presented a Petition from the Proprietors of new Beer Shops at Bolton in favour of the new Beer Act, and praying that no restrictions might be placed upon their trade. The hon. Member said, that having been intrusted with the petition, he felt it his duty to present it to the House, although he could not, he was sorry to say, concur in its prayer, considering, as he did, new beer shops to be a very great evil.

also dissented from the prayer of the petition, and declared that the effect of allowing every third house in a parish or town to have a license to sell beer was, that the people of England would, in the end, be literally poisoned. The new Beer Act was, in his opinion, and he spoke from observation and experience, the worst measure which any Government had of late introduced. The number of new beer shops exceeded 25,000, and he could assure the House that they were calculated only to demoralize the poor. He trusted that the present Government would see and correct the evil.

thought, that the hon. Member who had just sat down was mistaken as to the number of new beer-shops, for, instead of there being 25,000, the number did not exceed 2,000.

could assure the hon. member for Oldham, that in the district of Lancashire, in which he (Colonel Williams) resided, there were more than 2,000 new beer shops. He had the honour to be a magistrate, and, as he took an active part in the business of the district to which he alluded, he could, without fear of contradiction, assert that the number was nearly double that which the hon. member for Oldham had stated.

observed, that if his hon. friend (Colonel Williams) had not limited himself to Lancashire he might have gone even still further. He could state without fear of contradiction, that the number of licensed public-houses was 50,000, and that there were upwards of 26,000 shops for the sale of beer opened under the new Beer Act.

supported the prayer of the petition, because he was of opinion that new beer shops were a decided advantage to the poor. He had a similar petition to present, and—

, referring to the understanding which had been come to relative to abstaining from discussion on the presentation of petitions, said that he hoped the hon. Member would at least reserve his speech until he presented the petition to which he had alluded.

hoped he might be allowed to say a very few words.

put it to the good sense of the hon. Member whether he would proceed after what had just taken place. Petition to lie upon the Table.

presented a Petition, signed by 7,500 persons, inhabitants of Great and Little Bolton, praying for a reduction of Taxation, the removal of the Corn-laws, the duties upon Tea and Sugar, the House and Window duty. Vote by Ballot, Universal Suffrage, and Annual Parliaments. The hon. Gentleman begged to say, that there were many topics contained in this petition with which he could not agree. He would be as willing as any man to support any plan which might be devised for the reduction of taxation or the removal of unjust burthens from the people, but he at the same time never could sanction either Universal Suffrage or Annual Parliaments. He was glad to see the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) in his place, as he wished to remind him that the county of Lancaster, that great mart for cotton, had strong claims upon his attention. The people of Lancashire felt the tax upon raw cotton a great and grievous injustice towards them, and they entertained the most sanguine expectations that the noble Lord would repeal it. He trusted that they would not be disappointed.

supported the prayer of the petition, with the exception of that part of it which related to Universal Suffrage and Annual Parliaments. These he could not advocate.

would give his support to the petition so far as the reduction of taxation went.

supported the petition as it stood, and complained that a petition of the people should have been received with so little respect. If petitions were to be laughed at in this manner, the people would not trouble them with their complaints of grievances in future. He for one should regret that, for he saw no method by which anarchy would be so certainly brought on the country, as by that House entirely separating itself from the people.

denied, that the petition had been received with indecorum. The laugh to which the hon. Gentleman bad alluded, arose altogether from the manner in which he had stated the objects of the petitioners, and had no reference whatever to the petition itself. Petition to lie upon the Table.

presented a Petition from Samuel Fletcher, of Norwich, against the Bill for the Suppression of Disturbances in Ireland.

had numerous petitions to present from various parts of England and Scotland against the Bill, but in consequence of the arrangements of the House for the reception of petitions, he had not yet had an opportunity of presenting them. He should endeavour to bring them up to-morrow, but lest he should be prevented from doing so, he was desirous that the persons who had done him the honour to commit them to him, should not suppose that he neglected them, or that he was not gratified by the assistance which they desired to give him, in opposing this Bill, or ungrateful for the sympathy which was expressed for Ireland in every part of England.

had twenty-seven different petitions to present, from various parts of England, against the Bill for establishing military tribunals in Ireland, in the place of the ordinary administration of justice; but the arrangements of the House had hitherto prevented him from presenting them, and unless the difficulties were removed, they would amount almost to a denial of the right of petition. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Althorp) had said that he (Mr. Cobbett) frequently attributed bad motives to the proposers of the present arrangement. He had not attributed bad motives. He had only said what the effect would be, and such the effect must be if they persisted in the present course. The hon. member for Staffordshire said yesterday, that he (Mr. Cobbett) had acted contrary to the course which he had himself recommended, by making speeches on the presentation of petitions. But that hon. Member must have forgotten what he really did say—which was, that all petitions should be received and read, or that such parts of them should be read as the Members presenting them might choose, and that they should all be printed. For although the printing would be expensive, yet what signified the expense compared with the time of that House. He hoped the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) would see the necessity of altering his arrangement. If the noble Lord did not, it would be impossible to present the petitions against the Bill before it should have passed, or even before the people against whom it was directed should be on their way to Botany Bay.

suggested that the whole of the time for presenting petitions on the ensuing day, should be appropriated to the presenting petitions on this subject.

suggested that each Member should classify his petitions, and make one speech do for each class.

thought, that as the Bill would, in all probability, pass before the petitions against it would have time to be presented, the noble Lord opposite should allow the next two or three days to their presentation; and postpone the second reading of the Bill for that purpose.

begged to express his concurrence in that suggestion; and added, that the petitions in its favour, if any, could be presented during that time also.

presented a Petition from individuals at Norwich, stating, that the return of Lord Stormont and Sir James Scarlett for that place, had been effected by means of bribery and corruption, and praying that a Parliamentary Commission might be sent down, fully and fairly to inquire into and expose the system. It would be impossible to establish those facts before the Election Committee, in consequence of the expense that it would occasion; and, as the practice of sending Commissions for similar purposes had been adopted, he saw no reason why it should not be followed also in England.

objected to the reception of petitions relative to a question which was already brought under the consideration of the House by an election petition. Had the hon. Gentleman considered the nature of this petition for a moment, he must have been convinced of its irregularity, and that that for which it prayed was nothing more nor less than asking the House of Commons to prejudge a question, which one of its own Committees would have to decide on oath. He must deprecate such attempts to pervert the public mind, and frustrate the ends of justice. A Committee was about to sit in judgment upon the Norwich election petition, and, pending that proceeding, such a statement as that contained in this petition ought not to have been made.

fully concurred in the prayer of the petition, and it should have his warmest support. He thought no hardship could be greater on hon. Members, who were ultimately declared duly elected, than that of bringing witnesses, at an immense expense, from the extreme end, perhaps, of the kingdom; It was particularly the case, as far as it related to petitions from Ireland; and few hon. Members, except those of that country, who suffered from the operation of the law, as it stood at present, could appreciate its enormity. It would be better, in his opinion, that a single Commissioner, from a Committee of that House, should proceed to the place where the petition emanated, and then examine witnesses as to the validity and effect their testimony would have before that Committee. As to the present system, it was replete with absurdities and anomalies. Commissions would be of very little use, if every Commission were like the last which had been sent to Ireland; and which did not complete its business before it was put an end to by the dissolution of the Parliament. With respect to the city of Norwich, he was well informed of the great expense which a trial of the petition under the ordinary law would entail upon the petitioners; and he therefore heartily concurred in its prayer. He thought that Committees of that House trying election petitions, ought, in their decision against unsupported petitions, to be a little more firm than they were accustomed to be.

concurred with the hon. member for Dublin, in his view of the present system. The Act which authorized the issue of Commissions for examining witnesses in Ireland was certainly a clumsy, inconvenient, and expensive contrivance. He was afraid that Election Committees of that House were too prone to omit the sentence "frivolous and vexatious." He thought it their duty to pronounce it oftener than they did. Perhaps the words frivolous and vexatious were sometimes too harsh; but then the Committee should make the petitioners pay the expenses of the unsuccessful candidate, unless there were sufficient grounds to the contrary.

called the attention of the House to the case of the hon. member for Dorsetshire. Although he sided with the petitioners against the election of that hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member declared that he ought to retain his seat; but that the expense would be so enormous in proving his eligibility to sit in that House, that he was obliged to relinquish the inquiry. Some of the electors, however, took the matter up. The merits of that election were afterwards referred to a Committee, who declared that the hon. Member was duly elected. Here was a case where, in consequence of the enormous expense attending the bringing forward witnesses from distant parts, to prove the legality of the election, in which the country might have been deprived of the services of a Gentleman who was declared to have been properly returned.

concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just addressed the House. The case of Liverpool was an illustration of the inconvenience and expense attendant on the present mode of trying election petitions. Elections that were notoriously carried by bribery, were, under the present system, defended, because the longest purse could gain the cause.

suggested, that when it should appear that the sitting Member had no good defence to set up against a petition, the expense attendant upon contesting it should fall wholly upon him. His defence should be reported frivolous and vexatious.

was glad, notwithstanding the opinions expressed by the learned Solicitor General, that he had presented this petition, and he trusted that it would appear here, as in civil cases, that there was no wrong without a remedy. He was sure no injustice would be done by the petition, for the members of the Committee would decide on nothing but the evidence.

said, that before the hon. and learned Gentleman made his observations upon the motion of which the hon. and learned Member had given notice, he wished to make one suggestion. He had stated, on a former occasion, that the pledge he had given in the course of last year on this subject, that a Jury Bill should be brought in by the Government, was one which he thought had not been redeemed, and ought to be redeemed. In pursuance of that acknowledgment, he now wished to state, that it was the intention of the Government to bring forward in the other House of Parliament, a Bill, not exactly or verbally, but in substance the same with that which was introduced last year. The reason he thought it would be more convenient to bring it forward in the other House was, that the pressure of business in this House was so considerable, that he did not think they should be able to carry it through for some time to come—that it might in the mean time be passed through the other House, and when it came here, it ought to have incorporated in it all the Amendments which this House might think fit. This suggestion he threw out for the consideration of the hon. and learned Member before he brought forward the question. If the hon. and learned Member should persevere in his intention of bringing in the Bill, he (Lord Althorp) should not object to its introduction, nor to the Bill, except so far as he should feel himself called upon to oppose any of the details of the measure in its future stages through the House. Having thus stated what was the intention of the Government, he should leave it with the hon. and learned Member to determine whether he would leave the matter in the hands of Government or not.

placed the most unlimited reliance on the noble Lord's word as to his redeeming his pledge, and did not place to account, in the way of blame, the fact that the Bill had not been brought in during the last Parliament. He should therefore say, that if the Bill which he was about to propose was confined to Special Juries, he should not feel the least hesitation in acceding to the noble Lord's suggestion; but there were parts of his proposed Bill that were not to be found in the Bill of last year, and there were portions of the Bill of last year that, in his opinion, did not go far enough to remedy the evils it related to. That Bill only went to cure one set of evils. He did not mean to trespass long upon the House, but should wish to state to them what was the nature of his demand. He did not wish to pledge the Government on the subject, but he should like to let the Government know what he asked; and then, if the noble Lord would say, that they would take the whole subject into their consideration, that moment he would withdraw his Motion. His Motion simply was, for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to Special Juries, and to Juries in criminal cases in Ireland. He should not detain the House with any observations as to Special Juries. He should go at once to the other question. By 6th George 4th, the Jury-law in England was altered and amended. Up to that period, the practice of selecting Special Juries was vested in the Master of the Crown Office, who had an absolute power of selection. It was then often matter of complaint, that by those means he packed Special Juries in Crown cases. But his power was settled by the law, and, at length, when it was brought before the Court of King's Bench, one of the Judges said, if by packing, you mean selecting a Jury, the officer has a right to pack the Jury. The matter was soon afterwards brought before that House. It was then that a new plan was proposed. After having ascertained who were fit to serve on Special Juries, their names were formed into a list, and they were nominated by the ballot. He required no more for Ireland; but he thought it highly desirable that the law of the two countries should be assimilated. He had been told, that Mr. Baron Pennefather felt some objections to the measure. Since he had heard that, he had had an opportunity of seeing that learned Judge; and, after explaining to him the real nature of the plan, Mr. Baron Pennefather expressed himself highly favourable to the Bill. He had road the other day, in the newspapers, an essay by a Judge against Jurors, or, at least, not in favour of the Jury system; but that House ought not to attend to these opinions more than by listening to them with the respectful deference due to the situation of the learned person who uttered them. It should be recollected that it was the duty of the Jury to check the Judge, but Juries came to be sometimes disliked when they performed that duty scrupulously. In the 15th report of the Commissioners of Judicial Inquiry would be found the evidence of a person who distinctly admitted, that he had a predilection for Special Juries; for if they did not attend, he believed he had found it sometimes convenient to consult one of the parties as to the tales men he should return. That was the evidence of a Sub Sheriff; and when he expressed a belief of that kind, there was no doubt that implicit credit should be given to his belief. Great complaints had been made of the Special Juries in the county of Dublin, and they were founded on this, that the Corporation of Dublin were, in fact, few in numbers, and exclusive in religion, and the officer took the Corporation, and the high political men, and put them on the list, and required an actual legal objection before he would pass them over. He thought the complaints, as to those Juries and their mode of appointment, were well founded, and that not only in a political point of view, but on account of civil matters. He knew of instances in which Special Juries in Dublin had decided questions of property, not on the evidence before them, but as they happened to like or dislike the politics of the respective parties. He wished to add to these changes an alteration in the mode of appointing Juries in criminal cases. At present, the practice was, for the Sheriff or Sub sheriff to strike what was called a Grand Panel for each Assize: and, notwithstanding the provisions of the 12th Geo. 1st, c. 4, he exercised an uncontrolled discretion in this duty; he usually returned from 100 to 700 names, and the effect was, that the Crown enjoyed the absolute choice of every Jury. He was desirous, therefore, of making the law, as it regarded challenges, the same in Ireland as in England. When a prisoner was put upon his trial, he had the right peremptorily to challenge twenty Jurymen, but the right of the Crown, in this respect, was unlimited. In the reign of Edward 1st, indeed, a law was passed to the contrary, but the Judges, by their practice, had repealed this law; when the Crown had peremptorily challenged beyond a certain number of Jurymen, the rest that were subsequently challenged, were ordered to stand by until the whole number should have been gone through; but when they were gone through, the Judges might order an unlimited extension of the list, and there were instances in which the Crown had gone to the extent of challenging 132 Jurymen. Private prosecutors had the same advantage in misdemeanors, and offences not transportable. A respectable solicitor at Cork, was tried for evading the Bankrupt-laws, and he was unjustly convicted of a conspiracy, because the prosecutor had been able to secure a Jury with eleven "Friendly Brothers," a society to which he belonged, upon it. Lord Chancellor Manners and the other Judges were so satisfied of the unfitness of the verdict, that they restored the individual to his situation in the profession. How, then, did he (Mr. O'Connell) propose to remedy this defective state of the law? By adopting a principle already familiar, and observed since the reign of Edward 3rd, in civil cases—namely, ballotting for the Juries. The Sheriff at present returned from thirty-six to sixty names in every cause—most commonly sixty. His (Mr. O'Connell's) plan was, that a ballot should take place for the Jury among the names returned by the Sheriff in Ireland upon the Grand Panel—that the prisoner should still be allowed his peremptory challenges, but that the Crown should be deprived of the power it exercised of objecting to any number without cause assigned. He had trespassed longer upon the attention of the House than he had designed—he had shown, that he meant to adopt the English law of last Session as regarded Special Juries, and to restore the ancient law, by abolishing what was called letting Jurors stand by on behalf of the Crown—further, he intended also to apply the system of ballot to Juries in criminal cases. He should be most happy if the noble Lord would assure him that the latter part of the subject was likely to meet with the approbation of Government; and in the hope that it would not be resisted, at least in the first instance, he moved "that leave be given to bring in a Bill to Amend the Law relative to Special Juries, and Juries in Criminal Cases in Ireland."

did not mean to resist the introduction of the Bill, although he found that it went somewhat further than he had supposed when he last addressed a few words to the House. Hereserved to himself, however, after reflection and consultation with his colleagues, the right of resisting any parts of the measure in its future stages; and, in the outset, he must say, without pretending to the knowledge of a professional man upon the subject, that it went beyond the necessity of the case, if the wish of the hon. and learned Member were only to assimilate the laws regarding Juries in England and Ireland.

said, that as the present was a measure vitally affecting the administration of justice in Ireland, he could not, after the statements he had heard put forth by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, suffer his observations to pass altogether without notice. He must, in the first instance, inform the House, that in his opinion, the most mischievous consequences would ensue from such a revolution in the Jury system as that proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was going far beyond anything in the way of change that had been effected in England. The prerogative of the Crown to set aside Jurors was objected to, but it appeared to him that that prerogative like all others was conferred for wise and good reasons. What object could the Crown have in procuring an unjust verdict, and how many good reasons might there be for ordering Jurors to stand by, though at the same time it might be most difficult to establish a legal objection to them? That the Crown did not exercise the prerogative to a mischievous extent he thought was manifest from the fact, that, at the Kilkenny Assizes, the Crown found it impossible to obtain a verdict in a case where a most atrocious murder had been committed, and yet the hon. and learned Member would have it inferred that the Crown was in the habit of packing Juries. The hon. and learned Gentleman also complained of the Special Juries in Dublin. He (Mr. Lefroy) trusted that vague and loose assertions would have no weight with the House. The Special Juries of Dublin were composed of the most respectable merchants and bankers in that city; and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had thought fit to scatter such general imputations, he should be wanting in his duty if he did not vindicate the Special Jurors of Dublin from the foul aspersions which had been cast upon them. Aspersions had also been cast upon the Sheriffs, and other persons connected with the administration of justice in Ireland. He was sorry to perceive, that a wish existed to bring all persons concerned in administering the law in Ireland into disrepute; and he regretted to find a readiness on the part of the House to lend itself to the attempts. He had had the honour of bearing his Majesty's Commission on circuit for several years, and he could not recollect any instance that could warrant the charges which had been made against the Sheriffs and Juries of Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman might, perhaps, be able to point out some solitary instance of improper conduct. Hon. Members, however, would not, he hoped, suffer their opinions to be prejudiced by such an instance, but rather judge of the Sheriffs and Jurors by their general conduct, and not be biassed by a particular case.

rose to express his good wishes for the Bill as far as it proposed to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England. He did not pretend to be well acquainted with the practical administration of the law in Ireland, but this he knew, that a Jury selected by officers of the Court would never command the confidence of the country. It was most desirable, therefore, that Juries should be chosen by Ballot. He hoped, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be satisfied with proceeding no further than assimilation; the 6th George 4th had worked extremely well in this country; no complaint had been made from any quarter, and it would be well if that were extended to Ireland. He was of opinion, however, that the Crown ought to be allowed peremptory challenges, and he had no objection that the prisoner should enjoy the same advantage in all cases of felony as far as related to twenty Jurors.

said, that he concurred in the principle laid down by the Solicitor General, and the hon. and learned member for Dublin, as to the propriety of assimilating as far as possible the law in England and Ireland; but he must view with alarm the introduction of a measure such as that proposed, and to the principle of which the twelve Judges in Ireland were unanimously opposed. He desired that the same spirit should pervade the laws in the two countries, yet it was quite necessary to keep in mind the different circumstances under which that spirit and principle was to be practically applied. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, stated that Baron Pennefather had agreed to the principle of the measure, but was opposed to some of its details. He did not mean to accuse the hon. and learned Gentleman of wilfully misrepresenting the opinions of the learned Judge, but he knew, and would distinctly assert, that Baron Pennefather was opposed to the principle of the Bill. Before the House adopted any new principle in regard of the Jury-laws in Ireland, they ought well to weigh the peculiar difficulties of the administration of justice in that country, otherwise they would be legislating upon the fallacious supposition that England and Ireland were in that respect similarly circumstanced; and he would warn the House that, in the event of the Jury Bill passing into a law, the House would be again called upon to enact coercive measures, similar to those now before the House, for the purpose of correcting the evils which would be sure to arise from it. The twelve Judges in Ireland were unanimously opposed to some of the principles of the proposed measure, and that he trusted would be sufficient to induce the House without his further trespassing on it at that stage of the proceedings to pause in assenting to the Motion. His observations were applicable even to the Bill which passed the House in the last Session; but the alterations now proposed by the hon. and learned Member went far beyond the Bill of last year. Ballotting for Juries in criminal cases formed no part of that measure. He thought with respect to Special Juries, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had gone very far in charging twelve gentlemen with having sworn falsely, and returned a corrupt verdict on political grounds. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that he knew the fact to be so. He (Mr. Shaw) could not conceive how the hon. and learned Gentleman could possibly have known the fact of his own knowledge, for he was sure that if twelve men of opposite politics had acted so improperly and corruptly, the hon. and learned Gentleman was the last person in whose power they would have placed their characters.

said, it was perfectly clear that the Crown ought to be limited in its challenge, but it might be right to consider that the Crown ought to have a challenge as large as the other party. An unlimited right of challenge was not a prerogative of the Crown, but only an abuse of the Statute of Edward 1st. He believed all the great constitutional authorities were against the unlimited power of challenging claimed by the Crown.

deprecated the alteration in the Jury system proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. His opinion was, that it would prove most mischievous in its consequences, and he was fortified in that opinion by the sentiments entertained on the subject by the twelve Judges in Ireland. He had had communication with the Judges of one of the Courts, and he felt it his bounden duty to state to the House what were the opinions entertained by those learned functionaries upon the subject, and they were, that the proposed alterations were incompatible with the administration of justice in Ireland. He must beg leave to caution the House against sanctioning so dangerous an innovation as that proposed. He could not agree with the hon. and learned member for Dublin as to the justice of the aspersions cast upon the Sheriffs in Ireland. He had more than once had the honour of filling the office of High Sheriff; and on his own behalf, as well as those of his friends, he must be permitted to repel the calumny with scorn. It was most unjust to hold up to execration men whose characters were as dear to them as the administration of justice could be to others.

referred to the Commissioners of Legal Inquiry in Ireland, who had reported (and their opinion was recorded in the proceedings of the House), that the office of Sheriff in Ireland was one of the most monstrous corruption and abomination. The evidence taken by this body showed that a Jury in Ireland was to be bought exactly in the same way as a pound of tea, or a yard of cloth were purchased in this country. He maintained boldly, that the system of Special Juries in Dublin had been converted into a mode of living, by needy corporators and their pot companions.

, in reply, observed, that while Baron Penne father was on circuit last year in the county of Clare, he had applied to him to learn if he had any objection to the present Bill; the learned Judge had stated only one objection which regarded Special Juries, and he (Mr. O'Connell) did not believe that he entertained any others. The great object he had in view was, that impartial justice should be done—that Juries in Ireland should be tinged with no colour, whether green or orange.

was opposed to the proposed alterations in the Jury system. He thought the attacks made upon the Juries was most unwarrantable, and related a circumstance in which two cases of murder were tried. In one case, one of the persons accused was a Protestant—in the other a Roman Catholic. The Jury that tried the Protestant was composed of twelve Protestants, and they found him guilty, and he was executed. The Jury that tried the Roman Catholic was composed of eleven Protestants and one Roman Catholic. The eleven Protestants were for finding the prisoner guilty, but the Roman Catholic held out, and the Jury were discharged without agreeing to a verdict. At the next Assizes, the prisoner was again tried, and found guilty, and executed. The widow of the murdered man was the principal witness, and was obliged to be kept in gaol, lest she should be murdered; she was, however, subsequently obliged to leave the country.

regretted, that the hon. and gallant Member was not in the House when he made his statement. If the hon. and gallant Member had been present, he would have found that there was no Popery in the Bill.

wished to know from the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) whether any step had been taken with respect to the office of master of the Reports in Chancery?

said, that, in reply to the question put by the hon. Gentleman, he would state the whole of the facts of the case. Upon the office of Master of the Reports becoming vacant the senior registrar claimed the office as a matter of right. The Lord Chancellor thought differently. Upon inquiry, however, it appeared to have been the regular practice of the chief registrar to succeed to the office, and, therefore, the Lord Chancellor gave way. His noble friend, however, stated to the then chief registrar that a Bill was in preparation by which the office of Master of the Reports would be abolished, and, that if, with that information before him, the chief registrar chose to take the office, he might have it. The chief registrar, under these circumstances accepted the office. It had been attempted on the death of the late Master, Mr. Weeks, to do without filling up the office at all. That, however, had been found to be impossible without other arrangements; for, at present, the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery could pay no money whatever without the order of the Master. The matter then stood thus:—A person had been appointed to the office with a knowledge on his part that it was to be abolished, and a Bill was preparing for that purpose, and would be ready in a few days. The case, however, of the person who had accepted the office was a peculiar one. The office of chief registrar had been filled as a matter of course by the second registrar. The office of chief registrar was a laborious one, while that of Master gave its possessor little to do. Now, if the office of Master was abolished, the present possessor of it would have nothing, unless provided for, and, therefore, it was intended that he should have a retiring allowance. [Hear hear.] He perfectly well understood that cheer, but he thought the course proposed only proper. The present Master had been forty-seven years in the public service; and he might, considering his state of health, had he been so disposed, have retired two years ago on the retiring allowance apportioned for a service of forty-five years. He, therefore, could not think, that there would be any extravagance in allowing him now a retiring allowance. The public would certainly not he losers by the arrangement. An office worth 4,000l. or 5,000l. a-year, would be abolished, and a retiring allowance would be given to a person who had been in the public service forty-seven years.

said, he hoped to see these offices abolished altogether.

rose to bring forward his Motion, to obtain from the House an expression of the general conviction that there was a necessity for reducing the amount of the salaries, superannuation, and other retired allowances at present paid to public servants. In examining the accounts of the income and expenditure of the United Kingdom, for the year ending January, 1832, he had found charges to the amount of 10,000,000l., for salaries, pay, and wages, all of which must have been fixed upon one or other of these principles—either by comparing the sums given to persons in the public service with the income of certain classes of the community; or the sums were considered a fair remuneration for time, skill and labour; or they were fixed, because below them persons could not be procured to perform the duties of the situation; and upon whichever of these principles they might have been fixed, it was manifest that great deductions might now be justly and fairly made, inasmuch as the incomes of all other classes of the community, the rewards of time, skill, and labour, and the cost of all the necessaries and conveniences of life, had been greatly reduced. It was notorious, that the rent of land; the profits of capital lent out at interest; the gains of farmers and tradesmen; the salaries of clerks, and the wages of mechanics, operatives, and labourers of all descriptions, had been pro- gressively declining for many years, and particularly since the year 1825; and under such circumstances, there could be nothing unjust or unreasonable in reducing the salaries of persons in the public service, in proportion to the income of the other classes. The incomes of the receivers ought to be reduced equally with the incomes of the payers of the public taxes. There were charges to the amount of about 6,000,000l. for retired allowances, half-pay, and pensions, which were fixed at certain proportions of the full pay or salary, or at sums which were considered necessary to enable the persons receiving them to live in a certain style, or manner, or class of society; and if salaries were reduced, and if the incomes of all other classes of the community and the cost of all the necessaries and conveniences of life were reduced, surely it would be just to reduce retired allowances and pensions. He was aware, that the reductions he proposed would inconvenience the parties upon whom they would operate, but he was not aware of any reason why they should be exempted from such inconveniences, whilst the rest of the community were subjected to it. To sympathize with placemen and pensioners only—to give to them a monopoly of pity and protection—would be most unbecoming and most prejudicial to the character of that House. He was aware, that in the year 1822, reductions were made in the salaries of the civil servants of the State, but since that time, the issue and circulation of paper notes under 5l. had been prohibited, and salaries and retired allowances which might have then been suitable, would not be so now. Besides those reductions were not made to anything like the extent they ought to have been; they did not, in any case, exceed 12½ per cent. The Secretaries of the Treasury were reduced from 4,000l. to 3,500l. a-year, whereas the reduction ought to have been to 2,000l., and their salaries ought not now to exceed 1,.500l. a-year. High salaries and superannuation allowances were bad in principle. They induced habits of expense incompatible with habits of business and application to the duties of office. Great expectations were entertained, that the Reformed House of Commons would greatly reduce the expenditure of the country, and relieve the people from some of the taxes with which they were so grievously burthened, and not to do so would betray great insensibility to the opinions, wants, and wishes of the people. The most rigid economy the most sweeping retrenchments, had become absolutely necessary. The charges for salaries, pay, wages, fees, re tired allowances, hall-pay, and pensions, amounted to about 16,000,000l. annually; from which deductions to the amount of 2,500,000l., might and ought to be made, without taking into consideration any reduction in the number of persons employed. With this view, he should beg leave to move the following resolution:—"That it is just and necessary, that all salaries, pay, poundage, and wages, as also all superannuation and retired allowances, half-pay and pensions, paid out of the public money, should be reduced ten per cent if they do not exceed the sum of 1,000l. a-year; fifteen per cent, if they exceed 1,000l., and do not exceed 2,000l a-year; twenty per cent if they exceed 2,000l., and do not exceed 4,000l. a-year, and twenty-five per cent, if they exceed 4,000l. a-year;—exceptions being made in favour of such as may have been reduced to the before-mentioned extent since the year 1828, and in favour of all superannuation and retired allowances, half-pay, and pensions, which may not exceed the sum of 1,000l. a-year."

felt it to be his imperative duty to second the motion of the hon. Member. He was perfectly well aware, that the Gentlemen who would be affected by the reductions proposed by the hon. Member could ill afford to submit to those reductions in their incomes; but lie was also well aware that every one of the industrious working classes throughout the Kingdom had, for the last seven years, been obliged to submit to much larger and severer reductions in their incomes. He was well aware that the agricultural classes the farmers—had been under the necessity, for years, of submitting to the annihilation of their whole income, and that they were only enabled to get anything from their land in cases where they were contented to break up their land and force crops year after year, to the ultimate impoverishment and ruin of their farms. He was well aware, also, that the manufacturing classes had for years lost all hope of obtaining any income from their invested capital, and that they had been living on the principal, which was gradually diminishing to nothing. He was also aware that all the working classes had, for the last seven years, existed, it might almost he said, without any income; and it was now high time that the unproductive classes should be called upon to share in the burthens which the general depression had thrown hitherto altogether upon the industrious and productive portion of the population. It was now also high time that the military, whom, he must be allowed to say, he honoured for the services they had rendered, should also he called upon to submit to the general reduction, and that the pay, which had been raised from 6d. to 13½d a day, in consequence of the rise in prices, should be again brought to its former level. He did not grudge the soldier his pay, but he must say, that it was not fair to continue the military at the full rate of the war pay, whilst the pay of the agricultural labourers throughout the kingdom had been reduced two-thirds of its former amount. He was sorry to call the attention of the House to these painful facts, but he only did so in order that they might not incur the risk of having them forced on their attention in another and more disagreeable manner.

said, that nothing was more important than that the services of the public functionaries should be remunerated in a manner adequate to the duties required of them. The object aimed at by the present motion of the hon. Member was first brought before the notice of that House in the year 1822, by himself, and subsequently by the right hon. Baronet the first Lord of the Admiralty. He had confined his motion, in the first instance, to the expression, on the part of that House, of the necessity for reducing the salaries of public servants, so as more nearly to approximate to the increased value which they had derived from the change in the currency, and thus bring them nearer to their former standard. The noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported his proposition, and the House, agreed to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the necessity for revising the whole range of the salaries of the civil officers of the country; and the result of their labours was to be found in three volumes of reports, containing the particulars of the reductions in salaries, which were recommended by them, hut which, however, were not carried into effect to the extent there proposed. Now he must in candour admit that, on looking over the returns of public salaries on the Table, he found that, although the smaller salaries of 200l., 300l., and 400l. had been too much looked after, to the neglect of the; larger salaries, yet that some of the salaries of 1,500l. and 2,000l. had been reduced one half, and others of 3,000l, and 4,000l. had been abolished altogether. He must therefore say, that it would be impossible for the Government to adopt the rule for effecting these reductions which was now proposed by his hon. friend. He thought it would be more advisable to adopt the principle laid down by the former Committee on this subject—that, namely, of reducing to their former level all the salaries which had been raised to meet the extraordinary rise in prices and depreciation of the currency which occurred more than twenty years ago, and which formed the principal excuse for the conduct of Mr. Pitt in 1808, and of Mr. Addington in 1811, both of which Ministers had come down to the House with proposals to increase the salaries of public officers, on account of the increased demand upon them, occasioned by the rise in the prices of provisions. And as the salaries of public officers had been increased solely on that account, and of the depreciated state of the currency, he must say, that it was but fair, now the currency was again raised to its equal standard, to lower the salaries in the same proportion. The Treasury had done this to a certain extent, but it could only be effectually and satisfactorily carried into execution by means of a Committee of that House. He had chiefly risen to say, that he could not concur in the principle of the motion, and if the hon. Member would read the third Report of the Finance Committee on public Salaries, he would find it laid down as a primary principle—and the noble Lord opposite was a Member of that Committee—that no public officer should be paid more for his services than was an adequate remuneration, nor more than the services of any other person could be obtained for. There was also an important observation contained in the Report—namely, that the scale of remuneration in all the public departments, compared with the remuneration of private services, with equal responsibility and labour, so greatly preponderated in favour of the former, as to cause it to be extremely and unnecessarily bur then some to the public. The retiring pensions and allowances were a greater abuse than the high salaries; they ought to be abolished altogether: and one of the first duties of any Committee ought to be, to overhaul those allowances with that view. He need only state one fact to prove his assertion—namely, that the retired allowances from the War Office amounted to 25,000l. a-year, which was as much as was paid for the execution of all the laborious duties of the officers in that establishment.

confided entirely in the honesty and good intentions of the noble Lord on the Treasury Bench, for, in his opinion, the country had not possessed a better set of Ministers for the last century. If the Government, however, were determined to go on a low level of currency, it must not only agree to the reductions in the public salaries which had been pointed out, but it must effect a much larger, and more extensive saving. He had had considerable experience, and knew accurately what was the present state of the industrious classes, and he must declare it to be his opinion, that the whole of them were, not only head-sick, but heart-faint. Not a single branch of trade or manufacture could be mentioned which was in a flourishing condition; and, notwithstanding the official statements which were from time to time adduced to the House by the right hon. member for. Manchester, in order to prove the flourishing state of the manufacturing classes, he must observe, that the right hon. Member only showed one side of the matter, and that was a fallacious one. He produced a large multiplicand, but the multiplier or rate of profit was very low. The wages of all the labouring classes were so low, that, if it were not for the Poor-rates, they would long ago have seen the industrious classes of England in the lamentable condition to which those classes were reduced in Ireland, the result of which would be, that the whole civil society of the kingdom would be broken up. The Poor-rate, by which the labouring classes were now partly supported, were pulling down the middle orders to the level of the labourers, and, though these classes were loyal to the Throne, and preferred the government of St. James's to that of St. Giles's, yet, it must be obvious, that if they did not give the labouring classes larger means of existence than they now had, their loyalty could not last much longer. The alteration which the Bill of the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, had effected in the value of money, operated not less than to the extent of thirty-three and a half per cent upon the currency. It had been foretold by many, and amongst others by himself, that the result of that Bill would be the depression of the value of labour. The right hon. member for Tamworth, however, possessed so completely the confidence of the House at that period, that he was able to carry all his plans into effect; but, not withstanding he admired the eloquence so often dipslayed by that right hon. Member, he could not help observing that no man had committed more blunders. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Member would condescend, in future, when discussing the currency question, to talk in a plain manner to plain people. He supported the Motion, and as long as the present low prices continued, he would support every measure which tended to level the income of the public servants of the country to those prices.

had decided objections to this Motion. The hon. Member had asked him whether the Government had been recently applying itself to the reduction of expenditure. To that he would answer, that the first step which the Ministers took after they came into office, was to place their own salaries under the consideration of a Committee. That Committee made several recommendations, which the Government adopted, and their salaries were in consequence reduced. The members of the Government had commenced the task of reduction with their own salaries, in order that they might have a right to call upon their subordinate officers to submit to similar reductions. He certainly thought that the Government ought to be served as cheaply as possible. The scale of salary should be framed on the principle of the sum calculated to secure a fit and efficient person for the office. He was aware that the salaries of persons employed by the Government were higher than the salaries of persons employed by private individuals, but they were not higher than those of persons employed by public companies. He believed that the salaries paid by the East-India Company, and by the Insurance Companies, were to the full as high as those paid by the Government. Their superannuations were, he believed, still higher. It was known, that in the Government offices, the plan adopted with regard to superannuations rested upon the deduction of a certain sum annually from the salary, to secure a fund for the future support of the holders of office. A report had been made to the Government of the amount of income enjoyed by members of the different Revenue Boards, with the intention of seeing what reduction, if any, could be made in their salaries. As to the Customs, a report had been made recommending that, in future, the salaries should be reduced in that department. He felt that, having once recognized the principle of reducing the salaries of the holders of offices to the scale of duty performed in those offices, it was necessary to consider whether it should be applied immediately in general, or should be postponed till after the lives of the present holders. He was originally of opinion that the first plan was the more advisable, but, on consideration, he thought it better to postpone the application of the rule, as Government would be compelled, if it adopted the rule, to work with unwilling, rather than with willing servants, and that, he was convinced, would be a false and profitless economy. Such being the case, he had abandoned his project of applying his rule immediately. One word with respect to superannuations. It had been found, that in many cases the reduction of a number of offices had led to a great increase in the number of superannuations. He was inclined to think, that where a person was in possession of an unnecessary office, it was better to reduce the office, and give him superannuation, than to continue him in an office which might acquire a claim to be preserved from the mere fact of its being long in existence. Acting upon this principle. Government had reduced three Commissioners of the Customs. In the Excise they had also reduced three Commissioners; and they had decided not to fill up the Commissionership which Lord Seymour had resigned, and another which it was expected would be vacant in a very short time. When this was done, they would have reduced no less than five Commissionerships in the Excise. The House was no doubt aware of the inquiries which were made into the state of the different departments of the revenue by a Commission of which Lord Wallace had been at the head, and that a great deal of good had resulted from that Commission. The present Government, acting on that principle, had determined to appoint a Commission to look into the Board of Excise, and the Gentleman who had undertaken the office of presiding over it, was his right hon. friend. Sir Henry Parnell, with whose qualifications for the office the whole country must be satisfied. He thought that a considerable number of offices might be reduced, and a great saving thus made for the public. Another considerable saving might be made by the consolidation of two or more of the public Boards. It was at present under the consideration of Government whether the Board of Stamps and the Board of Taxes might not be consolidated, and whether the duty of the two departments might not be performed by one Board. If this could be effected, a considerable saving would be made by the reduction of several officers now employed in the collection of taxes, and by a great reduction in the number of Commissioners of both Boards. He could assure the House that all these matters would be carefully considered, and that no views of patronage would prevent Ministers from making all possible reduction which should take effect immediately, and not like some former reductions, which, though agreed upon at the moment, were not to take effect till a future period, and when that period arrived, the principle of the reduction was almost forgotten. It was on these grounds that Ministers were determined to proceed, and he hoped that they would give satisfaction to the House. Under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion. It would be impossible to accede to it in the way in which he had put it. A great object with Government was to see how the public business could be done with as great economy as possible, but at the same time giving to those employed in the public service such remuneration as would ensure the business being done in the best manner, and take from the persons so employed the temptation of defrauding the revenue. It would be a very ill-judged economy to keep those employed in the service of the public at such small salaries as would expose them to the temptation of acting dishonestly or carelessly. He again hoped that the hon. Member would not press his Motion. He could not consent to it in its present form, yet he was unwilling to divide against it, as it might give rise to an erroneous opinion respecting the conduct and views of the Government.

concurred with the noble Lord in the hope that the Motion would be withdrawn, for he was convinced that the reduction which it contemplated would operate very unequally in many instances. He was willing to give the noble Lord and his colleagues credit for desiring to effect reductions in the public service, but he was convinced that it would be useless to attempt any real economy unless the right of superannuation and to obtain civil pensions was altogether done away with. Consolidation might do much in obtaining the proposed end, but there would be no practical economy until the lavish system by which men, after a few years service in a public capacity, were empowered to retire from office with nearly the whole amount of their salaries, was abolished. Why, he begged to ask, should not those engaged in the service of the public be expected, like persons employed in merchants' offices and public companies, to provide for their declining years? Some of the cases of superannuation which had lately occurred were of the grossest character, and certainly argued anything but a disposition in the Administration of the day to meet the distressed condition of the people. He might, for instance, mention one case where a gentleman, who, for twenty-three years had been receiving 1,400l. a-year as a Commissioner of the Customs, had been superannuated on the ground of deafness, although it was said he was as deaf when he first came to the office. He was at the present moment receiving 1,200l. a-year as a civil pension, although possessed of a private property of 10,000l. a-year. Now, did not, he asked, such a case, in the present distressed condition of the country, betray anything but a proper regard for the public purse? What he thought most objectionable in the system of superannuation was, the right which was assumed of retiring after a few years upon a pension nearly equal to the salary. He was as willing as any man could be, that in cases where public officers became worn out with service, and were not in possession of adequate private means to support them in their declining years, that Government should be vested with the power of granting civil pensions, and he was confident the House would always sanction them; but he was strongly opposed to the principle of right to superannuation, which was in all cases at present assumed. With regard to the observations of the noble Lord respecting the rate at which the East-India Company remunerated their officers, he wished to observe, that a general system of reduction was in active operation by the Company, in order to meet its depressed condition. If, however, the East-India Company's civil officers were more highly remunerated than those of Government, it was to be considered that in return those officers discharged their duties as efficiently as it was possible to have them discharged. The principal fault of Government officers was, that, although well paid, they were in many instances inefficient, being generally selected more from patronage than merit. Indeed, while on the subject, he wished to put it to the noble Lord and his colleagues, whether or not, while the general circumstances of the country were obliging individuals of the highest talent and ability to accept employment in private offices at salaries far inadequate to their talents and the services they were capable of discharging, they ought not to avail themselves of the opportunity of supplying the public service with efficient men, and thus save the necessity of holding out the inducement of the enormous salaries which were paid at present, and had been for many years past.

said, that he had but one observation to make upon the question before the House. The present discussion had convinced him more than ever of the natural dislike the Whigs had to lie three in a bed. But whenever they made room, it was for their own convenience, and not for that of others. Yes, what he had to complain of was, that many persons had been turned out of their employment by the Whigs, for no other purpose than that the Whigs might get some of themselves in. ["Name!"] Well, since the House was so very eager to have names—since they pressed him so hotly to give a name—he would give one, which would be a proof of the correctness of his charge against the Whigs. They had turned out Sir Charles Saxton, Commissioner of the Plymouth Dock-yard, in order to put in his stead Sir George Grey, one of themselves. The fact was related to him by Sir Charles Saxton, who besides stated that he was still able to perform the duties of his office. The Whigs turned him out, notwithstanding, giving him a retiring pension of 800l. a-year after they had done so.

begged to state, in reply to what fell from the hon. member for Worcester about the deaf Commissioner of the Customs, whom the hon. Member mentioned as if his deafness was feigned, though, in truth, he had been deaf all his life, and who was stated to be put on the Superannuated List at 1,200l. a-year; he begged to state, with respect to the pension, that the Government had proceeded according to the limits marked out in the Superannuation Act. Not only in the present instance had they acted according to the principles of that Bill, but they had always acted in accordance with it. As to what was said about private fortune. Government could not take that into consideration. All it had to consider was, the service done to the public. With respect to the high salaries paid to officers in the East-India Company's service, the Company thought it necessary, in order to insure efficient persons; and when Government required good public servants, they should put them on the same footing, and the same principles should regulate Government officers. With respect to paying those pensions from funds, subscribed to by the officers, or by stopping a portion of their salaries for that purpose, the plan had been adopted; but, after trial, it was found necessary to abandon it.

said, that those who were acquainted with the duties which many of the persons employed in the service of the East-India Company had to perform, would not feel any surprise that their remuneration was ample. It was seen by the manner of some of them, who had occasion to come before Committees of the House, that they were men qualified to fill the highest places. The business of the company was performed in the ablest manner, and with unexampled integrity. Indeed, some of the persons employed by the company at home, had to discharge duties as great as belonged to the departments of some of the hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury bench near him. Some of them had to carry on various correspondence on the great interests of our vast empire in India, which they performed in a manner in the highest degree creditable to their ability and fidelity. He would say a word upon superannuation. That was the great question—that was a matter which weighed down the country, and which he thought, as far as it was a superannuation depending on a scale of years, ought to be put down. When the Government wanted persons to fill certain situations, it ought to inquire whether it could not get men equally qualified for them without any expectation of a retiring allowance. If they could get such men, he did not see why they should not prefer them, and thus save the vast sums which the country now paid in retiring allowances. The case would be different if they had to mate the selection from a small number of qualified persons, or if the persons employed, such as a barrister, had given up his profession for the appointment.; hut here it was otherwise; and when they had to choose out of a large body of qualified men, they ought to make the selection of those who might be willing to take the appointment without any hope of a superannuation allowance. He did not approve of a deduction from salaries to make a superannuation fund; for if that were done, it would be au admission that they were paid more than they were entitled to as mere salary. He would let the provision for retirement rest with their own prudence, as it did in the cases of persons employed by other public bodies. He remembered the case of a captain in the navy claiming compensation on retirement from a place which he held, on the ground that he had relinquished his profession for it. That was fair enough on the part of the captain, but Government should not have filled up the appointment by a captain in the navy when they might have got another person equally well qualified, who, on retirement, could make no such claim.

wished that Government, in considering the question of salaries and superannuation allowances, would also take into consideration the changes which had taken place within these few years in the payment of the wages of labour. He would put the House in possession of a few facts on this subject, which would show how much the wages of labour bad fallen off within a few years. The statement was made out from his own books. In the year 1814., the price which he paid for weaving a piece of cloth—a sort of calico—well known in the markets of Manchester, by the name of "third seventy fours," was 8s. The price was gradually reduced till the year 1816, when it came to 2s. 6d. the piece. In 1817 it came again to 2s. 6d., 2s. 9d. and 3s., and afterwards to 3s. 6d. In 1818 it rose again to 4s. In February, 1819, it fell to 3s. 9d., and continued to descend till December in the same year, when it came to 2s. 6d. In October 1820, it came again from 2s. 6d. to 2s. 9d. and 3s. In October, 1821, to 3s and 3s. 3d. In January, 1822, it fell again to 2s. 9d., and remained nearly stationary till May, 1823, when it fell again to 2s. 6d., at which it remained till the end of 1825, when it fell to 2s. In 1826 it fell to 1s. 9d. In August of that year it became as low as 1s. 6d. In the early part of 1827 it fell to 1s. 3d.; in May of that year it rose to 1s. 6d., in June to 1s. 9d., in August to 2s. In February, 1828, it was still at 2s.; but in May, 1829, it came as low as 1s. 1½d., and from that time to the present the average was about 1s. 3d. The present price was 1s. 3d. He hoped the noble Lord would consider these facts. But let it not be supposed, that these great reductions of the wages of labour gave a proportionate increase to the profits of the employer. No such thing. At the very lowest rate of wages he gave the weaver as great a proportion of the price of the whole piece as he did at the highest. In every case he gave him the fourth of the price which the piece fetched. It might be asked why he made such reductions? He would answer, that he was compelled to make them by circumstances over which he had no control. He had always been the advocate for the poor. He had done as much to serve the poor as any other man, consistently with his limited means. He sat there as the Representative of the poor How did this bear on the question before the House? He maintained, that it did bear upon it. When hon. Members talked of superannuation allowances to men holding good appointments, he would beg of them to consider the condition of these poor weavers. With hard and continued work, few, if any of them were able to earn more than 6s. per week. What, he would ask, was that sum to a man who had to support a wife and a couple of children? What would any man in that House think if he were obliged to try and support himself and a small family upon that sum? Hon. Members should take these circumstances into account when they talked of settling the question of superannuation allowances. What, he would ask, was to become of his poor weavers when they were no longer able to work? He could not pension them off, he had not the means of doing so. They must go to the parish or starve; and yet they were the King's subjects, and as much entitled to protection as those individuals to whom hon. Gentlemen talked of giving retiring allowances on their giving up lucrative appointments. He would tell the noble Lord and his colleagues, that unless some means were devised of giving the poor more food and more clothing for their labour, they would not be able to keep the country quiet for any length of time. The people, however, were now perfectly quiet, as they had the greatest confidence in a Reformed Parliament, and the highest expectations that it would devise some means for their speedy relief.

observed, that the House heard night after night such statements as that which had been made by the hon. Member who had just sat down, but he could assure them, that they did not contain an accurate description of the condition of the working classes in the manufacturing districts. The reductions to which the hon. Member had just alluded must have been caused by the power-looms. He could state, that in a district with which he was acquainted, the average earnings of about 1,400 men, women, and children was about 10s. a week each.

said, that this was incorrect. There were no persons employed in any branch of the cotton-trade who had such earnings.

repeated the statement. The 10s. a-week; included the sums earned by women and children, for the earnings of the men were about 30s. a week; and he could add, that a more contented population did not exist than that of the district to which he alluded.

could assure the House, that the picture given by the hon. Member who had just sat down was altogether overcharged as to the wages of the manufacturers; he, at least, was not aware of any place in which such wages were given. In the town (Leicester) which he had the honour to represent, the children did not at the most earn more than 5s. or 6s. a week. perhaps 5s. was about the average, and of this they had to pay 1s. a week for the use of a loom. He would admit, that the people had great confidence in a Reformed Parliament, to relieve them from their distress, and he hoped, that that confidence would not be misplaced. He hoped that Government would take some steps to relieve the people from their present great difficulties. In conclusion, he must repeat, that the account given by the hon. Member who last addressed the House as to the amount of the earnings of the weavers was not correct. Few men with sixteen hours of labour earned more than 6s. per week, and there were few families whose united earnings came to more than 9s. per week.

considered, that this last statement did not fall short of the truth, as in his part of Scotland, the best hands, working sixteen hours a day, did not earn more than 6s. 9d. a week, and taking from that certain necessary deductions, their average weekly carnings might be safely put down as not more than 5s. 4d. Ordinary hands did not earn more than 4s. a week. He considered this peculiarly hard upon the workmen in his district, who had been formerly in respectable circumstances. In good times they had saved money, and in their prosperity endeavoured to provide for the evil day. Whatever money they had saved was spent long since, and they were, through the badness of the present times, obliged to dispose of whatever little property they had collected. Something ought immediately to be done to reduce the expenditure of the Government, or no man could answer for the tranquillity of the country. It was quite necessary that pensions and superannuations should be reduced to meet the circumstances of the revenue, and to accede to the wishes of the people.

knowing the state of trade in the districts to which he belonged, could say, that wages were generally on the rise. Children, at a very early age, got 3s. a week, and the wages increased according to their age, from that sum to 6s., 8s. and 9s,; and able workmen received as much as 15s. or 16s. a week. A girl of eighteen years of age could cam 8s., and a lad of sixteen years of age 7s. a week.

having heard the statements of wages so highly rated in several districts, I should not be doing my duty to my constituency, and the dense population by which they are surrounded, did I not attempt to set the House right as regards the great depreciation of wages that have occurred in my own neighbourhood. The earnings were—

wished to recall the attention of the House to the question really before it. It should be observed, that the salaries of Ministers, and of other public functionaries had been raised in consequence of the depressed value of the currency. This point had frequently been alluded to by different Gentlemen; and he was sorry to say, that it had never received the smallest attention. It did not, at all events, receive that attention which a subject of the greatest possible interest ought to command. So long as that fact was kept out of the view of the public—so long as they were inattentive to that great question, which he was glad to perceive would soon be brought before the House—so long would they proceed in a mistaken course. They ought to bear in mind what had taken place in this country during the depreciation of the currency. They had now, fortunately, an opportunity of looking to the overpaid salaries of public officers, and also to the underpaid wages of that part of the community on whom the prosperity of the State depended. He said this, because by them public credit was supported; from them the Treasury received the Malt-tax, the duties on sugar, on soap, and on all those great articles of consumption, the imports on which were as necessary to the exigencies of the State, as the commodities were necessary to supply the wants of the community at large. He hoped that the question of wages would be more and more, made the subject of discussion in that House; and he trusted, that those Gentlemen who really had the welfare of the country at heart, whether they sat on that side, or the other side of the House, would warn Ministers of the necessity of attending to the wants of the people. They must have high wages and profits, or low taxes. The people ought not to be driven to despair—they ought not to be prevented from supporting and sustaining the credit of the country, by becoming the consumers of those articles, the duties on which were as necessary to the support of the State, as the articles themselves were necessary to the comfort of those by whom they were purchased.

said, that English Members complained of the time taken up in the discussion of Irish affairs; but if such declamatory speeches were persisted in as they had heard that night, Irish Members would have to complain of the time taken up in the discussion of English affairs. With regard to the matter in question, he was of opinion, that such wholesale Motions as that made by the hon. member for Evesham, instead of forwarding the object which hon. Members had in view in making them, tended rather to impede and thwart it. He would only bring one or two instances to show the absurdity of such a general Motion. By the hon. Member's Motion, ten per cent was to be taken off the salary of those that had 1,000l. That perhaps, might safely be done; but the hon. Member proposed, that ten per cent should likewise be taken off the salary of the clerk who had only 120l. a year. Did the hon. Member consider, that in these cases the proportions of reduction were equal? To him the Motion appeared so preposterous, that he should give it his most decided negative. He was surprised, on the former evening, to hear an hon. Member assert, that the present Government had made no reductions, or had no intention to make any. After the statement of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), he was sure that no person would say, that Ministers had not made every reduction which was consistent with the public service.

rose to submit to the House the Motion of which he had given notice, for referring to a Select Committee the Report of the Committee of last Session, relative to the pro- priety of erecting a new House of Commons. He observed, that a gallant Officer, not then a Member of the House, together with many other Members had felt, that it did not afford sufficient accommodation for the Members who were called on to assemble, and that, in consequence, they could not discharge their duties comfortably. A Committee was therefore appointed to inquire whether any and what alterations could be effected, and what improvements could be made in the present House for the due accommodation of the Members. The Report of that Committee would at once show the object which they and he had alke in view. The Committee was occupied for a considerable time in ascertaining whether the House in which they now met could be altered so as to afford the accommodation required, and the evidence which he then held in his hand must satisfy every person, that neither as regarded space, ventilation, and other conveniences, was it possible to make such alterations in the existing House as would meet the object proposed. It was stated, that the length of the chamber might be extended fifteen feet, by which seventy or eighty Members would be accommodated, but that there was no mode of increasing its width. From the evidence of Sir Geoffry Wyatville, it would appear that the House was only thirty-three feet in width, by forty-nine in length; and that as to accommodation, it could not fairly hold much more than one-half of the Members. It seemed that 348 individuals, not including those in the strangers' gallery, might be inconveniently crowded together. But, if the seats were placed at such a distance as to enable Gentlemen to pass each other easily (which it was impossible for ordinary-sized men to do at present) then, it was stated, that only 294 persons could sit comfortably. In no place where such important business was transacted was the accommodation so exceedingly bad. On this point he would refer to the experience of every Member who recollected what passed a few nights ago. On that occasion every seat below the gallery was quite full, and yet only 366 Members had anything like accommodation. The space between the seats under the gallery were only one-half the ordinary width, so that it was almost impossible to pass. The Members were, in fact, wedged in, almost like herrings in a barrel. It was a shame that the business of this great country should be transacted in a situation so extremely uncomfortable. Men who were attending to their duties for twelve or fourteen hours in that House ought to be assisted with every possible accommodation. He could state, from his own observation, that several Members had fallen sacrifices to the discharge of their duties in that inconvenient and ill-ventilated place. He believed the ablest men in England, though they had failed in effecting the object, had been employed to ventilate and purify that House thoroughly. The Committee to whom this subject had been referred came to an almost unanimous resolution; the Chairman alone, he believed, remained of a different opinion. They resolved, first "That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the present House of Commons does not afford adequate accommodation for the Members." He believed, that scarcely one dissentient voice could be found opposed to this resolution [No, no.]. If there were any Gentlemen who dissented from it, certainly their ideas of accommodation were different from his. The second Resolution was, "That no such accommodation or improvement as the necessity of the case called for could be made in the present House of Commons for the general convenience of the Members." Looking to the situation in which they were at present placed, he calculated that they lost from twenty to forty minutes in pursuing the old practice of dividing, which rendered it necessary for one party to go into the lobby. It was frequently with the greatest difficulty, and sometimes not without using gentle force, that the Members were got out. If they continued the rule of sending out the minority, in which number, he feared, he should be generally found, the consequence would still be, that individuals who came early would be deprived of their seats, on important occasions, and others who had not so attended would take possession of them. In the case of private bills, he had known men to sit and vote contrary to their inclinations rather than run the risk of losing their seats by going out. He had known Members to have remained fast asleep in their places, and to have been counted as supporting the very Motion to which they were opposed. If on divisions they could save half an hour it would be a matter of very considerable importance, pressed as they were with a variety of business. Now, with respect to building a new House, he understood that the expense would not be 20,000l. more than would be required for altering the old. Three ideas were thrown out on this subject. One was, to extend the House by taking in the lobby. Next, it was suggested, that it might be enlarged in the direction of Cotton-garden, where the house of Mr. Ley would afford an excellent site for a building. But they wanted proper ventilation; and in the latter case the air would be obstructed by the House of Lords and the long gallery; that was, therefore, objected to. Finally, it was proposed to build in a direct line between that House and the river. To that proposition he believed there was scarcely a dissenting voice. In England they were very deficient with respect to public buildings; but he could not have a moment's hesitation in saying, that where business of such immense importance was transacted, those by whom it was transacted should be allowed the utmost possible accommodation. Therefore he felt no unwillingness whatever on the score of expense—to him that consideration was a mere bagatelle. Looking to the national expenditure, considering the manner in which the public money was applied, he conceived that the propriety of devoting a sum to the purpose which he had described would not admit of any question. Many Gentlemen, he knew, cherished a strong recollection of events that had passed in that House, and were, in consequence, very anxious that no change should take place. He could readily enter into the feelings of Gentlemen on that point, but, in his opinion, utility was what they ought principally to keep in view, and, on that ground alone, he was anxious to bring this subject forward. There was a part of the House where idlers invariably resorted. In whatever plan might be adopted, he hoped that the inconveniences at present felt would be remedied. How ever, that would be a subject for future consideration; he did not wish anything to be done hastily. He thought it would be evident to every one, from the few observations he had made, that better accommodation than the House now afforded was necessary. He proposed to move, that the Report of the Select Committee of last Session, for making the House more commodious, be referred to a Select Committee, and that the Committee be instructed to report their observations and opinions thereupon to the House. He believed, that the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) approved of this course. The Committee could call for further information, and have plans and estimates laid before them. There had been a proposition to remove the House to another situation, and he felt satisfied that a better building might be erected elsewhere, but they could not well alter the situation of the Commons without changing that of the Lords at the same time; and as he believed they were not prepared to remove the Lords just yet, it would be better to preserve the present locality of the House of Commons. The hon. Member concluded, by moving for a Committee.

seconded the Motion, and referred to the evidence of Mr. Smirke, from which it appeared that there was not accommodation for more than 350 Members in the House, deducting the space under the gallery, and allowing two feet by three-and-a-half for each individual. 560 Members divided the other night, and, according to the calculation, 210 of the Members could not have found convenient places. He was aw are that some persons thought a space of one foot eight inches by two foot eight inches sufficient for each Member, and upon that supposition the House would accommodate more than 350, but he did not consider the space allowed by Mr. Smirke too much; and it should be borne in mind that Members who frequented the galleries usually required six feet by two rather than three feet by two—a consideration which, if taken into the account, would show that there was not accommodation for more than about, 300 Members. He objected to the oblong shape of the House, as inconvenient and every way inferior to a semicircular form, which would admit of a better position for the Speaker than that which he now occupied. "Sir," continued the hon. Member "you have not, like Janus, eyes in the back of your head, and therefore cannot always see in every direction. I say, Sir, you have not eyes in the back of your head, and you cannot see what goes on in that part of the House behind the Chair which is called, I suppose from the superior wisdom of its occupants, Solomon's porch. There, and at the bar, there Is frequently the greatest disorder, which might be prevented if you could have your eye on every Member." On these grounds, because of its deficiency of accommodation, inconvenient shape, and bad arrangement, he found fault with the present House. One of the recommendations of the plan held in view for constructing a new House was, that it could be carried on without interrupting any of their proceedings, either in the House or in the Committee-rooms, and it might be completed by the commencement of the next Session.

said, but for the call made by some hon. Members it had been his intention not to speak on this question, which he thought a question for the Members themselves to decide, being altogether one connected with their accommodation and convenience—not a Ministerial one. He certainly could not deny hut that when there was a full House, the Members suffered great inconvenience. For himself, he must confess—perhaps it might be the effect of a sort of prejudice—that he should be strongly averse to changing the locality of the House, though he should not object to having alterations made in the present House. However, he had not the slightest objection to refer the matter entirely to the Committee.

thought with the hon. member for Middlesex, that as a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, there could be no objection to the alteration proposed; the expense would be a mere trifle, supposing a necessity for that alteration; but he did not see that any such necessity existed. He did not, of course, mean to say, that there was sufficient accommodation for such full Houses as assembled the other night; but these only occurred two or three times in the course of a Session; and, therefore, the question amounted to this—was it necessary to build a House large enough to accommodate the whole body of Representatives, who only assembled as a collective body on very extraordinary occasions—sonic two or three times a year? For the remainder of the year's business this House was better adapted than any building he knew. There were most important matters discussed when only 150 or 200 Members were present, and this number the House could accommodate excellently. The hon. member for Middlesex had founded his calculation upon the whole number of Members returned to this House; but he would ask hon. Gentlemen whether 658 Members had ever met together in this House for the purpose of deliberation? If the hon. member for Middlesex could mention any precedent of ancient or modern times in which 658 Members had ever constituted a deliberative assembly here, he would then enter into the consideration of the change which the hon. Member proposed. But believing, that human nature always would be the same, and that they could not reckon upon having, on ordinary occasions a full House, he did not see that the Motion was necessary. He was sure that they should never find 658 men prepared to deliberate upon every subject—they must rely upon the occasion; many men relinquished their right to speak upon questions in which they were not peculiarly interested or with which they were not intimately connected. He for one would gladly relinquish his right to speak upon many subjects. He could not, either, altogether lose sight of the change of moral feeling, which would be experienced on leaving this House. He was not ashamed to say, that he looked at these walls with reverence; and he believed that the feelings which the associations connected with that House excited in the mind were not without their influence upon the minds of those who entered it for the first time. He believed that every hon. Gentleman must be occasionally actuated by feelings of reverence or sympathy, while sitting within walls which had echoed to the eloquence of some of the greatest and the wisest men who ever dignified a deliberative assembly. He thought that the feelings excited by such recollections, would prevent them from readily' accommodating themselves to a House, the idea or notion of which would have been borrowed from the new—and he might add vulgar—legislative assemblies on the other side of the Atlantic. They would not like to convert a forum to which the greatest men who ever lived had imparted a lustre by their presence, and which they had enlightened with their eloquence—into a degraded Council Chamber unworthy of the Legislature of such a country as this. He was he must confess opposed to the Motion. He was quite sure that, after the want of satisfaction which attended the inquiry of former Committees on this subject, they should engage in a very useless inquiry if they consented to the proposition of the hon. member for Middlesex.

thought, that as all the Representatives of the country ought duly to assemble whenever there was the least question concerning the welfare, the happiness, or the misery of the people, there ought to be a House sufficiently large to contain them. Sir Robert Inglis had stated the number of extraordinarily important occasions for the assembly of the whole House at about three times a Session. He thought there was much more frequent occasion for their meeting. He should, therefore, advocate the erection of another building.

coincided in opinion with the last speaker. The present building might be large enough for the discussion of Turnpike Bills, Road Bills, and so on. but it most certainly was far from affording adequate accommodation for the reception of that collective body of Representatives whose duty imperatively called upon them to be present at the discussion on every important question. An hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) had seemed to argue that the Representatives of the empire in leaving these sacred walls would leave behind them the inspiration thrown over them by the glorious recollections of the great men who had rendered this pile illustrious by the splendor of their eloquence. This was all very well; and if he (Mr. C. Fergusson) had been happy enough to find that the present Members were rendered one jot greater or more illustrious by the memories of the great men—of the Pyms and the Hampdens—whose presence had dignified this House, then would he be the last man to propose any alteration in locality; but as he had not found this beneficial result, and as be considered the question as a pure matter of accommodation and convenience, he should certainly support the proposed alteration. Some of the Members the other night had been told they must not speak on a question of the utmost importance, because they were not in their places; a great number of hon. Members, according to this rule would nightly be prevented from delivering their sentiments, for in the present building there were no seats for half of them.

said that, with great deference to the hon. member for Middlesex, he did not conceive any benefit would arise from his Motion "for appointing a Committee for considering further of the expediency of building a new House." He had had the honour of a seat in three Parliaments, and had found that on very few occasions had there been any deficiency of accommodation. He confessed the reasons he had heard were insufficient to justify him in supporting the plan for constructing a new House, which would entail a heavy charge on the public. The building in which their deliberations were then held was endeared to the sons of freedom, not less by the triumphs it had witnessed than by the struggles it had seen. It had been argued by the hon. member for Bridport, that every Member should be allowed in the proportion of two feet three inches each, for sitting room, whilst it was well known that in the army each man occupied only eighteen inches. In reference to the feelings of former times, he observed, that the Romans never altered their Forum Vetus or Forum Romanum, and in that they evinced not less patriotism than sound philosophy. He was not disposed to do away with this unassuming House. He did not use that term as applied to its Members. He objected to pulling down that building hallowed by its recollections for the purpose of erecting in its stead a semicircular theatrical edifice like that proposed. For hearing, and the transaction of business, the House of Commons was preferable to the French Chamber of Deputies. Supposing, however, a new House, constructed on the most approved plan, there was nothing so difficult as to ensure its being a house well adapted to hearing, for there were instances of rooms built exactly on similar plans and proportions, one well fitted for hearing, the other extremely defective; it was a kind of mystery in the science of acoustics; on the whole he conceived the present House to be as well adapted as any which could be devised for the purposed of legislation. The very House, too, showed that theirs was not a Constitution of yesterday. In that Chair, in which they beheld the present able Speaker, the celebrated Sir Thomas More once presided—from that Chair he had nobly maintained the independence and dignity of the Commons against all regal infringements. That day and the day before, which might be termed average houses showed how little call there was for acceding to the views of the hon. member for Middlesex.

rose to say one word to the House in sober sadness. He asked the House whether it was not desirable, that whatever was done in that House, the public should be made acquainted with it, in order to know the proceedings of their Representatives? How could that be done if there were not sufficient accommodation for that portion of the public by which alone the whole could learn." It was desirable that accommodation should be given, and not that the communication should be made by stealth. The thing was now done. The public would not suffer that it should be discontinued. If it were a matter of such decided necessity that it could not be discontinued without causing a revolution, should they not provide convenience for those who gave the Debates to the public? He would give such accommodation, if it were only that it might not be said: "The hon. Member was inaudible." If there were no other reason but that, he should say they ought to make sufficient accommodation. He could not carry back his historical recollections of the House so far as some hon. Members, but he thought the hon. Baronet, the member for the University of Oxford, did not carry his far enough hack. The hon. Member forgot that the House was called St. Stephen's Chapel, and that at a former period mass was said in it. How could the hon. Member bear a spot which had been consecrated to the worship of the Catholics? However, they had now come to common sense. The question was, was the accommodation sufficient? He cared nothing about Cromwell and Pym having sat in the House; he wanted to know whether the Representatives of the people had a convenient place or not for transacting the public business." He believed not; and there was only one remedy—to send 105 of them back to Ireland.

would never consent to vote away 130,000l. of the public money while the people wanted bread. He did not expect that a Motion of such a description would have come from the other side of the House.

reminded the hon. and gallant Gentleman that lie had voted away large sums of the public money. [When?] The gallant Officer had voted against the motion of the hon. member for Middlesex for the reduction of sinecures.

was happy that he had an opportunity of explaining the vote he gave on that occasion. He had been asked by several of his constituents why he had not voted for Mr. Hume's Motion; and the answer he gave was, that he understood from the hon. member for Tralee, or some other hon. Member who spoke on the same side, that it would be proper to increase the pay of the officers of the Army and Navy. He belonged to the latter; and being persuaded that the officers of the Navy, to which he belonged, should be paid as they now are, he had voted against the Motion.

rose to ask the House for some information on a subject of considerable importance, in relation to a question that would come before them in a few days. He wished to know how the troops were distributed before voting the Estimates. Such a Return was laid before the House last year, and he did not know why there should now be an objection to his Motion. The hon. Member moved for an account of the distribution of the military force in Great Britain and Ireland, and in each of the Colonies in the year 1833.

hoped that the House would give him credit for being always ready to give every species of information required, whenever it could be done with propriety. With respect to the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex, he wished to remark that a similar one had been made in 1819, and agreed to. A similar Motion was also made and agreed to last year; but in the interval between these two Motions, no such information was ever asked for, or laid on the Table of the House. He believed, too, that the Motion in 1819 was the first of the kind ever assented to. He admitted, therefore, that he should feel it his duty to give the information granted at these two periods, if there were no objections, as he supposed there were none then, on the score of the public service. But he appealed to the House whether it might not he very inconvenient if it should settle into a custom of laying this information on the Table of the House. There must be many occasions when it must he very injurious to make the public acquainted with the exact amount and distribution of the military force of the empire. If such a return were to be habitually laid on the Table, it would be extremely difficult for the Government to refuse it, when it might be inconvenient to grant it. That made him object to granting it this Session. That, however, was his smallest objection to the Motion. He objected strongly to making this the constant system of the House. On the present occasion he felt very strongly that there were many circumstances which rendered it extremely inconvenient to lay such a statement before the House as was demanded by the Motion of the hon. Member He was the less scrupulous, indeed, in now opposing it, because the information, in consequence of its having been supplied last year, was not required. On the two grounds then, of its being at present inconvenient, and of its being wrong to make such a return habitually, he should oppose the Motion.

could not understand the objections of his noble friend. The country, it should be remembered, was in a state of profound peace. Did his noble friend apprehend the danger of a foreign attack or a domestic insurrection? Certainly, the apprehension of danger from abroad was a poor reason for refusing the Motion, because there was no foreign Power interested in knowing it which could not, in spite of all precautions, ascertain at any time the strength of any one of our garrisons. In his opinion, the information should be granted, or the House could not be prepared to vote the Army Estimates.

said, the information required was in great part before the House. The Estimates themselves stated what force was in Great Britain, what in Ireland, and what force was in the colonies. But the hon. member for Middlesex wished to know exactly what amount of force was in each colony. Such a return had only been made twice before, and it was curious enough that the return of 18I9 was made in detail by the Adjutant General, when he was not required to do so. It appeared to him that no House of Commons, at the commencement of every Session, could fairly call upon the Government to state the manner in which the army of the country was disposed of—at home or abroad. That was certainly a matter which should be left to the discretion of the Crown, and the existing Government, according to the emergencies of the times; for there might be circumstances with which the Government alone could be acquainted, to render it of the utmost importance that the mode in which the military force was disposed of should be concealed. With the vast interests of our great empire—with colonies spread over the whole surface of the globe—it was apparent, looking to England, Ireland, and the West Indies, and, indeed, to all parts of the world—that no man could have a right to call upon the Government to proclaim how many troops were stationed in this place—and how many regiments in that? It would not only be the grossest imprudence; it would be usurping the power delegated to the Government; and it would be exposing to those who might take advantage of such exposition, what force was to be stationed, in disciplined array, in different parts of the empire. It was no doubt true, as the hon. member for Middlesex and the hon. and gallant member for Worcester had said, that a similar return was presented last year; and that return he begged leave to explain. The right hon. Gentleman who preceded him in office had certain tables before him, in order that he might draw up certain schemes (well worthy of consideration, no doubt.) with respect to the effect of every estab- lishment for a certain number of years; and when he entered the War-office, these tables were filled up, and only waited for the signature of the Secretary-at-War. Sir Henry Parnell shortly afterwards moved for these returns, but they were not for the purpose of giving an account of the disposable force; for they showed the amount of the military establishment from 1817 up to 1832, in each year inclusive. It was for the sake of drawing a comparison between these years, that the right hon. Gentleman had these returns prepared; and from time to time there certainly could be no objection to give such a return. For example, next year his noble friend would have he, supposed, no objection to give that return for the past year; because, the evil effects of now granting it would be obviated. He put it to the good sense of hon. Gentlemen opposite whether it was good as a precedent—he would not say to allow the Parliament, for he would trust the Parliament—he would not say the hon. member for Middlesex, for he would trust him, and he might almost say the people, also—hut whether it was good as a precedent, to trust the matter to the whole world, and to have it universally known, in what portion of the globe every part of the disposable force of this country might be stationed? It was from no wish of concealment that he made these observations. He could say, as his noble friend had said—that, so far as he was concerned, he should be most happy to give every information which the House or the country could require.

hoped the House would insist, as was its duty, on having the Returns. They should not proceed on guesses, cither as to the number or expenses of the army.

said, that the expense was specified in the papers on the Table.

Granting that, there were no Returns to show whether the aggregate amount of expense was a proper one or not. The noble Lord, in refusing the Returns, relied upon his character.

observed, that he resisted the Returns because, if furnished, they would do injury to the public service, otherwise it was the bounden duty of Ministers to grant them, but he had not, he believed, relied upon his character.

But the noble Lord added, that he was not in the habit of withholding proper information. The right hon. Secretary at War maintained that it was the prerogative of the Crown to dispose of the armed force as it pleased, but it was equally the privilege and duty of the House not to vote money for the payment of the forces, if any information it deemed necessary was withheld from it. The times required that a rigid inquiry should be instituted into the number of troops, in order, that if there were one drummer or lifer too many, they should be dismissed. Before a single shilling was voted, they should have a clear account of the number and distribution of the troops.

said, that the matter ought to be left in the hands of the Government, and quoted the expedition to Portugal, under Mr. Canning's Administration, as justifying his opinion. At that time there was great doubt whether the force should be drawn from Gibraltar or other parts of the Mediterranean.

never knew any Member insist on such Returns, after it had been declared by Ministers, on their own responsibility, that the Returns would be injurious. It was interfering with the undisputed rights of the Executive Power. But the most singular circumstance was, that a military man, upon being told that they would be inconvenient to the public service, should ask "why?" That was the most extraordinary question he had ever heard from a military man.

thought it hard, that while information of this nature had been granted in 1819 and 1832, it should be now withheld.

thought the Motion ought not to be persevered in. The Return would make all the world acquainted with those points which were open to attack.

begged to remind the gallant Colonel that his Motion did not press for Returns later than the 1st of January last. The apprehensions of the Secretary at War astonished him; it seemed that this country was to be attacked the very next day. But why had there been no allusion to this perilous condition in the King's Speech? he (Mr. Hume) thought the country was in a state of peace, and that the King's Speech might have contained a recommendation to reduce the military establishment. That was what the people looked for. Still, notwithstanding the warlike character of the House he did not think it could consent to maintaining a standing army of 90,000 men. It was perfectly useless to talk of repealing taxes, unless the establishments were reduced. In his opinion the army might be reduced 10,000 or 15,000 men, or at least a great part of that number. His object was merely to ascertain the total number of troops in England, in Ireland, and in Scotland. In Canada, there were 5,000 men, not one of whom was necessary to that State. When he should hereafter propose reductions of the army, the universal cry would be: "Where will you credue them?" How could he tell, when he was now refused the details of their distribution? In the Ionian Islands, for instance, he did not know whether there were three, four, or five thousand men, nor whether the troops might not be entirely withdrawn from them. [a laugh from Mr. William Brougham.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the member for Southwark who laughed, thought that the islands belonged to this country. In Southwark they didn't know it. [Question] There would be questions in plenty, but it was hard that he could not ask a reasonable question without being laughed at.

said, that no longer ago than last year there was laid before the House a detailed account of the distribution of the Army for each of the fifteen years, and down to the commencement of 1832; then, if all that were wanted, was the means of investigating the propriety of the Army Estimates, of keeping up the present force, there would be the requisite aid. But, why not give it down to the present time, it was said. That was the question certainly; and his colleagues had replied, and on there responsibility, that it would be inconvenient to the public service. He hoped that the House would not be led away by the hon. Member: he would have them reflect on the character of the Motion. Its tendency went to invest that House with the command of the Army. If he had no other objection to it, that with him would be sufficient. On one day the hon. Member held, that the House would be the best judge of rewards to meritorious officers; on another, he considered, that the House was to judge the propriety of continuing small or large forces in particular stations, garrisons, or colonies. The fact was, that the object of hon. Gentlemen opposite was to vest the command of the Army and Navy in that House. This he resisted, as most dangerous and unconstitutional.

thought, that was a proper time for him to offer some observations to the House. He had already mentioned, that there was a mass of taxes amounting to eight millions annually, of which the nobility, clergy, and great landowners, paid little or nothing, but which fell almost exclusively upon the tradesman, the farmer, the workman, and the industrious classes generally. He had proposed to bring forward a Resolution recommending the House to take this subject into their consideration. It had since occurred to him, that whilst the unfortunate question of Irish affairs was before the House, it would be better for him to defer bringing forward his Motion until that great question was finally settled. He mentioned this, lest the House should imagine that he meant to abandon his Motion.

said, that he wished the hon. member for Oldham had brought forward his Motion, or, at least, that he had not intimated his intention of abandoning it in such a manner as to propound an argument, and cause an inference. He disputed the argument, and he denied the inference. He would tell the hon. Gentleman, that all he asked of the House and of him, was a clear stage and no favour. He would dispute every inch with the hon. Gentleman. He denied that there had been, on the part of the Parliament, any disposition to oppress the people. It might suit the object of the hon. Gentleman to make such statements. But he would meet him—aye, he would meet him—he was not afraid to cope with him—yes, he would cope with him foot to foot, and shoulder to shoulder, and might God defend the right! The hon. Member might profit by the privelege of Parliament, to put any fallacies in print for the purpose of deluding the people; but such a system should be exposed—he would expose it, by himself he would do so. The hon. member for Oldham had made one assertion, he would make another—he declared open hostility on the subject; let the discussion come, and then the public would decide.

said, the right hon. Gentleman who intimated so eager a desire for the discussion, appeared, from his state of preparation, to have an advantage over those on that side of the House. In sober sadness, however, did the right hon. Gentleman mean to deny, that the hon. member for Oldham had abstracted the schedules to the Stamp Act correctly? If he had done so, why, let him remember that vulgar arithmetic never fails. It was not denied by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he had abstracted them correctly. The only defence which the noble Lord set up was, that many other taxes were in the same situation. It was, however, of no consequence. He did not fear, although the right hon. Gentleman was so chivalrous as to dare the hon. member for Oldham to the combat. Common sense would triumph over Treasury dexterity. There was one part of the Stamp Act which he would just allude to; the stamp upon an arbitration was 20s. If the matter in dispute was worth 50,000l. it was of no consequence—it was no more. But, owing to this, the poor man was prevented from deciding questions which were to him of importance, in a cheap way, because the stamp would frequently amount to as much or more than the value of the subject in dispute.

said, that, in order to prevent any further disputes at present, he hoped both combatants would at once agree to appoint an early day for deciding the question between them. But, he must say, that his right hon. friend would be a much more clever man than they had yet given him credit for on that side of the House, if he could refute the proposition, that the taxes on stamps pressed unequally, and that the principal burthen was thrown upon the poorer classes. They had often heard of the influence which property ought to possess in this and that ease—of the deference which was due to property, but he thought it high time that the House should hear something about property bearing its fair share of the burthens of the country. He did not doubt, that the hon. member for Oldham would not shrink from the lights although he was challenged to such fearful contiguity as foot to foot and shoulder to shoulder.

said, it was absurd to attempt to deny, that the landlords had, on all occasions, thrown the burthens of the State upon the people. The people had been oppressed by the landed oligarchy of the country. He said distinctly the landowner, for the farmers had a different interest, and were really as much injured by these laws as other people. The landlord used them, indeed, as a sponge to suck up other people's property, which they afterwards squeezed out of the farmers.

would only remark, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. member for Wolverhampton, that the price of corn was not higher than in 1772, and he did not think there was, on that score, any special ground of complaint against the agriculturist. Before the House went into a Committee of Supply, which was the proper time for the statement of such grievances as weighed most heavily on the people, he (Mr. Howard) would draw the attention of his Majesty's Ministers to the hardship of the house and window tax, particularly as it bore upon the lower class of assessments. The hon. Member further observed, that the public benefit from the repeal of a direct tax, could not possibly be defeated by combination.

rose to supply the omission which he had made. He had said, that the nobility, clergy, and landowners, had, for many years, thrown the burthen of 8,000,000l. of taxes upon the industrious classes of the community, bearing a very small part of it themselves. He omitted to say, but he would now say it, and he was prepared to prove it, that they had done so, premeditatedly, designedly, and dishonestly.

hoped, that, when the hon. Member brought forward his Resolution, he would not forget to mention to the other side all the taxes which were borne exclusively by the landed interest, and which they had imposed upon themselves.

rose to move the reduction of the duties upon sugar. His Motion was, that the duty should be reduced from 24s. to 15s. The duty had been increased as a war tax, but it had not since been reduced. It would be highly beneficial to the West-India planters, as well as to the people of this country, to reduce the tax. Even an ad valorem duty would be more advantageous. He conceived, that the equalization of the duties on West-India and East India sugars would be most advantageous. He was convinced, that it would not injure the West-Indian planters, because East India sugar was not fit for refining, whilst it would enable the inhabitants of our East-Indian possessions to pay for the manufactures of this country in native produce.

would not go, at present, into the question of equalizing the East and West India duties; and although he, and all who were interested in the West Indies, must feel obliged to the hon. member for Middlesex, yet they did not think the present a fitting time for refusing the annual duties; his Majesty's Government being engaged in the consideration of the important subject of the West Indies, and all things showing the probability of an approaching settlement of that question.

said, he was glad to hear that some measure was likely to be brought forward for the settlement of colonial affairs; but, he must say, he did not think it wise of his Majesty's Government, at the same time, to bring forward this measure for the renewal of the sugar duties. He objected to the mode of bringing forward this proposition on constitutional grounds. It was an established principle, that the House should not grant any money, until it had first determined the purposes to which that money was to be applied; or, in other words, that the Ways and Means were not to be proposed until the supply had been granted. In this instance the Government had deviated from the former practice, and without any sufficient reason having been assigned; for the House was here called upon to vote four millions, without having had the supplies regularly submitted for its consideration. The House had a right to know to what purposes the public money was to be devoted, before it sanctioned the appropriation of that money. There was a wide distinction between those votes of money to pay off Exchequer Bills, which were merely to supply the votes of the last year, and those votes which were votes of Ways and Means for the current year; and, although the former were justifiable, the latter were not. He must, therefore, express his regret that the noble Lord opposite had not taken an opportunity of making, in the first instance, his general statement of expenditure, before moving any part of the Ways and Means, as had always been done on former occasions. Hearing, as he every day did, promises of a repeal of taxes, which he knew must be disappointed, he felt that the sooner the public were undeceived on that point the better.

would admit the general principle, that a reduction of duty tended to increase consumption, so as to prevent a loss of revenue, but could not, in the present state of the revenue, venture to adopt such an extensive reduction as that proposed by the hon. member for Middlesex. That reduction would affect the revenue to the extent of 1,800,000l., an amount which could not be safely risked on the mere chance of increasing the consumption. He was less induced to make the reduction on recollecting that the revenue lost the whole amount of the reduction from 27s. to 24s.; so that, to make a small reduction would only injure the revenue without essentially benefiting the consumer; and to make so large a one as from 24s. to 15s. would be the risking a very great diminution of the revenue on the chance of a counter balancing increased consumption. Again, the hon. Member said, his object was the benefiting the West-India interest, by consuming all its produce in this country, and yet, in the same breath, he proposed the admission of East-India sugars at a reduced duty. Did it not follow, that the latter proposition would destroy the former, inasmuch as the competition must tend to drive West-India sugar out of the market to the extent of the consumption of East-India sugar? Those, however, though strong, were not his chief objections to the hon. Member's Motion. He conceived, that the present was a most improper time for adopting such a proposition; in the first place, they were shortly, in the course of the present Session, to have to inquire into the general bearing of the East-India Company's Charter, and also a question deeply involving the commercial interests of the West-India colonies; so that, on the face of it, it would be highly inexpedient to adopt any ex parte proposition in reference to either interest. He now came to the statements of the right hon. Gentleman, who had contended, that it was the general practice and habit of that House not to vote Ways and Means, until it had granted an equal amount of Supply. The right hon. Gentleman had made a distinction between the Supply for the payment of outstanding Exchequer Bills, and the Supply for the expenses of the current year. But it appeared to him (Lord Althorp), that the objection of the right hon. Gentleman to the vote under consideration, if it were not entirely technical, partook largely of a technical character. For, it must be remembered, that the vote of sugar duties of last night was but the first step, and that the reception of that vote to night would be but a second step in the process of imposing those duties. Those duties could be actually imposed only by Bill, the whole course of which Bill might be discussed and disputed; so that, practically, the House had just as much power over the duties as if they had not been voted in the Committee of Supply, and might stop the progress of the Bill if they were dissatisfied with the manner in which his Majesty's Government proposed to apply the duties. In fact, then, before that Bill could be passed, supply to a greater extent than those duties would be voted. And as to his not having sooner brought forward the annual financial statement, he need only remind the right hon. Gentleman, that the quarter ending the 5th of April was one of great importance in framing a satisfactory balance-sheet. Last year, for example, that quarter made a difference of 600,000l., as compared with the same quarter of the year 1831. He only awaited the returns of the current quarter, confident that the financial statement for 1833 would be satisfactory.

said, that the Amendment on the Resolution should be introduced now, or else it could not be introduced at all, for what was agreed to in Committee could not afterwards be altered by the House.