due protection to the commerce and colonies which had raised this country to its present greatness, was worthy of the most attentive consideration. It appeared by the returns of 1827, that our colonial imports were then worth 90,000,000l., and our exports 80,000,000l.; that the ships engaged in carrying on this trade amounted of 4,580 capable of conveying 900,000 tons of merchandize, independent of those employed exclusively in the colonies themselves. They were now about to localize the Representation, and in all probability the various boroughs would in future return Gentlemen resident in their immediate vicinity, so that the class of persons connected with the colonies, who had hitherto found their way into Parliament, and who were alone able to give information relating to colonial matters, would be completely excluded. In whatever point of view the great question of our colonial policy and government came to be considered, it was impossible to doubt that the hon. member for Middlesex had done perfectly right in bringing forward the present Motion. The hon. Member had, in bringing the subject under consideration, opened their eyes to the fact, that his Majesty's Ministers did not by any means pay that attention to our colonial possessions to which they were entitled. He was perfectly ready, however, to admit, that there would be considerable difficulty in attaching to the bill a clause, having for its object to create a system of colonial Representation. But an impression had gone abroad, that the present Government did not attach so much importance to our foreign possessions as they deserved; that as this country was the great workshop of the world, it was no longer necessary to rely on colonies. If our object was to maintain, as it ought to be, our commercial and naval supremacy, the interests of our colonies could not be kept out of sight. He was afraid the spirit of the Bill now before them showed some symptoms of the kind of policy he thought so objectionable. He should wish to see Representatives given to the colonies, or some other mode devised to protect their interests, but he did not see how it was to be accomplished.

would neither go into the principle nor the details of the proposition made by his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex. It was so perfectly clear, that a clause of the nature contemplated by his hon. friend could never be introduced in the present measure, that he should not waste the time of the House by saying one word against its adoption. They had now been in Committee upon the Reform Bill for more than a month, and he professed himself unable to comprehend how his hon. friend could imagine the possibility of such a clause being now introduced. When the importance of the colonies was spoken of, he felt that he should be the last man in the House or the country to dissent from such a sentiment, but that importance did not in the slightest degree remove the difficulty of introducing such a clause as had been proposed, into a Bill, which, upon the showing of the hon. Gentleman himself, was already complicated enough. If the clause in question were attempted to be introduced, others similar to it would speedily follow, and there would be no end to the business of the Committee. The fact was, that the proposed clause had been used as an argument against the general provisions of the Bill; and whether he looked to the clause as creating increased delay, or in other points of view, he could not but regard its tendency as most hostile to the great measure of Reform. He should not, therefore, enter into the question, for doing so would be but causing to Ministers that delay which he so much deprecated. But he would put this question—Did the House suppose the clause moved could be added to the present Bill? and if so, did they think that was the fit time to propose it? He should not be induced to detain the House longer, for his object was to prevent unnecessary discussion.

thought, the subject had been treated with neglect, and that the hon. member for Middlesex was entitled to the applause of the House and the country for bringing it forward. He did not go along with the hon. member for Middlesex in many of his details respecting India—the only part of the subject with the details of which he pretended to be acquainted, but still he was thankful to the hon. Member for what he had done. Under the Reform Bill India would experience an immense loss, and it was absolutely necessary, if that empire was to be retained, that some compensation should be made. The noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had, in fact, admitted the position which he (Sir John Malcolm) had before contended for. Under the Reform Bill, India would be without Representatives, and he certainly had expected, from the admission of the noble Lord that some arrangement would have been made to do away with the danger which would result from such being the case. He had no doubt that in the Reformed House of Commons money and property would have their influence. Of course they would; but their influence would be directed in a different course to what it hitherto had been. Persons locally connected with the different places returning Members would be required as candidates; and those who had served abroad, however meritoriously or efficiently, or whatever might be their knowledge of the interests or the wants of our foreign possessions, would be without a chance of obtaining seats in the House. Such would not be a desirable nor a safe state of things. He had seen measures on the brink of being adopted by that House which would have risked the empire of this country in the East, and which had been stopped only by the timely evidence of men who spoke with authority, for they spoke upon personal experience. Under the Reform Bill there would be no such men to assist or to direct the judgment of the House, and therefore it behoved that House to consider well how it would supply the deficiency. He would not say this if the records of the admirable government in India were received as evidence; but they were not; they were doubted by many, and derided by some. The government in India required no new checks; it was already restrained by a link of checks more perfect than was imposed upon any other government. There was another point of view in which he found the Reform Bill would produce a most serious effect upon India. The Reform Bill, in his opinion, would do anything rather than give stability to the Ministry. Now, if there was one thing upon which more than another depended the preservation of our empire in India, it was upon there being a strong Government at home. Perpetual changes in the Government of this country vibrated to the very extremities of that empire, and was likely to produce the worst effects. He said this upon his own knowledge, and not upon untried theory. He wished to God he could console himself, when he looked upon the many evils of this Reform Bill, with the thought, that after it was passed the present Ministers would preserve their places. Such, however, he was convinced would not be the fact. The additional Members for London, and the additional Members for the sea-ports and the manufacturing towns, would press so hard upon the Administration that it would find it impossible not to abandon India to their views. Upon the great question of the government of India he should be prepared, at the proper time, to give his opinions. In what he said now, he did not at all mean to anticipate the discussions upon that subject. Upon it he had written books, as the noble Paymaster of the Forces had upon another subject; but he trusted he should be consistent. He had, on a former occasion, at considerable length, expressed the grounds of his objection to the Reform Bill, so far as it went to deprive the East-Indian and other colonial interests of their only access—indirect he admitted—to a share in the Representation of that House; and as their validity had not been assailed, he would give his support to any proposition like the present, the tendency of which was to extend to the colonies a share of Representation, reserving to himself the right of discussing its details. It was the more necessary that the colonies should be Represented, because, direct departmental Representation being the characteristic feature and tendency of the Bill, there would be no means for Gentlemen, acquainted with their local wants and interests, to obtain an entrance into Parliament: and while the manufacturing and democratic and aristocratic interests would be duly represented, the no less important interests of the colonies would have no direct or indirect voice in the Legislature.

said, that he was anxious to say a few words upon the present occasion. The defect in the Reform Bill, which the hon. member for Middlesex proposed to amend by this Motion, however unpopular, was the principal obstacle which prevented him from giving it his unqualified support. All parties, whatever their individual feelings might be, must agree in the one great principle, that it ought to be rendered throughout as perfect and consistent with itself as possible. The foundation on which it proceeded was, to substitute direct Representation for virtual representation and nomination. Acting upon these principles, he was desirous that the proposition of the hon. member for Middlesex, should, at least, have a fair hearing, and full consideration. He was at a loss to conceive any argument that sustained giving Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds representatives, and denied the same privileges to Canada, Jamaica, and Calcutta. It had been stated as an objection to giving direct Representatives to India, that that country was so far off as to render the plan impracticable. He was certainly surprised to hear such an argument from a supporter of the Reform Bill, for, if he remembered rightly, it had been asserted by other supporters of the Bill, that the Nabob of Arcot had once seven Members in that House. Surely, then, if one person, against law and distance, could send seven Members into that House, an immense population, with law and right in their favour, might so far overcome distance as to send one Member there in safety.—America had been much alluded to, but America did not withhold from States the privilege of sending members to the Congress on account of the distance of those states from the seat of Government. Canada was attached by allegiance to this country, but locally to the United States. If by the chances of war, or other circumstances, that dominion should be transferred, could there be a doubt, that it would be immediately allowed to send its due proportion of members to Congress. It was therefore clearly our interest that the Canadians, should have no such temptation to transfer their allegiance. By the Reform Bill many interests would be totally deprived of Representation, and it ought to be borne in mind, that among the first questions which would come before a reformed Parliament, were some most important commercial and colonial questions. The East-India Charter and the Bank Charter were to be reviewed, and how could that be well effected if all authority upon those subjects were to be excluded from that House? The country ought to know, that it was not only by the House at large that such questions were discussed, but by Committees up stairs. It was, in fact, by Committees up stairs that the most important business was transacted. He sought not the protection or the preservation of the East-India Company as a corporate body, but the maintenance of our empire in India, when he contended that that country should not be left destitute of Representatives in that House. One objection to the plan was, that the colonial Members would combine and think only of their colonial interests; but he would ask, why did it follow, that there would be any such combination? The interests of the different colonies were not the same, and therefore he thought the objection entitled to but little weight. Again, it had been said, that it would be monstrous for colonial Members to tax England; but it should be remembered, that every Member of that House must be possessed of 300l. a-year in landed property. He would not enter further into details, though he felt the importance of this subject, which he hoped would hereafter be fully considered.

said, that every day that passed strengthened the conviction in his mind, that many of the most urgent supporters of the Reform Bill were among the most strenuous opponents of many of its principles. He was glad to find that the senseless cry which had been raised against the avowed opponents of the Bill was now heard no more. Discussions and delay had been complained of, but during the last week the discussion and the delay had been promoted almost exclusively by some of the most ardent and resolute advocates of the Bill. He considered the motion of the hon. member for Middlesex as one of those striking, though indirect, acknowledgments of the justness of the complaints of those on the Opposition side of the House, with respect to the practical workings, no less than to the theoretical anomalies, of the Constitution-destroying measure of Ministers. In that light also he had viewed the emendatory propositions of two other reformers—supporters of the Bill—that of the noble member for Northamptonshire, to bestow two Members on those towns which the Bill invested with but one Member; and that of the hon. member for the city of Oxford with respect to the noble Lord's departmental county divisions, each, like the present, an important alteration of the Bill; each also growing out of the obvious defects of that Bill; and each, as he had said, demonstrating the correctness of the views of those defects taken by the Members on the Opposition side of the House. On the first occasion the noble Lord, the member for Northamptonshire, attacked an important principle of the Bill; on the second occasion the hon. member for Oxford, another zealous supporter of the Bill, attacked another important principle of the Bill; and now the hon. member for Middlesex came forward and moved an instruction which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, if carried, would never let the Bill out of Committee at all. But respecting the subject upon which the instruction before the House went, he must say, that if the Bill was not to be discussed and disposed of in a petty, paltry, and disgraceful manner, but to be entertained with that enlarged feeling, and judgment, and philosophy, which an entire, complete, and radical subversion of the Constitution ought to command, then the House was bound to give it the most serious and the most dispassionate consideration. It would be found to be as entire, and complete, and radical a change in the Bill as could well be devised even by an anti-reformer; and yet it was one so consistent with itself, and with the necessity which the Bill would create for direct colonial Representation, that he saw not how a consistent reformer could well withhold from it his support. The hon. member for Taunton had asked, how could they think of bringing colonial Members into that House? Why, the answer to that was, that there had been Members for the colonies already indirectly returned to the House, and had acted virtually and efficiently as the Representatives of colonial interests. And what he wished to impress upon the House was, that by the new Reform Bill such Members would in future be excluded from the House, because it closed up for ever those avenues of indirect but virtual Representation. Though the arguments which the hon. member for Middlesex had adduced in its favour, had not convinced him so as to command his vote, they had convinced him more and more of the monstrous injustice of the Bill itself, which it was intended to make perfect. That Bill went to destroy the only chance the colonies had of Representation—indirect it was true—in that House. The hon. Member's arguments clearly established a case of the necessity of some colonial Representation; therefore the hon. Member's arguments were arguments a fortiori against the principle of the Bill, which went to destroy what they were intended to effect—colonial Representation. An hon. Member had quoted Mr. Burke as opposed to a proposition like that then before the House; but he had forgotten to add, what was essential to the fairness and completeness of the argument, that Mr. Burke's objections to the proposition were wholly founded on his dislike to any important change in the features of the Constitution as it was in his time. Had that illustrious statesman lived in our Constitution destroying days, his objection would be removed by the changes having been effected in spite of him, and in the teeth of justice, policy, and reason. He could not for a moment be cited as an authority against the present proposition. What, in fact, did Mr. Burke state? Why, according to the abstract principle upon which the House of Commons was then constituted, the colonies ought to have Representatives, but practically he felt it a difficulty not to be overcome. But Mr. Burke was speaking of the existing Constitution of the country. And if the Constitution was to be torn up in the way the Bill contemplated, the difficulty in having Representatives for the colonies, under the new Constitution, was not insuperable. Mr. Burke's objection was, because it was contrary to existing things. But there was no longer any thing in such an objection, because the Bill had removed the cause of it. What was done with the colonies, he begged to inquire? Were they not taxed? Certainly not in the same way that the House of Commons had attempted to tax America. Nevertheless, he would contend that the colonies were subject to taxation. The trade was regulated, the import and export duties were imposed, by the Legislature. It might not be pleasant to awaken a reminiscence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, otherwise he would ask the noble Lord, what was the regulation of duty on American timber and Cape wine, but a species of taxation on the colonies? It was true such duties did not amount to a tax, and were not collected abroad; but in substance it came to the same thing, for they were raised at home. At all events it was undeniable, that the Government or Parliament at home exercised legislative powers over the colonies; and in future, if the new Reform Bill passed into a law, they (the colonists) would have no Representatives, either directly or indirectly, in the House. They were told, indeed, that direct representation was not wanting to the colonies, inasmuch as the King and Council, with the aid of the colonial legislatures, provided for their internal wants, while their external relations were properly considered by Parliament in its imperial capacity. The fallacy of this half-true, half-false assertion, was, that it induced them to overlook the very important fact, that under the nominal head of "external" relations of the colonies, that House took upon itself to lay down the amount of all import and export duties, and of all other commercial taxes bearing directly upon the internal condition and welfare of the colonies, and concerning which only those acquainted with their local wants and interests could properly legislate. In fact, the more the question was considered, the more evident would appear the injustice of depriving the colonies of their only means of access to that House, and the more incumbent would it be on them to provide some other mode of Representation. By the Bill, the number of that House would be reduced thirty-three, and of these it was important to bear in mind, that six or seven belonged to the colonial interest, that is, six or seven of the indirect Representatives of the colonies would be completely shut out by the present Bill. And was not India, with its 120,000,000 of British subjects, and our North American and West Indian colonies, as well entitled to Representatives as Brighthelmston or Cheltenham with its chalybeate waters, or even as the important city of Greenwich? Would not the Representatives of the important interests of the great colonies be as well entitled to take a share in the discussions of the Legislature as Gentlemen whose chief business it would be to eat white bait and flounders at Greenwich, and get themselves shampooed and chalybeated at Brighton and Cheltenham? And yet it should seem, from the miserable ribald trash of legislation adopted by Ministers, that these comparatively miserable towns were more entitled to Representatives than great colonial empires—100,000 times more important, whether wealth, population, or commerce were considered. Fortunately, however, as the present motion showed, symptoms of mildew mould began to manifest themselves; the new Constitution fabric was crumbling to pieces in the hands of its own sage architects. The veriest advocates of the Bill—the perfect Bill—the final Bill—were beginning to open their eyes to its glaring deformities. They saw that each page was a page of levity and folly—a page of injustice and outrage against the most sacred principles of the Constitution. How different was the lesson which history read to those who looked upon its pages with the eye of philosophy! The Romans, for example. That great people always extended to their conquests the political privileges of the mother country, and thereby attached their colonies by the ties of a common political constitution; and so it should be with respect to our colonies. The hon. member for Taunton appeared to be under apprehensions that there would be coalitions formed between the Members for the various colonies, which would be likely to produce undesirable results in the British House of Commons. But he did not see why it was at all likely that such coalitions should take place. He saw no point of coalition between the sugar of the West Indies and the indigo of the East Indies, or between the fir timber that was grown in Canada, and the teak timber that was grown on the banks of the Ganges. It was true, that the giving Members to the colonies would not be consonant with the principle of the Bill, and would, therefore, not be acceptable to the Bill-men; but he cared neither for the Bill, nor the Bill-men. It would be consonant with the principles of the Constitution, after the former means by which the colonial interests were represented in that House was destroyed, and that was enough for him. The real question was, whether the motion was agreeable to those principles of eternal justice to which the House was bound to attend in legislating for the great, and opulent, and extensive colonies of this country. He congratulated the hon. member for Middlesex upon the motion which he had made that evening—he congratulated him, too, upon his speech, for it was without question the best speech which the hon. member for Middlesex had ever made within the walls of Parliament. He thought, however, that the hon. Member would fail in carrying his motion, notwithstanding his excellent speech. He would beg leave, however, to remind the hon. Member, that there was to be a third reading of this Bill; and if the hon. Member was sincere, as he had no doubt that the hon. Member was, in his proposition, he would then have an opportunity of renewing it with better hopes of success. If the hon. Member could not carry it then, perhaps he would vote against the third reading of the Bill, and would do a good office to his country by defeating it. It might be true that it might be found difficult to elect Members for the colonies on the 10l. system which had been introduced into the Bill; but though that 10l. system had been represented to be so admirable, he still did not see why another almost as admirable might not be found by which colonial Representatives might be elected. He begged to recommend this consideration to the framers of this Bill—this unaltered and unalterable Bill—the first stereotype of which had long been extinct, and had been replaced by a second unaltered and unalterable Bill. Indeed, this unaltered and unalterable Bill had been stereotyped and re-stereotyped, and re-re-stereotyped, until the founder who had cast the types scarcely knew whether a plate of the original stereotype was left standing. The hon. member for Middlesex was bound by his vote as well as by his speech to protect the colonists from injustice. That injustice had been demonstrated by the hon. Member, not by the use of warm words, but of strong arguments—by recourse to figures and round numbers; for who could call it any thing but injustice to prevent twice sixty millions of fellow-subjects in India from having a voice in the British Parliament? and such must unavoidably be the result of the Reform Bill. Another objection made to the proposition of the hon. Member was, that Members returned for colonies would not have time to return to their constituents in the intervals between a dissolution and meetings of Parliament. That difficulty he thought would be remedied by electing such Members for six or seven years; and to this Whigs could have no objection, as they had been formerly the advocates of long Parliaments. This, therefore, could not be to the Whigs an uncongenial measure. Again, he would say, that if any plan could be devised for remedying the injustice done to the colonists, it was no excuse, that the Bill could not be changed, for already, in many instances, had this unalterable Bill gone through several alterations. There might, it was true, be great difficulty in managing the elections of Members abroad on the principles adopted in England; but in such colonies as had Legislatures, it would be easy to that body to send over one of themselves as a delegate, and thereby avoid the inconvenience of a popular election. He did not mention this with any view of stating, that he was determined to support the motion, but to shew, that though he thought there were difficulties, they might not, on inquiry, be found to be insurmountable. He wished it to be understood, that he was not devising any plan to obviate any of the evils arising out of this new Constitution. That was the business of Ministers, who had, in this instance, increased the difficulties of the colonists. Their crude and ill-considered Bill would exclude from the House such colonists or their friends as got into Parliament through the means of nomination-boroughs, and it was their bounden duty to secure their return in some other way. He wished to pay a compliment to the hon. member for Middlesex. The hon. Member had argued so well for delegates electing a Representative to that House, and in his argument had so ably defended the present scheme of Scotch Representation, that he could not help congratulating the House upon the manner in which the latent member for Montrose had broken through the exterior covering of the hon. member for Middlesex. From his exhibition of that evening, he did hope that when the hon. member for Middlesex put on his philibegs, and quitting the English, armed himself for the Scotch Bill, he would recollect the excellent dissertation with which he had that evening favoured the House on the merits of a delegated Representation. A dissertation more deserving the attention of Government, more pregnant with facts, more diversified with figures, more instructive from its peculiarities of enumeration, had never been opened to the House, than that of the hon. member for Middlesex. They might now, indeed, say, that they had philosophy on their side. They had been told to watch the signs of the times. He had taken the advice which had been so gratuitously and disinterestedly given them; he had watched the signs of the times, and he must say, that the signs of the times for the last four or five days had not been most propitious either to the Bill or to the Bill-men. They had been taunted by laymen, ay, and by Aldermen, too; they had been told to watch the times—not to be obstinate—not to make speeches—not to raise difficulties—not to create doubts, but to follow the signs of the times, and to agree to the Bill. He repeated, that he had watched the signs of the times. He saw that the opinion of the country was changed, and that the current was running the contrary way to that in which for some time past it had been running. If the signs of the times were to guide his opinion—which they had not, for his opinion against this Bill was as strong now as it ever had been when the signs were the contrary way—if, he repeated, the signs of the times were to guide his opinion, he could no longer be called either factious, or uncivil, or refractory. But as he had not truckled to the signs of the times when he found them opposite to his views, he saw no reason why he should not support them when he found the signs of the times going along with him.

said, he felt grateful to the hon. member for Middlesex for having awakened attention to so important a subject as the state of the colonial Repre- sentation, or rather non-representation, as it was to be under the new Bill; and his gratitude was not to be lessened by the circumstance of the observations having come from that quarter whence he had least reason to expect them. It was now made manifest, that, in future, the interests of the colonists would not find Representatives in Parliament, and he begged the House to consider whether such interests ought to be thus deserted. In the principles laid down by the hon. member for Middlesex he coincided, but would not pledge himself to support the details of the proposed measure. On one point, he thought there could be no doubt, namely, the absolute necessity of having the colonies represented in Parliament; but that Representation should, as was stated, be left to the consideration of external legislation, and the internal legislation of the colonies would always be best managed by being left to their own local governments. This was a point on which he wished to be distinctly understood. It was this external legislation which added, and in no small degree, to the Exchequer of England, and, to a great extent, regulated the trade and property of the colonies, and which never ought to be attempted, except in the presence of, and with the aid of, those who knew what was due to the interests of those places, and in supporting those, he would say, that the best interests of England would be best upheld. It had been said, that direct colonial Representation was impracticable, and ought not to be attempted, and Mr. Burke had been referred to in support of those opinions; but he begged to remind the House of the conduct of the Government at a period subsequent to that alluded to. In the year 1779, when Lord Carlisle and Mr. Eden, as Commissioners, had been sent out to North America, to negociate with those colonies, then in a state of revolt, one of the propositions made to them to return to an allegiance to Great Britain was, that they should be allowed to have Representatives in Parliament. This circumstance, when under consideration afterwards in the House of Commons, was not even censured, so that he might fairly infer, that the proposition was not considered improper even by Parliament. The proposition made by the Commissioners, and in a manner approved of by Parliament, was this—"To perpetuate our union, by a reciprocal deputation of an agent or agents from the different States, who shall have the privilege of a seat and a voice in the Parliament of Great Britain, or if sent from Britain, to have, in that case, a seat and a voice in the Assemblies of the different States to which they may be deputed respectively in order to attend to the several interests of those by whom they are deputed."^* It could not, therefore, be now said, that to give the colonies Representatives in Parliament was a new proposition, or unfit to be entertained. Another objection was, that if the colonies were allowed Representatives, such Representatives would combine into a phalanx, and form a party that might be inconvenient, if not dangerous. But in answer to this, he asked, whether, in the whole history of the colonies, there was a single instance of a coalition between the Members who were known to represent their several and separate interests. On the contrary, it was to him a matter of regret that they had been uniformly divided, and to this, in a, great degree, he attributed the neglect of colonial interests. He wished the House not to look at this as a colonial question; it was one deeply affecting the revenue, the commerce, and the manufactures of the British empire. The mere amount of revenue derived from the colonies, though that amounted to millions, was one of minor consequence compared to the benefits which England derived to her commerce, and more particularly to manufactures, from her colonial possessions. If these were abandoned or injured, what would become of the manufacturers of England? Would the foreigner replace the colonist in his tastes or demands for English goods? In short, it was to her colonial possessions that England owed the greater part of her wealth and splendor, aye, and of her greatness, and even her security. It was the colonists who spent their accumulated wealth in England, and to none had they ever yielded in loyalty and attachment to the Throne.

felt some consolation from observing that, though the colonial interests were thrown aside by the Bill, they were not neglected in other quarters; and although, on the present occasion, the subject of the Representation of our vast colonial possessions might not receive so much attention as it deserved, yet a

^* Hansard's Parl. Hist. vol. xx. p. 848.

time must come when it would be further debated, and better considered. No one could doubt, if the present absurd measure of Reform was carried, that our fellow-subjects in the East and West Indies would be cut off from all kind of Representation. If he could find any fault with the speech of the hon. member for Middlesex, it was its extreme moderation, for he had only asked to have four Members allowed for a population of 100,000,000 of fellow-subjects in India. Why, if the population principle was applied there, then would India have four times as many Members as England. He did not mention this circumstance as wishing to encourage any such notion, but to shew that the number asked by the hon. Member was as small as could be thought of, and, on leaving them without Representatives, he thought a great injustice had been done to a vast and important portion of British possessions.

said, that he felt extremely glad to find such attention had been paid by the House to the proposal of the hon. member for Middlesex, and also that the important observations with which the hon. Member had introduced his Motion, had received so full a consideration. It had certainly appeared to him, during the long Debates which had taken place on the Reform Bill, that the House had altogether forgotten, that the British empire did not entirely consist of the immediate islands of Great Britain and Ireland, but that it partly consisted of some highly important and valuable foreign possessions in the East and West Indies, and other parts of the globe. Of the importance of these possessions, he was always, however, fully impressed; and he must take leave to express the satisfaction with which he had heard the hon. member for Middlesex express his opinions, as he had feared, from the general tenor of that hon. Member's arguments in the House, that he did not entertain any high estimate of the value of the colonies. It had been clearly and incontrovertibly shown by that hon. Member, and by the hon. member for Launceston (Sir James Malcolm), that the virtual Representation at present enjoyed in that House, under the present mode of election, by the colonists, would be utterly and completely taken away from them by the measure now undergoing consideration. He could bear testimony to the advantages they derived from this species of Representation, because, while in office, he could not but observe the warm interest which certain Members took in colonial affairs, and he agreed with the opinions expressed, that when the Reform Bill had passed into a law, the House would be found to be composed entirely of Members who would be returned to support local interests alone, thus depriving the colonists entirely of that virtual Representation which had been found to be so beneficial to them. He rose, therefore, merely to express his conviction, that Ministers or the House would be under the necessity, either of adopting the plans of the hon. member for Middlesex, or some modification of them; or of taking the idea suggested by the hon. member for Taunton into their serious consideration, with a view to remedy the great and important evil which would result to the colonists. The noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, opposite, on various occasions, when hon. Members, who were otherwise friendly to the Bill, had got up to make any amendment, or to suggest any improvement in its details, had observed, that such a proceeding evinced a desire on their part to defeat the Bill. Now, he would not admit this to be the fact with respect to the proposal before the House, for, both the hon. members for Middlesex and Taunton were direct and warm supporters of the Bill, and not its enemies. It was surely the duty of Ministers, if the Bill must pass into a law, to endeavour to make it as beneficial as possible to the country; and he would venture to predict, that when all those places which were to be furnished with Representatives had received their allotted portion of influence in that House, it would be found that the Bill, so far from giving such Representatives to the colonies as their vast and complicated interests required, would actually deprive many of them, and those, too, some of our most important colonial interests, of the virtual Representation they now enjoyed.

never attributed to the hon. member for Middlesex any device or intention to defeat the Reform Bill, but simply expressed his opinion, that by bringing forward his Motion on the present occasion, the delay thereby created was hostile to the progress of the Bill.

said, in explanation, that he had expressed his great regret for disturbing the arrangement of the night when he had brought forward his Motion; but, at the same time, he had expressed his conviction that the condition to which the colonies would be reduced, had rendered the adoption of such a course imperative on him. He, therefore, claimed a right to have his own explanation taken as to his reasons impressing his Motion, and not to have his conduct attributed to a hostile feeling to the Bill. He, for his part, was satisfied that his suggestion might either be adopted or modified by Ministers, so as to become of advantageous application to the mother country and her colonies, and so, also, as to improve the Reform Bill, and to render it more complete.

begged to propose to add the words "of the shire" to the words "one Knight," and to strike out the whole of the proviso attached to the Clause, thus making the Member for the Isle of Wight a county Member, and leaving the non-resident freeholders of Newport in the same situation in which other non-resident freeholders would be placed by the general clause, the eighteenth, of this Bill.

concurred with the noble Lord in the alteration proposed in the wording of this clause, but he proposed to move, as an Amendment, that the blank should be filled up with the word "two,'' giving two Representatives instead of one. He had given notice of this Amendment before. The inhabitants of the Isle of Wight had petitioned for a second Member, as they would be considerable losers by the operation of the Reform Bill as now framed. They would lose four borough Members, and their share in choosing a second county Member; for they had heretofore enjoyed a voice in the return of two Members, as part of the county of Southampton. They were, in fact, the only freeholders in England who would be partly disfranchised by the Bill. The clause presented a singular anomaly in it, for under the clause immediately preceding it, the Committee had given a third Member to seven counties without dividing them, and consequently given to the electors an additional vote. The population had, moreover, increased 4,000 since the returns of 1821, and now amounted to not less than 35,000 persons. He had reason to believe, that the county constituency of the Island, under the Bill, would exceed 2,000 freeholders, and he would confidently appeal to the hon. Members for the county of Southampton, whether a more enlightened or independent constituency than the freeholders of the Isle of Wight, could anywhere be found. The injustice done to the Isle of Wight by this clause would be apparent, when he remarked, that the county of Rutland, with a population of about 18,500 persons, was to return two Members; they had also given two Members to the parishes of Sunderland, Bishop Wearmouth, and Monk-Wearmouth, the total of whose present population did not much exceed 43,000. He must conclude by observing, that Newport, a borough in the Island, was to have two Members, and in common fairness, the agriculturists were entitled to at least as many.

had also a petition from the Isle of Wight to present for additional Members. In his opinion, the Isle of Wight was better entitled to an additional Member than many places to which that privilege had been granted.

thought the parties concerned had no reason to complain, and could not admit, that they would be worse off, in consequence of the operation of this Bill, than they had been hitherto. On the contrary, in his opinion, the constituency, which he knew to be highly respectable, must be considerable gainers, for they would henceforth return one Member exclusively for themselves, whereas at present they had merely a voice in returning two for the county of Southampton, including the Island itself. Considering the space and the population, he thought that the Island would be adequately represented by one Member.

could by no means agree to the Amendment of the hon. member for Oxford. On the contrary, he did not understand why the Isle of Wight, which was an integral part of the county of Hants, was to have a separate Member at all. The proposal appeared to him nothing more than giving a fifth Member to that county. Other counties exceeded it in population and wealth, and he called upon the noble Lord to explain upon what principle this favour was shewn. If they took the county of Lincoln for instance, it was divided into three different parts known by as many names. Devonshire again was much larger and more wealthy than Hampshire, and even the great county of York itself was to have but six Members, and no other county, although several contained nearly double the population of Hampshire, was to have more than four, while it was, in effect, to have five. The reason assigned for this partiality was, that two of the boroughs in the Isle of Wight were to be disfranchised; but the same thing had been done in other counties. If they took the total number of Members returned for that county the anomaly would be more glaring. Hampshire, in all, was to have eighteen Representatives, while Suffolk would retain but nine. The Isle of Wight, would in all probability, be a nomination county, for if he were correctly informed, one influence was almost predominant there. It was wonderful that the noble Lord should have overlooked the claims of the Isle of Man, which had a population of 40,000, and give a Member to the Isle of Wight, with a less number of people. If their object was to increase the Representatives for places on the principle of population, he should wish them to explain the causes of this preference.

said, the Isle of Wight had always been considered a distinct and separate district, in the Statute-book, from the county of Southampton, and provisions had been made therein to have the place of polling removed nearer to the Island. This circumstance also would afford some reason for the separation which was justified on other accounts. He could assure hon. Members who represented the agricultural interests, no place was more likely to return respectable Members of that class than the Isle of Wight.

said, the argument of the hon. Member who had just spoken, only proved the necessity of having separate places for the freeholders of the Island to poll, not to give them an additional and separate Member. It appeared that by this Bill some places were to be more favourably dealt with than others. Most of the English counties were to have additional Representatives, and even that privilege was extended to some of the Welsh counties, but the Scotch counties, with an immense population, were to see the number of their representatives reduced on the whole. On these grounds he most decidedly opposed the Amendment.

said, he was anxious to call the attention of the House to the argument of the hon. Baronet (Sir George Clerk), who had considered the Isle of Man as well entitled to Representatives as the Isle of Wight. There was, however, this essential difference between the two Islands—this House taxed the latter, but not the former, and that was a good ground for treating differently their claims for Representation. He should vote in favour of the Amendment, not that he thought the Isle of Wight should have an additional Representative on its own account, or for its own benefit alone, but for the benefit of the community at large. He thought the remark of the hon. member for Portsmouth (Mr. Bonham Carter), was a sufficient reason for considering it a separate district.

should be happy to concur in any proposition for giving two Members to each of the large counties of Scotland, but he was surprised how any Gentleman could vote for such a motion who had supported General Gascoyne's motion last Parliament, which would have deprived Scotland of any additional Representatives.

deprecated any allusions to the former Parliament, and stated, that though he had voted for General Gascoyne's motion, he thought the Legislature might give additional Representatives to Scotland without diminishing the number for England.

said, in reply to the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Clerk), who had inquired why the Isle of Wight was to have a separate Member, he must beg to inform him, the grounds were in a great degree geographical; it was totally separated from Hampshire, and they took that county by itself, and found that, independent of the Island, it had so large a population as to entitle it to additional Representatives, by the same principle on which additional Members had been given to other counties. Another objection had been taken, that the Island would become a nomination county. It was true there were two gentlemen who had each a very large property in the Island, but there were many other considerable proprietors who were fully equal to counteract their influence.

considered this another of the anomalies which began to weary the House. The noble Lord had said, that, having divided the county of Southampton, by taking off the Isle of Wight, that county was still worthy of having four Members. Would the Committee believe there were fourteen counties, larger than Southampton—and possessing a much larger population—which had only four Members, and yet Southampton, with the Member for the Isle of Wight, would have five? Why did not the noble Lord turn his attention in the same manner to the county of Kent, and give the Isle of Thanet a Member, which was quite equal, in its population and wealth, to the Isle of Wight? If there was any consistency whatever in the rule laid down by the noble Lord, Kent ought to have at least ten Members. He had no desire to confine or limit the franchise, but he must say, the great counties of Kent, Somerset, and Lancaster, would be unfairly dealt with, if the noble Lord gave five Members to Southampton. It was said to be of very little consequence to the general Representation, whether a county had four or five Members. If additional Members were of no advantage to the places that were to have them, why was this partiality shown, but for some purposes which were not apparent?

begged to refer the noble Lord (Lord Milton) who had said the Isle of Man was not taxed by this House, to an Act passed in 1825, in which there was a schedule of duties on every article imported into the Isle of Man. Not only did the House therein assume this right of charging duties upon all importations, but the inhabitants depended on the Treasury for the exercise of some of their privileges. He considered the Isle of Wight the Gateshead of the county of Southampton, and he did not think it possible that any satisfactory reasons could be given for allotting it a distinct Representative.

was perfectly well aware of the Act quoted, but the island was not taxed by the House internally, although the House had interfered with the external duties, for the purposes of placing the trade of the island under proper regulations.

defended the Bill, and contended, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) who had pointed out anomalies, was himself anomalous. The Ministers did not pretend to cure all anomalies, but to remedy some of the most glaring of those in existence. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman had previously been opposed to excess of Representation in manufacturing districts in the North; and when Representation was given to the Isle of Wight, standing in the South, with an agricultural population, the right hon. Gentleman still urged his objection, and said, the county of Southampton was much lower in the list of population than several counties which did not receive a fifth Member. When the Isle of Wight was separated from the county of Southampton, its population would still amount to 250,000, which was much larger than the two counties which immediately followed it, and were each to have four Members. He thought, therefore, that to give an additional Member to the Isle of Wight, was, upon every ground, a most proper distinction. The island, in many respects, had a separate jurisdiction, and was totally separated from the county, unlike the Isle of Thanet, which was only nominally separated from the county of Kent.

said, the hon. Baronet had declared, that it never had been the intention of Ministers to cure anomalies; but was that any reason why they should have committed the most gross anomalies themselves? What he objected to was, a departure from the principle of the Bill, in giving five Members to a county, where there was no reason for so doing. He had put this forward as one of their anomalies, and contrary to their own principles. Had not the hon. Baronet heard him enumerate several counties with a much larger agricultural population than Southampton, which had not been so favourably dealt with, and which, as he had already said, and continued to say, had much greater claims to additional Representation, if the object of Ministers was, to increase the number of rural Representatives?

could not understand why the county of Southampton should have five Members, when the great county of York, with 1,500,000 inhabitants, was to have only six. He deprecated, too, the principle of dividing the Isle of Wight from Southampton, when it had the same jurisdiction, and was, in every respect, a part of the county. The whole plan was at variance with the principle of the Bill, and he had heard no reason from the noble Lord in support of it.

decidedly objected to give a Member to the Isle of Wight, while large counties were left comparatively unrepresented; and he especially objected against places being separated, which had been united for so many years. It would have the effect of destroying advantages, and severing well-understood interests. He feared, notwithstanding all that had been said, that the island would become a nomination county, for he remembered when the county of Southampton itself was subject to one predominant interest, the persons who swayed in it, being landed proprietors of the Isle of Wight.

considered the Isle of Wight quite independent and indifferent about two Members. An influential Gentleman in that island had declared to him, that the inhabitants would be satisfied with one Member.

asked, who appointed the Sheriff of the Isle of Wight?

said, the Governor of the island.

asked, was he a Military Officer, under the influence of the Crown? and did he appoint the Sheriff?

observed, that the Governor was not a military officer.

said, it was well known the county of Southampton, through the means of the dock-yards, was a mere Government borough. He did not believe the Isle of Wight would be under the same influence, and he, therefore, gave his consent to its having one Member; but he could not agree that it should have two Members, when Bolton was to have but one. He begged, however, to be allowed to say a very few words on the subject of the abuse of those Members who presumed to say, that the Bill was not all perfection. He, among others, had been denounced as an enemy of all Reform, because he merely ventured to hint that the Bill might be much improved, and that it would not give universal satisfaction. He was told, that the people demanded the whole Bill, and nothing else would they consent to have; and yet, at that very moment, some of those who were the loudest in shouting for the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, were moving Amendments which were directed against the Bill. He repeated, that, according to the creed of the opposite party, all who did not take the Bill as it was presented to them by the noble Lord, were to be considered enemies of Reform, and yet had the member for Middlesex this evening moved an Amendment, and many other thick and thin supporters of the Bill were to follow with their Amendments. He had two of his own, of which he had given notice at the very earliest moment. He repeated, however, that according to the doctrine of the hon. Members opposite, all who attempted to amend the Bill were its enemies. He had one word to add on the subject of the newspapers. He must speak plainly, and call things by their names. He had not yet acquired the parliamentary tactics of adverting to the Press under the name of "the usual sources of information." He wished to direct their attention to the course pursued by the Press, and particularly by The Times. That Paper denounced every man who presumed to find fault with a single word of the Bill, as an enemy to his country. It had so denounced him. But he would ask them to look at The Times now. He would ask them to look at The Times of that morning, and see how it was laying it on Ministers about the division of the counties. He would ask them to see how The Times was calling on the country almost to rise in arms against one part of that Bill, the whole of which they had previously called on every man to accept without hesitation, under the pain of being considered an enemy of his country. The Times called on the counties to meet and petition for the purpose of putting a stop to that atrocious part of the measure, the division of counties. But he could tell The Times, the power of the Bill-men, as they were called by the hon. and learned Member (Sir Charles Wetherell), was gone by. The day for obeying their call for county meetings was gone. They had endeavoured to get up a Common Hall, but they failed; and he would tell them why: they could not get a Common Hall to suit their purpose; and if they were to attempt to get up county meetings, they would meet with the same disappointment. The day was gone by for that. The Times, however, held out threats to the Members of that House, and he, for one, was for bringing the writers of these attacks to the bar. In The Times of that day there was a general attack on the House, as well as on individuals, and he should like either to have some of the gentlemen who wrote these attacks, or the ladies, brought up to the bar to answer for them.

rose to order. He wished to ask if there was any question before the House connected with The Times newspaper, and if the hon. Member was in order in pursuing his present course of argument?

as he was thus called on to give his opinion, felt bound to say, that he did not think the hon. Member confined himself, as he ought to do, to the question before the Committee, and therefore, in his opinion, the hon. Member was out of order.

proceeded: If every Member, in the course of the debates, were forced to confine himself, as the Chairman said, to the question before the Committee, he knew not the man who would be in order. He was speaking of the newspapers at the time he was interrupted. The Press made it a practice at the present moment to abuse the House, and to misrepresent and vilify its Members. In one part of that day's Times they had alluded to the hon. member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp) by name; and, what was the most extraordinary and most infamous part of the business, they had coupled the member for Lincoln and him together. They had made a gross attack on the member for Lincoln by name, and then they put him and that Member to run as a couple. He cared not what they said, but he would state it broadly and openly, that if the debates on the Bill had been carried on with closed doors, the country would have understood the Bill better than it now did, after the gross and scandalous misrepresentation of their proceedings which had appeared in the papers. The people would have read the Bill, and judged for themselves, without being prejudiced by the scandalous misrepresentations contained in the reports of the Press. He knew he should be libelled and calumniated for this, but he cared not for attacks of that kind. He was determined to do his duty, in spite of all the hostility with which he might be assailed. With respect to the motion before the Committee, an hon. Member had allowed that Hampshire was under Government influence in time of war, but it was said, in time of peace that influence was diminished; but he believed by this Bill it would be done away. The dock-yard men, however, would have no votes for the Isle of Wight, and therefore he should support the clause. The Isle of Wight was not properly represented, and he would readily vote for its having one Member.

in reply to the assertion of the member for Preston, that Hampshire would be a Government borough, said, that undoubtedly the Government, through the means of the dock-yards, had great influence in time of war, but it had little or none in time of peace, and through the operation of the Bill, would now lose it altogether at any time.

declared, that he was totally indifferent as to the treatment the Press gave him. He did not understand what reasons they had for accusing him and the hon. member for Preston with running in couples, unless it was, that he intended to vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Oxford, and he presumed, from what the hon. member for Preston had said, he proposed to do the same, but he did not give the Press credit for so much prescience as to enable its conductors to foresee this. The newspapers had given publication to the attack made upon him by a right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) the other night, when that Minister had thought proper to call him a "driver"—but they had not given a word—not touched upon an atom of the lashing which he had found it necessary to inflict upon the right hon. Baronet, and the rest of his Majesty's Ministers in reply. As for the imputation of having hunted in couples, he had only to say, that he was no greyhound, and it would not be easy to find him hunting in couples with his Majesty's Ministers. He agreed with the hon. member for Preston, that if the newspapers had given faithful reports of what had passed in that House, the impression upon the public mind would have been very different from what it was. But The Times might do its best. The editor might write to eternity without being able to prevent the inevitable re-action.

said, the county of Southampton had certainly been greatly under the influence of Government, and this Bill would not remedy the evil if Portsmouth was thrown in, either on one side or the other. He wished to ascertain who was to be the returning officer for the island. If he was the Governor, that would be a violation of the principle of the Bill, which was said to go upon the overthrow of corrupt influence, but in this case they were to have the direct servant of Government as the returning officer.

said, the Isle of Wight, with respect to a Sheriff, was in the same situation as the county of Westmorland. In one the Governor was Sheriff, and appointed his deputy, as a noble Lord did in Westmorland.

denied, that the Isle of Wight was likely to become either a nomination-borough, or under the influence of Government, as had been represented by the hon. member for Edinburgh, and other hon. Members. He begged to assure them, there was no paramount influence in the island, and that it would return most independent Representatives. One hon. Member had asserted, that the inhabitants were perfectly satisfied with the one Member allotted to them, but in opposition to that assertion he must ask the hon. Member, had he seen a petition presented to the House, signed by four Baronets, and many other respectable individuals for two Members?

said, the present Governor held his place by patent. Upon his decease, how was the office to be filled up? And if the situation of Governor and Sheriff were to be kept distinct, how was the latter officer to be appointed?

said, the Governor and Sheriff would in that event become distinct officers, and the Sheriff would be appointed in a similar manner to other Sheriffs.

said, he had been attacked by the member for Preston, with not being a sincere reformer; the best answer to that charge was the manner in which he had had the honour to be returned to Parliament by the freeholders of Somersetshire. But in avowing himself to be a determined and staunch adherent of Reform, he did not consider himself on that account one of those who were pledged to support Ministers in every vote he might give.

said, he did not allude to the hon. Member, whom he knew for twenty-five years to be a consistent and zealous reformer, and his constituents were also well aware of that fact, or they would not have so handsomely returned him to the most important Parliament which had ever existed.

said, he was not satisfied that the Governor of the Isle of Wight was a purely civil officer.

said, neither the present Governor nor his predecessor had ever been a military man.

rose to order. Some hon. Member on the opposite side interrupted the hon. and learned Gentleman by making a noise with a stick or key, or something of the kind. Were such proceedings to be tolerated in a company of Gentlemen? If they were continued, he should move an adjournment.

thought the Committee should have a copy of the patent laid on the Table, before if decided. The present Governor might be a civilian, but they had no security that the next might not be a military officer.

always understood the offices of Governor and Sheriff were distinct, and he believed a gentleman in Newport held the latter office. Although he retained his opinions, yet, as he observed the sense of the Committee was against him he would not trouble them to divide at that late hour.

wished to see the patent appointing the Governor before they proceeded further.

said, when the present patent expired, the office would be without salary. The Governor's office was similar to that of Lord-lieutenant of the county.

said, the Lord-lieutenant of a county was a military officer, and he objected to proceeding further till they had the patent.

also considered it essential, from the vague answers of Ministers, that they should actually know who was to be the returning officer under the Bill.