presented a Petition from the Corporation of Chandlers and Soapboilers of the City of Dublin, complaining of the effect of the present state of the Drawbacks in England. Their trade, in consequence of the Duty on Soap in England, being paid back on exportation was almost annihilated. They prayed that some measure might be introduced for the purpose of giving them relief, and for that purpose they suggested that the Tax on Soap should be entirely repealed.

said, it was undoubtedly true that at present the Irish soap-boilers were much injured by the state of the drawbacks. There were three modes in which that evil could be remedied. The first was, by an alteration of the drawbacks; the second, that suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman of taking off the duty altogether; the third, to take off half the tax in England, and lay it on in Ireland. He hoped soon to bring forward a measure which would remedy the grievance complained of.

said, it would be much better for the noble Lord to repeal the tax in England, than lay it on in Ireland.

said, the question was not quite understood. What the Irish soapboilers particularly complained of was, that the drawback was not given on duty actually paid, but on duty to be hereafter paid. The soap-boiler in England actually re-received the drawback some months before he paid the duty, and thus was enabled to undersell the Irish manufacturer by trading on capital lent by the Government, for which he paid no interest.

observed, that the Irish in general, the consumers, got their soap cheaper by the present system, although a change might be advantageous to the manufacturers. If any body suffered by the present state of the law, it was the English.

allowed that the consumers did certainly get it a little cheaper at present, but then it was through the medium of a gross fraud on the revenue, by the perversion of public money to private speculation, and by the ruin of the Irish manufacturer. Whatever alteration the noble Lord might introduce, he hoped it would be for the abolition of the Excise-duty. His constituents were decidedly against allowing Excise-officers to come into their premises at all and he trusted that they would be chased from every manufacturer's door; their appearance checked industry, and the ingenuity of the country. Petition laid on the Table.

presented a Petition from William Blaxland of Leamington, praying the House not to pass any Bill by which arbitrary, military, or despotic power might be established in any part of these realms. For the present he should merely say, that during the last few days he had been consoled by receiving an immense number of letters from all parts of Great Britain, expressive of sympathy for his countrymen, and of unqualified disgust at any attempt to establish a military tyranny in Ireland.

said, the hon. and learned Member had stated but one-half of the petition. In justice to the House, he ought to have read the latter part, which asked for the repeal of all enactments by which any payments were made under the pretence of supporting Christianity."

said, his only reason for not reading the part alluded to was, that petitions had been so frequently presented to the House upon the subject that he thought it was unnecessary. For his own part, it was well known that he heartily concurred in such a prayer—that it was the very principle of his political life. The existence of the Catholic Church proved there was no necessity for resorting to such unworthy means, for it supported more bishops, vicars, and parish priests than did the Protestant Church, without one farthing wrung from the people by the compulsion of the law; thus vindicating itself to all, and disdaining those practices which extorted money under the pretence of encouraging religion but in reality, to support aristocrats and their relatives. Petition to be laid on the Table.

presented a petition from the inhabitants of the town of Worthing, for the abolishing of the Inhabited House-duty and Window-taxes. He begged to observe, that he heartily concurred in the prayer of the petition, which was numerously signed by respectable housekeepers. He stated that he sincerely hoped his Majesty's Ministers would repeal those duties which pressed so heavily upon the middle class, and which were levied and collected most inequitably. If his Majesty's Ministers wished to retain the confidence of the country, they must adopt and continue alone such taxes as were founded on just and impartial principles. He had no wish to embarrass his Majesty's Ministers, but he thought they must be prepared to repeal these duties. When he found, that the right hon. Secretary at War had, so long ago as 1822, advocated the immediate repeal of these taxes, and had, in a most eloquent speech, proved these always to have been considered as war taxes, not only by Mr. Fox and Mr. Wyndham, but also by Mr. Pitt, and when he found the right hon. Secretary at War, saying in that speech—'I have before told you to what amount I think we have a right to diminished taxation. If you have no surplus, reduce your expenditure. That there are means of so doing, no one can doubt, but the particular mode need not be shown by me, or by any one; that onus lies upon you. You have no right to your large establishments—it is ridiculous to call them necessary—they cannot be necessary if the people cannot afford to pay for them.'^* The hon. Member said, that the distressed people of England called upon the right hon. Secretary to enforce those opinions, and he trusted that his right hon. colleagues

^* Hansard, (new series) vii. p. 1490.

would bend to his powerful eloquence.

was satisfied, that the House-tax was very unfairly levied, and was very unequal in its operation. He did not, however, go to the full extent of the prayer of this petition, because he was aware that, at the present moment, all classes were calling for the repeal of taxes which pressed peculiarly upon them; and it was impossible for Government to yield to all those demands. It must rest, therefore, with the Government, to consider what taxes should be taken off. Since he had had the honour of a seat in Parliament, he had known many taxes repealed, which had not benefited the public. That was the case with respect to the repeal of the Leather-tax. The only persons who had profited by the repeal of that tax were the leather-sellers and curriers; whilst the poor, who were told that they would get their shoes cheaper, did not pay one farthing less for them than before. The House should consider the subject dispassionately, and repeal those taxes which pressed most heavily on the best interests of the country. Petition laid on the Table.

said, that he had intended, according to the usual course of proceeding, to have moved that the Bill should be read a first time, upon its being brought from the other House; but, as several Members had expressed a wish that the Bill should be printed before it passed through any of its stages; he felt it necessary to comply with that wish, and he would, therefore, now move that it be printed, and that the first reading be taken on Wednesday next.

said, that without wishing to enter into any debate, he would enter his protest against the Bill,

wished to know, when the House might expect the remedial measures which the Government had promised. He hoped that the House would not pass the present Bill, until the others were passed, or, at least, until they were satisfied that they would pass, lest they should render themselves liable to be charged with passing only the coercive measure. The experience of last year was not lost upon him. The Government then told the House that, remedial measures should be passed along with the coercive measure. The latter was passed, but the House never saw the others.

said, that a bill which he intended as a remedial measure—namely, that for getting rid of the collection of tithes under the former system, was passed during the last Session. If Gentlemen chose to put a different interpretation on what Ministers said, from that which they intended it to bear, that was not the fault of Ministers. The Report of the Tithe Committee, if it had been examined, would have shown what was the nature of the remedial measure which the Government intended to propose upon that occasion. With respect to the remedial measures at present in contemplation, he had stated, a day or two ago, that he hoped to be able to introduce the Bill for Church Reform by the end of next week, and the Bill for amending the Grand Jury system by the middle of the week. It was for the House to decide, whether they had sufficient confidence in Ministers to believe that they were in earnest, when they said they would carry through the remedial measures.

said, the Members of that House might be disposed to place the fullest confidence in the intention of Ministers, and to believe that they had the power of carrying their remedial measures through that House; but Ministers would not insinuate that they could control another assembly. Could it be said, that in another place, any measure advantageous to Ireland was certain of passing? Anything disadvantageous to her, was, he knew, sure to pass—any measure springing from malignant hatred of that country. No more on that point. He understood from the noble Lord a few nights since, that he expected to have been able to introduce the Grand Jury Bill during the week.

I said next week.

said, he understood the noble Lord differently, but no matter: he rose on the present occasion, principally for the purpose of apologizing to his constituents, for permitting one vote respecting this despotic Bill to pass without discussing it; but as the noble Lord had complied with the suggestion of many persons opposed to the measure, by postponing the first reading till Wednesday, he would abstain from entering into any debate respecting it, contenting himself with giving notice, that he would move a call of the House for Wednesday, and would repeat the call whenever he thought he perceived any relaxation of its effect as long as the Bill was before the House. Once more he roust apologize to his constituents, for allowing the Bill to be mentioned in the House, without raising his voice against it. The phrase, the madness of slavery" was cheered once in that House. He felt the madness of slavery coming over him then. He would proceed no further.

said, that the hon. and learned Member had made one observation, by which he appeared necessarily to connect two measures, which had no conexion with each other. Undoubtedly, Ministers had declared—and if some parties had given them more confidence for their good intentions, and would wait with a little more patience, to see whether they would perform their promises, instead of exciting violent opposition, before they knew what the conduct of Government was likely to be, it might have tended more to the peace of Ireland undoubtedly. Ministers had held forth an expectation that it was then their intention, acting on the principles which they had always professed, and he would venture to say, on which they had already acted, to direct their attention to the remedy of the real and acknowledged grievances of Ireland. So anxious had they been to prove to the House and the country that they were not putting forth mere professions, that they had taken the earliest possible opportunity, after the opening of the Session, to declare the measures which it was their intention to propose to Parliament. Those measures had been acknowledged by the reluctant consent of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, which he now vainly attempted to retract, to be real and substantial measures of relief and remedies for abuses. At the same time that Ministers announced these measures they applied to Parliament for another measure—which they had late asked for, and reluctantly resorted to—when it was imperiously called for, not for the maintenance of the present Administration, but for the maintenance of any Administration, and which, he declared to God, he would not have asked for, sitting on the benches where he did, if he would not have voted for, sitting on those opposed to him. If any Administration, let it have been formed of what party it might, had, in the present state of Ireland, proposed the measure which it was his painful duty to have recommended, in office or out of office, he would equally have supported that measure, which he held to be not of a coercive but of a protective nature. But, although it was right that the House and the country should know what remedial measures it was proposed should accompany the restrictive but necessary measures, it was not necessary that the two sets of measures should move pari passu, side by side through both Houses of Parliament. The hon. and learned Member said that the Government could not carry measures for the benefit of Ireland through the other House. Speaking in the name of the Cabinet, he said, that the Government was pledged to carry those measures through. If they could not carry the remedial as well as the painful and coercive measures, they were no longer a Government—they could not continue to sit on those benches. He said that if they were unable to carry their measures through, they were not only unable to exercise, but unworthy of exercising, the functions of a Government; and he should deem himself disgraced by continuing to hold the situation which he filled under such an Administration. Government, therefore, was pledged to this—that both the remedial and the coercive measures should pass. They were bound by their character—they were bound by their situations—they were bound by their honour as gentlemen—to carry them through; and, if they failed in doing so, they could not continue to hold their situations—they could not call upon the House to place confidence in them. That was the line of policy which Government meant to pursue but he could not stop to inquire whether this measure or that measure should be passed first or last—it was sufficient to state, that if they could not carry everything they proposed, they were no longer the Government of the country. The two sets of measures were independent of each other, but the rejection of either would equally establish this fact, that the Administration did not possess the confidence of the two Houses of Parliament, and therefore, could not continue to conduct the affairs of the country.

The right hon. Gentleman said, that he would not continue to be a Minister of the Crown unless he could carry his coercive measures. But he thought the right hon. Gentleman was not worthy to be a Minister if he attempted to carry them. No Minister was worthy of the confidence of Parliament, or the support of the Crown, who should endeavour to deprive the Irish people of their rights and privileges. The coercive measures would encounter from him, and other Irish Members representing popular constituencies, the utmost possible opposition. He charged the right hon. Secretary openly, in the face of the House and the country, with having, in the remedial measures which were about to be introduced, kept the word of promise to the ear" of Ireland, and broken it to her hope. The remedial measures would be perfectly nugatory if accompanied with the coercive measures. He could assure Ministers, that these coercive measures would do more to dissolve the ties which bound Ireland to England than anything else could possibly do. The Irish people possessed a spirit which would not bow down to tyranny. If the right hon. Secretary wished to maintain the Union, let him treat the Irish people as he would treat the people of England. Before it was too late he called upon the Government to retrace their steps.

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman had not said the Government had declared that they should not call themselves a Government if they could not carry both the remedial and coercive measures, but that it would not continue to conduct the affairs of the country. The Government was now passing through Parliament remedial measures; and, if Gentlemen would attack the Government, let them do so on correct premises.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had laid down the proposition which could not be disputed, that no Government could call itself a Government without being able to carry remedial, as well as coercive measures. He thought that they ought to be certain that the remedial measures introduced into that House would be carried elsewhere. He agreed with the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman; and if that were so, he should like to know what had become of that portion of the remedial measures for Ireland to which the Government were pledged that it should be passed through that House? He meant the law by which the system of calling Juries in Ireland was to be made the same as that of England. The intention to pass that measure had been announced here by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, when interrogated on the subject, said that the Government were pledged upon it. Where was that Bill? Had that pledge been fulfilled? Was it a remedial measure? If so, was that measure now carried into effect? If it was not carried into effect, why had it been relinquished? What had become of the Committee? Had the Government in this respect fulfilled their pledge, or acted in a manner to correspond with the general principle laid down so eloquently by the right hon. Gentleman, and which no one had attempted, and no one would attempt, to controvert. He, for one, admitted that principle, and he asked where was the remedy?

I need hardly say, that I admit having given the pledge referred to; nor do I take credit for making the admission, for many of the Gentlemen now around me must, of course, perfectly recollect that I did give such a pledge. I hope the House will believe me when I say, that I gave it with the most perfect sincerity—and, I will add, that I gave it with the most perfect confidence that it would be redeemed. The Bill which the hon. and learned Member refers to was not carried through the other House of Parliament, because it was so late in the Session that it could not be passed before the Prorogation. I had expected that it would have been got through before the end of the Session. I am ready to say, now that my pledge was not redeemed, and, further, that I am bound to see it redeemed, by bringing forward at an early period, a measure respecting Juries. I do not consider, from the circumstances under which that pledge was not redeemed, that I was so compromised as to make it impossible for me to remain a member of the Government. On that point I may be wrong, but I do not think I am; and I trust that the House will think me right.

explained, that it was erroneously supposed that he had said his opposition to the present Bill would depend in a great measure on the success of what he called remedial measures. Although he had spoken on both of these measures, he had been mistaken when it was supposed that his hostility to this measure would, on any pretence whatever, be mitigated. He thought it necessary to make that explanation, because he found that he could not act on the impulse of his feelings, and praise, when he saw them acting right, those whom he thought to be the enemies, without having that praise thrown in his teeth, and being taunted with inconsistency for it.

had only said, that he understood the hon. and learned Member's chief reason for opposing this measure at this time to be, that he saw no certainty that the other measures—those of a remedial nature—would pass with it.

said, that was just the mistake of which he complained. He had certainly said, that he saw nothing to assure him that the measures of a remedial nature would pass; but he had said it without any reference whatever to the present Bill.

was satisfied of this, that no measure of a remedial nature would be received with gratitude in Ireland, if it was passed in conjunction with a measure of this kind The people of Ireland prized liberty too highly to accept anything as a substitute for it. Their condition might be improved; but if they were fed upon beef and mutton, but deprived of liberty, they would not be satisfied.

said, that notwithstanding the indiscretion of the right hon. Gentleman, the Irish Members would abstain from comment; but he would tell that right hon. Gentleman, that with respect to Ireland, the memorable words of the Paymaster of the Forces were exactly true, and that "the whisper of a faction would never prevail against the voice of the nation," Bill ordered to be printed, and House to be called over on Wednesday.

moved for the appointment of a Committee, to examine into the number of Members of both Houses of Parliament who hold offices under the Crown, and who are removable at pleasure. He should take that opportunity of saying, that in his opinion such persons ought not to be Members of either House of Parliament. Indeed, he should go further, though he well knew how much his sentiments on that point were at variance with those of other men, that neither Officers in the Army nor Navy ought to have seats in that House. He knew how his opinion would be received; for he recollected that, when he had stated it before, it was considered as very extraordinary. He could tell hon. Gentlemen who dissented from him on this point, that, in most of these majorities which supported measures that he had contended were prejudicial to the interests of the public at large, were to be found persons of the class he mentioned. To show to what extent that sort of Government influence was carried, he would only mention, that in 1714 there were in Parliament 271 persons who held offices under the Crown; in 1727 the number was 257; and in 1822 the number was 148. He hoped that the number would be still further reduced.

had no objection to the appointment of the Committee, He only suggested that it should be an instruction to the Committee to report on the number that had sat in Parliament in several antecedent periods.

said, the people of England had a right to exercise their privilege of judging for themselves, and without the dictation of the hon. Member, as to what men were fit to represent them. In consequence of a portion of the people having exercised their privilege in favour of him, he thought that he had as good a right as the hon. member for Middlesex to a seat in that House, As one of the two classes of men whom the hon. member for Middlesex had thought fit to calumniate, he thought he had a right to say, in his own defence, that he should do his duty as honestly as the hon. Member himself. Officers in the army and navy would not have been sent into Parliament, unless the people had confidence in them; and if the people had that confidence in them, they had a full right to their seats. At all events, if the title to sit in that House was to be put upon other grounds, those men who had served their country against the enemy had just as good a right to a seat as the hon. member for Middlesex, or any one who went about to catch the favouring breath of popularity.

added to his Motion the words suggested by the noble Lord, and then said that he had not calumniated any man. He Was in a different situation from the hon. Member. The King could not strike him out of the list of officers as the King could strike out the hon. Member, and consequently, the hon. and gallant Member was to that extent a dependent man. He was a dependent man, as far as he held a Commission under the Crown, which could be taken from him at the pleasure of the Crown. He could show hon. Members a printed list now on the Table of 1,000 men who had been struck out of the list of commissioned officers, no reason given, and who could get no redress. There was, not many years ago, an instance of a gallant Officer who had served his country well, but who was struck off at the pleasure of the Crown, and who had sought in vain, even in that House for redress. He could not but watch with jealousy those men whom he generally found voting in one manner. The hon. Member had talked of catching popularity. He despised popularity. Yes, he despised it in the sense the hon. Member meant. He did not ask it for an unworthy object—he courted it by doing-good acts, and if the hon. Member directed the accusation against him, he could only say that it was perfectly inapplicable. He had resisted the popular voice when he thought it to be wrong, and he would give the hon. Member an example. When the Ministers truckled to the popular cry about the Truck Bill, he had resisted it; and what was the result? Why, that he was burnt in effigy throughout the country.

said, that if there was not in this age a fashion to throw imputations on officers of his Majesty's service, he might feel indignant at the observations which had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex. He had the honour to hold a commission in the navy, and he thought that the hon. member for Middlesex did not know what the word honour meant, if he thought that an officer, for the sake of his paltry half-pay, would sell the interests of his constituents. He would tell the hon. member for Middlesex, that every officer of the army and navy threw back upon him his imputations. Men who thus accused others, did but judge of others by themselves, and he believed that if the hon. Member was placed in the situation of those men whom be now calumniated, he would act as he accused them of acting.

said, that he had the honour to hold a commission in his Majesty's service for forty years. He was now returned to that House by a large constituency. He thought that if all the allegations of the hon. member for Middlesex were just, officers could not be fit to represent the people. The hon. Member ought to have tried the officers of the army and navy longer than he had, before he made such sweeping imputations against them. Because, the other night, they had voted for their brothers in arms, to save them a poor pittance which had been earned by hard services, they were now arraigned before that House. He asserted, without fear of contradiction, that they would do their duty to their constituents as honestly and honourably as the hon. Member himself.

should not condescend to answer the supposition of the hon. member for Middlesex, that he should, individually, be biassed by the motives to which the hon. Member had referred. He rose to protest against the doctrine, that the officers of the Army or Navy were necessarily subservient to the Government. He did not look on his half-pay as a retaining fee, but as a reward for past services. He was ready to meet the question, whether that was so or not, either upon common principle or on the decision of the twelve Judges. That question had, in fact, been decided in 1793, when the Duke of St. Alban's, then a Lieutenant in the Navy, had his right to his half-pay brought into question, because he did not offer himself for service. On that occasion the twelve Judges decided that half-pay was a reward for past, and not a retaining fee for future services, and they took a distinction between the army and the navy in that respect, as a man in the Navy could not have his half-pay until after active service, but he might have it without service in the army. It was, however, known that officers in the army often sold their half-pay; and who bought it? Why, the Government. Would the Government buy that, if it was a retaining fee for future services?—Certainly not. How, then, could the hon. member for Middlesex think that all the officers were subservient to Government on account of that which they had a right to for past services?

said, it would be easy for the hon. member for Middlesex to show instances of officers being arbitrarily struck off the list of commissioned officers during the earlier period of the American war. But in late years, that had not been done, for public opinion had prevented the recurrence of such instances. There had been scarcely any, if any, instance of an officer being removed for purely political causes. He would take the very instance referred to by the hon. member for Middlesex—that of the gallant Officer, the member for Southwark, and that did not prove his poition. It was within the recollection of the House that he was removed in consequence of a military offence which was proved against him at the time.

, who was not a member either of the army or navy, said he could not concur with the observations of the hon. member for Middlesex. He thought that the honourable Member had thrown out imputations without probability, which were slanders against the officers of the two services and against the people of this country generally, and especially against those constituencies which had returned them.

was aware that it had often been held as a constitutional principle, that the Representatives of the people should not be the servants of the Crown; but he objected to that doctrine, not because it was too liberal, but because it was not sufficiently democratic. He held that no constraint should be placed upon the choice of the people.

had no difficulty in saying that he should much rather have officers of the army and navy in that House than have it filled with landowners, who pocketed so much of the people's money. He fully agreed with those Members who had said that the half-pay of the army and navy was a reward for past services, and not at all in the nature of a retaining fee; and therefore he held that there could not be an act of more grievous tyranny than to deprive any military man—be his rank what it might—of the fair reward of his laborious and hazardous servitude. He had himself, not long since, received a petition from a man in Oldham, who had served in the army for many years, and who, without any cause assigned, had been deprived of a pension earned by years of hard service. He was a man who had received three wounds—one of them at the battle of Waterloo. That petition he had forwarded to the War Office, but had not received any communication in reply.

said, that if any of the out-pensioners of Chelsea Hospital were called upon to serve in a veteran battalion, and refused to do so, they, according to the regulations of the service, forfeited their pensions. He certainly had received the petition to which the hon. Member had alluded, and returned it to him, with such a reply and explanation as the occasion demanded, but he had not received in return any acknowledgment of the receipt of his reply—a circumstance which he attributed to the letter having been addressed in the customary manner of addressing Members of Parliament, namely, "William Cobbett, Esq." He had since seen an advertisement announcing that the hon. Member would not take in any letters which were addressed otherwise than to "Mr. William Cobbett," and possibly that was the reason of the misapprehension on the subject. He fully agreed with the hon. member for Bath—and it was not often that he had the pleasure of doing so—in thinking that any limitation of the power of the people in choosing whomsoever they thought proper as their Representative, would be highly inexpedient. Several hon. Members who had spoken objected, one to this class, and the other to that, and if all who took a part in the debate had the power of excluding from Parliament the class of individuals against whom they took exception, the House would at length be reduced to very small numbers indeed.

was disposed generally to agree with the hon. member for Middlesex, but of late he found that hon. Member enforcing such a vigorous discipline, that he found himself under a necessity of quitting the camp. [The hon. Member immediately went over to the Ministerial side of the House].

did not regret the departure of the gallant Officer, for, while in the camp he never found him amenable to any discipline. As to any imputations thrown out against himself, he flung them back with as much contempt, and scorn as they were flung upon him.

, in moving for the number of prosecutions for cheap publications which had taken place since August last, expressed his regret that these prosecutions had been more numerous under a Whig Administration than under a Tory Government. When he last brought this subject under the notice of the House, he stated that Mr. Hetherington, who was confined in Coldbath-fields Prison, and treated worse than a felon, had been convicted under the 60th of George 3rd, one of the Six Acts. This statement which he had since ascertained to be correct, was denied at the time by the Attorney General, who said that Hetherington had been convicted for an offence against the Stamp Acts. He wished the Attorney General would give the House some explanation on this head; and he also desired to know from the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) whether he intended to move for the repeal of this Act in the course of the present Session.

said, in stating what he did on the occasion alluded to by his hon. friend he had led the House into no mistake. It was true, that one part of the 60th George 3rd related to political offences: but there was another part which steered clear of all political matters, and was merely fiscal. It was under this latter part that Hetherington was convicted, his offence being his having published a newspaper without paying the stamp-duties required by law.

said, he was the innocent cause of the passing of the Act referred to; and he would ask the Ministers whether, as it had been found to fail, it would not be well to repeal it? So long as that Act remained on the Statute-book, so long there would exist a proof of their political tergiversation; and the sooner they got rid of it, the sooner they were likely to recover some part of their almost totally lost popularity.

said, that the Act 60 Geo. 3rd referred to many matters, and he thought it would be impossible to repeal it entirely. Part might be retained, and part ought to be repealed, but at the present moment he could not say, that he would make any proposition on the subject during the present Session. With respect to the prosecutions of which the hon. member for Middlesex had complained, he begged to state, that Government was not responsible for them. They were instituted by common informers.

must hold the Government responsible for the prosecutions which were carried on under laws, that they might, if they would, repeal.

replied, that it was a mistake to suppose, that all those prosecutions had been instituted under the 60th Geo. 3rd.

observed, that the Government could not prevent those prosecutions, and he believed, that it gave no encouragement to them.

rose for the purpose of moving, that the order for referring the petition of R. H. Franks to the Committee on Municipal Corporations be discharged. He certainly was astonished to find that there was any hesitation upon the subject. It appeared to him quite clear, that the Committee on Municipal Corporations could not deal with the petition, and therefore it ought not to be referredto it. It had been attempted to maintain, that the trading Corporations of the city of London were Municipal Corporations. How was that possible? Could there be two Municipal Corporations in one town? Most assuredly not. Such a thing was never heard of; and yet in this case there must not only be two, but a great many more. The absurdity was too evident to receive the countenance of that House. A question had been raised as to whether the trading Corporations of London were really traders—as to whether they traded upon joint stocks or at all—or whether they were even formed for the purposes of trade. He contended, that they were in the strictest sense of the word trading Corporations. The Merchant Tailors' Company, like the Apothecaries' Company, trafficked with individual property, for the benefit of the persons to whom the property belonged. But the best way of deciding that point would be by reference to the charters by which they existed, and wherein the purposes for which they were created were set forth. Upon a reference to the last charter to the Merchant Tailors' Corporation, it would be seen, that it was strictly a trading Corporation. That charter was granted by Henry 5th. It contained the following passage:—'And, moreover, as we have been informed, that the men of the Mistery aforesaid, in our city afore-said, or at least the sounder part of them, have, from time whereof the memory of man is not to the contrary, and daily do use, occupy, and exercise, in all quarters and kingdoms of the world, all and every kinds of merchandizes, to the renown, honour, and benefit of our kingdom and subjects, and the great advantage of us and our progenitors, formerly Kings of England; and that the same men of the said Mistery have, during the whole time aforesaid, used, occupied, and exercised the buying and selling of all and every wares and merchandizes whatsoever, and especially woollen-cloths, as well wholesale as retail, throughout our whole realm of England, and particularly with in our city aforesaid, and the suburbs thereof—we, of our especial grace, and of our certain knowledge, and meer motion, have transferred and changed, and do transfer and change, the said guild or fraternity into the name of the guild of Merchant Taylors, of the fraternity of St. John the Baptist, in the City of London. That was the origin of this Corporation, and its charter was still the same. He begged leave to tell hon. Gentlemen, that the Company continued to exercise the callings and mysteries described in the charter. It had been asked, did this Corporation trade at present, and how many of the Corporations of London did carry on a trade, and all had a right peculiarly to do so. The Stationers Corporation, the Goldsmiths Corporation, and others of the trading Corporations, traded upon a joints-tock. Others of the Corporations traded upon a number of stocks, each trader being subject to the general rules of the Corporation to which he belonged. Such was the origin, and such the present character, of these Corporations, and therefore he contended that it would be monstrous to pretend to consider them as Municipal. He knew that many of the members of these Corporations had never been traders. That was beyond doubt. Such had been the fact from the very commencement of these Corporations. From the earliest periods it had been the custom to admit into them, as honorary members, the most eminent public characters. The Plantagenets, and the Tudors were found enrolled in the City Companies. Hotspur was a member of the Corporation of Merchant Tailors, even as the Duke of Wellington now was. Neither of these great men ever worked with the shears or the needle; the Duke of Wellington did not handle the goose, but the Corporation was nevertheless essentially a trading one. It had ever been the pride of that Corporation to number among its members the most illustrious members of the community. That the Merchant Tailors' Corporation was a trading body was beyond doubt. They formed the rules for carrying on the trade in the article with which they were most intimately concerned; and he might mention, as a further proof, that the officer of the Corporation regularly attended the Cloth or Bartholomew Fair at Smithfield, and with a silver yard measured the yards of the cloth-merchants, to see that they agreed with the standard. It had been said, that the members of the Corporation of Merchant Tailors, enjoyed municipal rights. They did not as members of that Corporation, but as members of the Municipal Corporation. The two things were quite distinct. With respect to the right of voting for Members of Parliament, that did not exist under the present law; nor did it exist under the charters of the trading Corporations. Long after the formation of the trading Corporations, the Municipal Corporation had made an order that it would admit none to vote for Members of Parliament, who were not members of some one of the trading Corporations. Surely, then, if it was intended, that that circumstance gave to the House a right to inquire into all the affairs of these Corporations, the present law must give a right of inquiry into the affairs of all the 10l. householders. Look at the effect of such reasoning. Under the present law, persons living in chambers in Inns of Court, within the limits of the City of London, had a right of voting for Members of Parliament for London. Now no person could occupy those chambers without the permission of the Corporation under whose rule they were. Were then those Corporations Municipal Corporations? Such they must be if the reasoning with respect to the trading Corporations was good, and the House would do well to consider the dangerous consequence such a course of proceedings would load to. He then came to the effect of the order he proposed the House should discharge. He contended, that the application was one which ought not to be countenanced by that House. The petitioner had already made a similar application to the Court of King's Bench, and that Court had dismissed the application with costs. It had decided that the petitioner had no legal right to require to be permitted to inspect the charters and the documents of the Corporation. He there fore put it to the House to say, whether it would enable the petitioner to do that which the law had emphatically said, he had no right to do, whether the House would lend its authority to enable an individual to do that through its assistance which was contrary to a deliberate decision in law? He thought the House could not lend itself to any such course, and therefore he would not dwell longer on that part of the subject. He must assure the hon. and learned member for Hull (Mr. Hill), that when the question was before under discussion he had meant to him nothing personal. He had understood, that the hon. and learned Member had acted as counsel to the petitioner, and he still believed such to have been the fact. He had complained, that the hon. and learned Member looked at the matter as affecting his client, and not as affecting a great question. He begged also to say, that he believed the hon. and learned Member considered that he had given him (Mr. Attwood) notice of his intention to oppose the petition the Motion related to; but, he must say, that he had not so understood the hon. and learned Member. He objected, then, to the reference of this petition respecting a trading Corporation to a Committee appointed, especially to inquire respecting Municipal Corporations. But he objected as much, if not more, upon general principles, as he did out of consideration to the rights and privileges of the Merchant Tailors' Corporation. Indeed he doubted much the power of that House to demand the inspection of that which the law had declared should be sacred. The trading Corporations of London held their privileges and rights from a higher tribunal than the House of Commons. They held them under the authority, and under the protection of the law of the land, and nothing short of an Act of Parliament could enforce the surrender of them. And he would recommend to the House to consider well before it attempted to countenance a proceeding which the law had expressly forbidden, for it might be found that there were Members of these trading Corporations who would maintain their rights in spite of the interference of that House. Indeed he lamented much to see that House so hastily entering upon subjects of the utmost importance for the purpose of change, if not of destruction. That House was itself but an experiment, and an experiment be it remembered, the effect of which was still uncertain and doubtful. He certainly thought, that under the circumstances the Government would have acted still more wisely if, instead of mooting highly important questions, which to be dealt well with should be dealt with deliberately, it had directed the attention of the House to that for which it was expressly summoned, the despatch of pressing public business. For Church Reform so much anxiety had been expressed, that the Government were compelled to take it up; but with respect to the projected inquiry into the Municipal Corporations, with a view to their alteration, if not abrogation, it was altogether unnecessary. For the conduct of the Government he could conceive but one reason, and that was its desire to perpetuate agitation. That was the secret spring of the whole of the proceeding of Government; and if such conduct was to be countenanced, it was not merely the Municipal and Trading Corporations of the country, that would be overthrown, but the whole fabric of our civil and social society would be shaken, if not destroyed. He moved, that the order of Monday last for referring the petition of R. H. Franks to the Committee on Municipal Corporations be discharged.

said, that the hon. Member concluded his speech by adverting to the mode in which the business of that House was conducted. It was for this reason that he rose to make a few observations in reply. The hon. Member was certainly mistaken, if he thought that any propositions could be allowed to interfere with the regular business of the Session. The business of the House should be conducted with the strictest regularity, and nothing would be allowed to interfere with it. The hon. Gentleman had also said, that the House was an experiment. So it was, and a very successful and satisfactory experiment. It was the result of the elections under the Reform Bill; and the country had, as yet, every reason to be satisfied with its composition. Every party had reason to be satisfied; and the sad predictions uttered by the hon. Gentleman, during the gloomy discussions of last year, on the Reform Bill, would, he felt confident, prove completely fallacious. As the party that made those woeful forebodings said, that they should rejoice if they failed in their prophecies, they ought now to rejoice, for they had failed. Not only ought that party to rejoice, but feel satisfied, and have confidence in that Parliament for the future. In proposing large measures of Reform, the Government would adhere to the institutions of the country. The only thing that that Parliament could be guilty of would be, deceiving the expectations of the people. It would not deceive those expectations, for it was composed of the real Representatives of the people, and would refer for its acts to the good sense of that people whom it now fully represented. With respect to the view the hon. Member took of the order to refer the petition under debate to the Committee on Municipal Corporations, he thought that the hon. Member was not exactly correct. The Committee was to inquire into the defects of the Corporations of England and Wales, and to report thereon. It was to look into and to ascertain those defects, and in order to do so, every company, and (to use the expression) every subordinate company connected, as they must be, with Municipal Corporations, should come under the cognizance of the Committee. With respect to the question whether a trading company was to be considered as connected with the constitution of a corporation, he thought that it certainly was. Let the Corporation of London be taken as an instance. To become a liveryman, it was necessary to belong to one of those trading companies, and, without being a liveryman, one could not be said to possess the privileges that being a part of the constitution of the Corporation of London gave. The Committee, undoubtedly, had no right to interfere with what it deemed did not affect Municipal Corporations, and would not do so. Yet, if the order of reference with respect to the present petition should be rescinded, that would amount almost to a declaration, that the Committee had no right to examine into those trading companies. As he was of opinion that the Committee possessed the right, he felt it his duty to object to the present Motion.

denied, that he had been the counsel of the petitioner. If he were, he would not have presented the petition; as he considered, that doing so would be derogatory to his character and station. He stood there as a legislator, and was bound to act uprightly and impartially. With respect to the application made by the petitioner to the Court of King's Bench, he could say, that the dismissal of the application ought not to have any ought not to have any eight with that House. That Court had been for upwards of four centuries a consistent supporter of all Corporation abuses. As he knew that, he formerly advised the petitioner (for he had been once his counsel) not to apply to that Court, for it would be useless. Petitioner followed the advice of others, and failed in his application. The great question was, whether a Reform could be carried into Civic Corporations without investigating Civic Companies? It was clear it could not; for, to purify the stream, it was necessary to begin with the purification of the source. No one could become a freeman of London unless he belonged to one of those Companies, and to become a liveryman one must be a freeman. By 11th George 1st, in the election of the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, and City Chamberlain, freemen had no power; but all was vested in the hands of the liverymen, who may be properly considered as the mere creatures of City Companies. Unless inquiry was made into those companies, the abuses of Municipal Corporations could not be effectually and fully detected. The Corporation of London was anxious for the assistance of Parliament to remedy its defects, therefore small companies should be also willing to accept that assistance. As to what the hon. Member said about keeping up agitation, it was the party to which the hon. Member belonged which was doing that, by objecting to ameliorations which were peremptorily called for Not only was that party keeping up agitation, but it was heightening it, and would be the cause of making the people, in a short time, disdain the concessions they would now receive with thankfulness. The Court of Assistants had raised the dues of entry from 3s. 4d. to 3l. 15s. It was very evident why they had so great a dislike to an inquiry, when such matters were to be the subject of that inquiry. The hon. Member had spoken of this inquiry as an abstract question. He (Mr. Hill) did not entirely understand what the hon. Member meant by saying this was an abstract question. He could not conceive such a person as an abstract Lord Mayor, or an abstract member of the Merchants' Company; but if the present inquiry was to be a complete and effectual one, it should certainly have his assistance. The first who refused to make an inquiry into Corporations was the right hon. Baronet opposite; and in doing so, he (Mr. Hill) conceived, that he had been the cause of greater calamity to the cause of liberty in this country than any man that ever existed. The great defect in those Corporations, and the cause of the evils which resulted from them was, the want of security under them. If, by the delay now wished, they meant to delay all inquiry—if, by denial, they meant to deny all inquiry—he hoped that the House would not agree to the proposition, but would agree to the Motion. He considered the opposition made to the Motion as part of the usual tactics of the party from which it emanated, and he trusted that the defeat which they would now meet with would make them more careful in future how they obtruded their antiquated ideas on the country. On these grounds he would give their proposal his humble, but hearty opposition.

thought, he did not claim too much credit for himself and the party with whom he acted, when he said, that they were actuated, on this and on every other occasion, by as much independence of feeling as the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, A great deal of unnecessary warmth had been imparted to this question, which he (Sir Edward Knatchbull) would not imitate. The proceedings of the Courts of Justice, for instance, he thought, had been most unnecessarily introduced. The question which had been put (o the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which the House had really to consider, was one of the simplest nature—namely, whether the petition was such as came, in point of fact and substance, within the inquiry of the Committee to which it had been referred? The noble Lord, with his usual candour admitted, that the trading Companies did not come generally within the scope of the Committee's inquiries; reserving to the Committee, however, the right of inquiry into those Companies so far as they were connected with Municipal Corporations. Now, he liberated himself, and those with whom he acted, from all the unfounded observations made upon them, by admitting the accuracy and fairness of the noble Lord's view, and adopting at once his doctrine, that the Committee should have the power of inquiry into the trading Corporations, so far as those Corporations were connected with the Municipal Corporations, but no further. He should, therefore, suggest that the hon. member for Whitehaven should not press his Motion, and he would undertake to move an amendment, which would merely state in substance what the noble Lord admitted. If the House did not agree to some such resolution, the Committee would consider that they were expected to inquire into all the affairs of the trading Companies. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving—"That it be an instruction to the Committee on Municipal Corporations to confine their attention to such parts of the condition and management of the trading Companies as refers exclusively to Municipal Rights." He thought, that if this Amendment were agreed to, both parties would give the subject their best consideration.

hoped the noble Lord (Althorp) would not accede to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. It would be impossible to conduct an inquiry into the condition and management of the Corporation of London with advantage, if the Committee was restrained from investigating those sectional parts of the Corporation which he considered the corporate companies might be justly designated. The hon. member for Whitehaven was certainly consistent, for he objected to inquiring into Corporations altogether, and therefore objected to an inquiry into the state of the corporate companies. Those companies had been called trading companies, but they were nothing like trading companies in the proper sense of the word. When he heard of trading companies, he should expect to find such companies referred to as the Bank of England Company, or the East-India Company, which carried on trade or commerce for the benefit of the members. The companies carried on no trade or commerce. They made laws for particular trades; and this was of the essence of Municipal Corporations. There was the Fishmongers' Company, for instance, which made and enforced certain regulations respecting the importation and sale of fish, and, he believed, last summer had exercised its authority in a manner very advantageous to the community, by preventing the sale of unwholesome fish. He did not quarrel with the exercise of such privileges, he only contended that such powers belonged properly, and were a part of the power usually belonging to Municipal Corporations. In his opinion the inquiries of the Committee would be most injuriously restricted if the Amendment of the hon. Baronet were agreed to.

did not feel, that it would be consistent with his sense of duty to adopt the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet. If the Committee were to be constrained to pursue a limited course of inquiry with respect to the corporate bodies of which the Municipality of the city of London was composed, and were to be debarred from instituting any examination which they might choose into such matters as seemed to them to be relevant topics of inquiry, it would be impossible for them to do their duty properly, or in a manner that would be satisfactory to the public. In order, however, to show the disposition which prevailed in the Committee with respect to the subjects of inquiry, he would read to the House a resolution which had already been adopted by them at the only sitting which they had hitherto held, and which stated, that they considered the object chiefly to be had in view was, the improvement of the corporate bodies, and that, in order to effect this object, there was no necessity to go back into past grievances, but their principal endeavours would be confined to the inquiry into the present and existing evils and abuses in those Corporations, with a view to their exposure. Such being the only resolution to which the Committee had come, at the first and only meeting they had yet had, he would leave the House to judge from this how far they were likely to pursue the subject of their inquiries to an extent which could reasonably afford any alarm to those interested in these Corporations. He, therefore, did not think, that the House would be acting advisably in laying down any rules for the guidance of the Committee, and objected to the adoption of any such suggestion.

said, that, in his opinion, the House ought distinctly to state what were to be the duties of the Committee; for although he had, when the noble Lord moved for its appointment, taken the same view of its duties as the noble Lord had done, still what had occurred in the course of the debate upon the present question showed that each individual upon that Committee might take a very different view of the meaning of the term Corporation to that of any other Member of it, and for that reason it was incumbent upon the noble Lord definitively to give a clear understanding what Corporations were to form the subject of inquiry. The resolution of the Committee which the noble Lord had just referred to, certainly showed a prudent apprehension on their part of the bounds within which their inquiries ought to be confined; but he knew quite enough of Committees of Inquiry to foresee that these apprehensions would incur a great risk of being totally forgotten as the inquiry proceeded—

"Mobilitate viget, viresque acquirit eundo;"

and, if there were some Members of it who would be prudent enough to avoid getting entangled in a" in retrievable maze of useless matter, they might not always be present to check the ardour of others who might be disposed to pursue their inquiries upon forbidden ground. He was, therefore, decidedly of opinion, that an exact line of inquiry ought to be drawn out for the purpose of this investigation, for it was absolutely necessary, however fair and open the proceedings of the House might be, that the proceedings of the Committee should be restricted, not by an understanding among them alone, but by some recorded opinion of the House, and it was this motive which prompted him to press on the noble Lord the necessity for defining the objects for the examination of the Committee. There was another reason why this recommendation ought to be adopted, and which might be deduced from the petition upon which the present debate turned. The petitioner had stated, in detail, the grievances which Franks had suffered from the abuses of the particular Corporation of which he complained, which grievances the Committee were not empowered to inquire into; but the petitioner asked the House to instruct the Committee to extend the inquiry into the state of the trading Corporations of London. If the House acted in conformity to this petition, the Committee would at once be compelled to enter into that general inquiry which the noble Lord had just now deprecated; and this, in his opinion, formed an additional reason for laying down some limit to their operations.

One benefit of the present discussion was that they were all at length agreed that, if not now, some distinct inquiry must speedily be made into the state of these trading Corporations, seeing that some of the functions exercised by them were clearly Municipal functions, and therefore make them Municipal Corporations. It was quite clear, that though these Corporations held charitable funds for their own benefit, and for the benefit of others, the House had authorized the Committee to inquire into their management. If such an instruction as the hon. Baronet had proposed was necessary to guide the Committee in the case of the Merchant Tailors' Company, it was equally necessary to guide the Committee in their examination into the management of every other Corporation. The question, stripped of all circumlocution, was, whether the trading companies of London were to be inquired into at all? Now, they were all agreed that they must be inquired into at some time, for no man could deny that they were either members of the Corporation of London, or so connected with it that they could not be excepted from the same inquiry to which that Corporation was itself subjected. No Gentleman had been bold enough to assert that the Corporation had not exercised Municipal functions, and enjoyed Municipal rights. But was there any Member able to draw a line, and tell the House from historical detail, what portion of this body was connected with the Corporation of London, or with the trading interests of London, and what portion of it was independent of them? No Gentle-roan, not even the Member who brought forward the Motion, and who, consequently, must be well acquainted with the subject—no Gentleman could, by any possibility, draw such a line, and therefore the House must be incapable of giving any particular directions in reference to this Corporation. They must, therefore, be under the necessity of doing one of two things; either to exempt the Corporation altogether from the proposed inquiry, or have the investigation committed entirely to the good sense and parliamentary knowledge and integrity of the Gentlemen composing the Committee. As there could be no question of their integrity and knowledge, it would be better to adopt the latter alternative. No Gentleman would say, that till the inquiry bad proceeded to some distance, it would be possible to assign what portion was connected with the Corporation, and what portion was not, and, therefore, it would be necessary to get a long way into the matter previous to attempting a decision. He repeated, there must be an inquiry, and it must be left entirely to the knowledge and integrity of the Committee. The hon. Baronet had stated, that the inquiry might be stayed at the threshold, by saying that this was a body not exclusively connected with a Corporation; but, as he before said, the Committee must get a long way into their inquiries before they could possibly form a judgment on that point. This was a question of the highest importance, as proved by one of the hon. members for London (Mr. Grote), who had given them the history of the Fishmongers' Company, which had fully proved that that Corporation had a share in the Municipal Government. This Corporation had the power of directing what amount of fish should be sold in London; and although this might be said to be a matter of trade, yet, at the same time, it was exercising a very great Municipal power. The hon. Gentleman concluded by repeating that one trading Corporation should be subject to the same inquiry as other trading Corporations.

said, that this Corporation must be subject to inquiry as well as others, for it was strictly Municipal. He agreed with the hon. member for Hull, that the term "Municipal" was a term unknown to the English law. It was borrowed from the Roman law, and to the Roman law they must refer to ascertain its meaning. He should therefore refer to a quotation from the Digest to show what municeps was. The Digest explained munus by officium, a civil duty, and then proceeded municipes igitur appel-lantur quia munera civilia perficiunt—that is to say, "they are called municipes because they undertake Civil Offices. Now, the Civil Office of the Fishmongers' Company was to cast stinking fish out of the market, and of the Merchant Tailors' Company to preside over cloth brought into the City. The former Company had raised the price of admission to their freedom from 3s. 4d. to 3l. 14s. If asked the reason of this, they would say they did it out of poverty—from their feastings and drinkings; these expenses and all their accounts ought to be examined into from their own books. The Committee would stultify itself by confining its inquiries to the limits proposed by the hon. member for Kent.

rose to make a few observations with respect to his own views on the subject. He was deeply aware of its importance, and of the general anxiety which prevailed throughout the country as to the result of the inquiry. The hon. member for Whitehaven (Mr. Attwood) had said, that the presentation of Mr. Franks's petition had given rise to all the agitation or interest felt by the country on this subject of corporations, but the hon. Member laboured under an unfortunate mistake. He had only been engaged upon this subject for the last five or six days, and yet during that time he had been visited every morning by several individuals, all anxious to have this inquiry made fully and fairly. Several gentlemen from large towns had told him that the state of the corporations within them had agitated the inhabitants of them for some time past. It was, therefore, clear that the present agitation had not followed, but preceded, the motion of his noble friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He complained of the conduct which some individuals in that House had pursued towards the Committee. The Committee had scarcely taken one step, and yet, for the last two evenings, a debate had been studiously spun out, for the purpose of inspiring the country with a distrust, not only of the proceedings, but also of the intentions of the Committee. That was particularly unfair. He felt that this inquiry was an inquiry of deep and general interest, and he was, therefore, desirous to do his best to gratify the wishes of the country. There were several difficulties with which the Committee would have to contend. The first difficulty which he feared was, lest the Committee should be overwhelmed by the magnitude and multiplicity of its inquiries. It ought, therefore, to limit them to the inquiries into those abuses which were the most open to public view, which were the easiest to remove, and to which a safe and prompt remedy could at once be applied. The duty of the Committee was to ascertain the practice of existing Corporations. The House ought to know what the Corporations did, whether their police was sufficient, and whether their jurisdiction was efficient for the purposes for which it was given. All these points, ought to be discussed in order to see whether there was any thing vicious, and what, in the present system. When the Committee had examined into these practical points of Municipal Corporations, if the result of the examination should establish the fact that these Corporations were insufficient for the purposes for which they were intended, and that they were capable of improvement, a great benefit would be obtained. What ulterior improvements were to be made in them would remain with the House; all the Committee had to do was, to point out what was vicious and wanted correction. When hon. Members insisted that the Committee should enter into an examination of the accounts of these Corporations, they must have overlooked this fact, that if the Committee ever went into such accounts, they would never be able to get out of them. If what had been spent by these Corporations could be recovered—if the expenses which had been incurred, and which ought not to have been incurred, could be replaced—it might be all well to refer to the past; but as that could not be, the advice he should give would be this:—"Place your Corporation in good hands, and all this species of mischief will be stopped for the future." To those Gentlemen who had asserted that all members of Corporations would resist this inquiry he was happy to say that, so far as he knew, they were most anxious to co-operate with the Committee, being convinced that the Committee was determined to act with fairness and impartiality to all parties.

said, that if the inquiry were not confined to the limits mentioned by the hon. Member who spoke last, the labours of the Committee would extend beyond three years. The proper course, he thought, would be, to ascertain the original foundation and institution of Corporations, and then to find out how far they had deviated from this their original institution. As the Lord Advocate, on a former occasion, had stated, with reference to Scotland, all Corporations were once conducted on the same system—that is, under the management of the whole of the burgesses. As to the meaning of the word Municipal, all Corporations were originally trading Guilds, before they were Corporations; and the Merchant Tailors' Company was therefore a municipal corporation. In all charters they were originally called Merchant Guilds.

agreed with Mr. Abercromby in stating, that the agitation on this subject was not of recent growth. He had a petition on the subject from his constituents, which had been agreed to some weeks since.

said, that he had proposed his Amendment in the hope that it expressed the opinions of the noble Lord opposite, but as he found that it did not, and that the opinion of the House was against him, he would, with permission, withdraw his Amendment.

briefly replied to the arguments of the different speakers, and defended the course which he had thought himself bound to take on the present occasion. He would, however, yield to the sense of the House, although his own opinions remained unchanged. He was convinced of the impropriety of giving these extended powers to the Committee; at the same time, he begged to assure the House that the Company against which Mr. Franks had presented this petition were ready to give to the Committee every explanation respecting their management of the funds intrusted to them for charitable purposes. They did not mean to shelter themselves under the petty pretexts which some hon. Members appeared ready to afford them. He asserted, on their behalf, that there was no part of their conduct, as a corporate body, for which every one of them was not ready to make himself responsible, not only with his person, but also with his character. He begged leave to withdraw his Motion.

then addressed the Speaker, and said, that before the House separated he wished to call its attention to a circumstance which had taken place in the early part of the evening. In the course of the debate upon the motion of the hon. member for Middlesex for a Select Committee to examine into and report upon the number of Members of Parliament who held offices, places, and emoluments under the Crown, some expressions had been used which, he understood, were likely to lead to those consequences which the House was always most peculiarly anxious to avoid. Under these circumstances, he offered himself to the notice of the House, without having had any communication with either of the hon. Members to whom he was now compelled more specifically to allude. But having heard the expressions used by the hon. member for Middlesex that evening with respect to such officers of the army as held seats in that House, he felt hound to state that those expressions cast a strong suspicion upon the motives by which those officers were actuated in their public conduct in that House. At the same time he felt bound to admit, that the hon. member for Middlesex had fairly stated, that he did not intend his expressions to have any individual application. Expressions of that kind, however, were calculated to excite feelings which led others to use expressions still more dangerous. In the course of the discussion, strong language had been used by an hon. and gallant Officer, the member for Glocester, and had been retorted by the hon. member for Middlesex. Under such circumstances, he (Lord Althorp) appealed to the hon. member for Middlesex himself. From long experience of the hon. Member's parliamentary conduct, he (Lord Althorp) was satisfied that he (Mr. Hume) bad not intended to give any man personal offence by the observations which he had employed he (Lord Althorp) was therefore confident that the hon. Member would express that feeling with respect to the words which he had uttered in throwing back the expressions of the gallant Officer with contempt.

I can have no hesitation in stating my recollection of what took place, and in showing how impossible it was for me to have intended personal offence to any individual. I stated certain circumstances, which I said excited suspicions in my mind, but I added, that I hoped that no expression of mine would give offence to any individual. The hon. and gallant member for Glocester, in referring to what I said, observed that such a dishonourable opinion as I appeared to entertain of the officers of the army must arise from a conviction on my part, that I should act so were I in their situation. That was imputing a motive to me—a course which, in itself, is unparliamentary. I then said, that I threw back the insinuation with contempt. Contempt was the word I used. It is a word that ought never to be used in Parliament, but it is often used, and, in my opinion, always improperly. I thought at the time that the hon. and gallant Officer, in throwing out an imputation against my motives justified me in using the expression which I did, but I meant nothing more by it than to set myself and my opinion, right in the opinion of the House; and I therefore appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, whether, after guarding myself as I did by stating, that I did not mean my expressions to have any individual application, the hon. and gallant Officer was right in imputing motives to me? I never wish to quarrel with any man—I never wish to give any man personal offence. Those with whom I have quarrelled most in this House, I have always met on the best terms on the other side of that door. Like lawyers, we have battled our points warmly, and sometimes, perhaps, angrily; but when the argument was over, our warmth subsided, and we met on friendly and amicable terms. I had no intention by ray observations this evening to offend any man, but in the heat of the moment I retorted with warmth, which, if not justifiable, may perhaps be considered excusable. At the conclusion of this speech there was a loud cry for Captain Berkeley, but as he did not come forward, it was taken for granted that he had left the House.

was sure, that the House felt itself deeply indebted to the noble Lord for having done that which was so essential on the present occasion, and which, coming from an individual so peculiarly entitled by his station, his temper, and his character to interpose, was likely to bring the two hon. Members back to a right feeling that personal offence was not intended on either side. He regretted, that the hon. and gallant member for Glocester was not at that moment in his place. He was perfectly well aware of what the hon. member for Middlesex had stated, that in using the expression, he had not meant any personal offence to the hon. and gallant member for Glocester. He (the Speaker) had heard the expressions to which the noble Lord had referred, and he confessed that, if his memory did not fail him when he heard them, he took the meaning to be this—that the hon. Member should treat insinuations against himself with the same contempt with which insinuations supposed to be made by him were received at the other side. He (the Speaker) had not interfered at the time; he was generally backward in doing so, lest his interposition might tend to create the offence which he was anxious to prevent. The attention of the House having been called to the expressions, he must say, that they had been explained by the hon. member for Middlesex, who had declared that he had meant no personal offence against the hon. and gallant member for Glocester. With that explanation the House was satisfied, and if the House was satisfied, it appeared to him that the proudest and most gallant man that ever lived need not object to their decision. If what he now stated did not meet the feeling of the House, then the House would be justified in sending for the hon. and gallant member for Glocester, and taking those steps which the occasion might call for; but after what had passed, it appeared to him that the words of the hon. member for Middlesex, followed by the explanation he had given, could be construed only in that way which must relieve the most honourable mind from the impression, that a personal offence was intended.

, if he might express the feelings of his hon. and gallant relative, would venture to say, that he was satisfied. If the opinion of the House, composed of Gentlemen of all ranks and of the different services, felt that the honour of his gallant relative was satisfied, his hon. relative would be willing to bow to the decision of the House. He regretted the language used by the hon. member for Middlesex. The hon. Member had said, first the gallant Admiral, and then that he did not mean the gallant Admiral, but the gallant Captain; and the hon. Member had made an apology to the House and not to the individual. The hon. Member had not intended, however, to insult or to make any personal attack on the gallant Captain, and he would say, in the gallant Officer's name, that he was perfectly satisfied.