said, that he had to present a Petition, signed by 780 Protestants of Ireland, against the Grant to the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth. The petitioners stated, that the College had been instituted to accomplish certain objects, but that the experiment had entirely failed. One of these objects was, by educating respectable men for the priesthood, at home, to prevent them from coming within the scope of foreign influence, which might cause them to entertain feelings hostile to the institutions of the country. This, however, had not been effected. The individuals brought up at the College being only persons of inferior rank. The petitioners deprecated the system of bringing up the lowest of the people to the clerical profession; and that such was the case at Maynooth, they proved from the highest authority—that of a report which had been laid on the Table of the House. From that report it appeared, that of 205 individuals in the College, six were the sons of merchants, one of an apothecary, and one of an architect; while the remaining 197 were the sons of farmers, graziers, grocers, &c. They stated, that the clergy, who had been educated abroad in former times, such as Father O'Leary, Dr. Butler, the present Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel, and other eminent men, were greatly superior to those who had been reared at Maynooth, and that the two ablest Roman Catholic clergymen of the present day, Dr. Doyle and Dr. Curtis, were both educated abroad. They further alleged, that, at Maynooth, the students were brought up in a decided hostility to the dispensation of the Bible generally, and that no Bible except their own translation, known as the Douay Bible, was allowed, the cheapest edition of which Bible cost 18s. The petitioners felt, that they ought not to be called on to support the promulgation of a religion which was erroneous and idolatrous, and though some objections had been made to so speaking of the Roman Catholic religion, he could not consider it as improper, when he recollected that such language had always been applied to the Catholic Religion, till very lately, in that House. In 1812, when it was proposed to reduce this grant, Mr. Perceval stated, that if it were then to be first granted, he should be disposed to resist the grant altogether; but considering it a grant made over by the Parliament of Ireland to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, he would not propose to abolish it. The reduction at that time was resisted, because the grant was one that was recognized at the time of the Union; but when reductions were made with respect to wide streets, and a variety of other items, which existed at the period of the Union, he could not conceive that such a plea was available with respect to this institution.

denied the truth of the assertion, that Maynooth had not produced as able men as any of those who had been educated abroad. In support of his position, he need only refer to the right rev. Dr. M'Cabe, whose acquirements in theology, in philosophy, in science, and in classics, might challenge competition. The petitioners, it appeared, complained that this college had not succeeded. Now he would tell them, that it had succeeded to the full extent which the Roman Catholics of Ireland, the parties most interested, wished and desired. He contended that the Roman Catholics desired to read, and did read, the Scriptures, but they objected to making them a school-book. When fault was found with the doctrinal parts of the Roman Catholic religion, the charge came with a very ill grace from the hon. Baronet, who must know the nature of the thirty-nine Articles, and must also know, that every man, before he became a minister of the Protestant Church, must subscribe to those Articles. The petitioners were unwilling, they said, to support an erroneous religion. Now he would make a bargain with the hon. Baronet, and if he would agree that the Roman Catholic should be exempted from supporting the Protestant Church in Ireland, he was quite certain that the former would give up every claim on the Protestants for the support of Maynooth, or any other Catholic institution. By such art arrangement, the Irish Roman Catholics would be saved annually 1,500,000l., which was paid to the Protestant clergy. The Roman Catholics were called idolaters. He indignantly repelled the assertion. They were not idolaters. They worshipped the living God, and the living God only! Sooner than worship aught else they would expire at the stake. If Protestants thought that they were mistaken in their religious opinion, oh! let them be Christians enough to say that the Catholics were in error—do not brand them as idolaters. If justice were done to the Irish Roman Catholics, they would not need any assistance of this kind. If, instead of being expended on building Buckingham Palace, the 123,000l. which had been recovered from France on account of the destruction of Irish establishments there, and the confiscation of property bequeathed for religious purposes, by the ancestors of the present race of Irish Catholics; if, instead of having been laid out in the manner he had mentioned, that sum had been handed over to its rightful owners, the Roman Catholics would not have needed a grant for Maynooth. His family had at one time thirty-six burses in Paris, and they yet had four; and he repeated, if the money to which he had alluded had been properly distributed, there would have been no necessity for a grant of this nature. He was sorry, at this time of day, to see the hon. Baronet presenting such a petition as this, imputing to the Roman Catholics doctrines which they disclaimed, and principles which they detested. If any individual of his faith rose in that House, and pointed out as heretics his Protestant fellow-subjects, he could tell the hon. Baronet that no man would meet such an aspersion with more honest indignation than he would. Had he not, then, a right to expect similar forbearance towards those who were of his creed? Polemics had been too long indulged in; and it was time that they should give way to feelings of Christian benevolence and charity.

denied, that the great body of Roman Catholics were adverse to the diffusion of the Scriptures, although they did not approve of them as a school-book. He, as one of the trustees and visitors of Maynooth college, would assert, that it had produced men of high character and attainments. At present there were seventeen Roman Catholic Bishops who had been educated there; they were brought up in the most liberal manner, and were at all times anxious to suppress riots and disorders, and encourage tranquillity and obedience to the law.

said, one of the complaints contained in this petition was, that persons of low birth were educated at Maynooth; but how stood the case in England? Had not every individual, whether his birth were the highest or the lowest, an opportunity of attaching himself to the Protestant Church? Who were they, he would ask, that served in the Scotch Church? Were they not taken from those very classes on whom the petitioners were now casting a gross aspersion? Were they not the sons of farmers, of grocers, and, if they pleased, of graziers? It was so, and yet he would put these pastors, for a correct discharge of their duties, in competition with the sons of those elevated nobles and high dignitaries who were brought up for the Church of England. The manner in which the duty of the parish priest in Ireland, and of the minister in Scotland, was performed, might put to shame many of the English clergy, when the labours of each were considered. It was, he contended, a most unfair reflection to suppose that men could not perform their duties unless they were of high birth. The Roman Catholics had been called idolaters, and on that account it was alleged that this grant should cease. Why, Indo-Britain contained millions of idolaters; and we supported the idolatry the Hindoos and of other sects. The English had a college to support and perpetuate what, in their view was idolatry. Should they, then, support the Hindoo and the Mussulman, and yet refuse assistance to the Roman Catholic on the gross plea that he was an idolater? He regretted to see a petition of this kind presented by any Gentleman, but more particularly by a Representative of one of the Universities, where liberality ought to prevail. But, unfortunately, with some few exceptions, the Universities were the hot-beds of every thing contracted and illiberal.

wished the consideration of the matter contained in this petition to be postponed, until, in the course of the evening, he came to the vote to which it related, when Gentlemen would have the opportunity of delivering their opinions. As an Irish Protestant, and as strong a friend to the Protestant Church as any man, he should be prepared, when the proper time came, to contravene all that was alleged against the grant, and to defend the vote that would be proposed for the College. The motives of those who were appointed to visit the College were above suspicion. Their last report had been called for, and would be laid before the House; and he believed, that the statements contained in that Report would afford a better defence for this grant than anything that he could offer. The establishment at Maynooth was endowed by Parliament—it was under the superintendence of visitors appointed by Parliament. Now, what would the consequence be if the grant were withdrawn, and the jurisdiction over it, which he had described, were also put an end to? Why, the Roman Catholics would support it by subscription: and surely, if danger was to be apprehended from it as it was now conducted (which he denied), that danger would become infinitely greater when it was entirely upheld by an indignant people. The Parliament had endowed and encouraged at Belfast, and in other parts of the north of Ireland, institutions for the education of Presbyterian clergymen. Was it not equally wise that some provision should be made for the education of the Catholic priesthood of Ireland? He knew the priesthood of Ireland better than the hon. Baronet, and he must say, that many most learned and most liberal men—men strongly attached to the institutions of this country—were to be found amongst those who had been educated at the College of Maynooth; many men, too, he would add, who had been introduced into the priesthood from the most humble classes. He would only add, that the education of a priest could not be obtained on lower terms at Maynooth than at the Colleges abroad.

said, that the grossest ignorance and arrogance pervaded this petition, which came from members of Orange Lodges, and other violent persons, some of whom had been tried for their lives, and several of whom had been in gaol. It was anything but a fair or respectable petition. It was hawked about the country to Armagh, to Monaghan, to Fermanagh, to Dublin, to the Marshalsea prison of Dublin, and to the Corporation of Dublin; and thus the projectors of the petition had scraped together a number of signatures. The fourth clause in that petition was a base invention. It was not a doctrine held in Maynooth College, that the Scriptures should not be read. He grieved to see the hon. Baronet, at this time, assisting in raking up the expiring embers of religious dissension, and fanning them into a flame. The hon. Baronet might yet live to repent that he had contributed to scatter the firebrand of religious discord through Ireland. There was no Roman Catholic but must feel resentment at such aspersions; and he, as one who was connected with Roman Catholics, repelled such imputation with indignation. The late Mr. Grattan said, in 1795, at the time when this institution was formed, that the measure would turn Ireland from France and give her to England. And what now appeared to be the petitioners' proposition? That the clergy should not be educated in France—that they should not be educated in Ireland—that they should not be educated at all! If the hon. Baronet and the petitioners wished to separate the two countries, they could not take a better course than that of giving currency to statements that were false, unfounded, untrue, and unjust. It was not to be expected that Ireland would continue united with England if it was be so treated. Lord Chatham had said, that his Majesty's subjects were one people, and that whoever attempted to divide them was the author of sedition. He did not impute such a feeling to the hon. Baronet, but he was convinced that those who signed this petition had sedition in their hearts.

said, he was not responsible for the character of the gentlemen who signed the petition. He did not know one of them; but he had been asked to present the petition, and he deemed it to be his duty to comply with the request. There was a higher authority than any in that House against taking the priests from the lowest classes of the people. With respect to the assertion of the hon. and learned member for Kerry, that the Catholics of Ireland paid 1,500,000l. to the Protestant Church, that he must deny. They paid tithes and church-rates, as owners and occupiers of land, and it was no matter whether the land was in possession of Catholics or Protestants, it was subject to those charges.

said, that if the hon. Baronet would read the signatures, he would know some of them. Among them appeared the names of the rev. Perceval Magee and his curate. The very rev. the Archdeacon, who received so large an income for doing nothing, thought he was performing his duty in putting his name to that petition, in order to calumniate the people by whom he was paid. The hon. Baronet complained that the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland were the sons of persons in humble life, and said he had a high authority against that practice. He must say, for his part, that he had read the Bible, but he found nothing in that book rendering it obligatory on clergymen to ride in coaches. Those who first propagated Christianity were persons in humble life, and he could not imagine lowliness of birth any impediment to the faithful and zealous discharge of clerical duties. Men of the first information and talents amongst the priesthood were the sons of poor parents; such persons had a proper sympathy for their flocks, and he could tell the hon. Baronet, that the progress of pestilence and famine might be traced in Ireland by the deaths of the Catholic curates, who curtailed their own incomes, to minister to the wants of their people, and encountered disease by not being, like some other clergy, above visiting the abode of the poor and distressed.

on a Petition being presented for the disarming of the Irish Yeomanry, called the attention of the House to a statement he had made relative to the affair at Newtownbarry, which had been contradicted by the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, upon the testimony of the rev. Mr. Walsh. He had received a letter from that gentleman, which corroborated his former statement, and he could not help complaining of the right hon. Gentleman, who had been so ready to describe his statement as an Irish exaggeration. From the circumstances which took place at Newtownbarry, he thought the Government ought to allow the Yeomanry to go into disuse.

said, that the witnesses who had been examined by Major Bushe, who had been sent down by order of Government to inquire into the matter, had denied that any shots had been fired. It had been stated that a woman had been ripped open. He did not believe that any such thing had occurred: if such an atrocious act had been perpetrated, and the Government had received any report that such had been the case, they ought to communicate it to the House. The trials at Newtownbarry were yet undecided, and he hoped that the hon. Member (Mr. Lambert) who had expressed an opinion on the case, would not be on the Grand Jury at the next Assizes.

was unwilling to prolong the discussion on this unhappy affair; his object in rising, was to assure the House, and the hon. Member opposite, that the circumstance related of the unfortunate woman who lost her life at Newtownbarry was perfectly true. He had it from authority which he could not doubt.

had also received a letter from Mr. Walsh. That gentleman stated to Major Bushe, that a shot had been fired, but he left it to that gentleman to draw his own inferences whether or not it was intended as an insult to his congregation. Mr. Walsh could not dive into the hearts of other persons to discover their intentions. He confirmed the statement of Mr. Lambert, that the woman had been shot through the womb by a Yeoman, and that the child, of which she was pregnant, was also killed. He hoped both the hon. member for Galway and himself would be on the Grand Jury at the next Assizes. Having expressed an opinion on the subject, he should be sorry to be on the Petit Jury, which would have to decide on the merits of the case.

remarked, that the whole question was in course of judicial inquiry. The moment Government were apprized of the fact, they employed a professional gentleman of the highest character, and of the utmost impartiality (Mr. Green) to examine into all the circumstances, and to make his report. He must object, therefore, to discussions of this kind, the effect of which must be to prejudice the case of the policeman, against whom a bill for manslaughter had been found, in the case particularly alluded to. There was no ground for apprehending, that public justice would not be satisfied, and that end being attained, he thought that no complaint could be reasonably made.

contended, that public justice would not be done by trying the policeman on a bill charging him only with manslaughter: either he had been guilty of murder or of nothing.

called the hon. and learned Gentleman to order. The present discussion was trying the policeman by anticipation.

said, the result of a prosecution for manslaughter would not satisfy the people of Ireland in such a case. The Government should have disarmed the Yeomanry; and he might fairly state, that no Government but the present would ever have suffered them to retain their arms after such an occurrence. Under the Government of Lord Liverpool, when some of the people were killed by the Yeomanry at Straby, the Yeomanry were deprived of their arms; and the present Government should have adopted the same course, after they had admitted the fact that there was no occasion whatever for calling out the Yeomanry at Newtownbarry. He was sorry to say, however, that the present Government was desirous of throwing its shield over those who committed outrages upon the people of Ireland. Their feelings towards the people of that country might be gathered from the fact, that they had appointed twenty-one stipendiary Magistrates in that country, not one of whom was a Catholic.

affirmed, that the testimony was so contradictory as to the conduct of the Yeomanry, that the question could not come fairly before the House until after the case should have been investigated by the ordinary tribunals. There was no point so doubtful as, whether the Captain of the Yeomanry directed the men to fire, or whether they fired without orders; and, under such circumstances, the House was not in a condition to form a proper judgment on the matter.

stated, that the soldiers alleged that they were ordered to fire, while the Captain said, that he had given no such orders. This was sufficient to warrant him in asking if such a corps ought to be continued in existence? No matter what might be the result of the judicial investigation, there was, at all events, ample reason for breaking that corps of Yeomanry, and the late Government would never have allowed it to exist after such an occurrence.

said, that the evidence he alluded to was not that of either Captain or men, but of witnesses, disinterested and unconnected with either.

begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if the Captain and men were agreed in their account of this transaction? All he knew of this affair was what he had learned from the newspapers, and from the reporters who attended at the Inquest, whom he knew. They stated, that the soldiers said they were ordered to fire, but that the Captain said they were not so ordered. If they were not agreed in this matter, how could the Government say, that the subjects of his Majesty in Ireland were protected, while arms were left in the hands of such men?

said, that nothing could be more monstrous than the conduct of individuals connected with those Yeomanry corps in that part of Ireland in which this transaction had occurred. The fact was, that things had come to that pass, that his Majesty's Government must give protection to the people there, or they must protect themselves. In the parish of Rathdrum, the Orangemen had compelled his tenants to pass under an Orange arch which was suspended across the street of the village; and when the parish priest came up, on his way to the chapel, an Orangeman shook his fist at him, and fired a pistol so close to him as to burn his face. That was one of the insults which had been offered to the people, of which the people complained, and which had been denied by the hon. defenders of the Orange Yeomanry of Ireland in that House. The real truth was, that things had arrived at that pass, that the Government of the country must put down those factious disturbers of the public peace, or they would put down the Government.

said, that reference had been made to his statement the other evening, relative to the ripping open of the abdomen of a pregnant woman in Newtownbarry. It was most painfully distressing to him as a man, and as a Member of that House, to have such a statement to make, but he should not have felt, that he discharged his duty, if he had not laid it before the House. He would not retract a word of that statement, but, in confirmation of it, he would, beg to read to the House the following extract of a letter which he had received from a highly respectable gentleman in the county of Wexford on the subject:—"I have just seen a person who saw the body of the poor woman, Mary Mullony, the mother of six children. A horrid sight! The ball passed through her, and ripped her belly across. She was within six weeks of her confinement, and the child's head and body were seen protruding through the wound. This numbers saw, who can testify it on oath."

said, that the time had unquestionably arrived, when it was incumbent on his Majesty's Government to institute an inquiry into this most melancholy transaction, in order to ascertain the real facts of the case, and to satisfy the just expectations of the people of Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen were grossly mistaken, if they supposed that the people of Ireland would be satisfied unless a proper inquiry were instituted into a transaction in which seventeen persons had been put to death by a corps of Yeomanry, not a single individual of which had been as yet punished for the perpetration of the crime. They were greatly mistaken if they supposed, that the people of Ireland did not look upon this matter in a serious point of view. The time of the House would be taken up, and Irish Members would be justified in taking it up, night after night, on this subject, until a proper investigation was instituted by Government into the whole transaction.

said, that if the hon. Gentleman meant that the time was come when his Majesty's Government should take that into their hands which was still before the ordinary tribunals of the country, and upon which those tribunals had not as yet pronounced, he must beg to say, that the time was not come for such a course of proceeding on the part of his Majesty's Government. In a transaction which involved much party-feeling on the one side and the other, the Government had acted with rigid impartiality. They sent down an Officer to inquire into the transaction. After the Coroner's inquest had been held, the Government undertook to conduct the prosecution according to the verdict of the Jury; and when the private parties to that prosecution refused to proceed with it, the Government still persevered. The Government were still determined to bring the matter which was at present pending, according to the verdict of the Jury, before the legal tribunals of the country at the first opportunity. Again, when a statement was made in that House by the hon. member for Wexford, that the Orange party had offered insults to those individuals who were engaged in celebrating the last obsequies of those who had been killed in that melancholy transaction, Government sent down an Officer to institute an investigation into that matter. The hon. member for Wexford when he made that statement, no doubt made it in perfect sincerity, but it now appeared from the Letter of the reverend Clergyman to which he had referred, that it was not altogether borne out by the facts. The reverend writer said, that the statement of the hon. Member was highly coloured, but that there was foundation for the substance of it, and that it was a statement which was excusable on the part of an orator. Such was the statement of this Clergyman in his Letter to the hon. Member. It might be excusable in an orator to make such a statement, but the House would see, that it was not one upon which the Government would be justified in founding any proceedings. The only anxiety of the Government was, to do full and impartial justice. It would be a lamentable thing indeed if such a transaction as this should not be subjected to the fullest investigation. The legal guilt of the parties concerned in this transaction had not as yet been decided by the legal tribunals of the country. Therefore, though the Government might have formed an opinion as to their moral guilt, it would not be justified in giving expression to that opinion until the question as to their legal guilt had been finally determined.

said, that a body of armed men had committed a gross outrage—had taken away the lives of several of their unoffending fellow-countrymen. The House had that fact before it: there was also another fact, namely, that bills had been sent up to a Grand Jury and ignored, and therefore no public trial took place. Was it not then fitting, that the Government should see, that persons thus intrusted with arms had not made an evil use of them? Did any man in his senses doubt that the persons to whom he alluded ought to have their arms taken out of their hands; and was it not in the power of the Irish Government to do so?

begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, if there was any case still pending which would go to establish or not, whether Captain Graham and his troop ought to have been present at the affray?

said, that Government had distinctly expressed its opinion, that the Yeomanry ought not to have been called out, and the three Magistrates who had called them out were so severely reprimanded, that two of them thought proper to send in their resignation, which was accepted.

said, that if the inquiries made by Government justified it in making such strong remonstrances, it ought to have gone still further, and without interfering with the civil investigation, it should have treated the matter, as far as the Yeomanry were concerned, as a military offence, and should have discharged them altogether.

said, that it had been said, that such an occurrence would have been tolerated in no other country than in Ireland, but he begged to remind the House, that sixteen of the people had been killed, and 600 wounded at Manchester [a laugh.] It was no doubt a laughable affair—a very laughable affair, but it was nevertheless unfortunately too true.

said, that the facts stated in the Letter of the reverend Clergyman, to which the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had referred, sufficiently bore out the statement which he had made to the House on a former occasion as to the circumstances to which it alluded, though he would admit, that it was possible that an honest expression of feeling, of which he was not ashamed, might have imparted to his statement that high colouring of which the reverend author of the Letter spoke.

said, that Ireland would never be what she ought to be without the establishment of an equality of laws. It would be necessary, in making a change of system in that country, to choose the Lord-lieutenants of counties from the members of all religious persuasions—to choose Grand and Petty Juries from Catholics and Protestants indiscriminately—to educate the lower orders, and to hold the scales of justice with perfect impartiality.

in moving the first vote—namely, "that the sum of 50,000l. be granted to his Majesty to defray the expenses which may probably be incurred at the Coronation of their Majesties," remarked, that this sum was about one-fifth of the expense which had been incurred at the former Coronation. In fact, this vote had been made out in the strictest accordance with the severest principles of economy, and it was expected that the expenses of the approaching Coronation would, instead of exceeding, be rather under the amount of this estimate. The ceremonial would be conducted upon the most economical scale, so that perhaps, as he had just said, there would even be some saving upon this estimate.

was ready to admit, that if a Coronation at all took place, the vote now moved for the approaching ceremony was moderate compared with the expense attendant upon the Coronation of George 4th; but he could not help expressing great regret that his Majesty's Government should have thought it necessary to call for such a sum as 50,000l. He should himself be one of the warmest advocates of such a step if the Crowning of our most gracious Sovereign could in the slightest degree add to the respect and the affection with which he was regarded by his subjects; but believing it would be attended with a directly contrary effect, he could not restrain the expression of his disapprobation of the vote. He did not blame the present Ministers for the manner in which they brought forward the vote; on the contrary, he believed they made the whole of their arrangements with a view to save expense; nevertheless, he could not bring himself to regard such an appropriation of 50,000l. otherwise than as completely throwing it away, and he was quite sure that it would be infinitely more satisfactory to the people if the ceremonial were gone through without such an expenditure of the public money. He must, therefore, protest against the grant as altogether unnecessary.

said, that if the hon member for Middlesex was sincere in his opposition to the vote, he would divide the House upon it, and if the hon. Member did, he would divide with him.

did not understand the hon. member for Preston. He thought it right to give his opinion on the vote, but it did not necessarily follow, that he was thereupon to put the House to the trouble of dividing without the prospect of any useful result.

said, that the coronation of the Sovereign of this country had been uniformly looked upon as a necessary ceremonial. Those who contended that his Majesty should be privately crowned in the House of Peers, in order to avoid the expense of the public ceremonial, did not recollect that the ceremony had not merely relation to the monarch, but that it had also relation to the people—that it involved a contract between the Sovereign and his people, and that every class of the community in this country had the deepest interest in that contract. If the coronation were to be conducted privately, and in a less expensive manner, in the House of Peers, as had been suggested, then observations might be made as to popular principles which were entirely repugnant to the measures to which such observations might have reference.

said, that it was perfectly consistent for the hon. member for Preston to doubt the sincerity of his hon. friend the member for Middlesex, if it were the fact that men were accustomed to judge of others by themselves. It had been always considered necessary in every reign, that a coronation should take place, as a solemn recognition on the one hand, of the rights of the sovereign, and as an equally solemn acknowledgment on his part, of his duty towards his subjects. He was sure that no monarch would make that recognition with greater sincerity than the monarch who happily reigned over this country at present. If the hon. member for Middlesex were to divide the House on this estimate, he would divide against him.

approved of the vote, and expressed his gratitude to the Government for having made out the estimate on such a reduced scale. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Treasury, that the coronation of the monarch was a necessary ceremonial, but he did by no means approve of its being made an idle and expensive pageant.

understood the hon. member for Middlesex did not object to the items of expense, but to the general amount of the vote, and the hon. Member also contended, that the ceremony of the coronation might be conducted with the utmost satisfaction without any thing like the expense contemplated. He agreed with the hon. Member, supposing that he did not wish the ceremony to be altogether abrogated.

had not said a word about having the ceremony performed in the House of Peers. All he had done was, to protest against the expense of it. He regretted, that his Majesty's Ministers had been driven to this folly by the expression of taunts from the Opposition in another place, which they should have had the firmness to resist. If his Majesty were crowned in the Abbey, at an expense of 5,000l., the people of the country would be much better satisfied.

said, that the next vote was one of those which were under the consideration of the Committee above-stairs—it was for defraying the expenses of the household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He could assure the Committee, that all possible pains had been taken to render the estimate as low as possible—it was still under the consideration of a Committee above-stairs, and he had no doubt, that it would obtain, as it merited, their most serious attention. The amount was 16,379l. 14s. 1d.

said, that the son of Sir John Byng, who was Comptroller of the Household, had never been in Ireland since his appointment to that office. He could not understand why the public were to pay for sinecure offices.

said, that Captain Byng, finding it impossible to attend to the duties of his office, in addition to his parliamentary duties, immediately resigned.

bore testimony to the anxiety manifested by the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to effect all possible reductions. But he hoped soon to see the office abolished altogether. He trusted, that the first Session of a Reformed Parliament would put an end to it. Ireland could never enjoy the benefits of the union with this country, so long as she was subject to a colonial system of government.

on the subject of the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, would reserve himself till the subject came regularly under the consideration of the House. At present he would only say, he differed wholly from the view taken by the hon. member for Middlesex on the subject.

observed, that there was a sum of 2,373l. for the payment of the Battle-Axe Guards, and wished for some explanation on that point.

said, that they formed part of the pageantry attendant upon the office of Lord Lieutenant; that the present members of that body had purchased their situations, and, therefore, could not with any justice be dismissed; but it was intended gradually to abolish them as they fell in.

approved of the plan of abolishing them as vacancies by death arose; but as to the office of Lord Lieutenant, he could not agree to its abolition; for if there were one subject more than another upon which all Irishmen were unanimous, it was upon the expediency of maintaining that office and the establishments attendant upon it.

said, that during the last ten years there had been a falling off of 400,000l. a-year in the Customs and Excise of the city of Dublin. Could it, then, dispense with any of the usual advantages which it at present possessed?

did not desire the abolition for the mere sake of the pecuniary saving, though that was not inconsiderable, but for the sake of good government in Ireland. Till they got rid of the Lord Lieutenant, there would be nothing like good government in Ireland. If the Irish Members on the other side of the House rose to express their opinions, he was sure they would dissent from those of the hon. and learned member for Kerry.

wished to know who it was that prevented Irish Gentlemen from speaking?

Their own prudence.

said, that the hon. member for Cricklade (Mr. Robert Gordon) had, on a former occasion, called the attention of Government to the serious defalcation which had taken place in this office on the part of a former Vice-Treasurer, who had been since promoted to colonial government. He wished to have some explanation from his Majesty's Government on that subject.

said, that between five and six years ago, a balance of several hundred pounds had been due from the Vice-Treasurer of Ireland to the public. At that period the Treasury arranged that 10,000l. should be issued annually, on account, to the Vice-Treasurer, and that he should every year deliver in his attested account, duly vouched, of the expenditure of the money, in the same way as all other public officers. Urgent and repeated calls had been made upon the Vice-Treasurer to render his accounts; but this he had neglected to do, alleging, as his reason, that the difficulty arose from a part of the papers being in Ireland and a part in England, and making various other excuses. At length the Vice-Treasurer, Sir George Hill, was appointed Governor of St. Vincent's, in the West Indies, and he left this country without rendering any account whatever of the public money intrusted to his care. In consequence of further applications, Sir George Hill had at last rendered in his accounts, but they were unsupported by vouchers, and were altogether in a condition which made it impossible that they could be audited, examined, or passed. Assuming, however, that the accounts were correct, it appeared by Sir George Hill's own showing, that he was in debt to the public the sum of 2,180l. He had been called upon to pay this balance, and to put his accounts in a state, so that it might be ascertained whether he was not indebted to a larger amount. Neither of these requisitions had he complied with, but he had written to the Treasury Board to say, that his nephew, Mr. Hill, who was in Ireland, would pay the balance for him. Application had consequently been made to this Mr. Hill, and the only result was, that that gentleman had declared his willingness to pay the money when Sir George Hill directed him to do so. This he supposed Sir George had not done, for the money had not yet been paid.

thought the late Administration very reprehensible throughout the whole transaction. Sir George Hill ought not to have been appointed to so responsible and important an office as Governor and Chancellor of a colony, whilst, to use the mildest language, his accounts were in so confused a state that they could not be understood: or, being appointed, he ought not to have been permitted to sail till he had paid the money, which, by his own showing and acknowledgment, he owed to the public. The Treasury had been extremely remiss in their duty.

went further than his hon. friend, and conceived that the Treasury Board had been extremely culpable in not settling Sir George Hill's accounts annually, and he took the case only as one example, casually discovered, of the manner in which the Treasury neglected its duty, and disregarded the public interests. Nothing could be more improper than to place a person under Sir George Hill's circumstances within the temptations of such appointments as those of Governor and Chancellor of a West-India Island, particularly at a time when the West-Indians were dealt with unsparingly, and with an iron hand of severity. He did not know how the late Ministers would answer for their conduct to the public, but as to Ministerial responsibility to that House, as it had hitherto been constituted, he treated it as a vile mockery.

would allow, that the accounts of Sir George Hill had been a very long time settling, but there was a great difference between the non-settlement of an account, and a defalcation, as described by the hon. Member. A man ought not to be called a defaulter until he had refused to pay a sum justly due. As Secretary of the Treasury he had been placed in a very delicate situation in having to call a relation to account, but he had done every thing in his power to bring Sir George to a settlement, and, unfortunately, he failed in doing it, though he was eternally trying. Until the papers and documents were furnished, it was impossible to say what was the amount of the deficiency, and whether there was any balance due to the public or not. He did not know that so large a sum as 2,000l. was standing on the face of the accounts as due, for he had conceived the amount to be only between 400l. and 500l. He denied, however, that any man had any right to cast any aspersions upon the character of Sir George Hill, until his accounts were settled; and he would undertake to say, that ultimately the public would not lose a shilling.

had cast no aspersions upon Sir George Hill, for the term he had used was "confusion of accounts," although he utterly denied the doctrine of the right hon. member for Harwich, that no person had a right to employ the term "defaulter" in such a case, until it was proved that the balance could not be paid. 50,000l. of the public money had been paid by the Treasury to this gentleman, whilst he continually refused to render any account, and had set the Treasury at nought: and even when he would not refund what he acknowledged to be due, the late Ministers appointed him to a high and responsible situation in the colonies, and permitted him to depart with the public money in his pocket. He was convinced that every man would feel, that the late Administration was much infault, and that the Treasury had neglected its duty.

said, if the right hon. Gentleman opposite were correct in his notion, that no man had a right to cast an aspersion upon Sir George Hill till his accounts were settled, then Sir George was pretty secure against being aspersed, for, according to the conduct he had hitherto pursued, his accounts would remain unsettled for an indefinite period. He reprobated the conduct of the Treasury in issuing public money to a person who refused to obey all commands to account for what he had received. The Treasury had pursued the same conduct in the case of Mr. Chinnery, and the public had lost a large sum; but he must strongly protest against the doctrine of the right hon. member for Harwich, that the merits of such a case had any relation to the chances which the public might eventually run of losing or not losing money.

wished to know what might be the amount of sums for which no vouchers had been given?

said, he had been rather taken by surprise, and could not exactly answer the question. On the face of the accounts the amount due was about 2,100l. He had strong reasons to believe the accounts would yet be settled in a satisfactory manner, but if not, the Government must take steps to compel a settlement. He assured the House that Ministers were not actuated by party feelings, and he must do the late Government the credit of declaring, that the Treasury appeared to have exerted themselves to the utmost, to procure the necessary papers and documents from Sir George Hill. He concurred fully with those who asserted, that it was absolutely necessary to observe the utmost care and punctuality in keeping the public accounts, and the Treasury were determined to enforce that doctrine in all the public departments.

thought he was now justified in calling this matter a neat bit of peculation. The right hon. Baronet did not deny, that he was minus 2,100l., and it would have been better if the late right hon. Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. George Dawson) had stopped the issue of the public money instead of merely writing threatening letters to his relations. The public ought not to suffer from the tenderness of relations for one another. He thought, too, that the present Ministers had not been so decided as they ought to have been. The sum was said to be only 2,100l., but that ought to have been settled before Sir George Hill was sent out to St. Vincent's. He had been charged with using harsh terms. He had not used harsher terms than were necessary. He had only called things by their proper names. It had been said, that the late Government had taken steps to obtain the settlement of the accounts: it had an effectual method in its hands to obtain that object, had it determined to exert its power, and that was, to stop the issue of more money until the accounts were properly audited. But it appeared, that while they were writing letters pressing a settlement, they were issuing a salary to the person charged with the delay to stop which would have been more effectual than all the letters in the world. He thought the present Government too, was much to blame in not acting with greater decision. It was said the public would not lose the money, but how did they know that? The yellow fever might kill Sir George Hill, and then might not the public lose? Here was the sum of 2,100l., sufficient for a coronation, not paid, though the officer was repeatedly called upon to render accounts. This, however, was only one nest egg. There might be fifty more yet to be discovered. He was ready to admit, that the fact was not known to the Knight of Kerry, else he would have disclosed it. His Majesty's Ministers were not justified in acting has they had done—they were not justified in acting with such political timidity, and protecting their enemies, when they ought to bring them to account. They ought to act towards their political enemies as towards their friends, and punish both alike. No one could say what might be the result of such an appointment. Sir George was Lord Chancellor of the Island of St. Vincent, and he might put 2,000l. in his pocket belonging to some infant, and say, "Oh! I have that sum, and will repay it;" but would not such a practice entitle a Lord Chancellor in this country to send a public officer in Chancery to prison for such conduct? If that were not the case—if Sir George Hill were not recalled—might not any defaulter in Chancery say, "I cannot be sent to prison," and give an instance in point, that of Sir George Hill? He hoped Government would immediately recall the hon. Baronet.

concurred fully in what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spring Rice), as to the mode in which both Governments had acted. He would admit, however, that he had not given all the attention to the subject he ought to have done. Sir George Hill had long been a Member of that House, he had filled a variety of offices with great approbation, and for these reasons he had recommended him to his Majesty as a proper person to be appointed governor of St. Vincent's.

trusted that this would be an example in future to the Government, and make it alive to the necessity of compelling their officers to account for the sums advanced to them.

could not deny, that he, perhaps, had, to some extent, become a party to some degree of blame in this affair; but, knowing his connection with Sir George Hill, he had not taken the question into his own hands, but had put the papers into the hands of the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, with directions to him to pursue the subject with all diligence. It was, however, but due to the Treasury to exonerate that department; and he must reluctantly admit, that the blame of the transaction rested with Sir George Hill.

was not at all satisfied with the statement of his right hon. friend. He thought that his right hon. friend ought to have insisted on Sir George Hill settling his accounts before he went to the West Indies, or to have sent a whole statement of the case to the Colonial Office, where nothing of the affair could be known.

said, that, if the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman was allowed, it would be followed by the most disastrous consequences; if the right hon. Gentleman would read the debates in Mr. Pitt's time, he would find it laid down, that no one had any right to take any portion of the public money for his own use, however accurately and entirely it might be accounted for at a subsequent period. It was of the utmost importance that every public man should be strict towards his relations, and this was particularly necessary at the Treasury. He was not pleased with the statements that had been made.

said, that the right hon. member for Harwich had accused him of committing a blunder, but the blunder was on his part. The Knight of Kerry could know nothing of the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman had committed the blunder himself, for it was his fault that the public money had been wasted. What had come of the 2,000l.? Sir George Hill had had it without any authority, and spent it. The matter called loudly for the interposition of Parliament, and, if no other Member moved an Address to the Crown to remove that officer, he would do it himself if the money was not speedily paid in.

censured the plan of giving a man who was a defaulter, another situation abroad, that he might pay his default out of the other money he received from the public.

said, the facts on which the hon. Members had commented, were made known after Sir George Hill was appointed Governor of St. Vincent. They were wise, therefore, after the fact. He took blame to himself for not having seen Sir George Hill's accounts; but, not having seen them, the Treasury could not know he was in arrears. It was not clear, because there was a deficiency in Sir George Hill's accounts, that any man was entitled to assert, that he had appropriated the money to his own use. It was hard and unjust to assert, that Sir George Hill had embezzled this money, which was merely unaccounted for.

thought, the right hon. Gentleman had been most unsuccessful, whether he meant to defend himself or defend Sir George Hill. It was an aggravation of the negligence of the Treasury to assert, that for five years the Treasury had not had this officer's accounts before it, and yet had appointed him to another office. It was clear, that the money was not now at the command of the public, and, therefore, it had been improperly appropriated.

hoped the hon. member for Kerry would move the Address he had spoken of; for he could not conceive the offence imputed to Sir George Hill amounted to anything but embezzlement: in private life, at least, it would be called embezzlement. It was of no consequence how the money had been disposed of. Remarks on the subject, however, would be more appropriate when the hon. and learned member for Kerry made his motion. He placed confidence in his Majesty's Ministers, and hoped they would remove this officer, if, after strict inquiry, it was thought proper to institute a prosecution and allow him to defend himself.

thought, that he was perfectly justified in looking upon the offence of which Sir George Hill appeared to have been guilty, as a direct case of embezzlement and malversation. He did not blame him so much as he did the late Board of Treasury, the members of which deserved to be impeached for their gross negligence. In the case of Lord Melville, both that noble Lord and Mr. Pitt were examined by Parliament, although no public loss took place, yet censures were passed for acting on the principle of allowing the issue of public money without the sanction of Parliament. He fully concurred with the observation made by the hon. member for Yorkshire, for he considered the transaction a gross fraud. If the accounts were not immediately made up, and the balance paid, the matter ought to be legally and fully investigated.

complained of this—the second discussion of the question. The present and last Governments both wished to shift the blame off their shoulders. He, as the Representative of the public, wished to know how the public was to be indemnified; and he should suggest that 2,000l. less than the vote should be granted. He moved that 2.100l. be taken off from the vote. The Secretary of the Treasury might then stop the money out of his own salary.

said, that the motion of the hon. Member was nonsense and gross injustice. How any Gentleman should think of stopping 2,000l. from the salaries of the Clerks at Dublin and London, in order to recover money from Sir George Hill, he could not conceive. The present Government had no blame to throw off its shoulders.

respectfully denied that. He did not know any step the Government had taken to recover this money.

saw no difference between the purloiner of public and the purloiner of private property committed to his charge. There was more to plead in mitigation of the errors of a poor and industrious clerk, with a family, than in favour of a titled man of rank, who had no other excuse than his own extravagance. In our Criminal Courts it was not allowed to compound a felony after it was detected. It was not enough, therefore, that the friends of Sir George Hill offered to reimburse the public. That satisfied the civil party, but public justice ought also to be satisfied. Unless the matter were followed up by some spirited individual, it would end where it began. He thought it ought not to stop there. The imputations thrown on the individual demanded an inquiry. If the House did not institute such an inquiry, they would neglect their duties as trustees of the public money.

said, the House had received the assurance of the right hon. Member, the Secretary of the Treasury, that the Government would follow up this matter if the balance was not paid up as had been promised. He thought the conversation might be dropped.

thought the money might be stopped out of the pay or out of the pension of Sir George Hill. Another way was, for the right hon. Gentleman to give security for it.

repeated, that the Government was taking strong and pressing means to recover the money. If it were not recovered, the Government would take measures to proceed against Sir George Hill. A letter had been written to Sir George Hill on the subject, the very day the communication was received from Ireland.

mentioned, that considerable reductions had taken place in this department already, and Government hoped to be enabled to carry them still further.

desired to know what sum was charged for printing Statutes, and how much for Proclamations; he knew, that the charge for the former must vary considerably, This year the account ought to be small, as he understood Proclamations were not to be printed in country newspapers.

said, that in 1830 the expense was 5,000l., and the charges had now been reduced as much as possible; so much so, that some inconvenience had been felt at the limited number of Statutes printed. Proclamations must be printed in country newspapers, which was frequently the only way many persons heard of them.

said, that considerable patronage was exercised as to the papers in which the Proclamations were published; he should suggest they should all be inserted in the Gazette, and then allow them to appear in other papers without the advertisement duty being charged.

said, a Committee of last year had made the same suggestion. Patronage of the kind spoken of he agreed was very improper. In all the Treasury advertisements, the chief object kept in view was, to give them the most extensive circulation possible.

said, the profits of the Gazette appeared to amount to 1,680l.; he wished to know what became of the money?

remarked, in reply, that that sum was handed to the compiler of the Gazette, who held his office by Patent, and it was now under consideration, whether that office could not be got rid of and the money saved.

said, that great saving could be made in printing the Statutes, by allowing them to be printed at the Stationery-office here, which could do the work at one-third of the expense charged in Ireland. If there was one act more inconsistent with good government than another, it was having the promulgation of the laws attended with so much expense, that few persons could know of the laws made, while all were held responsible for a breach of them. The King's printer in Ireland charged 3d. a-sheet for the Statutes, when any other printer would be glad to sell them for 1¼d. a-sheet. He recommended the example of the United States to be followed, where every Statute was printed in the newspapers.

said, he knew of no difficulty which prevented the Statutes being printed in the newspapers. The Reform Bill had appeared in most of them; but the mass of legislation was so great, it could never fully appear by this method, and they must have authorized copies to be received as evidence.

said, the number of copies of the Statutes printed for Ireland was not sufficient, and great inconvenience was often felt by the magistracy for the want of them.

said, the recommendation of the Committee, to insert Proclamations in the Dublin Gazette only, ought to be attended to. Newspapers would be sure to copy all that was interesting to their readers.

said, there were occasions in which it was necessary to insert Proclamations in the provincial newspapers. The Government, therefore, ought not to be confined to the Dublin Gazette alone.

said, there appeared still some longing for the abuses of the old system. It was in evidence, that Proclamations of importance to the north of Ireland were published in the southern newspapers, where they were of no importance, for the sake of patronage. He desired to know how much of this vote was for Proclamations only.

said, it was impossible to give a distinct answer to the question. Last year the charge was 1,520l.; the remainder was for the printing of the Statutes, and for Proclamations in the Gazette. The reduction this year, as compared with the last, was about 800l.

proposed to diminish this grant by 1,300l., which was the sum estimated as likely to be paid for the insertion of Proclamations in the newspapers; and moved an Amendment to that effect, which having been put,

said, that if they adopted the course of inserting proclamations in the Dublin Gazette only, they must take measures to give that paper a wider circulation, which would be attended with much expense. The Government merely wanted time to arrange the most economical manner of doing the business properly. Let the grant, therefore, be conceded this year, and see how it was expended, when, if there was any abuse, it could be rectified next year.

suggested to Mr. Hume the propriety of reducing his proposition to reduce the grant to 1,000l.

said, that his objection to this grant was not to the money amount of it, but to the principle involved in it. If he could get a pledge from the Government that they would publish their Proclamations in the Dublin Gazette alone, he would not object to grant them the amount of this vote.

said, that he could not give such a pledge as the hon. Member seemed to require. He would, however, pledge the Government to this: that when they published any proclamation in the provincial newspapers, the Publication should be in those newspapers, without regard to their politics, which had the largest circulation in those parts of the country to which the Proclamation more particularly related. The publication, too, of the Proclamation should be considered as an exception from the general rule of the Government, and should be justified by its particular circumstances alone.

said, he had no wish to bind Ministers down too strictly, and, very probably there might be Acts of Parliament which required to be inserted in local newspapers: all he required was, a distinct acknowledgment that the abuses should cease, which having obtained, he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.

said, he also felt satisfied with the acknowledgment given, and would make no further opposition to the vote.

expressed an opinion, that the 2,400l. a-year paid to Major Woodward and Major Farmer, as visitors of the jails of Ireland, might now be readily dispensed with. The objects for which those gentlemen were appointed had long since been accomplished, and the propriety of abolishing their situations had engaged his attention while he was in office. He feared, however, that an Act of Parliament would be found necessary for this purpose.

said, that he had urged the abolition of those offices, and divided the House on the subject. The responsibility of keeping them up rested, therefore, with the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. Since he had opposed the continuance of this office, it had been made efficient and less expensive. Since he came into office he had directed his attention to the nature of the appointments, and found that they could not well be dispensed with, if it were desired to keep the prison discipline in the good state in which it now was; but he intended to reduce the salaries to the amount allotted at the time of the creation of the offices.

said, that the present vote was for a very large sum; but, large as it was, he thought that Government would not be justified in asking for less. The Government asked for this sum to enable it to carry into effect its constitutional object of governing Ireland, by means, not of brute force, but of the Trial by Jury. He would take that opportunity to express his thanks to Government for having appealed to the law, and not to Insurrection Acts, for the government of Ireland. There was, however, one grievance of which he thought that the people of Ireland had a right to complain, and that was, that promotion at the Bar depended not upon the personal merits of the barrister, but upon his party politics. He thought that such a system of party patronage ought to have ended with the late Government. On his own circuit, he contended, that the Attorney General for Ireland had abused his patronage, by passing over an experienced counsel who was at its head, and by putting Crown prosecutions into the hands of men much his juniors, for no other reason than this, that they were furious party politicians.

was also of opinion, that in all legal appointments the Government ought not to be guided by party feelings, but by the merits of the individuals on whom the appointments were conferred. He had heard something of the appointments to which the hon. and learned Member had referred, and had, in consequence, desired that inquiry might be made into them. He was afraid that the amount for which he then asked a vote would not be sufficient for the service of the year. He had found, upon entering on his present office, that there was an arrear of 27,000l. due under this head from the public. He had hoped that he should have been able to get rid of a large part of that arrear in the present year; but the peculiar circumstances of Ireland at this juncture, and the special commissions in Galway and Clare, convinced him of the fallacy of that expectation.

defended the appointments which had been made on the circuit of Mr. O'Connell; he knew the individuals personally, and could declare, of one particularly, that he was a most moderate man in politics, and both were most estimable and honourable gentlemen, free from any charge of party violence. He was afraid that the hon. and learned individual merely attacked those who held these appointments, because they were not of his own party in politics.

disclaimed any such imputation. He had no desire whatever to tarnish the reputation of any gentleman; he had only asserted, and would again assert, that the Attorney General was a party man; and that his appointments were tinged with his political feelings. Every such appointment was connected with party; even the Chief Baron had voted at a contested election against the Government.

denied, that any legal appointments had been made by the Attorney General for Ireland on political grounds alone.

said, the Chief Baron did not deserve the imputation that was insinuated against him by the hon. and learned member for Kerry. He had only done what various Judges, both in England and Ireland had done several times, and had no idea of partizanship. He had voted for the candidates alluded to, solely out of private friendship.

said, no places were bestowed in Ireland, but on the ground of political partizanship. It was a farce to tell the House it was not so.

supported the grant with great satisfaction, because it was a charge for enforcing the law in a regular and constitutional manner. That was what had long been wanted in Ireland. He would take the present opportunity to remark, that, the disturbances in the south of Ireland had been put down by the police and the military, without any assistance from the Yeomanry, which was a proof that no partizan force was required, and he hoped the lesson would not be lost.

wished to correct his hon. friend. The peace in Clare had been restored by the regular troops alone, without any aid from the police. Whenever the latter attempted to interfere, the excitement and disturbance was increased.

said, all the legal gentlemen connected with Ireland seemed delighted with the fact, that the sum of 50,000l. was to be expended for law proceedings in that country. He thought the sum a great deal too much, and felt disposed to move that it should be reduced to 30,000l. As the hon. and learned member for Kilkenny had told them, that he supported this grant, because it was a constitutional application of the law for preserving the peace of the country, perhaps he would also say, whether the expenses of the prosecution against the hon. and learned member for Kerry was included in it, for as he (Mr. Hunt) considered that prosecution unconstitutional, he should not feel disposed to sanction any grant for it.

said, these votes for legal expenses had increased very much of late, owing to the expenses of maintaining witnesses being thrown upon the public, instead of the counties where the prosecutions took place. The Committee which sat upon this subject had recommended, that the legal expenses only, should be paid by the public. He, therefore, wished to know if their recommendation had been attended to in the amount of the present vote, as it would make a difference of 15,000l.?

assured his hon. friend, that the suggestion of the Committee had been attended to. One cause of the large amount of the present grant was, that it included arrears of former expenses.

said, that he approved of this vote, because it went to put down a sort of agrarian disturbances which had heretofore caused an enormous expense, by special commissions, police constables, yeomanry corps, &c. They had been guilty of many acts of great personal severity. By the present practice, there was substituted for all these, the regular and ordinary tribunals of the country. It was to the expenditure incurred from this change that his observations, and those of other hon. Members applied. They considered it a more effectual, cheap, and constitutional measure than any that had before been attempted to restore tranquillity. If it was any satisfaction to the hon. member for Preston to know, he could inform the hon. Member, that the expenses of the prosecution against himself (Mr. O'Connell) were included in this vote.

said, he was happy to hear that the expenses of witnesses was not to be defrayed by the public, and he also thought, the public ought not to be called upon to pay the expenses of prosecutions by Government of misdemeanors.

said, this sort of prosecutions were generally attacks on the press. If the expenses were paid by the public, the items would come before that House, and be more under the control of Parliament than if such expenses were paid by the counties.

wished to be informed, whether the whole of the counsel for the Crown were engaged in every Crown prosecution, and if they were paid whether they were absent or not?

said, there were generally four counsel for the Crown employed in each case, and they were not paid unless they were in the assize town where the case was to be tried.

said, there appeared a large increase upon last year's grant, when the fact was not so. In the sum now asked for was included a sum of 6,881l., heretofore charged on the Civil List, but which it was now proposed should be added to the annual grant made by Parliament.

objected to the vote. It was a new kind of grant which had arisen within a few years. The first grant was made in 1804; then a grant was given in a few years after, but now it was a regular grant voted every year. He did not see why the people of England should be called upon to pay these sums of money for the Dissenting branches of the Protestant Church in Ireland, while no such advantages were enjoyed by the Dissenters of this country or of Scotland. Within the last twenty-four years the Dissenters of Ireland had received half a million of the public money in this way. He did not say, that the parties who got it ought not to be paid; but the payment ought not to come out of the pockets of the people in this country. The Irish Church, which was the richest in the world, ought to be made to bear the expense of all its branches. Why should the people of this country pay for the Protestant Dissenting Clergy of Ireland more than those of England? or why should not this sum come out of some of the rich sees of that country? There was a fine of 25,000l. now payable for the renewal of some leases in the see of Derry, which the parties were not in time to pay before the death of the late Bishop Why not pay it out of that? The hon. Member was about to move a resolution against the grant, when

reminded him, that he could not move it in the Committee.

said, he would take another opportunity of moving it.

in answer to the hon. Member, stated first, that the grant was not a recent one: it was made in the first instance by Charles 2nd, increased first under William 3rd, and afterwards during the secretaryship of Lord Castlereagh. As for the revenues of the Church of Ireland, they were appropriated for peculiar objects, and could not be diverted to support Presbyterian Dissenters. He denied the right of Parliament to divert the property of the Church Establishment to any other purpose but what was properly connected with it. With respect to the see of Derry, he was ready to prove at the Bar of the House, that its yearly revenue did not exceed 12.000l. He supported the grant to the Presbyterian clergy, whom he described as being a most pious and loyal body of men.

was convinced, that it would be a gross injustice to stop this grant to the Presbyterian preachers. As to the right of Parliament to alter the disposition of Church property in Ireland, that was, he thought, quite clear. The Church Establishment was founded on Act of Parliament, and could be altered by the same authority. He was sure, that the yearly income of the see of Derry was not one shilling less than 20,000l.

admitted the power, but denied the right of the Legislature to take away the property of the Church, as much as he denied its right to take away the property of individuals.

said, that there was a great difference in the nature of church property and private property. Church property was public property, and could be disposed of with perfect justice as Parliament thought fit.

said, that the lands of the See of Derry were 94,000 acres; this appeared by the return of the order of the 10th of February, 1812. The Secretary for Ireland had, in touching on this subject, and the amendment of the member for Middlesex, taken occasion to reiterate the opinions expressed by him when he first came into the House, relative to the Established Church. This reiteration was of great importance, as he was now a member of the Cabinet, and held such important functions connected with the Government of Ireland. Were they to be told, that there was no change to be made in the Church Establishment? This was decidedly at variance with the declaration made by the Prime Minister in the House of Lords, who had proclaimed his decided conviction, that the Irish Church Establishment was not fitted for Ireland; so that a Cabinet Minister in the Commons dissented from a Prime Minister in the Lords. But how stood public opinion in England? Even from the great seminary of orthodoxy—from the Chair of Political Economy in Oxford—a distinct announcement had been made, that it would be necessary for Ireland that the Irish Bishoprics should be diminished. Mr. Senior had proposed to apply the revenues of eighteen Bishoprics to the purposes of the State. He owned that, as a Roman Catholic, he could not disguise the feelings with which he beheld one tithe of the nation's substance devoted to the religion of one tithe of the nation's numbers. He was no enemy of the Established Church. He was sworn not to conspire for its overthrow; but he could not be so far its friend as to be reconciled to its enormous opulence. He would not touch a single actual incumbent; but for the sake of that non-existent, and mere legal idealism, a successor, he would not desire to see a system perpetuated, against which reason, justice, policy, 7,000,000 of the Irish nation, and a large portion of the English people, concurred in remonstrating. A great retrenchment was requisite. A schedule A was required for the Irish mitres. It was not in these days of Reform that we should talk of the vested rights of the Established Church of Ireland, by which millions of the national wealth were dedicated to the maintenance of institutions alien to the nation. The Established Church might be left in its legal pre-eminence—its Bishops (although their number should be reduced) might be maintained in due dignity, and its priesthood in comfort, and at the same time much of its opulence might be applied to purposes more consistent with the national good. Thus the hostility of the nation would be mitigated, and one of the great sources of discord would be removed. Lord Grey, he trusted, would avail himself of the first opportunity afforded, to commence this most important Reform. Until it took place, it was idle to think that the prosperity and peace of Ireland could be materially promoted.

said, that the amount of the yearly income of the See of Derry, during the life of the late Bishop, had never exceeded 12,000l. The renewal fine mentioned by the hon. member for Middlesex, did not amount to more than 14,000l., instead of 25,000l., as he had stated it.

suggested, that as so many different statements had been made with respect to the value of this Bishopric, the consideration of the present vote should be postponed for one week.

said, the vote before the Committee had nothing to do with the question of the See of Derry, and he saw no reason for its postponement. He thought that the question of the Irish Church ought to be discussed separately.

said, that the Church Establishment ought not to be regarded merely as a matter between Protestant and Catholic, but should be considered upon the ground of its public utility.

considered Parliament omnipotent not for evil but for good, and, if it thought proper, had a right to deal with church property in a manner beneficial to the whole community.

hoped and trusted, that there was no truth in the report which he had lately heard, that it was the intention of Ministers to recommend to the See of Derry an individual to whom he would not allude by name; but who, he must say, was not distinguished by high theological learning and attainments. He was convinced that such an appointment would inflict the most serious injuries on the church.

supported the vote. He said, that there was no body of men more attentive to their religious duties, or more distinguished by liberality of sentiment, than the Presbyterian clergy.

withdrew his opposition, stating, that he would take another opportunity of bringing the subject of the See of Derry under the notice of the House.

wished that a portion of this vote—namely, 1,476l. to the Recorder of Dublin, should be postponed till that Gentleman returned to the House, as he wished to raise a question upon it. He doubted whether he ought to have a seat in Parliament.

said, that the hon. Member might propose, that the whole vote should be postponed, but it could not conveniently be separated. It would be better to wait, and raise the question that hon. Member referred to at another time.

concurred in the wish for postponement. He was decidedly of opinion the Recorder of Dublin ought not to sit as Representative of that city. Moreover, he wished to call the attention of the House to the appointments of Police Magistrates at Dublin, who were generally selected from the Corporation, and were violent political partizans. They had given great cause for complaint on many occasions—he would, therefore, suggest, that as the public paid them, the Government should have the selection of them.

was well aware that a general revision in the Irish police was necessary, but the question relating to the Recorder was no reason that the whole vote should be postponed.

opposed the postponement of the Grant, as the Recorder was not present in person to defend himself.

said, he would raise no question relating to the Recorder at present, but he objected to the general principle of the vote, which was, to pay the officers of the Corporation of Dublin, whose rapacity had been a complete curse to that city. For many years they had assessed the public to a tax for supplying the city with water; at length some inquiry took place, and the Master of the Rolls decided, that about 74,000l. ought to be refunded. He thought that some portion of that sum might be made available for the purposes of this grant. Why should the Government pay these Corporation Magistrates, over whom they had no control, while the Corporation, which had the patronage of the appointments, was plundering the people of Dublin. Instead of a robbery, as this had been called, it was scarcely a restitution of ill-gotten wealth.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had, in his tirade against the Corporation of Dublin, omitted to notice that the Government really had some control over the police Magistrates. As it paid them, it was consequently able to remove them if any suspicion of delinquency appeared, but this was the first time he had ever heard that there was grounds for such an insinuation.

again asserted, that the Government were not responsible for the acts of these Magistrates. They were placed in a ridiculous position between the Government and the Corporation, and the people of Dublin suffered from the maladministration of justice in consequence. There was a great difference between the power of appointment, and the power of discharging, and it was most necessary that Government should put an end to all truckling in the administration of justice.

said, the Corporation of Dublin ought to pay for the police of the city. It was known to have considerable revenues, and he did not see why its police ought to be paid more than the Magistrates of Edinburgh or Glasgow.

said, he hoped to see the police force of Ireland shortly revised by the act of the House, and the Irish Reform Bill would, he trusted, contain a provision to prevent Recorders sitting in Parliament.

said, he would not, after this declaration, press his objection.

said, as this was a new establishment, he wished to have some explanation of the duties attached to it, and who the Commissioners were, and for what purposes they were appointed.

in answer, said, these Commissioners were to perform the duties of the General Post Office Board—and the superintendence of mail-coach roads, for which 600,000l. had been expended; they would also discharge the duties heretofore performed by the Board of Fisheries, the double duties of the Board of Inland Navigation, and the duties of the Board of Works, besides the superintendence of other public departments.

begged to be informed, whether superannuation allowances were to be given to the suppressed Commissioners of the Boards of Inland Navigation and Works, because that would form a material item in the expenses?

in reply, said, the Government did not intend to give superannuation allowances to the Commissioners of Inland Navigation, as that Board had only been appointed for temporary purposes—the Secretary had been employed in another office as Commissioner, and with regard to the Board of Works, two Commissioners would receive superannuation allowances, which would not cause much additional expense.

recommended the formation of piers for the convenience of the Irish fisheries.

said, as so many propositions had been made for the benefit of Ireland, he must notice, that the Highlanders of Scotland were very much distressed, from, the decline in the kelp trade, and he hoped their case would be considered, as well as others of which they heard so much night after night. He had no doubt, that there was much distress in Ireland, but he regretted to say it was not confined to that country; he hoped, therefore, Members intended to vote a sum of money for the relief of the Highlanders.

described the Bill to be exceedingly unjust, and called for some further delay; it was not fair to bring it on after one o'clock in the morning.

said, any amendments that hon. Gentlemen had to propose might be brought forward at the third reading of the Bill, and it was very important the Bill should not be delayed, as it was anxiously expected by the public—the principle had been agreed to by all parties; except by the hon. Gentleman.

said, if the hon. Gentleman persevered in his motion, he would give all the opposition in his power on the third reading. The Report taken into consideration.

proposed a clause, but if there was any objection to it now, he would bring it up on the third reading; the object was, that when trespassers were found on land, in possession of game, the legal owners or their servants might take possession of it.

said, they would expose the gamekeepers, by this clause, to the danger of taking what they could have no right whatever to.

remarked, in answer, that it would be very hard if the owner of the game should not repossess himself of it, because the poacher might have robbed other persons also.

entirely agreed with the principle of the Bill, but wished to know, whether any provision had been introduced into it confining the relief to land in the possession of Catholics for a long time, because, by relieving estates purchased recently, his right hon. friend merely made a present to the individuals who might happen to be the present proprietors.

assured his hon. friend, that the case he had alluded to was guarded against. No relief was to be given in cases where there was not an equitable claim, but his great object had been, to relieve the Statute Book from a law which had too long disgraced it.