presented a Petition from Christ Church, Surrey, against the New Police Act. He said, that he was sorry that his hon. friend, the Under Secretary for the Home Department, was prevented from taking his place that morning in consequence of illness. He had been requested by that hon. Gentleman to defer presenting the last petition; but as, according to the present arrangements of the House, he did not know when he should have another opportunity, he had declined acceding to the request. The petitioners complained that the New Police Act repealed the Act of George 3rd, which gave them power to appoint their own watch; and that the force which was now established was not so effective as the old one, while the cost was nearly doubled; the parish having been watched under the old system at the cost of 1,100l., while they were now obliged to pay the Commissioners of Police 2,100l. He agreed with the petitioners so far as to say, that the persons who paid the money had a right to be satisfied that they were called on for no more than their due proportion of the burthen which the new establishment had entailed on the districts in which it had been brought into practice. In last Session, an hon. Member proposed that the subject generally should be referred to a Select Committee. If such a Motion were now brought forward by any hon. Member, he would most willingly give it his support. Such an inquiry, in his opinion, would be attended with many benefits, for at the present time, the new police in some districts was in such bad odour with the inhabitants, that the men scarcely dared appear on any public occasion. One instance he could state on his own knowledge. At the last election he was obliged to pay 130l. for Special Constables, and that in a district which was supposed to be effectively watched by the new police; and the High Bailiff' of Southwark gave as his reason for having such a force, that he had received notice, that if the new police were allowed to appear during the election, the peace of the borough would be very much endangered. Such were the complaints made by his constituents, and such had been the practical working of the system as felt by himself.

had had many applications made to him on the subject of the new police, both in the last Session and the present. He was one who much opposed the introduction of such a force; but the Bill having been passed, he was willing that the system should have a full and fair trial. Nearly all the information that could be got by a Select Committee was already before the House by the papers that were laid on the Table every year. If, in those papers, a statement was made of the pay to the several grades of the men employed, and the expense incurred for clothing, the House would have every information before them they could wish on the subject. The only fault that he could find with the police was, that on many occasions, when they were most wanted, there was a difficulty in finding them. However, so long as they conducted themselves in the manner they had hitherto done, they ought to receive the support of the public.

wished to call the attention of the House to the state of the list on which hon. Members put down their names to be called on to present petitions. He had put clown his name on that list at the commencement of the present Session, and it was not until this day that it had come to his turn to present his petitions; and that must be his excuse to his constituents for not having performed his duty earlier. On looking over the list, the other day, he found many hundred names down, so that he stood but very little chance of having another opportunity for some time to come; but what he most complained of was, that some hon. Members' names occurred more than once in that list; nay, more, one hon. Member's name occurred no less than eight times. Now, he apprehended that such a course was dealing most unfairly by other hon. Members and their constituents; and he trusted that the House would adopt some mode of putting a stop to it.

was sure that the House would feel itself under an obligation to the hon. Member for having called attention to the subject. He, however, considered that it arose from some oversight on the part of hon. Members, without once considering what course justice required to be pursued. The names of hon. Members might appear more than once on the list, without incorrectness; but that one name should be repeated eight times was manifestly an abuse of the plan which had been proposed.

thought the plan now in operation most objectionable. He had not been called upon by the Speaker for nearly a fortnight, and the consequence was, that his petitions had accumulated to the number of fifty-six. He had attended day after day, in hopes of being able to present his petitions, but was always disappointed. He considered that the best plan to adopt would be—to have an alphabetical list made out, and call upon hon. Members in that order; that would put an end entirely to all confusion.

considered that the plan proposed by the hon. member for Oldham was liable to this objection—that hon. Members, whose names might begin with A, B, or C, might occupy the time of the House to the total exclusion of those whose names unfortunately began with X, Y or Z.

presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of the town and neighbourhood of Wakefield, against the Irish Disturbances Bill. Ashe had opposed the first and second reading of this Bill, he cordially concurred with the prayer of the petition.

said, it was always irksome to reflect upon petitions, as it usually led only to recrimination. With respect to the petition just presented, he had no objection to make to it—it had been agreed to at a public meeting duly convened and regularly held; but a protest against it had been put into his hand—it was not a petition, and, therefore, he could not lay it on the Table. The protest was signed by many persons of the first respectability, and many of them of great mercantile character in the borough of Wakefield, and they had requested him to make all the use of it in his power. By this protest they stated, that so far from concurring with the petitioners, in their opinion, unless the outrages which had been committed in Ireland were suppressed by the passing of this or some efficient Bill, the Ministry would be guilty of a dereliction of duty, and all the consequences of a weak and inefficient Government would be entailed on the United Kingdom.

would read a letter from a gentleman at Wakefield, relating to the whole of the circumstances respecting the petition and the protest, which would show the character of the petitioners, and the character of those who opposed it. His hon. Colleague, to whom the letter was addressed, was obliged to attend a Committee to day, and therefore was unable himself to be present; but he (Mr. Cobbett) had been deputed to state this letter to the House. The letter asserted that the writer had just been informed, that one of the Protesters had disapproved of the petition, and that he feared the resignation of Earl Grey more than any other calamity. The protest, he had been told, had been hawked about by two petty attorneys, who were friends of Lord Morpeth, to prop up whose votes he suspected the measure had originated. A meeting on Thursday last was regularly called by the constable, and signed by the writer's friend, Mr. Waterton, of Walton Hall, who filled the chair at the Meeting, which was attended by the writer himself. The petition was then agreed to and numerously signed; and though some of the signers of the counter petition or protest, as it had been called, were present, not one of them opened his mouth against any of the resolutions that were passed unanimously at that meeting; so that these protesters actually were present at the meeting, but had not the courage to divide the meeting, or even to say a word against any of the Resolutions. The name signed to the letter was that of "Joseph Wood."

had a petition to present, to which it was his duty particularly to call the attention of the House, from a gentleman named Robert Robinson, late a captain in his Majesty's service, and who, after serving twenty-five years in various parts of the world was afterwards sent out, in 1825, being then a captain on the half-pay of the 17th Light Dragoons, to command a corps of out-pensioners in New South Wales. The petition complained of the treatment which that gentleman had met with from General Darling, Governor of New South Wales, during his residence there, and more especially of the illegal proceedings of a Court-martial by which he was tried and convicted. He had been requested to present the petition to a former Parliament; but such was the press of business arising from the discussions on the Reform Bill, that, from the period it had come into his hands, in consequence of the lamented death of his late right hon. friend Sir James Mackintosh, he had had no opportunity of bringing it forward till now, so particularly as he wished. It was difficult to state the contents of that petition without imputing very serious blame to General Darling, the Governor of that colony, and the persons who composed the Court-martial. At the same time, he must say, that he always held he was not bound to support the prayer of any petition he presented, unless he had some cause for believing that the matters therein-stated were grounded in truth. He had applied to his right hon. friend, the Judge-Advocate, with the view of ascertaining some of the facts stated in the petition; and, without undertaking to pledge himself to the correctness of every statement contained in it, he was, in his conscience, perfectly satisfied that their general truth was such as would justify him in supporting the prayer of the petition for the production of the Minutes of the Court-martial, which would enable the House to judge for itself whether the charges were or were not founded in truth. It appeared, that very shortly after the arrival of Captain Robinson in New South Wales, the corps, to command which he was sent out, was dispersed in various parts of the colony, and there was very good reason to complain even then of the conduct of General Darling. At the time that Captain Robinson left this country, not only had he an unimpeached character in the profession, but he also had many testimonials to that character. He remonstrated with General Darling against the attempts to do injustice to the persons who had come out under his command; and in consequence of those remonstrances being disregarded, he had considered it his duty to make a complaint to the Commander-in-chief in this country. By the Articles of War, if a remonstrance did not receive due attention abroad, the party making that remonstrance had the power of sending representations to the Commander-in-chief in this country, for the purpose, if possible, of putting an end to the grievances complained of. Captain Robinson having sent a remonstrance to this country, a correspondence took place, and finally, a Court of Inquiry was ordered to be holden on Captain Robinson. He should observe, that on the eve of holding this inquiry, a Lieutenant Sweeney belonging to Captain Robinson's company, received a letter from the military secretary of General Darling, warning him of the danger in which he stood, and advising him to pursue an honourable line of conduct. He conceived no other construction could be put upon that letter than this. It was intended to induce Lieutenant Sweeney to espouse a particular part on the inquiry then about to take place. After a Court of Inquiry, a Court-martial upon Captain Robinson was assembled, and Captain Forbes was the Judge-Advocate, who had served upon the previous Court of Inquiry which had been had with respect to Captain Robinson. The adoption of such a course was totally at variance with the general usage of the army, and totally incompatible with justice. The proceedings of the Court-martial went on, and seven or eight charges were propounded, which he had read, and he would take upon himself to declare that he never saw charges less specific, less clear, less perspicuous, or more confused. One part of the charge was disrespect to the Governor, in having sent home a complaint to the Commander-in-chief in this country. The petitioner complained that on the trial before the Court-martial, he was prevented from cross-examining witnesses produced against him; the questions which he proposed having been refused by the Court. The adoption of such a course, he (Dr. Lushington) was sure the House would be of opinion was a total violation of all law. The petitioner complained that one of the witnesses had been tampered with, and that evidence of an illegal character had been adduced. It was well known to every man that the rule was, from the highest tribunal to the lowest, that the best evidence should be produced; and so long as there was an opportunity of producing that evidence, so long it was impossible that secondary evidence could be received. It was obvious also to every man, that the great benefit of vivâ voce evidence was, that when you had an opportunity of cross-examining a witness, you might extract from him circumstances which might destroy the validity of the evidence itself, by proving the witness not entitled to belief. There was also a complaint of the manner in which the Minutes of the Court-martial were taken—of the evidence not having been taken on each specific charge, but in a mass, all mingled together, so that it was utterly impossible for any person, without much pains and labour, to make himself a complete master of the case, or do justice to the prisoner. Another complaint was, that one of the witnesses was permitted, before he underwent his cross-examination, actually to have a perusal of the evidence which he had given in chief. Now, that was a circumstance which he had never heard of in the whole course of his life. If the charges had been proved, they were not such, taking all the circumstances into consideration, as justified the sentence which had been pronounced. The sentence pronounced was dismissal from the service. Now, he would ask the House to consider what severe consequences must follow to a person so tried, so convicted, and so punished? This Gentleman had not merely served in the army twenty years, but his grandfather, father, six brothers, and two nephews, had been in the service. He was aware that when such a case as the present was brought before the House, it was met by saying that military men were aware of the risks they ran, and that it was dangerous for that House to open any case which had been decided by a competent tribunal. He was ready to admit that principle to a great extent, but he was not ready to say, that in our colonies, where the Governor was in possession of despotic power, being so far from home, that that House ought not to take cognizance of a case such as the present, where such a strong case for inquiry had been made out. He should inform the House that the petitioner was kept for two years under arrest, and that then an examination was gone into by the predecessor of his right hon. friend, the present Judge-Advocate. He did not intend to throw any imputation upon the gentleman who then held the office; for he knew that when a person had an immense mass of papers to wade through, it was impossible but that many important points would escape his attention. Since the petitioner had returned, he had made many applications for those Minutes, but they had been unsuccessful. He hoped now that they would be submitted to his inspection by his right hon. friend; and if that course were taken, it would give satisfaction to all parties. He had felt it his duty to trouble the House at length, because he considered it a case of the utmost importance. He was only anxious to make such statements as his duty required, and had not intended to step out of his way to vituperate any person. He had considered it proper to inform General Darling of his intention to present such a petition, so that the gallant Officer might instruct any of his friends in that House to answer it if necessary. The prayer of the petition was for the production of the Minutes of the Court-martial. If the subject were not taken up by the Government, he would take the earliest opportunity of submitting a motion on the subject. He sincerely hoped that he should not be driven to this course; for such a strong case of suspicion had been made out, that he trusted that Government would be anxious to refer the whole matter to the right hon. Judge-Advocate.

supported the prayer of the petition, with which he entirely concurred. He had long been informed of its contents, and if he had persisted in the Motion of which he had given notice with respect to the conduct of General Darling, that officer's treatment of Captain Robinson would have formed one of his charges. It was the duty of the Government to take up the case, so that the time of that House might not be occupied by matters immediately belonging to the Government. He was informed by many most respectable persons in this country, that every one of the allegations in the petition could be proved, and, of course, that gross injustice had been done to the petitioner. This was a question for the consideration of the Government, and one which they should be most anxious to sift to the bottom. He would take that opportunity of stating, that it was not his intention to bring forward his Motion with respect to General Darling's conduct at present, as he considered he would best consult the wishes of the House by abstaining from ripping up old abuses, but he trusted the present inquiry would be pursued with all diligence.

said, he could not let the opportunity pass without slating that he had the honour of Captain Robinson's acquaintance, and that, from what he knew of him, he would say, that he was incapable of doing anything that was unbecoming a gentleman. He had good ground for believing independently of Captain Robinson's own assertions, that the allegations of the petition were perfectly correct.

said, that he was not in office at the period alluded to. From the nature of the petition, and from the manner in which it had been brought under the notice of the House by his hon. and learned friend, it was his (Mr. R. Grant's) duty, if in his power, to meet the allegations of the petition. But, besides other documents, the proceedings of the Court-martial alone comprised the contents of three enormous folio volumes. It was therefore impossible for him to go through such a mass of evidence in time to give any individual opinion; and he felt called upon to offer that explanation, upon the Motion that the petition do lie upon the Table. He would admit, that the statements made in the petition received great weight from the opinion expressed of them by his hon. and learned friend; and that such an application must receive an answer; bat without imputing any want of intentional courtesy to his hon. and learned friend, he must inform the House that the notice of the intention to present the petition had only been given yesterday. The hon. member for Middlesex had expressed a hope that the prayer of the petition would not be disregarded by that House, because the transactions had taken place some time ago, and had argued upon the presumption that the allegations of the petition could be fully borne out; but the House could not entertain that presumption until an inquiry had taken place. Nor should there be too much weight given to the opinion expressed by his hon. and learned friend, as some of the charges could only be verified by further inquiry, inasmuch as they referred to evidence which it was alleged was not, but ought to have been, taken before the Court-martial. There was only one other point to which he would allude. The hon. member for Middlesex had imputed general charges against General Darling as Governor of the Colony; but he hoped that the proceedings of a sworn tribunal—sworn to execute justice—would not be confounded with any general charges against the Government. The charges against the Government and against General Darling should be kept wholly distinct. He felt most strongly, that the decision of a competent tribunal, which had been confirmed by a competent authority, was entitled to respect; and with regard to the present authorities at the Horse Guards, he had found them most conscientious in revising and considering all sentences that were sent to them. He would give no opinion on the merits of the petition; but, without denying the petitioner the fullest opportunity for investigation which was demanded, he must say that at present he must hold that what had been done had been done legally.

thought, that the imputation so affected General Darling's character, as an officer and a gentleman, that no friend of his would oppose the prayer of the petition. It would not only enable the petitioner to obtain justice, but would enable the gallant officer himself, if a full investigation were to take place, to place his proceedings in a clear point of view. There was one portion of the petition, wherein it was stated that a charge against Captain Robinson could not, in the Judge Advocate's opinion, be entered into, and yet the Court-martial had proceeded with it. That alone was sufficient to call for an inquiry. As to General Darling's not knowing until yesterday that the petition was to be presented to-day, he must have been aware that such charges were to be brought forward. It would be recollected that the petitioner did not come to that House until after he had tried all other means of redress without effect. He had even petitioned the King for an inquiry, and his petition had been referred to the Commander-in-chief.

, in moving that the petition do lie on the Table, said, that he would have given General Darling a longer notice, but it was impossible for him so to do, as he did not know until Monday that he should be able to present the petition to-day. He trusted that, in presenting it, he had made use of no expressions from himself that reflected on that gallant Officer's character. In answer to his right hon. friend (Mr. Grant) who, he was glad to perceive, gave no opinion on the merits of the petition, he thought it the best and most satisfactory mode that the minutes of the Court-martial should be laid before the House. He, therefore, gave notice that on Thursday the 23rd May, he would move for the production of the papers.

regretted, that in consequence of being unavoidably absent elsewhere, he had been prevented from making certain statements in reply to the petition and charges of the hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets, relative to the conduct of his friend General Darling. As he understood, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had postponed his Motion to some day in May, he should then urge some statements in defence of his friend. Petition to lie on the Table.

moved the Order of the Day for the consideration of the Report of this Bill. After some conversation, it was agreed that the Bill should be re-committed in order that certain amendments proposed on the Bill by Government should be considered.

moved the omission, at the end of the clause, of the following proviso, which had been introduced in the progress of the Bill:—"Provided always that it shall not be lawful for the Lord-lieutenant to apply the provisions of this Act to any county or district merely because tithes shall have not been paid in such county or district." He could not believe that Government seriously meant to retain these words after their own admission, that these words were both inefficient and foolish. Their tendency was to weaken the clause, as well as to draw an invidious distinction between the property of the clergy and all other property. He trusted the words would be expunged without a discussion.

would support the exclusion of those words. He thought he had done wrong by supporting it on the former occasion and the best amends he could then make was by speaking and voting for the exclusion. Surely the Lord-lieutenant would not proclaim every district because tithes were not paid. And yet unless that were supposed the proviso was directed to what could not happen. He must say that he thought that the right hon. Secretary's declaration about the "extinction of tithes," had militated more against the clergy of the Established Church than any other cause.

said, that there was one other reason for the exclusion of the words—although what the hon. and learned member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) had said was very convincing. The present was the first effort in legislation of a Reformed Parliament. The Lords had sent down a Bill and the present was the first amendment in it—and certainly it would be a curiosity, as the first piece of legislation of the Reformed Parliament. He was satisfied from the declarations of Ministers, that they did not mean to apply this Bill to the collection of tithes, and, therefore, the proviso was useless.

said, he must confess that the argument of the hon. and learned member for Dublin was the most extraordinary he could ever have expected to hear from him. The hon. and learned member now said that the words were unnecessary, because he thought it impossible that the Lord-lieutenant would use the powers of the Bill to assist in the collecting of tithes. Why that was precisely what he (Mr. Stanley) had before said, but the hon. and learned Member had refused to invest the Lord-lieutenant with any discretionary powers, and, therefore, voted for the amendment, declaring that he would not look to the intentions of Ministers or to the Lord-lieutenant, but to the Act of Parliament. A large portion of the House had been induced to think that it would be necessary to satisfy even unnecessary scruples, and voted for the amendment. Why did not the hon. and learned Member then think the words unnecessary? He then voted for them, and said that they were necessary. But of all persons the hon. and learned Member was the last person he should have expected to declare that the present system was dangerous to the clergy of the Established Church. He (Mr. Stanley) had often said the Lord-lieutenant would never use the Bill in enforcing the payment of tithes, and his Majesty's Ministers, believing that the Lord-lieutenant would never attempt to use the powers of the Bill in that way (which they had frequently declared) consented to the amendment. Having been inserted, and not in any way affecting the Bill, he did not see that circumstances had since occurred to require them to expunge today what they inserted yesterday. Although he did not think it was a piece of legislation that would do the House much credit—[Sir Robert Peel: I said the first piece of legislation of the Reformed Parliament.]—Whether first or not it was of no consequence, but he thought it was not necessary to expunge the words now that they had been inserted. If the hon. member for Wexford whose amendment it was, supported it, he would vote for it. Mr. O'Connell certainly had supported the proviso, but when he did there were words attached to it which made it less equivocal. At present it was useless; or if it did anything, it strengthened the powers given to the Lord-lieutenant. He was therefore perfectly consistent in opposing it. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland had taunted him too with changing his opinions on the subject of the Established Church of Ireland. Now, while he always supported the necessity of reducing the Church Establishment of that country to the wants of the Protestants there, he had always advocated the doctrine consistently with a due regard to the existing rights of the present incumbents. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, was wholly mistaken, when he stated that he (Mr. O'Connell) had ever held any other opinions; and he defied him to point out any expressions of his that would justify him in his present taunt.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman challenged him to give an instance in which he had advocated a proceeding injurious to the present interests of the clergy. He would ask, when he applauded the resistance to the payment of tithes, whether he regarded that as a resistance to the rights of the present incumbents, or to the duties merely of the collectors?

said, that he was against the present incumbents—yet this opinion was perfectly consistent with his proposition. With the spiritual arrangements of the church he had nothing to do—with its temporalities he had.

in the absence of the hon. member for Wexford, supported the proviso, in order to secure that this Bill should not be applied to enforce the payment of tithes.

was opposed to the proviso, which was as useless as it was ridiculous. Had the proviso stated, in express terms, that where the payment of tithes was resisted this Act should not be applied to enforce such payment, it might have been of some avail.

supported the proviso, because he deemed it to be of great importance that the people of Ireland should not have reason to believe that this Act would be brought into operation against them on account of their resistance to the payment of tithes.

thought the Legislature ought to lay it down as a principle that this Bill was not intended for the collection of tithes; and he would therefore support the clause as it stood. Not that he expected to be able to reconcile the people of Ireland to the measure by inserting this proviso; for he looked upon the Bill altogether as the most mischievous and atrocious measure that was ever introduced into that House.

stood there to protect the rights of property in every instance, and most sincerely would he uphold the rights of the clergy of the Church of England. Now, this Bill stated that there existed in Ireland certain dangerous conspiracies against the rights of property; and he wished to see the same protection afforded to the clergy and their vested rights as to other men, and he conceived that the Bill should apply in all cases. But it was impossible, if the proviso was allowed to remain in the clause, that the people of Ireland should not consider, that the Legislature intended to place tithes on a weaker footing than any other description of property. He, therefore, hoped his Majesty's Government would consent to the omission of the proviso.

said, that former acts provided for the extra protection of tithes, and they were therefore recognised as in a better situation than rents. It was therefore the less necessary to increase the protection to tithes by this Bill. In fact it did what the right hon. Gentleman wished—namely, placed property of every description on the same footing.

stated, in reply, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland said very truly that no new argument had been adduced against the proviso since the last vote of the Committee on the subject, for every argument had been used against it, as well by those who voted against it, as by the members of the Government who had voted for it. He then saw in their places both his Majesty's Attorney and Solicitor General, and if either of them would say—not that the proviso was an improvement—but even that it was not prejudicial to the Bill, he would withdraw his amendment

called upon the law officers of the Crown to come forward and state their construction of the legal effect of this proviso. He begged hon. Members to bear in mind that the proviso was not a part of the Bill which had been proposed by the Government, or to which the members of the Government ascribed any weight. The right hon. Gentleman opposite considered it a matter of indifference whether the proviso was inserted or not; and he hoped, therefore, that if the question came to a division, every Gentleman would exercise his own judgment on the matter.

felt it necessary briefly to address the House, because he had been grossly misrepresented and calumniated. He admitted, that he had said that it was necessary to grant extraordinary powers to the Government, on account of the disturbed state of his unfortunate country, and on account of the dangerous and inflammatory agitation which existed there. Was not that opinion fairly and honestly uttered in that House? He had, however, been denounced, in a manner most unjustifiable, for having expressed his sentiments. His opinion with respect to tithes was well known. He believed that every coercive measure which had been for years applied to Ireland had its origin in a desire to get rid oft he deep-rooted, the inextinguishable hatred of the people to the tithe-system. He had been considered an opponent to the Established Church. It was not a just charge. He wished the establishment to be properly supported, but not by the unjust, the iniquitous tithe-system. He had proposed an alteration in this Bill, and, in doing so, he had used the very words of the noble Lord himself when he introduced the measure. That alteration having been made, he gave the Bill his support. This Bill, he was convinced, was necessary, and ought to be passed with the least possible delay. For, even while he spoke, individuals with their dying breaths might be calling on the House to interfere speedily. Members were most shamefully abused for having the boldness to deliver their sincere opinions in that House. He certainly would not call on the House to give him, individually, protection, but he would ask whether it was not necessary to give protection to freedom of debate, and to the full and fair expression of opinion in that House? Was it right that inflammatory harangues should be addressed to those who were ready to obey the decrees of individuals who were pleased to point out their victims in that House? And for what reason? Merely because they openly declared their opinions. He was well pleased to treat the matter with the contempt which it deserved. He had made up his mind, when he entered Parliament, to speak his honest opinions. He had pursued a path which to some seemed inconsistent; but if Gentlemen would examine the course he had adopted, they would find that his conduct had been fair, honourable, and consistent. The hon. Member then read an abusive attack which had been made in the Dublin Morning Register on Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Serjeant Perrin, and himself, for their conduct in Parliament; and demanded whether such strictures upon the conduct of Members of that House who were merely doing their duty, were to be tolerated? He asked whether Members were to be held up to public odium on account of their honest votes on this measure? Were they to be held up to the people of Ireland as enemies of their country, and marked out as the next victims of assassination? He called on the House to assert its independence, and not allow a frantic rabble out of doors to dictate to its Members. As to the clause tinder consideration, let the principle of his proviso be satisfactorily established, and he cared not in what form, so long as it was rendered impossible to proclaim a district for non-payment of tithes. The Committee then divided on the question, that the proviso proposed to be left out should stand part of the clause: Ayes 123; Noes 44—Majority for the clause as it stood 79.

moved, that the clause should be restored to the Bill which gave to two justices of the peace the power to suppress an unlawful assembly, by the summary conviction of those who did not disperse within fifteen minutes after the notice was read. He declared that to have been the great object of the 10th of George 4th. cap. 1, from which the portion of the Bill then under discussion was taken; and that its omission would be fatal to the efficiency of the measure, so far as regarded political agitation. As the clause stood (with the omission) it was made a misdemeanor to be present at a prohibited meeting at all, even for a moment—and, then, still but a misdemeanor to remain there for the fifteen minutes after the notice to disperse had been read. This almost involved an absurdity; but, besides, it deprived the Magistrates of the salutary powers to put down such meeting by the force of summary punishment on their own responsibility, if necessary. Besides after they should have bound over a party to take his trial by indictment for a misdemeanor, that same party might return to, and continue at the same meeting. He considered that the most important provisions of the Bill had been frittered away I and that the Government acted most un- warrantably in first urging, both in that House and elsewhere, the absolute necessity of such provisions, and then weakly abandoning them. It must also be recollected that they had altered the Bill in withdrawing the trial of political offences from the cognizance of Courts-martial; and he sincerely believed that they had rendered the whole measure valueless for the purpose of restraining political agitation.

wished to propose three additional clauses to the Bill. The first would make an alteration to which he did not anticipate that there would be any objection. He wished that the powers granted by this Bill to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland should be suspended, in the event of a dissolution of Parliament, until the meeting of a new Parliament; and that these powers should also be taken away in the cases of all boroughs for which new writs shall be issued. He did not extend his clause to the proclaimed districts but only to those which had not been proclaimed. The principle of the clause was so perfectly fair, that there could be no reasonable objection to it. As the Bill stood, the Lord-lieutenant, at his will and pleasure would have the power to declare any assembly illegal. The Judge and Jury would have nothing to do with the character of the meeting; it would be sufficient to produce proof of attendance at a prohibited meeting, to render it imperative on a Jury to convict. Ought such a state of things to exist at the time of a contested election? The Lord-lieutenant would have the power of prohibiting the meeting of the friends of those candidates who might be disagreeable to himself; and, in point of fact, would be able to exercise complete control over all the elections in Ireland. It was not sufficient that a candidate should have the power of making his opinions known to the electors by means of advertisements it was necessary that he should be able to make his sentiments known to them at public meetings, where they could question him. If the Amendment were not assented to, it would be said, that the supporter of the Government would be allowed to hold his meetings, but that the candidate in the adverse interest would be prevented doing so. He had no wish to make this clause applicable to districts where there were agrarian disturbances. The hon. and learned Member moved the introduction of a clause to the effect he had described, which was brought up and read a first time.

said, he felt it his duty to oppose the clause. Undoubtedly it was not likely, at least he hoped not, that the Bill would be of sufficient duration to comprehend a dissolution of Parliament; but if such an event were to occur as a dissolution, it was well known that there was no occasion on which agitation would have such full scope for operation. He readily allowed that it was dangerous to admit of unconstitutional interference in elections, yet he was apprehensive that if, in the present slate of Ireland, the Lord-lieutenant were not armed with the powers of which the clause proposed by the hon. and learned member for Dublin went to deprive him, greater evils might ensue. Balancing between the undue intimidation at elections which, in the present state of Ireland, the despotism of political agitation would certainly occasion, and the possibility, not the probability, that the power which the Bill as it stood vested in the Lord-lieutenant might be abused, and adding to this the consideration that the case to which the operation of the Bill would apply was not likely to occur, he was of opinion that it would not be advisable to adopt the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Member.

observed, that if it could be proved that at any election the undue intimidation alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman had been used, that election would necessarily become void. To apply the provisions of the Bill to meetings for the purpose of election, was to trample under foot the first principles of a Representative Legislation. There was only one case in the late elections—that of the county of Carlow—in which such an allegation had been made. That case had not yet been tried, but he had heard it reported to-day that the sitting Members did not think it expedient to defend their seats. He protested against the cant and slang which was constantly poured forth by the other side of the House on the subject of political agitation in Ireland. Having at present the strongest laws against any undue influence in elections, the question for the Committee now to determine was, whether they would allow the Ministry to determine who should be the Representatives of the Irish people, which this Bill, if permitted to pass without the clause which he now proposed, would undoubtedly allow Ministers to determine.

remarked, that if his Majesty's Government in Ireland were guilty of any abuse of the power vested in them by the Bill, that abuse might be brought under the consideration of the House, who would redress it. To him it appeared, that, whoever might be at the head of agitation in Ireland, and who must therefore feel himself responsible for the effect of that agitation, which, nevertheless, he could not control, would be relieved by the operation of the Bill, and would receive a sort of congé d'elire.

observed, that the opposition of the hon. Member to the clause, although inconsistent in one respect, was consistent in another: for the hon. Member might not think it prudent to go again before his constituents without a gagging Bill. By the Bill as it now stood, and without the clause which he (Mr. O'Connell) proposed, it would be in the power of the Magistracy to trample on the elective franchise of the people [no, no!]. He said yes, yes! By the existing law, any meeting at which violence was recommended, or in which propositions were made, tending to bring his Majesty's Government into contempt, was rendered illegal. Were not these controls enough? Yes, for all who were not afraid to meet their constituents openly; and all who had no such fear would vote for his clause.

was not afraid to meet his constituents. Let his constituents be freed from any undue influence, and he could assure the hon. and learned member for Dublin that he had no apprehension whatever of submitting his conduct to their opinion. He could tell the hon. and learned Gentleman, that if he (Mr. Lambert) had thought it an object to be so, he could have been applauded, followed, and admired, by all those bad parties by whom he was now so bitterly attacked, and might have had all the pure votes of all the blood-stained agitators of his country. As it was, he was perfectly satisfied to bear all the odium of the vote which he was about to give. In the course which he had pursued, he had sought nothing but the ultimate welfare and happiness of Ireland, although he was perfectly aware that, for the moment, the measure which he supported was an infringement of the Constitution.

said, that the clause proposed by his hon. and learned friend might be opposed by those who had confidence in his Majesty's Government, but that it could not be expected that he, who had no confidence in his Majesty's Government should do otherwise than support it. In illustration of the inexpediency of imposing such restrictions at elections as his hon. and learned friend's clause went to remove, he instanced the case of America, in which no limit was put upon the license of people at elections, a liberty which had been found very beneficial. It might be maintained by some that the authority against the undue exercise of which the clause proposed by his hon. and learned friend was directed, would, in all probability, not be abused by the present Government; but let it be recollected, that the present Government might have successors who would not be so chary in the use of their power.

must say, that the interference of the police in Ireland, not only at elections, but on all other occasions had been the cause, as all those knew who lived in Ireland, of much mischief. As to elections they had not been productive in Ireland of violence. The county of Mayo had been represented as in such a state of disturbance, as to require the operation of the Act, yet no outrage had taken place at any popular election in that county. What was the main cause of the present disturbed state of Ireland? Why the gentry were taking one part, and the people another. The gentry of Ireland had lost much by the conduct which they had pursued; they had made a great mistake when they dethroned themselves in the affections of the people, and having lost the power which they formerly possessed, sought to recover it by undue means. They made enemies of the people and were now anxious to guard themselves against those who were formerly their friends. Fifteen members of the Grand Jury of the county of Meath and fifty-two Magistrates of the county of Westmeath had presented a memorial to the Lord-lieutenant for the extension of the provisions of the Insurrection Act to those counties; but his hon. colleague and himself had succeeded in preventing the application. He would not presume to give the right hon. Gentleman advice, but he would give him this wholesome admonition—that he had never committed a greater error than when he passed from one party to another; than when he at one period took up the part of the people and at another period took up the part of the gentry of Ireland. He (Mr. Grattan) believed that the people of Ireland had committed errors, but the greatest error ever committed in Ireland was, the error of the higher orders in separating themselves from the lower orders—an error, the consequences of which would, he feared, be extremely disastrous. He must say that he objected strongly to the Government having a power to interfere at elections, as well as the gentry. The hon. member for Mayo was anxious to put down the 40s. freeholders of Galway last year, because they were not favourable to him. The hon. recorder of Dublin too, could speak as to the influence which Government used at elections particularly at Trinity College. He regretted that both the Government and the gentry had made themselves very unpopular by their interference at elections.

said, that he had never made any unfounded charges against the voters in Galway on the occasion alluded to by the hon. member for Meath, and appealed to the present hon. member for Galway whether he had not signed the petition on the subject? But he was not surprised at the sympathy which the hon. member for Meath appeared to feel for fictitious voters; as, if he (Mr. D. Browne) were not mistaken, the hon. member himself had had something to do with fictitious voters in Dublin.

must say, in answer to the appeal to him from the hon. member for Meath, that the hon. Member was rather unfortunate in his selection of him as a witness to prove the benefit of Government influence at elections; for, independently of Trinity College, he had had three contested elections where Government were opposed to him, and on one of those occasions he had succeeded against the hon. Member himself notwithstanding—but he did not wonder at that hon. Member advocating agitation at elections, for he believed that since the time he alluded to, that hon. Member had found it very convenient in his own case, and successful in displacing (in the hon. Member's own words) "the gentry of the country from that position in it which they ought to hold."

appealed to the House, whether the attack which had been made upon him was honest, just, fair, or generous? He might retaliate if he chose, but he disdained to do so. He knew that of former Irish Governments of which an honest Englishman would be ashamed to hear. He well knew that Calcutta of Ireland, the Castle of Dublin ["Question"]. That cry came with a bad grace from those who had listened for hours yesterday evening to an explanation of a speech made four or five years ago by an Ex-secretary of State. He repeated, that he might retaliate, but he would not do so. He never did, nor ever would, trust himself to the support of an Irish Government: it was on the honest support of the Irish people on which he threw himself.

begged to recall the attention of the Committee to the question before it. One of the clauses of the Bill vested in the Lord-lieutenant the power of prohibiting public meetings in disturbed districts. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had observed, that at popular elections it was absolutely necessary that the candidates should be present at public meetings, in order to state the opinions upon which they founded their claims to the votes of the electors. The question was, whether the spirit of the Act applied to such meetings? It would be in the discretion of the Lord-lieutenant to put the Act in force, and he Would be responsible for his manner of doing it. No Lord-lieutenant would dare to make an undue use of the power thus intrusted to him, or interfere with the freedom of election. Were he to do so, he would subject himself not merely to censure, but almost to impeachment. There might be meetings during the progress of elections as dangerous to the public peace and safety, as at other periods, and, therefore, he could not do otherwise than look at the power given to the Lord-lieutenant to suppress such meetings as necessary to the efficiency of the measure.

said, it was very well for the noble Lord to state that the Lord-lieutenant would put the Act in force on his own responsibility. Responsibility, indeed! Why such observations were perfectly ludicrous. Supposing he proclaimed a county, and the Act was after- wards questioned in that House, the Ministers would immediately jump up and say it was necessary—the county was in a state of insurrection—murders, and maraudings, and intimidation prevailed through out; and, perhaps, in support of their assertions, a red box would be produced, and bits of newspapers, extracts of letters, and other unauthenticated and ex-parte statements read. Hon. Members had talked about personalities, especially the hon. member for Wexford, whose tone of tragic dignity and bombast he should not soon forget, but the present Lord-lieutenant was personal, even in his proclamations. Were they to intrust these tremendous powers to a man, whose first proclamation might be termed a personal one—a proclamation against the Trades' Union—were they to intrust these tremendous powers to the man who had complained in Cork that the people did not touch their hats to him? Were they to give the authority to proclaim a district during an election to an individual who had notoriously mixed himself up, on a late occasion, with electioneering squabbles and party feelings? Had not the Lord-lieutenant taken part in the late contest in the city of Dublin? He asserted that he had, and whatever contradiction might be given to that assertion, he could prove what he said. Alderman Darley, coming direct from Sir William Gossett, had promised to Mr. Boyton and Mr. West, that the entire influence of the Government should be given to that latter gentleman and Sir George Rich, the Conservative candidates. On the first day of election, the police, who were immediately and completely under the control of Alderman Darley, voted against him (Mr. O'Connell); but on the third day, when the Conservative cause became desperate, a proclamation appeared, stating, that the Government had never opposed him. Were they, he again asked, to give such extraordinary powers to a man who would wield the influence of Government in this way?—who, in Cork, exposed himself to universal ridicule, by his puerile complaints about the loss of popularity—by his empty talk about four gun-brigs, and the like? They had made out no case; and if they had, the Irish Government did not deserve the confidence of the people.

said, the hon. and learned member for Dublin had forced him up, by coming forward with a charge, not against the Government of Ireland, but against the head of that Government, founded on the statements of certain newspapers, and not contradicted. It was ludicrous, that every time the Government was assailed by two conflicting parties, each bitterly opposed to it, its silence, if it thought proper not to notice everything which they published, should be held as an admission, that whatever was uttered by the malice, absurdity, or ignorance of the one or the other was founded in truth. The hon. and learned member admitted, that the Lord-lieutenant had taken the trouble, by a memorandum in the newspapers, which the hon. and learned member called a proclamation, distinctly to deny the slightest interference by Government in the Dublin election; and the honourable and learned Member had yet to show on what authority he ventured to impeach the word and honour of a man, whose assertions, under ordinary circumstances, he dared not doubt. The hon. and learned Member, well knew, that he stood in a position in which he could not be called upon to retract or explain anything he might choose to utter. He stated, most positively, that the Government were perfectly indifferent as to the success of candidates who were equally opposed to them. Those who held official situations were perfectly at liberty to vote for whom they pleased, and had received from the Government no directions or suggestions whatever. He believed the majority of those individuals did vote against the hon. and learned member for Dublin; and if, in doing so, they considered they were voting for the more respectable and more competent candidates, they were but acting on their own acknowledged rights in doing so.

If the right hon. Gentleman was sorry that the hon. and learned member for Dublin had forced him up, I have also to express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman has forced me to rise. I have no desire to be the partizan of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, or to cast the slightest imputation on the high personal honour of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland; but I feel it due to the House to correct the right hon. Gentleman in a fact with respect to which I am sure he has been misinformed, but of which I am in possession; and when I hear a statement made which involves the truth and honour of personal friends of my own, I am bound to vindicate them The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the transaction as if it depended upon mere newspaper paragraphs; but to the documents in question Mr. West and Mr. Boyton publicly signed their names, and pledged their characters; and I affirm, without the fear of contradiction, that these gentlemen are utterly incapable of deviating from the strictest truth, and that their personal integrity and uprightness cannot be denied by their warmest political opponents. I would undertake, then, to say, from their statement alone (but I can add from my own knowledge of the evidence upon which that statement was founded), that Mr. West and Sir George Rich did receive a distinct and unequivocal assurance of the support of the Irish Government at the late Dublin election. I do not say that the Lord-lieutenant personally gave that assurance. [Cheers, from the Ministerial side.] I do not understand that cheer from hon. Gentlemen opposite—surely they do not suppose that I could say, or believe the Lord-lieutenant was capable of deliberately stating that which he knew to be untrue. But let these hon. Members recollect, that as a Peer of Parliament, the noble Marquess could not personally have interfered; and, further, let them bear in mind, that in the paper to which the noble Marquess put his name, and then sent to the various public offices in Dublin, the statement was not that the noble Marquess himself had not personally interfered, but that "the Government had taken no part in the election;" and the documents which I perused in the hands of Mr. West, stated exactly the reverse, namely, that the Government did support Mr. West and Sir George Rich. I do not wish further to give names or particulars in this House; but having said so much, I feel it will be my duty to furnish them to the right hon. Gentleman out of the House, should he wish it; and, in fact, for the first two days of the election, Mr. West and Sir George Rich received the support they had been promised. I do not know how to account for the change—I acquit the Lord-lieutenant of all wilful duplicity. I am sorry to have been obliged, in the defence of my friends, when facts were called in question, to take any part in this explanation; but I cannot help saying, that I verily believe it was, as stated in one of the documents referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that, before the election, Sir William Gossett spoke the sentiments of the Lord-lieutenant, and that after it had gone on for two days, the Lord-lieutenant spoke the sentiments of the Lord Chancellor. Certainly the official persons connected with the Lord-lieutenant should have more expressly learned his wishes before they committed themselves—and I must add, the noble Marquess should have more accurately acquainted himself with their acts before he denied them.

was not surprised at the scene which had just taken place, as nothing but assertions, contradicting assertions, had been brought forward throughout the whole discussion of this Bill; but he much regretted it. There was one point to which he was anxious to call the attention of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, which was, that if his Amendment was carried, there would be no power under this Bill from the period of the conclusion of the ejection till the time of the next meeting of Parliament. He would suggest that his Amendment should have effect only during the interval between the dissolution of Parliament and the conclusion of the election. He would not say the power would be exercised by the Lord-lieutenant, but if the Act allowed him to do it, then ought the House to agree to the Amendment.

said, that he was perfectly willing to agree to the proposition of the hon. and learned member, if it could possibly be carried into effect. He should now take the opportunity of making one or two observations upon the subject of the interference of the Government with the Dublin election. It had been denied that the Government had interfered; he had documents to prove that interference. The contrary assertion rested chiefly upon the note of the Lord-lieutenant, which was in these words:—"I desire it to be distinctly understood that the Government will not take any part in the Dublin election.—Anglesey." What was the document on the other side? It was a letter, relating to what had passed between the writer and Alderman Darley, and between Alderman Darley and Sir William Gossett. The Alderman and another gentleman had called at the office of Sir William Gossett, and Alderman Darley left the room and went up-stairs to ask what were the intentions of the Government; and shortly after wardsreturned, and said, that Sir William Gossett had authorised him lo say, that the Government would give all their support to the two Conservative candidates. Alderman Darley then sent for Farrel, the Chief Constable of the Dublin police, and told him that Mr. West and Sir George Rich were to be supported, and that Farrel was to take means of effectually supporting them. That was the Government to which were to be intrusted the provisions of this Act. He called on the House to remember that. There was no case made out for confidence; and if there were, certainly no principle could justify that House in placing such powers in any man's hands. Confidence, indeed! Why Lord Anglesey himself had said, before he was Lord-lieutenant, that he would never issue proclamations of this kind; yet he had not been Lord-lieutenant three days before he issued one. No confidence ought to be placed in any man. Then where was the reason for this Bill? Necessity—that was the tyrant's plea. There was no necessity for it at all; but, at all events, there was none to intrust men with those powers during elections—powers that would enable them to exercise control over those elections, and which it was impossible they should exercise for any good purpose. He should, therefore, take the sense of the House on the subject.

was not prepared at this moment to answer the observations of the hon. and learned member for Dublin with respect to the conversations with Sir William Gossett; but he should like to ask whether there had not been any subsequent documents that explained the account given of the conversation by Alderman Darley, and which showed that the effect of that conversation with Sir William Gossett had been misrepresented by Alderman Darley? He did not mean to cast any imputation on Alderman Darley, than whom there could not be a more honourable mail; but he believed that there was evidence to show that the Alderman had been mistaken. Whatever might have been the statement thus erroneously made, he knew perfectly well what were the feelings of the Government on the occasion in question. The Government had no predilection whatever with respect to the candidates. Nothing was more likely, or more probable than that Alderman Darley should have gone on the part of Mr. West, who was most unexpectedly a candidate, and should have asked what was meant to be done; and then, if that were so, the hon. and learned member for Dublin well knew that the persons who were employed under the Government in Dublin would almost to a man prefer to vote of their own accord for Mr. West and Sir George Rich, rather than for the hon. and learned Member. That might have been stated to Alderman Darley, who might easily have mistaken that statement of the probability o f their votes being given to these two candidates for a promise that Government would use their influence to that effect. He thought that Sir William Gossett had so explained this matter afterwards. So that if Alderman Darley was told that the Government would not interfere, he might, in all probability, have said, "You may go on safely, for you are sure to have all the Government votes."

said, in explanation, that Sir William Gossett had not published any denial of the statement of Mr. West and Mr. Boyton; and that the right hon. Gentleman's observations about Sir William Gossett and Alderman Darley could not explain away the evidence to which he (Mr. Shaw) had principally alluded—for it was in addition to, and independent of, what they had said and done altogether.

said, that he should propose another clause in the same spirit, but move limited in its extent than the last. His Amendment was, that in every case of a new writ issuing for the election of a Member during the continuance of this Parliament, from the issuing of that writ until its return, the powers of this Act should be suspended in the place where such election was to be had.

moved the Order of the Day for the House to go into a Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates.

said, that as they had arrived at a period of the Session when it was usual to call upon the House to pass a vote of credit for the purpose of meeting the army expenditure, he hoped he should meet with the attention of the Committee, when he asked them to give their sanction to one portion of the Army Estimates, which was the only one he intended to bring forward that night—namely the usual vote for the number of men. He felt that he came before the Committee, in the execution of his duties, under circumstances somewhat to his disadvantage. For many years a gradual diminution in the dead weight of the army had been going on, so that it was impossible for any one holding the office which he had the honour unworthily to fill, to come forward at the present moment with any very flourishing comparative statement between the amount of the Army Estimates now, and those of former periods. There was also another cause for his being placed in a disadvantageous light on the present occasion, which resulted from the possibility of a comparison being instituted between his right hon. friend at the head of the Admiralty, and himself, with regard to the reductions which his right hon. friend had been enabled to make in the expenditure of the navy, since he had managed that branch of the public service. Whilst he could point to no such favourable circumstances, at least to anything like an equal extent in the department controlled by him, there was this consideration, however, to be offered in extenuation—namely, that the Secretary at War had simply to deal with a given number of men and a certain amount of money, which was requisite for their support, whilst the First Lord of the Admiralty, having a much larger scope wherein to exercise his powers of retrenchment and views of economy, had a proportionably greater opportunity for earning that praise which his right hon. friend had so justly received. It was, however, his good fortune, on the present occasion, in bringing forward his branch of the public expenditure, to have it in his power to say that, in the Estimates which he was about to lay on the Table, there was, in spite of that constant and gradual diminution in the non-effective part of them during recent years, to which he had already referred, a further diminution on every item charged to the account of the effective and non-effective forces, to the amount of 206,000l. compared with the amount of the same Estimates in the last year. In rendering this saving clear to the apprehension of the House, he must trouble hon. Members for their attention whilst he made a short statement of the comparative number of troops employed now and at former times, as well as of the increased colonial possessions of Great Britain, which rendered it necessary to maintain the present amount of forces. In making this statement he should avail himself of none of those arts of mystification by which former similar statements had, he feared, been too often justly characterised, but he would endeavour fairly and openly to show where the differences existed, in what services it had been found necessary to increase the number of troops, and in what other services their number had been diminished, and he would also endeavour plainly to state the exact amount of debts and credits in sums total for the different branches, so as to enable the House to comprehend with little difficulty the present condition of the army, and the amount of expenditure which was required to maintain it at its present effective height. He was, however, compelled, reluctantly, to own that the decrease in the effective part of the service was not carried to that extent which had been expected; but, on the contrary, the complement of that portion of the army was kept up to the same amount at which it was when he first had the honour of accepting his present office. But, at the same time, he was enabled to point out, in the present Estimates the absence of several items which were formerly strongly contested as not forming part of the necessary appendages to the effective state of the army during a time of peace. These items were the waggon-train, the army medical department, the Permanent Assistant Quartermaster-General, the Inspector of Clothing, and the Staff of the Civil Governorships, which latter item, however, had disappeared from former Army Estimates. Owing also to arrangements which were made previous to his entering on the duties of his office, but which he had most zealously carried into execution, the deadweight of the Estimates had been reduced to an extent which previously could not have been hoped for, and he earnestly trusted that the House would give him credit for the endeavour, during the term of his continuance in office, to carry into operation the views of those who preceded him, as well as those which he entertained himself, with respect to the reduction of the most objectionable parts of the army Estimates. The first item in the present Estimates was decidedly the smallest that had appeared since the year 1820. He could show, at the same time, that since the year 1820 there had been an average annual decrease in the charge to the amount of 276,000l. on this part of the Estimates; and it was not to be expected that with an annual decrease to the extent he had mentioned, a greater diminution could be expected from him. The amount of the forces which were required for the present year was, exclusive of India, 78,502. In India there were 17,289; making in the whole, the number of 95,791 men. The force was thus distributed:—la Great Britain, 21,783; in Ireland, 23,144; abroad, exclusive of India, 33,706; making up, with the veteran companies, the East India force. West India regiments, and colonial corps, 95,791 men for the entire service. Before he proceeded further, he begged leave to call attention to the observations, or rather comparisons, which some hon. Members were in the habit of indulging in, between the feeble force kept up in 1792 and that now maintained as necessary to the exigences of the country. It would be seen, unless he much deceived himself, that if the increase in the population and territories subject to the British Crown that had taken place since 1792 were duly considered, that even our present force, naval and military, had not increased in an undue proportion. In 1792, our military force consisted of 48,948 rank and file; in 1833 our force was, as he had stated, 95,791 men. He would explain how the difference was made up. The force employed in what he would call the old colonies had increased since 1792 only from 15,108 to 16,058 men. The first ground of this increase was the increased consequence of New South Wales, which required 1,788 men additional; the next was the increased force required by the present condition of Jamaica; in Canada there was 225 men less than in 1792; in the other North American colonies—Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Cape Breton, and Newfoundland—there was a small increase; in Gibraltar the decrease was 1,025. In the whole of the old colonies, however, exclusive of India, and deducting the increase caused by the growth of New South Wales, there were actually nine men less than in 1792. The increase of our forces abroad was wholly owing to the new colonies which had come into our possession since 1792, and to the great increase which had taken place in the entire British population. These new colonies absorbed not less than 16,697 additional to our colonial force in 1792. Our Indian empire, which in 1792 only required 9,513 men for its entire rule and protection, and which now required 17,288 for the protection of British interests, included a population of not less than 89,577,000 souls, and extended over a surface of not less than 1,128,000 square miles. On the face of it such increased empire required an increased military force to protect it. Then there was the increase in Great Britain of 7,000 men in round numbers since 1792; and Ireland, in which there was an increase of 13,151 men. But the increase of population in Great Britain and Ireland ought to be taken into account. He might observe, in passing, that the population of the new colonies was equal to almost a fraction, to that of our old colonies—that is, those in our possession in 1792. That increase was since 1792, from 13,882,000 to 24,27 l,863, it s amount at the present time These facts warranted him in maintaining that the complaints of hon. Members, of our military force having increased in a most undue proportion since 1792 were not well founded. But then it had been argued by an hon. and gallant Member, (Colonel Davies), and others, that though this was true, comparing population with the amount of our force, yet, that if a better system of management were adopted, a much smaller force would be fully adequate to the wants of the public service. It had been said, for example, that the dépôt system admitted of much improvement, and that there was no necessity for keeping so many men idle at home. It was true that the relative number of men at home was greater BOW than in 1792; that while there were then but sixty-two at home for every 100 on foreign service, we had now seventy-five for every 100; but, he could assure the Committee that the depot and relieving systems now in force, were those which the best judges, civil and military, including the Duke of Wellington, Lord Palmerston, Sir Henry Hardinge, Sir Henry Parnell, and Sir Willough by Gordon, had declared to be the most economical and the most efficient. But for these, depots, which some hon. Members objected to, the pension-list would be very considerably augmented, and they afforded the most facile means of effecting reductions when reductions were practicable and expedient. For example, say a regiment returned from foreign service sick. If there was not a large depot to accommodate them, many would be put on the pension-list, others sent to hospitals; but, by affording them the means of proper treatment in the depots, they were recovered and fitted to be again sent out on foreign active service. These depots were also advantageous as presenting so many points throughout the country in which the Government could avail themselves of small but compact bodies of men fit for the public service, and, as he had stated, affording the safest, most practicable, and economical means of reducing the public force without impairing its efficiency. He could assure the House that the mode of reduction pursued in 1821 and 1822 had been productive of serious evil, and that it would be many years ere the dead weight had recovered from its consequences. Were hon. Members aware of the great difference of opinion which obtained in the Finance Committee respecting the amount of saving that might be made in this branch of the public expenditure, that, in fact, the majority agreed that any further safe reduction under the existing circumstances of the country was hardly practicable, and that, after the fullest calculations and detailed inquiries. Lord Palmerston, who had great experience on the subject, could only suggest a reduction to the amount of 6,000. It was, he trusted, hardly necessary for him to say that the present Administration would he glad to make still farther reductions, and that he should be glad to propose lower Estimates than those which were in force on his accession to office. It was found, however, that consistent with the exigences of the public service. Ministers could not propose such reductions as they could wish, and that, in point of fact, the number of men effective and non-effective would be more in this year's Estimate than in that of 1830. For the employment of the increase, Government was bound to account. Abroad, there was 7,689 rank and file more than in 1830, while 6,695 were employed on the home service, of which a large portion was required in Ireland. In the Mediterranean there was a diminution of 1335 in the force since 1830; in the Cape of Good Hope there was an increase of 105 men, in New South Wales an increase of 757 men; the Mauritius of 620 (he need not explain the reason); in the West Indies an increase, and in Ceylon and Canada a reduction—in the former of 292 men, in the latter of 626 men. There was a slight increase in the force employed on the coast of Africa. He thought, that a reference to the state of some of our colonies would account in a satisfactory manner for the excess of force which was employed in 1833 above that employed in 1830. Now it only remained for him to explain the difference of force employed in the last year and that which it was proposed to employ in the present. We had this year 4,092 men less in Great Britain than we had last year; but he was sorry to say, that, owing to the same unfortunate circumstances which existed in Jamaica, Mauritius, and elsewhere, we had 3,673 men more than we had last year. Exclusive of India we had this year 500 men more employed abroad than last year. Having thus stated the amount of force which it was proposed to employ this year, he trusted that the House would not consider him as going out of his way if he stated that he conceived that there were no circumstances in the state of the country which would justify a diminution of our military forces below the numbers of last year. He was sorry to say, that we could not boast of complete tranquillity in our own dominions, and that the aspect of affairs abroad was not such as to justify him, however desirous of economy he might be on principle, in thinking that he should only be performing his duty in asking this year for a diminished force. Thinking it possible that some Gentleman might be led

would put it to the House whether, at this late hour of the night—twelve o'clock—it would be advisable to proceed with the discussion. For himself, he was fully prepared with what he had to say on the subject, but he made the suggestion in accordance with the wishes of all those around him, and many others who had to work in Committee to-morrow morning. He appealed to the House as to the adviseableness of proceeding.

must persist in proceeding. He was perfectly surprised at such a proposition emanating from the hon. Gentleman as he understood that the hon. Member was willing to proceed. At least let them agree to that one vote or it would be of no use whatever having gone into a Committee.

proceeded. He had heard, he said, a great many allegations from the right hon. Secretary, but must confess that he could not place altogether implicit confidence in their infallibility. He had himself several statements on all the subjects mentioned by that hon. Gentleman, and must say, that either his own statement or that hon. Gentleman's must be essentially wrong, for they differed from each other. The right hon. Baronet had stated, that there had been a reduction of 276,000l. annually in the Military expenditure. Now, either that statement or the one which he was about to make, was one of the most erroneous ever put forth in that House, He had in his hand the Estimate of the expenditure for the Army for every year, from 1817 downwards; and, taking the limited statement from the year 1820, of the right hon. Gentleman, he would prove that it was erroneous. In the year 1820, the sum voted for the expenses of the Army was 6,870,000l. If the right hon. Baronet's statement were correct, and 276,000l. had been reduced every year, there would, by this time, have been a diminution of nearly 3,000,000l. on the Army Estimates of 1820; but the real diminution was only 800,000l., for the Army Estimates for the present year amounted to 6,070,000l. The right hon. Baronet was scarcely more fortunate in the statements he had made respecting the diminution of expenditure which had taken place in the army since the present Administration came into office. The Army Estimates for the year in which the Duke of Wellington resigned amounted to 6,200,000l.; this year they amounted to 6,070,000l.; so that the difference between the two years was much less than that which the right hon. Baronet had represented it to be. But the right hon. Baronet had also been guilty of another error, for the expense of the effective force of this year was 56,000l. more than it was in the last year of the Duke of Wellingon's Administration. The number of rank and file voted in that year for the army was 95,786; it was, however, reduced by the noble Duke before the end of the year by no less than 8,000 men. In the year 1831 that number was again added by the present Administration, in consequence of the fires in Hampshire, and the disturbances in other parts of the country. Now, the right hon. Baronet had not stated the reasons which induced him to increase the number of men by the same amount for the service of the present year. Did the same reasons exist for the increase as in 1831? No, they had passed away, and he was therefore at a loss to understand why the House should be called upon to vote that additional force. Again, in the charge for the non-effective service of the Army, if the arrangements which the Duke of Wellington had suggested and acted upon in 1829 had been acted upon by the present Government, there would have been a much more considerable reduction in its amount than there now was under the plans adopted by the present reforming and retrenching Government. He was prepared to show that the right hon. Baronet was equally wrong in his facts and in his calculations, and that there was much greater room for the reduction in the army Estimates than the right hon. Baronet seemed to think. In the civil establishments of the army, too, he was quite sure that as great retrenchments might be made as Sir James Graham had so creditably made in the civil establishments of the navy. He would not then, however, stop to enter into these items, but would come to the comparison instituted by the right hon. Baronet between our military force in 1792 and the present year. He was aware that it could not be reduced to exactly the same amount now as it was in 1792, but he thought that an examination into the mode of its distribution would show that a considerable diminution might be made in the number of men now employed. In the old colonies the difference of force employed then and now was not much; but we had now 17,000 men more employed in the new colonies. Was that number, he would ask, absolutely necessary? He answered that question in the negative. Why should we employ more men in Canada now than we did in 1792? At that time the embittered feelings of the Americans against this country might have rendered the maintenance of a large force necessary in that colony; but why should we have 5,000 or 6,000 men there now? He was informed that 4,000 men might be withdrawn from Canada, as 1,000 were quite sufficient for the ordinary military duties of that colony. The diminution of our army by that number of men would be a sensible relief to the country. He held in his hand a list of the distribution of the troops during the last year. He was instructed by those who were in every respect competent to give an opinion upon such a point to assert that, in Canada, Nova Scotia, and the Leeward Islands, where there were 10,000 troops stationed, one half of the number might be safely spared. Not only were the troops there not wanted, but, in the Leeward Islands especially, the inhabitants most ardently wished all the troops to be withdrawn. He pledged himself to prove that fact, if they would let him, at the bar, by the evidence of those very individuals to whose persons and property these troops were said to afford protection. They considered the force kept up among them disproportionate to the wants of the colonies, and therefore they objected to its continuance. He thought that another mode by which a large diminution in the number of troops employed in the colonies might be effected was, by conciliating the affections of their inhabitants to the government, instead of keeping them, as had been too often the case, under military control and coercion. He was glad to find that a conciliatory policy had been recently adopted by his Majesty's government towards Canada. He had recently seen several letters from Upper Canada, in which the writers stated their satisfaction at the change of policy which had recently taken place there. Within the last six months the conduct of the Government had been so satisfactory that it might withdraw all the troops safely from that colony, and leave its loyal and well-affected inhabitants to defend themselves. As there was no idea of our being engaged in hostilities with the United States, why should the people of England, oppressed as they were by taxation of all sorts, be called upon to keep up in Canada, in time of peace, a force for which there was not the slightest necessity? The right hon. Baronet, in the course of his speech, had given them an account of the proportion which the military bore to the population of the different countries in Europe, but he had not given them an account of the proportion which the military bore to the population of Canada. He would find that, including militia, it was the same proportion which existed in the United States. The right hon. Baronet had told them that there was nearly a million and a half of militia in the United States; but he had not told them that the reason of that was that every male from sixteen to sixty was allowed to bear arms, and that before he could exercise the elective franchise he must be in possession of a musket and suitable accoutrements, with which to take the field at any moment. There were numbers of irregulars of this kind in Canada, and he had no doubt, that with kind treatment at home they would not only be able, but also willing, to defend their country against any attack from the irregulars of the United States. Besides, what could a regular force of 5,000 men, scattered as it must necessarily be on a long line of frontier, do against an American army, without the aid of the Canadians or regulars? He would, however, quit this part of the subject with a single remark, of which he trusted, that the right hon. Baronet would see the force—that America, with a population of 13,000,000, was content with 6,000 regular troops, whilst Great Britain, with a population of 24,000,000, could not be content without 94,000 regular troops. If a policy were adopted towards New South Wales similar to that which had been already adopted towards Canada, he had no doubt that the Government might withdraw every soldier from New South Wales with as much safety as from Canada. In New South Wales the colonists were ready to undertake to support their own military force, on condition of receiving a representative system, and of obtaining thereby the means of raising and managing their own revenue. The taxation raised from the colonists in New South Wales and in Van Diemen's Land was, taken per head of freemen, heavier than the taxation taken per head in England. In England, every man upon the average paid 4l. 10s. in taxation; in New South Wales every man paid 5l. 14s.; and over the disposal of the sum thus paid he had not the slightest control whatsoever. We had to maintain 1,700 troops, and if the reliefs were taken into consideration, not less than 2,400 troops for that colony. Now, if the colonists had the power of raising and managing their own taxes, they would undertake, that Great Britain should have nothing to pay for their military, ordnance, and commissariat. Hence, it was evident, that in this vote questions of principle were involved of the highest importance, not only to the pockets of the people of this country, but also to the safety, tranquillity, and integrity of the empire at large. He contended, that an alteration of the coercive policy which this country adopted towards the Canadian colonies would not only create among them great satisfaction, but be also productive of a great saving to this country. The Canadians had no desire to be separated from this country, but they did not wish to be kept in a state of inferiority and degradation. The bad system of policy which was acted upon with regard to the colonies, converted them from being a source of strength to the mother country, into a cause of weakness and expense; and the people of this country ought to be told that they were paying a tax to support from 30,000 to 33,000 troops in the colonies, besides relays amounting to upwards of 4,500 men, from which numbers as many as 25,000 men might be deducted if the colonies were properly governed. He would venture to say, that if the interests of the colonies were consulted by the Government at home, and their affections conciliated, the number of troops might be reduced from 89,000 to 60,000 men. [The House at this period showed many symptoms of impatience] He was not surprised that hon. Members should feel some impatience at those details; and he assured them, that after having sat there for thirteen hours, he felt as little disposed to enter into them as any one. He should, therefore, say no more regarding the colo- nies, further than to ask the right hon. Secretary at War when this country was to be relieved of the expense of supporting 4,500 men in the Ionian Islands? And he would add, that there was no better field for the Government to show their desire for economy than in the colonies. With regard to Ireland, the House would see that the situation of that country was one which required great consideration. He complained that the Government should adopt coercive measures towards that country, which would oblige this kingdom to incur great expense, merely for the purpose of supporting the Established Church. If the Government were to do away with the Established Church in that country, he (Mr. Hume) would willingly agree to vote a sum for the support of the ministers of religion. Such a measure would save 30,000 men in Ireland. But the saving in the army was not the only benefit which would accrue from such a measure; it would likewise do away with that state of disquiet and insecurity, which must be felt as long as the Suppression of Disturbances' Act was in force; and it would allow men of capital from this country to settle there, which they could not be expected to do as long as even the dread of the Act hung over them. The excuse held out for maintaining a great part of the army was, that a large force being kept up by the continental powers, it was necessary for this country to keep up a corresponding force. But he would beg to ask, what connexion the amount of the continental armies had to do with the military force we ought to maintain? He could conceive that it might be proper to adapt our navy to the navies of the continental powers; but this country, from its situation, being less liable to be attacked than any other, he could see no reason why the armies maintained elsewhere should influence those of this country. As to the army in Ireland, there was, besides the regular military force, a body of police, amounting to 7,000 men, of the expense of which they had received no account, besides militia and yeomanry to the number of 50,000 men. This he considered far too large an establishment for the necessities of the country, and he thought it might be reduced with great propriety, without endangering the peace or security of the empire. It would be found that England, when compared with other countries, had three times their force, and that that force was maintained at double the expense of the force of any power in Europe. The only question at present, however, was, what force was requisite to protect the lives and property of the people, and to maintain the peace of the country? He had no doubt that a much smaller force would be necessary for that purpose than that at present maintained; and that the standing army might safely be reduced from 89,000 to 60,000. There was one other subject to which he would allude—he meant the number of officers. An officer was at present maintained for every eight men, which all military men knew to be excessive. It was three times the number maintained by the East-India Company, or, indeed, in any army in the world. If the House (continued the hon. Member) will go with me in opinion—and God knows how far hon. Members will be inclined to go, for at present they seem more inclined to go to sleeps—they will support me in my Amendment to the Motion before them. I think that the number of men to be voted for the service of the year ought not to be more than was maintained during the Administration of the Duke of Wellington. There are indeed, many reasons why it should be less, for the Continent is not so disturbed, and there is not so much probability of war now as there was then. I shall, however, content myself with moving that the army be reduced to the standard of 1830. I shall, therefore, conclude, by moving—" That the Land Forces be reduced to 81,164 men," being the establishment maintained by the Duke of Wellington.

seconded the Amendment. He complained of the immense army maintained in the colonies, and especially in Corsica and the Greek islands. In the latter, the troops were employed against the liberties of Greece, and in support of the Turks, and created hatred to this country, and suspicion of its intentions. He thought the maintenance of those islands not only useless but mischievous; and the expense, in the present state of the country, was intolerable; he therefore begged to ask the right hon. Secretary at War, why they were not given up to Greece?

said, he would place more reliance on the opinion of the hon. and gallant member for Surrey as a civilian than as a military man. He meant that the hon. and gallant Officer had had more time and experience in civil affairs than in military matters. The hon. and gallant Officer had stated that the Ionian Islands were useless, and had called on the right hon. Secretary at War to say why he did not give them up. He thought that the House would allow, that his right hon. friend would be wandering a little out of his department in deciding on what was purely a matter of foreign policy. The hon. and gallant Officer asked, why the Ionian islands were not given up to Greece? He would merely answer, because, though they had at last been able to give a government to that country, still it was so unstable and disorganized, that they could not act towards it as towards an old and settled country. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Middlesex, he would remind the House, that the question was not whether the number of men to be voted should be more or less, but whether the number of the army as proposed by the Government was more than sufficient to maintain the peace of the kingdom, and secure the property of his Majesty's subjects. The hon. member for Middlesex had said, that the inhabitants of the Leeward Islands were displeased that there should be so many troops quartered among them. He had never heard that opinion before, and he never was more surprised than when he heard the hon. Member make the assertion. Everyone must see that the state of those colonies was at present very dangerous, and that it would soon be necessary to come to some definite conclusion regarding them; and he did not think that it was when approaching that conclusion, they ought to diminish the force in them. Then, with regard to Ireland, he would ask, was this the time to reduce the force in that country, when they found it necessary to come to Parliament to ask for additional powers in order to enable them to maintain peace within it? He thought that the very worst species of force which could be used was the yeomanry, and he suspected that few of the people of Ireland would feel pleased, were the Government to adopt that species of force. The hon. member for Middlesex had likewise said, that he thought the colony of New South Wales should get a separate Legislature. He (Lord Althorp) was always inclined to give separate Legislatures where the colonies were in a fit state to receive them; but he thought it was a very doubtful question, if a convict colony was exactly the proper one to which to give a separate Legislature. He admitted, that the increase in the continental armies was no reason why this country should maintain a large force. The present force of this country had, however, ample employment at home and in the colonies, without any such reason being held out for maintaining it. He would therefore say that, looking to the state of the colonies and of Ireland, he did not think that the present was a time when the Government could venture to reduce the number of the forces.

wished the discussion not to be prolonged, and the division tobe taken on the next Resolution.

saw good reason, in the state of this country, and in the state of the colonies, to keep up the army; but he saw no reason to keep up this force in the present state of Europe. If a large standing array was to be kept up on the ground of confidence in the Reformed Parliament, Reform would be a curse to the country. It was not a sufficient justification of our keeping up a large army that other States kept up large armies. He and his noble friend (Lord Althorp) had opposed this principle seventeen years ago with success.

said, he would agree to the suggestion of the hon. member for Bridport, and consent to take the division on the money grant, and not on the number of men.