wished to ask a question of the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, whom he saw in his place, relative to a transaction that had occurred within the last few days. It appeared that a Proclamation, or a paper in the nature of a Proclamation, had issued from the Secretary of State's office respecting a meeting then about to take place in Cold-bath-fields. This Proclamation, if so it might be called, had no official, or indeed any, signature whatever affixed to it to indicate its authority; but such a document had been stuck upon the walls in different parts of the metropolis. It was supposed by many that it could not have proceeded from any official quarter, and that the meeting consequently was not illegal. As a judicial inquiry was going on, he (Mr. Roebuck) did not mean to enter further into the subject at present; but what he desired to know was, whether the hon. Gentleman opposite would have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the information which he had received respecting this meeting, and which had induced the Proclamation to be issued?

begged to suggest to the hon. Member, whether he ought to put a question on the subject at present. It would not only be extremely inconvenient to answer such a question under existing circumstances, but doing so might tend materially to frustrate the ends of justice. When the judicial inquiries now in progress had concluded the hon. Member might put any question he pleased, and his Majesty's Government would be ready to answer it. At the same time he must say, that there could be no doubt that the Proclamation was perfectly proper.

said, that, he would be one of the last men in that House to take any step likely to frustrate the ends of justice in this or in any other case; and if such would be the effect of having his question answered, he was perfectly willing to postpone it until after the Coroner's Jury had come to a decision, provided it was understood that then his present request would be complied with. [The hon. Gentleman paused, but no answer was given.] On no other condition could be acquiesce in postponing his inquiry, for in his opinion questions respecting such transactions could not be put too soon. As the Under Secretary refused to accede to his proposition, he should go on, but he would of course studiously avoid anything that could at all bear upon the case of murder, regarding which an investigation was then in progress before the Coroner. His object was to ascertain what the conduct of the Government had been in the affair, and not to touch upon any other topic connected with it.

rose to order. It was, he believed, unparliamentary to bring forward a subject for discussion in that House which was undergoing judicial inquiry elsewhere.

decided that the hon. member for Bath was not disorderly. He had a right to ask the question he had put to the hon. the Under Secretary, but it would be for the House to deal with that question as they pleased.

again repeated that he would forego his question if such an understanding was come to, or if it was the opinion of the House that his pressing it would be likely to frustrate the ends of justice.

declined giving any pledge of the kind required by the hon. Member.

continued. He merely wished to know whether the Government had done its duty, on what information it had acted, and if the Proclamation to which he had alluded had really issued from the Home Office, and received the sanction of the Chief Secretary of State for that department. He was perfectly ready to admit that a more contemptible meeting never had taken place. And had it not been for the interference of the police, there would have been no occasion for fright, nor the slightest ground for alarm or apprehension. The meeting would have gone off without any mischief having been done, if the police had not been sent to the ground, and he was therefore bound to declare, that their presence on the occasion was a most unjustifiable trifling with the rights of the people. It was well known that the people during the last three years had been not only indulged in public meetings on every possible subject, but allowed with impunity to use the most violent language. The Government had, he distinctly asserted, fostered this spirit in the people to promote their own views; and now they resorted to measures of severity to put down that which they themselves had created. They had, in the present instance, sent a body of ruffians to put down a public meeting and break the heads of the people. He willingly admitted that he was out of order, that he had used an epithet which ought not to have escaped him. He would therefore retract the word ruffian, and say that a parcel of foolish people had been sent upon this most unnecessary and disastrous mission. The means that had been adopted to suppress it had raised the meeting into an importance it did not deserve. Had it been allowed to go on three or four indiscreet persons would have talked nonsense and used violent language for a short time, and the matter would have ended without disturbance, broken heads, and loss of life. He would not, however, offer any comments upon the melancholy result of this unfortunate transaction, as with what had taken place he had nothing to do, his sole and only object being to ascertain what the conduct of the Government had been. He was prepared in the first place to contend that the meeting was not distinctly illegal, nor was there any thing in the notice calling the meeting together which would enable any man to decide that it was to assemble for an illegal object. Neither had the Government any means of knowing that the purpose for which they met was in contravention of law; for how could they know what was meant by a National Convention? For his own part he could not understand what it meant. He knew very well what it meant in France and in America, for in those places it was an extraordinary legislative assembly called together according to law. It appeared that there had been a misunderstanding relative to the right of the persons who convened this meeting to petition Parliament for a National Convention; and the Proclamation ought to have explained that such an object was illegal; but, if it was not so, it was clear that no Proclamation the Home Office could issue could change its nature, and make that an offence which really was lawful. He asserted that no proper means had been used or care taken to show that the meeting was illegal, or to warn the people from attending it. The only precaution which had been adopted was to send the police to the scene of action to rush upon the people and knock them down; and he therefore conceived, if they were sent there by the Government, his Majesty's Ministers ought to be held responsible for the indiscretion of the police. It seemed to him that the Government had rather created than prevented the disturbance, and he wished to ask under what information the Government acted, and whether the Proclamation alluded to had been issued by the sanction of the Chief Secretary of State for the Home Department?

protested against the premature discussion sought to be provoked by the hon. Member, and declared he would not be tempted to enter into it then; but he was, he must say, astonished to hear the hon. Member launch out such extraordinary opinions, if not for the purpose of influencing the Coroner's Jury, at least, in some degree, prejudging the question. The hon. Member required to know whether the Proclamation had emanated from the Home Office, and under the sanction of the Chief Secretary of State, and he (Mr. Lamb) had not the slightest hesitation in replying that it had. With regard to the taunt which the hon. Member had levelled against the Government of their having fostered and winked at turbulent and illegal meetings, he (Mr. Lamb) denied the allegation, and in proof of his assertion need only refer to the Proclamation which about two years ago was issued by the Government for the suppression of a similar meeting advertised to take place at White Conduit House. On that occasion a notice similar to that which had been given in the present in- stance of the illegality of the meeting was published and circulated, and the result was, that the people, being better advised than they had been with respect to the meeting alluded to by the hon. Member, did not assemble.

observed, there could be no doubt the notice for holding the meeting was foolish in the extreme; but, at the same time, he knew of no law in this country prohibiting meetings for establishing a National Convention. In 1792, the Roman Catholics of Ireland held meetings for this purpose, and, what was more, a deputation from that Convention presented an Address to the King upon the Throne, so that at that period at least such a Convention was not illegal. Now, however, such a thing would be illegal in Ireland, because a prohibitory statute had been passed upon the subject; and he threw out this explanation in order that the statement of the Under Secretary might not in its turn affect the investigation that was in progress. But if the meeting in question really was, as had been stated by the Under Secretary, illegal, a Magistrate ought to have been present, and to have accompanied the police to the spot to read the Riot Act, in case the people refused to disperse. The people were not obliged bylaw to disperse until the Riot Act had been read; but he was prepared to admit, if, previous to that, the police had been attacked by the populace—that if force had been used on the one side—force was perfectly justifiable on the other; for the maxim of the law was, that force might be repelled by force, and in such a case every constable had aright to act upon the defensive. This he conceived to be the law in this country, although it was different with respect to Ireland; for by a particular Act, if a meeting of the Irish people refused to separate within five minutes after they were ordered to disperse by a Magistrate, the persons then and there assembled would be guilty of an offence punishable at law. For the present, while a judicial inquiry was pending, they should cautiously abstain from all observations that might bear upon the subject of that investigation, for no man ought to attempt even to anticipate its result; but if a murder had been committed, if life had been sacrificed, those by whom the measures taken on the occasion had been advised lay under a deep and serious responsibility.

said, that considering the investigation now proceeding might lead to a trial of a grave and highly penal nature—namely, the trial for life or death of one of his Majesty's subjects at the Old Bailey—he thought the hon. member for Bath would have done much better if he had abstained from the observations in which he had indulged. He (the Solicitor General) also wished the hon. and learned member for Dublin had refrained from the remarks which he had made. The legality of the meeting would be inquired into by the competent authorities, and that being the case, he (the Solicitor General) had nothing more to say at present but to enter his protest against the doctrine laid down by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, that an illegal meeting could not be dispersed without reading the Riot Act. The contrary was the law.

said, that the object of his Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the land revenues of the Crown under the Commissioners of Woods and Forests having been answered, by the appointment of a Committee on the subject, by the noble Lord (Althorp) he did not mean to press his Motion, provided it was understood that the present Committee was to have power to enter into the whole question connected with the management and disposal of the Crown lands.

replied, that the Committee would have full power to investigate the whole subject.

took that opportunity of asking the noble Lord whether it was true that, in an action tried some time ago between the Crown and the Primate of Ireland relative to those lands, the Lord Chief Baron had ordered the Solicitor of the Crown to pay five guineas to each of the Jury for their attendance; and whether, in fact, a sum of 378l. had been so paid; for, if so, nothing could have been more unprecedented or unauthorised? Should the inquiry be answered in the affirmative it was his intention, if nobody else did so, to bring the subject before Parliament, for as well might the Chief Baron have ordered the payment of a million of money as this sum.

in reply said, that the case had been removed from the Assizes of the county of Cavan to be tried in the city of Dublin, by consent of both parties. The trial took place in November last, and then a verdict was given against the Crown and for the Primate. The Government had perhaps no right to say any thing about the result of the trial, but they certainly had a right to complain of the manner in which it had been conducted, and the language used by the Court upon the occasion with respect to the conduct of the Crown. The Court endeavoured to convince the Jury that the proceeding was vexatious, and instituted to deprive the Primate of land that had been in his family for a long period. The case had undoubtedly occasioned much surprise; but, instead of the suit having been instituted by the present Government, its commencement had taken place during the former Administration; and it was not a little curious that it was Mr. Attorney General Joy who had advised it, although Mr. Chief Baron Joy had met it with such sweeping censure. He was aware, however, that a man might as counsel hold one opinion, and when made a Judge entertain another. It would, indeed, be unfair to bind a Judge to an opinion which he had given as counsel. The case of the payment of the money was under these circumstances:—When the Jury had been charged they retired, but the foreman returned into court, and said they would not give a verdict unless they knew who was to pay them. After some conversation the Solicitor for the Crown said, if the Judge thought the Crown ought to pay the costs, he would at once do so, and, the Chief Baron having assented, the 378l. were accordingly paid.

was not surprised when the hon. and learned member for Dublin attacked the Judges, but he must complain of the imputations which the noble Lord had cast upon one of the most exemplary men on the Bench in Ireland. He thought such conduct was not becoming in a member of the Government; nor was the noble Lord justified in stating that Mr. Attorney General Joy had done one thing, and Mr. Chief Baron Joy another. The noble Lord was not justified in giving any opinion on the subject; but, whether the learned individual alluded to were right or wrong, he, although professing to be ignorant of the merits of the case, was satisfied that a more honourable or upright Judge than Mr. Baron Joy did not occupy the judicial Bench in any country. Was the conduct pursued by the noble Lord such as to en courage public men to do their duty? If, instead of being supported, the Judges were to be aspersed in this manner by the Government, was it likely that impartial and honourable men would undertake an office so responsible.

would be unworthy of a seat in that House if he did not rise in vindication of the learned individual who had been so improperly attacked by the noble Lord, and to assure every hon. Member who heard him that there was no foundation whatever for the imputations which had been cast on his learned friend. If there had been anything wrong in the conduct of the learned Judge an appeal was open to the party aggrieved; but, instead, of moving for a new trial on the ground of misdirection, or on any other ground which could be assigned in public court, what had the noble Lord done? Why he had come down behind the learned Judge's back, and brought a charge against him, well knowing that he could not answer it. If there were a Judge on the Irish Bench more learned, impartial, upright, and honest than another, it was the distinguished individual who had been that night so wantonly assailed.

said, he had made no complaint against the learned Judge, but had merely referred to his opinion as Attorney General, with a view of showing that the trial in question was not instituted by the present Government, but by their predecessors.

was astonished at hearing the language used by the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin. He had always supposed that the Judges ought to be free from any control on the part of Government, and was, therefore, utterly astonished at hearing it said, that certain conduct on the part of Government, was but a slight encouragement to Judges to act correctly. If it were true that a Judge had compromised with a Jury, by giving them their expenses before they had returned their verdict, then he must say such a verdict was a corrupt one, and ought to be set aside.

, in explanation, said that he considered every Judge as a Ministerial officer, and so far acting with the Government. He wished to know from the noble Lord opposite, whether he had ascertained the correctness of the expression attributed to the learned Judge?

said, he had taken his information from the notes of a short hand writer who had been employed at the trial.

withdrew his Motion.

spoke to the following effect^*—Mr. Speaker, in rising to make the Motion of which I have given notice, I will trouble the House with neither apologies nor professions: I make the Motion because I have a right to do it, and because I choose to exercise that right; and, with regard to my motives, I leave them to be gathered from the tenor and the tendency of the Resolution which I am about to propose. It appears to me, that the best and most convenient way of proceeding will be, first, to read the Resolution throughout; because hon. Members will thereby be put in full possession, not only of what I am about to propose to the House to adopt, but of the grounds of the proposition which I have to make; and, when in possession of these, they will be the better able to judge of the soundness or unsoundness of those arguments which it will be my duty to produce in support of the Resolution itself. The hon. Member accordingly read the following Resolution:—

Resolved: That, according to the laws and customs of this kingdom, the King, our Sovereign Lord, can do no wrong to the whole, to any part, or to any one of his subjects; that, however, effectually to guard against wrong being in his Majesty's name, and under his authority done to his subjects with impunity, the same laws and customs, which have, as our birthright, descended to us from our just and wise forefathers, make all and every one, acting in that name and under that authority, fully and really responsible to the good people of this kingdom, for every wrong done unto them by any and every person invested with such authority, and that in virtue of such responsibility, the wrong-doing party is subject to such censures, pains, and penalties, as in virtue of the said laws and customs, the several tribunals of the kingdom have in all ages been wont to inflict; that, if this responsibility were not real and practical, we should be living under not only a despotism, but an avowed despotism, for the King being incapable of wrong-doing, and his servants being responsible merely in name and form, and not in practice, they also could do no wrong, and then the people of this renowned kingdom, the cradle of true liberty, would be the most wretched slaves ever yet heard of under the sun; that, in cases where the wrong-doing is committed by inferior functionaries, or is, in its effects, confined to individuals, or to small numbers of sufferers, the

^* Reprinted from the corrected Report published by Mr. Cobbett.

ordinary courts of justice have usually been deemed competent to afford redress to the injured; but that, when the wrong is the act of a Minister of State, sworn to advise the King for the good of his people, when that Minister of State receives as a reward for his fidelity and skill large sums of the people's money, and when the wrong by him done is, in its effects, so deeply and so generally mischievous, as to send ruin and misery to sweep over the kingdom like the pestilence, then there is, for the purpose of yielding justice to the suffering millions, no power competent but that which is possessed by their faithful Representatives assembled in this House.

That, in the year 1819, there had long been and then was, in virtue of divers Acts of Parliament theretofore passed, a paper-money in circulation throughout this kingdom, which paper-money was, in effect, a legal tender in payment of all private debts, as well as in the payment of taxes; that this paper-money, descending so low as to notes of one pound, had been the almost only circulating money of the country, from the month of February, 1797, that is to say, for the space of twenty-one years; that this paper-money soon became depreciated to so great an extent, that the prices of commodities had, during the said twenty-one years, risen on an average of years and of commodities, to about double the amount of the prices at which the same commodities were usually sold before the issue of the said legal-tender paper-money; that the depreciation of the money was so notorious and so amply avowed in Parliament, that divers Acts were passed, during the said twenty-one years, to raise the allowances to the royal family, the salaries of the Judges of the police Magistrates, of the army, of the navy, and of almost every one in public employ, for the purpose of counteracting the effect of this very great depreciation; that, during the said twenty-one years next preceding 1819, all mortgages, rent-charges, leases, settlements, annuities, bonds, and other contracts for time, together with all wills and testaments, had been agreed on, settled, and made, on the basis of this depreciated money; and that, during the said twenty-one years, about 500,000,000l. of the public debt had been contracted in the said depreciated paper-money; that, therefore, to pass an Act compelling the debtor parties to make good these contracts for time, to the very letter, in sterling gold, must be, in fact, an act of confiscation against, and a sentence of ruin pronounced upon these parties; while, with regard to the people at large, such Act must, in reality, nearly double the amount of the public debt, nearly double the amount of all the above-mentioned augmented salaries and public pay, and, of course, nearly double the real amount of the taxes.

That, notwithstanding these premises and conclusions, so indubitably true, and so clear to the understanding of every man of common sense, the right hon. Robert Peel, then one of his Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, did, in the said year 1819, bring into the then House of Commons, and procure to be passed by that House, a Bill to put an end to the legal-tender paper-money, which Bill, unaccompanied as it was with any measure for the revision and rectifying of private contracts, and for the adjustment of public engagements, was a Bill inevitably tending to produce that injustice, that confiscation, and that ruin, hereinbefore described.

That this Act, which received the royal assent on the 2nd July, 1819, though it provided for what was called the gradual resumption of gold-payments, began at once to plunge the whole community into pecuniary confusion; that the prices of all commodities, and of all property, moveable, or immoveable, began instantly to fall prodigiously in price; that mortgaged estates were, in thousands upon thousands of instances, taken from the owners and sold, in many cases, for less than the amount of the mortgages; that, in other cases, fixed charges upon estates swallowed up the whole of the rental; while, with regard to leases, bonds, annuities, and other contracts for time, and, above all things, with regard to property dropping in to be disposed of by will, the demon of injustice seemed to have been, by this destructive Act, let loose upon the kingdom, setting landlords and tenants, creditors and debtors, brothers and sisters, parents and children, to tear each other to pieces, bringing down hundreds of thousands of families from a state of competence and ease, and many from a state of opulence, to a state of utter ruin and beggary, while all those who were living on the taxes, and who were in fact receiving double pay, were rolling in wealth, and lording it over the rest of the community; and that, of all these dreadful effects of such a measure, the said right hon. Robert Peel had been duly warned even before he brought in the said fatal Bill.

That, by the said Act, gold payments were to be completely resumed, and the one-pound notes were to be wholly abolished, in the month of May, 1823; but, that so terrible were the effects of the aforesaid Act, such were the ruin and misery that it had produced, that, on the 22nd July, 1822, another Bill was, by the then advisers of his Majesty (of whom the said right hon. Robert Peel was one), brought into the then House of Commons, and was afterwards passed into a law, postponing the abolition of the one-pound notes for eleven years longer; that an important part of the Act of 1819 was thus repealed; that an acknowledgment was thus virtually made by an Act of the House itself, that it had, principally by the said right hon. Robert Peel, been induced to act unwisely, and to do great wrong to the people by the said Act of 1819.

That, if the Act of 1822 had been wise, if it had put a stop to the wrong done and still doing by the Act of 1819, it came very tardily, it waited till prodigious ruin had been effected; but, that this Act of 1822, while it postponed the abolition of the one-pound notes for eleven years, left the gold payment part of the Act of 1819 in full force: so that, while the issuers of paper-money were thus invited and encouraged to inundate the country with one-pound notes, they and the holders of their notes were left exposed to constant, and, first, or last, certain ruin; that this ruin (of which the said right hon. Robert Peel and his colleagues were duly warned) was not slow in making its appearance; than towards the close of the year 1825, the bubble, thus created by the law itself, began to burst, and that, before the end of January, 1826, 100 banks had stopped, not having gold wherewith to pay their notes, the whole kingdom being thereby plunged into alarm and confusion, thousands upon thousands of families (descending to the very artizans and labourers) being brought down to beggary; and, such being the state into which the country had been brought, that the Ministers themselves declared, in Parliament, that at one time, the country had actually been within forty-eight hours of barter, that is to say, destitute of all measure of value, and in a state of utter confusion and anarchy.

That, with all this sad experience of the effects of his measures, the said right hon. Robert Peel (still one of his Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, and then become one of his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State) gave his sanction to a Bill (which became an Act on the 22nd March, 1826) for again abolishing the one-pound notes at the end of three years, notwithstanding the postponement of such abolition, provided for in the Act of 1822; that, by this Act of 1826, the nation was again plunged back into the low prices, and, in effect, double taxes, produced by the unjust Act of 1819; that the ruin and misery of all the industrious classes, and the wealth and luxury of those who live on the taxes, have gone on increasing from that day to this; and that, at this moment, there appears to be no human being able to discover any quiet way of extricating the kingdom from its present state of unparalleled difficulty and danger.

That, contemplating these mighty calamities, thus heaped on his Majesty's industrious and dutiful people, and further contemplating the probable danger there from to be apprehended to the safety of his Majesty's authority and Throne, and clearly tracing a great part of these to the want of knowledge in the right hon. Sir Robert Peel, this House, reserving to itself the right of adopting further and other proceedings in the premises, deems itself bound, in duty to his Majesty and from an anxious regard to the well-being of his people, not to leave them again exposed to calamities and dangers proceeding from the same source; and that, therefore, this House will present a loyal and dutiful address to his Majesty, pray- ing that his Majesty will be graciously pleased to dismiss the right hon. Sir Robert Peel from his Majesty's most honourable Privy Council.

said, before the House proceeded to consider the question, it would be as well to ascertain from the hon. member for Oldham, whether what he bad read was a part of his speech, or a Motion [Mr. Cobbett: A Motion]. If the paper which the hon. Member had read was a part of his speech, it was proper to state, that it was unusual in that House to read a speech; if it were a Motion, then perhaps the hon. Member would address the House, in order to show how it could be regularly received.

said, the paper which he had read was entitled a Resolution. It began, "Resolved," and went on as a Resolution to the end.

said, if it was a Resolution, or a string of Resolutions, he had only to inform the hon. Member, that it was customary to place on the Journals of the House Resolutions or Motions; but it would be extremely inconvenient to place on these Journals elaborate arguments or pamphlets.

admitted, that the Resolutions were long; but he was at the same time sure, that he had seen Resolutions equally long which had been moved in that House, and placed on the Journals. The House, however, might dispose of the question as it thought fit; but he would proceed, in the mean time, to show, that the Resolutions were founded in justice and reason. The hon. Member proceeded as follows:—Much has been said about Ministerial responsibility; but, for my part, I have never seen anything like real responsibility demanded of any Minister. Responsibility does not mean being-laughed at, or scolded, by the Members of this House. It means liability to punishment of some sort; and the least of those punishments is that of being publicly censured or reproved by some public authority. In common life it means liability to suffer in person or in purse; and not, to use the word ignorance as applicable to the right hon. Baronet, men are made to suffer, and justly made to suffer, for injuries arising from their want of knowledge in matters which they undertake to perform. If, for instance, a person profess to be a surgeon, and you experience injury from his want of knowledge of his profession, you have your action of damages against him; though it may clearly appear that his intention was good. It is not of bad intention that I accuse the hon. Baronet, for I know nothing about his intentions; but, bad intention is not necessary to be proved in the case of the surgeon; it is only necessary to show, that he has done injury from want of knowledge in his profession. Just so ought it to be in the present case: the censure of this House ought to be inflicted, not only on account of the wrong that has been done; but also, in order to prevent like wrong being done in future from a similar cause. I am sorry that the First Lord of the Admiralty is not now in his place; because I counted on his zealous and able support upon this occasion. That right hon. Gentleman, in his place in Parliament, in 1829, frankly confessed, that he had been led astray in the case of the Bill of 1819, by the doctrines of Mr. Ricardo; that he repented him of what he had done in supporting that Bill; and that that Bill was making us pay in gold a debt contracted in a depreciated paper. The hon. member for Knaresborough told us, the other night, that Mr. Ricardo had lived to repent of his error. I hope, that this repentance was deep and sincere; for, as a political sin, his was the greatest ever committed by mortal man. An hon. Baronet (the member for Kent) made grievous complaints the other night about the distress of the landed interest; but that hon. Baronet supported the Measure which had caused that distress, not seeing that it would convey the lands from the then proprietors to the hands of the Jews and usurers. I now proceed to show how the Bill has worked in ruining landlords and farmers, and in the starving of labourers. First, I shall state how it reduced the price of wheat. The price of wheat for the twenty-one years preceding 1819, was 11s. 8d. a bushel; in 1818, 9s. 7½d.; in 1819, 8s. 7½d.; in 1820, 7s. 6½d.; in 1821, 6s. 7d.; in 1822, 5s. 1½d. But wheat is the thing that falls slowest; it is so absolutely an immediate necessary of life, that the owner is able to keep up its price longer than any other article of farm produce. The price of cattle of all sorts: fell much more in proportion than wheat did in price. But, let us take the article of English wool, of which the following has been the progress downwards in price. The price of South Down Wool; from 1797 to 1819, was 2s. 11½. per lb.; from 1819 to 1826, 11d.; from 1826 to 1833, 9d. What, then, must the effects of this Bill have been upon the farmer, the landlord, and the labourer? In many parts of the country the amount of the wool used to be sufficient to pay the rent of the farm. How are farmers to pay their rent now, and without that rent, how are the landlords to pay the interest of the mortgage on their estates? The consequences have been such, that the land has passed away from its owners in innumerable cases; and, though I verily believe there are many landlords in the House who have lost more than the half of their estates by this Bill, yet I also believe, though they know that every word of this Resolution is true, not one of them will vote for it. Not only has agriculture suffered by these proceedings; manufactures have suffered the same fate. Let us take iron for instance. The price of iron (British pig), from 1797 to 1819, was 8l. per ton; from 1819 to 1826, 5l.; from 1826 to 1833, 2l. 15s. The ironmaster had the same rent to pay; if he had mortgages, the same amount of interest; and every one must see, that such a process must bring him down to ruin; and this is what ought to have been foreseen by the right hon. Baronet. Nor were the effects confined to the King's European dominions. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman (the Secretary for the Colonies) assert, the other night, that the pecuniary distress of the West-Indians had arisen from their having produced too much sugar of late years; that it was over-production, and not the agitation of the slave question. If the right hon. Gentleman were to go to Prestos, he would find, that the greater part of those naughty pretty girls, whom he and I so well remember, are now, for the greater part, become wives; and he would find them, ill too many cases, obliged to drink their tea without sugar: let him go and tell them, that the West-Indians bring too much sugar to England, and that that is the cause of their ruin. I was in hopes, that this strange notion was buried in the grave with the late Lord Liverpool, who, at the very moment when hundreds and thousands of the Irish were starving; at that very moment, when we were called upon to subscribe to send them oatmeal and potatoes, declared, in the most positive manner, that the distress arose from the over-production of food in both countries. Before the right hon. Gentleman again ascribes distress to over-production, I beseech him to attend to the progress of prices in coffee and sugar, from the time of passing the fatal Bill of 1819; which prices are as follows:—Coffee from 1797 to 1819, 147s. per cwt.; from 1819 to 1826, 90s.; from 1826 to 1833, 53s.—Sugar, from 1797 to 1819, 82s.; from 1819 to 1826, 26s.: from 1826 to 1833, 22s. There have been failures of late to the amount of 10,000,000l. in India. People wonder what is come over the East Indies: thousands upon thousands of East Indian families are in a state of the deepest distress, indigo and saltpetre are the two great articles of produce in the East Indies. The progess of the prices of these downwards, in consequence of the Bill of 1819, will account for the ruin and bankruptcies in that country. The price of Indigo, from 1797 to 1819 was 7s. 3d. per lb.; from 1819 to 1826 5s. 11d.; from 1826 to 1833 4s. 11d.; present price, 4s. 3½d.; and none of low-quality now is produced, as there was ten years ago. Saltpetre, from 1797 to 1819, was 65s. per cwt; from 1819 to 1826 23s.; from 1826 to 1833, 28s. Such are amongst the consequences of this first-mentioned Bill; and for these consequences the right hon. Baronet is answerable. Others were to blame as much or more than he; Mr. Huskisson, Mr. Tierney, and Mr. Ricardo; but it was the right hon. Baronet who brought in the Bill, and what is more, he is now here himself. Had he been nothing more than a mere Member of Parliament, that would have been another thing; but he was the author of the Bill by which this great and mighty mischief was done. He was, too, a Privy Councillor at the time. What mere Members of Parliament said upon the subject amounted to nothing. The hon. member for Hertfordshire, for instance, said, upon the introduction of the Bill, that, "if ever there was a moment of his (Mr. Peel's) life, in which he was most unquestionably and most eminently entitled to the gratitude of his country, it was the present one." One of three courses must he taken by the right hon. Baronet: he must contend, that it was right to do all this enormous mischief; that it was right to bring down to ruin so many I hundreds of thousands of families; or that he is not answerable for it seeing that it was done by the Parliament; or that no such consequences were produced by the Bill. The first two he will surely reject; and as to the latter, I shall be very curious to hear what facts and what arguments he has to bring forward to produce conviction in the mind of this House. Want of foresight would be the best defence; and then he would have to account for his conduct in rejecting the warnings repeatedly given him by the hon. member for Whitehaven and the hon. member for Birmingham, also by the present right hon. Secretary-at-War, and by the Bank Directors themselves. The best way of proceeding, however, would be to imitate the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Admiralty, confess his error, as he himself had most laudably done in the case of Catholic Emancipation, and other cases, especially that striking case, the voting for the resolution of Mr. Vansittart in 1811, declaring a one-pound note and a shilling to be equal in value to a guinea in gold. Having so laudably and so successfully recanted upon these occasions, why not do the same now; and instead of being angry at this Motion being made, call upon the House to adopt it, and vote for it himself? This would be the best way; and to something very much like this, he must come, at last, what-ever may be the decision of to-night. But it is not the Bill of 1819 alone of which this Resolution speaks. There is the Bill of 1822 to be answered for. In 1822 the Government, of which the right hon. Baronet was a member, introduced a Bill for the purpose of lowering the value of money, and raising the price of commodities. Every one knows what had followed from the passing of that Bill. The noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Althorp), stated the other night, when opposing the Motion of the hon. member for Whitehaven (Mr. Attwood), that he should not deem himself an honest man if he voted for that Motion. Now I ask the noble Lord in what the measure ascribed to the hon. member for Whitehaven differed from that which passed in 1822? The two measures were precisely the same in principle. But there was something flagitious in the conduct of the Government in 1822 with respect to the country bankers. They were then invited to London; they were urged to put out their one-pound notes; they were given to understand that they were to be allowed to issue those notes for eleven years; but when the proceedings then adopted had placed the country in a more dangerous state—when Ministers were compelled to come down to that House and confess that they had brought the country to within forty-eight hours of a state of barter—the pledge given to the country bankers was broken, and Parliament passed the Act of 1826; which I have always declared, and still declare, was the most unjust measure ever adopted by any assembly in the world, except the acts passed against those who petitioned that House for Parliamentary Reform. The compact, the solemn compact, entered into with the country bankers was, that they should issue their one-pound notes for eleven years; but in 1826 the right hon. Baronet came down to that House and advised it to put an end to the issue of country one-pound notes. The measure of 1826 brought down 100 country bankers to actual bankruptcy, and it half ruined at least 500 more. After this they may talk as they will of the faith of Parliament and national faith. Why was not faith kept, I ask, with the country bankers? But this was not the worst breach of faith. The great breach of faith was the return to low prices under the continuance of high taxes. I believe, that the right hon. Baronet was ignorant of the effects which his measure would produce; but, as the plea of ignorance would not save a mischief-doing surgeon, why is it to save a mischief-doing Minister? In the Resolution, however, I have not made use of the word ignorance; but of the phrase, "want of knowledge," and that is, of course, confined to knowledge applicable to the great matters in question. As to other matters, I pretend not that he is destitute of a want of knowledge. In all other sciences he may, for aught I know, excel all the rest of mankind. In one science, that of prosody, for instance, it appears that he greatly excels; for, I understand, that, the other night, after I had left the House, he told the House, that I ought to have pronounced the word rescind with i short, instead of i long. I most willingly acknowledge the right hon. Baronet's superior knowledge in this science; but it is not with regard to the measure of sounds of letters that I accuse the right hon. Baronet with want of knowledge; it is of the measure of value, of which I accuse him of that want; and of that want, there is not a man who hears me, who is not convinced in his heart that he ought to be accused. [At this moment Sir James Graham took his seat on the Treasury Bench]. I am glad to perceive that the First Lord of the Admiralty has returned; for now I am sure that I shall have one vote, at any rate. The right hon. Baronet, in a very elaborate performance, had insisted upon the justice of taking thirty per cent from the interest of the fund holders; and he justified the proposition upon the ground, that the Bill of 1819 had given to the fund holders thirty per cent more than they ought to receive. He had voted for the Bill of 1819, misled by the high authority, of Oracle Ricardo; he had made the amende honorable; but to make it complete, he must vote for this Resolution. There is another person, too, who must not be forgotten upon this occasion; namely, the present First Lord of the Treasury, who had declared in his place in Parliament, twenty times over, that all the great difficulties of the country arose from the Bill of 1819 having compelled the people to pay in sterling gold a debt contracted in depreciated paper. Well, the noble Lord has now the power to cause justice to be done; and why does he not cause justice to be done? It has been said by the right hon. Baronet himself, that there had been great distress as to the changes in the value of money before 1819; and who has ever denied it? The Secretary for the Colonies has said, with an air of triumph, against the poor West Indians, that their distress was stated to exist so far back as 1804. The right hon. Secretary was then a very little boy; if he had been a man then, he would have known that that distress arose from a cause precisely similar to that which is now in operation. The peace of Amiens had been made; and the Bank of England had, agreeably to the then law, been preparing for a return to cash payments. There was always a state of uncertainty, during peace, as to the time when the Bank would be called upon to pay in gold; and, of course, there were frequent fluctuations in the value of money; but this was all well known in 1819; the right hon. Baronet had had the experience of all this; and, therefore, these were so many beacons for him to shun, instead of examples for him to follow. In 1810 and 1811, in the midst of war and of loans, it was proposed by Mr. Huskisson and a Committee of that House, that the Bank should be compelled to pay in gold at the end of two years. Out of Bedlam such a proposition never was made before; yet, even the authors of that proposition, have, in this House, been extolled to the skies. The next defence is, as I gather from the debate on the proposition of the hon. member for Whitehaven, that it was necessary to do something in 1819; that it was necessary no longer to suffer the currency of the country to be in its then degraded and uncertain state. Whoever denied that? Not I at any rate. Every man that I conversed with at the time wished for a return to the ancient standard of value. But does it follow that it was necessary that it should be done in that unjust and wicked or foolish manner in which it was done? If there be a mortification in a man's foot which, if left alone, will certainly kill him in time, does it follow that it is right to cut off his head, in order to put a stop to the effects of mortification? And, did no one point out the proper and just thing to do? Was there nothing pointed out but the lowering of the standard or a depreciated paper-money? Had the right hon. Baronet no choice, except that which lay between the little shilling and the worthless rags? Oh yes! there was something else pointed out to him; and that, too, by parties to whom he ought to have listened with the greatest attention. In the year 1817 about a million and a-half of Englishmen and Scotchmen petitioned the then House of Commons for a Parliamentary Reform. But those Reformers were not such fools as to want a Reform that was to bring them no good. They petitioned to be relieved from their burthens; for a lowering of salaries and public pay in proportion to the then rise in the value of money; they petitioned for a reduction of the interest of the debt, proportioned to the recent rise in the value of money; they petitioned against being compelled to pay in sterling gold a debt which had been contracted in depreciated paper: they complained, as the First Lord of the Admiralty and the present Prime Minister have complained, of being compelled to pay, in a high currency, debts contracted in a low currency. In justice to those men; in justice to those Reformers, chiefly belonging to the working classes, I must beg the House to suffer me to read a small part of one of their petitions, sent from Hampshire on the 10th of February, 1817:—'With regard to salaries paid out of the public money, your petitioners beg leave humbly to observe, that they have only to refer your honurable House, to your own Journals, and to the Statute Book, for the space of the last twenty years, in order to afford your honourable House ample conviction of the fact that the salaries of the Judges have been doubled, that the salaries of the Police Justices have been greatly augmented, and that a like augmentation has taken place in almost all other salaries, and in the pay and allowances of an enormous military staff establishment, and that all these augmentations have been adopted upon the express ground of the augmentation which had taken place in the price of wages, in the price of all articles of dress, in the rents of houses and land, and in the prices of all the necessaries of life; and, therefore, now that it is notorious that these latter have all been diminished in the degree of nearly one-half, your petitioners will not insult your honourable House by appearing to suppose that you will refuse their humble request, that the above-said salaries and pay may be immediately reduced in the same degree. And, as to the interest on the annuities constituting the funded debt, your petitioners, agreeing in opinion with a noble Earl of the other House of Parliament, that the currency of the country has been changed, that the taxes, which were imposed in a currency of low value, are now collected in a currency of high value, beg leave to observe also, that the far greater part of the debt, which was contracted in a low currency, is now paid an interest for, by the people, in a higher currency. Therefore your petitioners most humbly pray, that the rate of interest on the funded debt may be immediately reduced, in such a degree that the fruit of the whole productive labour of the country may no longer be swallowed up by the dealers in funds, or, to adopt the words of a petition, received by the House of Commons from the town of Leicester, at the time of the South-Sea bubble, your petitioners most humbly implore your honourable House, "that the last drop of the nation's blood may not be poured out to be licked up by the cannibals of Change Alley."' And, Sir, what was the answer that these sensible and industrious men received? There came petitions from 1,500,000 of them; and one single answer was given to them all; and that answer was, an Act of Parliament, passed by the then House of Commons, and the then House of Lords, to put them into dungeons at the pleasure of two Secretaries of State; into any dungeons in the kingdom, without their being informed of what they were put into dungeons for; and for keeping them in those dungeons as long as the Ministers should please. Ah! Sir, that is not forgotten by those men and by their children; and happy would this House be if it could be tarried back In 1817, in order that it might follow the advice of those men, instead of inflicting unjust punishment upon them! The Parliament that inflicted that punishment, is, I thank God, never to return; and it is for the present Parliament, which is, really and truly the work of their efforts, to do justice to those of them who are now alive, and to the memory of those of them who are dead. But, Sir, it is not of the past only; it is also of the present and of the future, that we have to speak, when we are talking of the effects of the want of knowledge in the right hon. Baronet. The Resolution which I have the honour to submit to the House, alleges, that, "at this moment, there appears to be no human being able to discover any quiet way of extricating the kingdom from its present state of difficulty and danger." And is there any human being able to discover such a way? Vain is the imagination of him who supposes that the evil consequences of these measures have attained their height, and can go no further. The evils are daily increasing both in number and magnitude. Look at our state, in a pecuniary point of view only: look at our constant uncertainty: look at our constant peril: a bank with a driblet of gold amounting to a million or two, with twenty millions of paper afloat: Scotland and Ireland with 1l. notes still, and with scarcely a bit of gold ever to be seen in either: fourteen millions of money, borrowed by the Government through the means of what are called Savings' Banks; the most sensitive the easiest alarmed, and the quickest in seeking safety, and all liable to be drawn out and demanded in gold in one single day. In short, it must be evident to every man living, that a run for gold may at any time plunge the whole country into confusion; and that there are many causes, any one of which might happen any day to produce such a run. Every thing, then, hangs by a mere thread; every thing worthy of the name of property has thus been placed in jeopardy by that series of measures which began in 1819. If, indeed, the sufferings which the nation has had to endure during these thirteen years had purchased for it security against further pecuniary convulsions; even then it would have been purchasing future security at a very dear rate; but this is not the case; it has only purchased us greater insecurity than ever: it has been thirteen years of suffering to purchase insecurity and peril, which are never to end until some convul- sion come to put an end to our fears by realising that which we fear. This state of things has been produced by the Bill of 1819, and its consequent measures; and if there be no responsibility on those who inflict sufferings and dangers like these on a people, then let the word responsibility be effaced from our language; or, at any rate, never let it be again pronounced in this House. Before I conclude, I must notice the effects of the Bill of 1819 upon the condition of the working people throughout the kingdom. Had the evils of this bill flown over their heads, left them unharmed, I should have given myself very little trouble about its other consequences, and should certainly not have troubled the House with the Resolution now before it; but, having witnessed the ruin and misery brought upon them, and having once heard the right hon. Baronet assert that his Bill had mended their lot by making provisions cheaper, I cannot refrain from describing the consequences of this Bill to them; so mischievous have those consequences been, that, in my estimation, they surpass, and far surpass, all its other evil consequences put together. When the right hon. Baronet was speaking upon this subject, he forgot that lowering of wages could take place as well as lowering of prices; and I will now show him, by a document as authentic as any that can exist in the world, that his Bill, while it was producing all the other evils which I have attempted to describe, was absolutely working the destruction, either of the bodies, or the morals, of the labourers in agriculture. The document to which I refer, is, "a new regulation of allowance to the poor," dated from the Grand Jury Chamber, Winchester, August 31st, 1822; and issued by the authority of Sir Thomas Baring, two other Lay Magistrates, and five other Magistrates being highly beneficed clergymen. It is signed by Mr. Woodham, of Winchester, their clerk. From this document, which I put upon record at the time, and which will now reach every part of this kingdom, it appears, that these Magistrates, 'recommended the officers of every parish to offer three shillings a-week from Michaelmas to Lady-Day to every unmarried man, and four shillings a-week from Lady Day to Michaelmas, so that he may be engaged to work the whole year; and any unmarried man refusing that offer shall not be entitled to any relief.' This "new regulation" was adopted in consequence of the Act of 1819; and, those regulations continued up to the fall of 1830, when they produced their natural effects; and, though acts of violence and revenge are in a very few cases ever to be defended; and though I, by no means, defend those acts to which I now allude, let me ask the Members of this House to look at those regulations; to look at the hale young man condemned to labour throughout the whole year for 3s. 6d. a-week, without food, without drink, without lodging, without anything but the bare 3s. 6d. A hundred and thirty-five labourers (most of them amongst the best of the county) transported, and most of them for life, leaving behind them seventy-nine wives, and upwards of 200 fatherless children: these, in Hampshire alone, we are to look at as amongst the consequences of the right hon. Baronet's Bill of 1819. I call not upon the House to ascribe any portion of this shocking result to the right hon. Baronet's intention; for it is impossible that he ever could have dreamed that such dreadful consequences could have proceeded from that Bill: what I ascribe to him is a want of that sort of knowledge which he ought to have possessed before he attempted to bring forward that measure. If, in sitting down, Sir, I cannot boast of the forbearance of the House towards me, I have no wish to complain of the contrary. I have simply done my duty, in bringing before the House a subject of greater importance than any that can be named. I have done it in a manner conformable with the practice of Parliament; and I now leave it to the House to dispose of the Resolution in any manner that it pleases.

, in rising to second the Motion of his hon. colleague, begged to claim the indulgence of the House while he stated to them his reasons for doing so. He was actuated by no feelings of personal hostility to the right hon. Baronet, who was the subject of the Motion, but felt compelled from a sense of duly to adopt the course he had done. Whatever were the opinions of this House on the Bill of 1819, and the measures subsequently connected with it, the prevailing opinion out of doors was, that it had produced misery and suffering such as were never before inflicted on any people so industrious and productive as were the people of England, His hon. colleague had stated that the taxes had been doubled since the Bill was adopted, and he (Mr. Fielden) hoped the House would have patience with him while he showed them that the scale of taxes imposed on him, and the class of manufacturers to whom he belonged, had been trebled since the year 1815—the close of the war; he had aright to complain of this. A responsibility for having done this injustice rested somewhere; and, believing, as he did, that it had been caused by a contraction of the currency, and what was called a return to cash payments, without any measure being adopted to reduce the taxes to the alteration made in the value of money by the Bill of the right hon. Baronet; he complained of the operations of that Bill; and as the right hon. Gentleman had in this Session set up a justification of his Bill, and said be would not shrink from the responsibility it involved, and as the right hon. Gentleman was still opposed to that adjustment which should have accompanied it in 1819, he had a right to complain of him. He had heard that the right hon. Baronet's father had warned him of the consequences of that Bill, and had stated to him, that if it were passed, it would double the value of his funded property, but somebody would lose it; whether the right hon. Baronet had had such a warning or not, he could not say, but such, he would endeavour to show to the House, had been its effects. He would suppose a case, that a parent, at the close of the war in 1815, had two sons, A and B, to whom he bequeathed the sum of 1,000l. each, to be vested in the hands of trustees until they came of age, with a direction that A's 1,000l. should be invested in the three per cent consols, which at 57l. 10s., the price of that day, would purchase 1,740l. and that B's 1,000l. should be invested in land. The present price of three per cents, was 87l. 10s. and this would give for A 1,522l. 10s. The 1,000l. of B's, invested in land, was not now worth more than 750l., so that the principal belonging to A was more than double the principal belonging to B. The interest the trustees of A received, from the time of the investment to the present period, amounted to 939l. 12s., while the interest upon B's. investment would not be more than 540l. so that the trustee of A now was in possession of 2,462l. 2s., while the trustee of B had only 1,290l. Now, neither of these children nor these trustees had done any act to produce these results; but A was now possessed of double the property of B. Were changes like this, arising from the alteration in the value of money, to be overlooked? Was it just? Was it reasonable? He would then proceed to show what had been the effects of the alteration in the value of money as measured in the manufactures which he (Mr. Fielden) produced; and the intrinsic value of which is the same now as in 1815, notwithstanding such alteration. He should here have the support of the hon. member for Essex, who, on a former night declared, that money, which was the mere measure of commodities, did not alter their value. To illustrate what he had to show to the House, he would claim their indulgence, while he read to them a table, showing the prices of cotton, and of articles manufactured from it from 1815 to the end of 1832. The table contained twelve columns, and he would first read what those columns contain: [Here the hon. Member read the following table.]

rose to order, and complained that the hon. Member's speech had reference to a scale of prices unconnected with the Motion.

did not know why the hon. Member should have spoken to order, when he (Mr. Fielden) was showing the distress which had arisen from the operation of the right hon. Baronet's Bill. Did the hon. Member think he should support a motion like this, without giving his reasons for doing so? He could see no necessity for this interruption, nor for the repeated cries of "Oh! Oh!" He hoped hon. Members would let him proceed to the end of what he had to offer. He assured them he would not be put down by noise and clamour. He was sent there to represent the labouring and manufacturing classes, who expected their case would be attended to in a Reformed Parliament differently from the manner in which it was now received. He and they had hoped that he was sent to a deliberative assembly to discuss and determine for the people's good; but, when he went back to his constituents and told them that when he recapitulated the fatal effects of the right hon. Baronet's measures, and the instances in which their interests were sacrificed, to their utter ruin, he was only laughed at by hon. Members, could they think that such conduct would give satisfaction? Such conduct was very unbecoming, and ought not to be practised in the House. The best way to cause him to sit down would be to listen to him patiently until he had concluded what he had to say. He had other matter to state to the House as a reason for the vote he should give on this question. In 1829, during a period of severe distress, he and a number of other manufacturers met at Burnley, to represent the distress that prevailed in that district to the right hon. Baronet, then Secretary for the Home Department, and he would read the memorial which was sent up on that occasion to their county Member, Lord Stanley, and the answer of the right hon. Baronet. But before doing so, he would just observe, that this distress was so great in the manufacturing districts, that the boroughreeve of the loyal town of Manchester, for the first time in his (Mr. Fielden's) experience, called a public meeting in that town to petition Parliament or to memorialize the King upon the subject. The memorial he had mentioned, was as follows:—

To the Right Honourable Robert Peel, his Majesty's Secretary of Slate for the Home Department.

Sheweth,—That your petitioners, deeply impressed with a sense of the increasing distress of the manufacturing and labouring population within the hundred of Blackburn (which hundred contains, according to the last census, 148,704 individuals), have taken measures for the assembling of a few of the cotton manufacturers of that district, preparatory to which they had caused to be made accurate surveys of the poor in about half-a-dozen townships in which they might expect immediate co-operation in their object, and that such surveys being completed, they had intended to have prosecuted the inquiry upon a more extensive scale. But your petitioners being now assembled at the Bull Inn in Burnley, on the first day of May, 1829, and being furnished with the several returns from townships hereafter alluded to, feel themselves so alarmed with the result, that they are impelled at once to submit it to you without losing the time which must be consumed in obtaining more numerous returns.

That they feel themselves the more justified in this course, because they believe that the few returns already furnished, will exhibit a tolerably correct view of the general state of the trade, and of the population throughout the whole district.

That the result of these returns shows that, in the seven townships of Colne, Foulbridge, Tramden, Marsden, Barrowford, Higham, Goldshard, and Roughler, containing, in the whole, a population of 19,869 individuals, there are 5,137 persons (approaching to one-third of the whole), whose weekly income, arising from labour, varying from 18d. to 2s., presents an average weekly income per head of 19d.; and there are 1,743 persons (being one-eleventh part of the whole) whose weekly income, from the like source, varying from 2s. to 2s. 6d., presents an average weekly income per head of 2s. 3d.; thus showing that better than one-half of the whole population do not earn, on an average, more than 15¾d. per head per week, from which there are considerable outgoings, leaving a clear income applicable for food, clothing, and rent, and other necessaries, of less than 2d. a-head per day. That, notwithstanding this small pittance is the full income of so large a population, it may be safely stated that they are, at least at present, in full employment; but your petitioners are afraid that such full employment cannot long be continued, as even, according to the present state of wages, the manufacturers cannot dispose of their commodities at a remunerating price.

That the property within the above township liable to the poor-rate is so overwhelmed with public charges that it does not at present afford more assistance in the shape of parochial relief than about 12d. per head per week in addition to the earnings—thus showing that, even including parochial relief, the weekly income of more than one-half of the population does not exceed, on an average, 17¼d. per head per week.

That your petitioners ascribe this miserable state of the poor to the present very low state of wages, which are already under the lowest state which they fell to in the distressed times of 1825–26, whilst the price of provisions in general is considerably higher than at that period.

That your petitioners do not venture to give any opinion on the cause producing this low state of wages, nor to suggest any remedies for the same; but they content themselves with this simple statement of facts, to which they respectfully, but earnestly, entreat your immediate attention.

(Signed)

James Grimshaw,

said, that, influenced by the respect which he entertained for the tribunal before which he was arraigned, he should treat the charge as if it had been preferred against him by some man of great weight and influence, who acting according to his conscientious conviction, and stimulated by an imperative sense of duty, felt it necessary that in his person a public example should be made, and that he should be subject to the highest penalty which could be inflicted on any one admitted to his Majesty's Councils. He would take for granted that the hon. Gentleman conscientiously believed it to be incumbent upon him to call upon the House to inflict the greatest public disgrace which they could inflict, as a warning to future Ministers. It certainly appeared strange to him that the hon. Gentleman should conscientiously entertain that opinion, when, only a few nights ago, he had openly avowed in that House, that when he compared him (Sir Robert Peel) to others who had been concerned in the same measures, he thought him an angel of spotless purity. That the hon. Gentleman should, after such an avowal, think it reconcileable with justice, to select him as the special and single victim for punishment, warranted a suspicion that other objects than those of public justice were contemplated by the hon. Gentleman. Two months had now elapsed since the notice of this Motion was first given, and up to this hour he had never received the slightest intimation of the specific ground on which he was to be put upon his trial. Whether the charge was a corrupt motive, or ignorance, or wilful misconduct, he was left to guess from the vague notice of the hon. Gentleman's Motion. He now under- stood from his speech of to-night, that the hon. Gentleman was convinced that he (Sir Robert Peel) had not been swayed in the slightest degree by any views to self-interest, or by any motives of a personal nature; but then the hon. Gentleman maintained, that he had been guilty of gross and unpardonable ignorance in the discharge of his public duties, and that, therefore, he ought to be dismissed from his Majesty's Councils by a vote of the House of Commons. Would it not have been fair in the hon. Gentleman, when he was drawing up his long and elaborate bill of indictment, to have communicated to the accused the specific offences for which he was to be put upon his trial, in order that he might have had the ordinary opportunity of meeting the accusation and of preparing for his defence? Was it consistent with justice, with candour, or with ordinary usage, that he should hear that night, for the first time, this tissue of accusations? Accusations of what? Of something that he did in the years 1819, 1822, and 1826. And then the hon. Member who had seconded the Motion had not confined himself to proceedings connected with the currency—but had said, on the contrary, that he would vote for his dismissal on account of an answer which he had returned to a memorial addressed to him from a party of manufacturers who had assembled on the subject of wages at the Bull Inn at Burnley. The hon. Member had read the memorial, and read what the hon. Member had called the answer; but the fact was, that this was not an answer to the memorial, but an answer to a letter that he had received from Lord Stanley upon a different subject, which letter the hon. member for Oldham (Mr. Fielden) had thought fit to suppress. The hon. Member (Mr. Fielden) had said, that he and his friends had met at the Bull Inn, and had addressed to him (Sir Robert Peel) a statement respecting wages, and that they had received from him by way of reply a letter about sending them troops, for which they had never applied. Such had been the statement of the hon. member for Oldham. But suppose that Lord Stanley had addressed to him (Sir Robert Peel) a representation upon the danger to the public peace existing in the county of Lancashire, and suppose that the letter referring to troops was in answer to the representation of the noble Lord, who had been foreman of the Grand Jury, and had made a communication to him officially in his public capacity: suppose the case was thus (as, if reference were made to the documents in the department of the Secretary of State's Office he believed it would prove to be), he asked the House with what justice the hon. Member could read his answer to the House, and at the same time withhold the communication to which that letter was the reply? He asked, with what sense of justice, with what feelings of common decency, the hon. Member could urge this as a sufficient ground to dismiss him from his Majesty's Councils? Suppose he had mis-conducted himself with respect to the men who had met at the Bull Inn, on the subject of wages, why had not the hon. Member the courage to bring a charge against him by a distinct motion, having express reference to that transaction? What connexion had it with the Currency Question, on which he was arraigned by the hon. Member for Oldham? Why had not the hon. Member, who dwelt so much on his twelve columns about the price of muslins and calicoes—why, if the distress of the country, or of any part of the country, was a fair subject for the consideration of Parliament (and he fully admitted, that it was)—why had he not brought it forward in a fair and manly manner?—why had he not, instead of accusing him in this pitiful, sneaking, skulking way, proposed some better remedy for the distress of the people, some surer method of raising the price of his muslins and his calicoes, than the dismissal of one man from the Councils of the King? But both the hon. Gentlemen were as ignorant of facts and of forms as they were ready to assail him. If the hon. Member had communicated to him his Resolutions, he would have so far corrected them, that they should not have abounded with misrepresentations, and false statements of notorious facts. The Resolutions began by stating, 'That, according to the laws and customs of this kingdom, the King, our Sovereign Lord, can do no wrong to the whole, to any part, or to any one, of his subjects: that, however, effectually to guard against wrong being in his Majesty's name, and under his authority, done to his subjects with impunity, the same laws and customs which have, as our birth-right, descended to us from our just and wise forefathers, make all and every one, acting in that name and under that authority, fully and really responsible to the good people of this kingdom for every wrong done unto them by any and every person invested with such authority; and that, in virtue of such responsibility, the wrong-doing party is subject to such censures, pains, and penalties, as, in virtue of the said laws and customs, the several tribunals of the kingdom have, in all ages, been wont to inflict; that if this responsibility were not real and practical, we should be living under not only a despotism, but an avowed despotism, for the King, being in-capable of wrong-doing, and his servants being responsible merely in name and form, and not in practice, they also can do no wrong, and then the people of this renowned kingdom, the cradle of true liberty, would be the most wretched slaves ever yet heard of under the sun; that, in cases where the wrong doing is committed by inferior functionaries, or is, in its effects, confined to individuals, or to small numbers of sufferers, the ordinary courts of justice have usually been deemed competent to afford redress to the injured; but that, when the wrong is the act of a Minister of State, sworn to advise the King for the good of his people, when that Minister of State receives, as a reward for his fidelity and skill, large sums of the people's money'—The first charge then against him was, that he was a Minister of the Crown sworn to advise the Crown, to the best of his ability, and in the receipt of a large salary for performing that duty, when he contributed to pass the Act of 1819. Unfortunately for this charge, in the year 1819, he was not Minister of the Crown, he was not a sworn adviser of the Crown, nor was he ill the receipt of one farthing of the public money. The hon. Gentleman insinuated—by way of aggravation of this charge, that he being in the receipt of large sums of the public money, had increased his official salary, by increasing in 1819 the value of money. Now the truth was, that in 1819, when the value of money was raised, he had no salary, and in 1822, when, according to the hon. Gentleman, the value of money was lowered, he was a Minister, and he had a salary. The fatal Act of 1819, as it was called, was not introduced by him in his capacity of Minister, but a private Member of the House of Commons. The Motion of the hon. Gentleman, therefore, if made at all, ought to be, not for his dismissal from the Privy Council, but for his expulsion from the House of Commons. This Act of 1819 was in no respect the offspring of any advice he gave to the King, for he was not then in office, nor connected with the Government. He had left office in the preceding year, 1818; he had given no advice to his Majesty whatever on the subject; he was asked by the Government whether he had any objection to take the Chair of the Committee of that House, which was then about to be appointed to inquire into the subject of the Currency; he had replied that he had given his vote in favour of Mr. Vansittart's Resolutions in 1811, without a full consideration of the subject, and that he must reserve to himself the right of taking a course perfectly unfettered either by his own former votes, or the opinions of any member of the Government. The result of more mature consideration and of the inquiry before the Committee, was a conviction on his part, that cash payments ought to be resumed, and he had acted upon that conviction. But as he had before observed, he acted on it as an individual Member of Parliament, not as an adviser of the Crown, and therefore the Motion of that night ought to be for his expulsion from the House. The charge against him was, that he had over-persuaded—that he had deluded by a speech, an innocent and unsuspecting House of Commons. But he must first have deluded the Select Committee, on whose Report the Bill and his speech were founded. But who deluded the House of Lords? for that House was also a party to the whole proceeding to which it gave a cordial and unanimous assent. The hon. Gentleman was grossly ignorant of every fact connected with the case. He charged him with having introduced three measures as a Minister of State, when in fact he had introduced only one of them, and that one not in the capacity of a Minister of the Crown. When the other two measures were brought forward, he was a member of the Government, but he was not the introducer of either of them. These three Bills passed through the two Houses of Parliament in the years-1819, 1822, and 1826. The Bill of 1819 was the only one which he had introduced, and that was founded on the Report of the Committee; to that Report no exceptions were taken, and the Bill passed through the House of Commons without a division. The Bill of 1822, the hon. Gentleman said, was a Bill notoriously brought in to repeal the Act of 1819; and he had declared it to be grossly inconsistent to bring in a Bill in the year 1822 to repeal the Act of 1819. There might be a man gifted with faculties of so high an order that no charge of inconsistency could ever be brought against him—a man of such clear apprehension, of such profound penetration, of such consummate judgment, that he never had held opposite opinions on any subject—one whose pen never contradicted his tongue, and was never inconsistent with itself;—such a man might be entitled to address him to the argumentum ad hominem—to arraign him for the want of consistency. He would, however, whisper to the hon. Member, that he was not the man; that from no quarter could the charge of inconsistency proceed with so bad a grace. The charge of inconsistency brought against poor short-sighted human beings as to the effects of political measures—this accusation, that politicians had not penetrated into futurity—had not foreseen all the remote consequences of the measures they introduced—that made wise by experience, they had been compelled to recede and repair their errors—argued either consummate wisdom, or consummate assurance in him who preferred it. But, after all, was the Act of 1822 tantamount to a repeal of the Act of 1819. What had Mr. Huskisson said of the bill of 1822? Mr. Huskisson said, "the present plan so far from being suggested because the measure of 1819 was repented of, was at all points perfectly consistent with that measure; and he (Mr. Huskisson) in the Committee upon the Bill of 1819, had actually proposed that the present plan should at that time be recommended to Parliament."^* These were questions on which hon. Gentlemen differed then, and differ now; but if the House assented to the motion for dismissing him from his Majesty's Privy Council, would it not actutually decide the whole of these questions? He would again say, that he still felt that it was right to try the experiment of the year 1826; but subsequent experience had convinced him that he could not permit the issue of the one and

^* Hansard (new series) vi. p. 206.

two pound notes without practically banishing the gold, and undermining the basis on which the great superstructure of the currency was built. It was this consideration that had induced the Government to shorten the period for which the small notes had been issued. He was sorry to occupy the time of the House by such statements; but he dared to say that the hon. Gentleman would pronounce that he had entirely shrunk from the question, if he did not enter into the details of the policy of the Acts of both the years 1819, 1822, and 1826. But the proper time for discussing the policy of these Acts was when the question of the currency was before the House the other night, and on that occasion, he had declared, that in the year 1819, it was very difficult to have taken any other course than that which had been adopted. However, the policy of the different Acts had then been discussed; he would not further waste the time of the House by referring to it, as the real question for them to determine now was whether he (Sir Robert Peel), on the ground of interested motives, or on the ground of utter ignorance, or what was far worse, in defiance of the solemn warning which he and all mankind had received from the oracular predictions of the hon. member for Oldham, had pursued a line of policy for which he ought now, by a vote of that House, to be dismissed for ever from his Majesty's Privy Council.—When the three measures were passed, what was the sense entertained of them by the House of Commons? The Bill of 1819 went through that House, as he had said before, without any opposition whatever, and without one single division either on its principle, or on any one of its details. In the year 1822 the Bill underwent very little discussion. There was only one division upon it in its progress through that House. And though now described in terms of such strong condemnation by the hon. Member, it was then opposed only on the second reading. He had certainly not deluded the House on that occasion, for he had taken no part in the discussion, and when the House was divided on the second reading how many gentlemen voted against it? Why, only four.—In the year 1826 the Bill had undergone repeated discussions, and, he believed, several divisions, and at last the House had divided on the third reading. What was the division in that case? Why, the numbers were for the third reading 108, and against it 9. To the whole of the three Bills, therefore, of 1819, 1822, and 1826, the total opposition that could be mustered was 13, out of a House of 658 Members. Was he to be dismissed the Privy Council for measures which the House had ratified by such large majorities? He was then dealing with the Motion on its merits, and supposing it to be brought forward on conscientious grounds. If he had any private account to settle with the hon. Gentleman he would defer that for the present, but he could assure him that he would pay him his obligation in a currency not in the least depreciated, and he would not follow the hon. Gentleman's convenient doctrine with respect to the liability of persons to fulfil their engagements. He would now come to the charge that he had deluded the House. He was obliged to take the charges irregularly and inconsistently, as he had heard them from the hon. Gentleman. He was charged with having committed an act of folly, rendered even criminal by not having duly paid sufficient attention to the solemn warning which the hon. Member had been pleased to give upon the subject. The hon. Gentleman declared that there had been persons who had foreseen the consequences of these measures, and that they had endeavoured to persuade him of those consequences, but that, notwithstanding all their efforts, he had neglected their warnings, and that he was therefore to be held responsible, first for all the iniquity of the Act, and secondly for persevering in the measures after he had been favoured with such advice. The hon. Member did not, indeed, name himself as one of the prophets, but it was impossible not to see that the hon Member's aim was quite as much to extol his own powers of vaticination, as to expose the defect of judgment in others. To go back to 1819, he was then merely a Member of Parliament, and had been invited to belong to a Committee which was to be appointed, in order to consider what ought to be done under the then existing circumstances of the country. There were only three courses to pursue. The first was that which had been proposed by Mr. Western. That hon. Gentleman, then a member of the House of Commons, had proposed that the paper money should be kept at the height at which it then was, in order to ensure the continuance of war prices, and by which it was maintained, that all the consequences which had resulted from his bill might have been avoided. The second course that might have been taken was one which had been suggested by some Gentlemen, and was nothing less than that there should be an actual and permanent depreciation of the standard. Some Gentlemen at that period maintained that there had been a virtual and actual depreciation of the standard value of the coinage during the war, and that the ounce of gold no longer represented the sum of 3l. 17s. 10½d., but 5l., or even 5l. 10s.; and they argued that reverting to cash payments ought to have been accompanied by a piper convertible into gold, but gold depreciated in amount. The third plan was that which had been adopted, viz., to revert to the old standard of the country. The hon. Gentleman exclaimed: "Ay, I foretold all the consequences, and I charge with the guilt of all the calamities that ensued all who did not attend lo me, and they must be denounced and expelled from the King's Councils; for I prophesied all that would happen—let justice be done—you must be debased, but I exalted!" He wished not only to defend himself, but to destroy the hon. Gentleman's character as a prophet, which it was not his second object on this occasion to establish. He was vain enough to flatter himself, that he should find very little difficulty in showing that his claims to oracular wisdom in this respect were but shallow and presumptive. The hon. Member's bill of indictment charged the whole of the existing difficulties of the country to the Act of 1819. The hon. Member's memory perhaps failed him, but, at all events, his opinions in 1822 were not the same as his opinions now. He would ask any Gentleman in that House, whether he could reconcile this with what he had said in his letter addressed to Mr. Western on that occasion?—These were the hon. Member's words:—'In the first place I have to remind you, as I did Mr. Wodehouse, that the Act of 1797, and those by which it was continued, provided for a return to cash payments at the end of six months after the making of peace, and these payments are not yet come at the end of seven years after making the peace. So that the Bill of 1819 was really a relaxation of the Pitt system which would have sewed you up in six months after the peace was made. It would have taken away your estate seven years ago. And when you are crying; out "spoliation," and "confiscation," when you are bawling out so lustily about the robbery committed on you by the fundholders and placemen, and are praising the infernal Pitt system at the same time, you seem to forget that these people always plead, and very justly, the Act of 1797 in support of their present demands. You say, they are receiving, the fund vagabonds in particular, more than they ought. You say, they are paid back more than they lent. You say, that they lent in one sort of money, and are paid in another. This is all very true; but is not this perfectly unfavorable to the Pitt system? And do not the Jewish vagabonds tell you so? Do they not say, or rather their supporters for them, that they lent their money upon the faith of the law, which said they should get their interest in cash at the peace. The measure of 1819 tardily began to prepare for doing what the Act of 1797 commanded to be done long before. What do you mean then by saying that the Act of 1797 cannot excuse the measures of 1819? Common sense would suppose you to mean that the former Act could not excuse the latter for coming so late; could not excuse it for not coming to execute justice upon the hare and pheasant gentry seven years ago, agreeably to "good faith" with the Jews, and the "dead weight." This is the way in which common sense would interpret your words, but you, the great Essex statesman, despise the interpretations of common sense.' Was the distress of the country attributable to the Act of 1819, or was it possible to avoid that Act? Let the hon. Member decide the question: 'The point, he said, we had attained was poor-rates of 8,000,000l. a-year, and labourers in rags, and drinking water, and driven out of the farm-houses, and winter subscriptions for the houseless, and men chained to carts drawing gravel—that was "the point we had attained." You will please to bear that in mind. If the devil himself had been the author of the system, he could not have brought us to a much worse point; and yet the great subject of your lamentation is that this system was not persevered in. However, the question is, was it in the power of the Government to uphold that sys- tem? You say it was—I say it was not. And this is a great question; because you and many others are wanting to bring the system back. I shall, hereafter, show the folly and injustice of what you call your remedy; but I am here to show, that the Government had not the power (if it meant to preserve itself) to uphold the base paper system. At the time when Peel's Bill was passed, the country was actually upon the eve of open rebellion. It was not six Acts that quieted the people, but low prices. The most populous parts of the kingdom could not be kept from rising in arms, with the price of provisions what they had been during the war. Manufactures must, in a great measure, have ceased, when the markets of the world became open in consequence of peace, if our price of food had not been lowered, If the vile and foolish Corn Bill had not proved a dead letter, the manufactures must have been nearly put an end to as far as related to export. That Bill was intended to do for the landlords what the paper-money had been doing for them; but it, luckily, failed of its object. Have peace at home the Government could not, without reducing the price of the necessaries of life. Besides this, the "rapid advances" in the science of forgery threatened to annihilate the base system by its own means. Nearly one-half of the notes in circulation, in some parts of the kingdom, were forgeries. It was become evident that a stop must be put to the hangings; and yet, without the hangings, what could at all check the forgeries? Then, again, it was as clear as daylight that, in case of war, our enemies would attack us in our own old way with regard to the French assignats. That they could do it was evident, and it was not less evident that the whole thing might at any time be puffed out at a very trifling expense. I was thought to be joking when I said so; but I now repeat, with perfect seriousness, that I not only believe the thing could have been done, but that it would have been done if Peel's Bill had not been passed. Why, continued the right hon. Baronet, the hon. Member himself did try "to puff the whole thing-out," for he recommended as strongly as he could the forging of bank paper. When they considered the great talents of the hon. Gentleman, and that he recommended forgery for the purpose of precipitating the downfall of the system, was it not too much for the same man now to turn round and threaten him with an indictment for having brought in a Bill to guard against the evils which the hon. Member himself had used so much exertion to cause. What he had quoted was published in the year 1822. It was acute reasoning, and he had seen no defence of the Bill of 1819 equal to the defence of it, which the hon. Gentleman had made. The hon. Gentleman had proved, that the Government had not had the power to continue the paper system; that it had run its inevitable course; that bankruptcy must have been declared but for the return to gold; nay, that we were on the eve of civil war on account of the distress and sufferings caused to the industrious poor by the paper system. The House would perceive, that the hon. Member treated Mr. Western as the great advocate for continuing the paper currency at its then value. There was, however, another scheme recommended to Parliament, which was to let the ounce of gold pass for 5l. instead of 3l. 17s. 10¼d. This would have been so far consistent with the principle of the Act of 1819, that paper would have been convertible into gold, but that the standard of value would have been greatly lowered. That proposition also met with no favour from the hon. Gentleman. All the indignation and ridicule which the hon. Member had poured out on Mr. Western fell far short of that which he reserved for those who advocated an alteration of the standard. The great supporter of this plan, the debasing of the standard, was a gentleman from Birmingham, on whom the hon. Gentleman conferred a title, which he believed and hoped was still retained. In all the controversy which he had carried on with him, the hon. Member never called him by any other name than "My Lord Little Shilling," His Lordship had published long pamphlets on the subject, but the hon. Gentleman's contempt for him was such that he would never reason with him, and had always thrust all his arguments aside as the trash of "My Lord Little Shilling." The hon. Member had also addressed a letter to Lord Folkestone, whom he had described as taking wider views on the subject of the currency than any other Member of Parliament. Lord Folkestone, not with standing the enlarge- ment of his views, proposed a debasement of the standard. The hon. member for Oldham had referred to the noble Lord in one of his most characteristic papers. He said, 'You have borrowed from me one or two sound principles; but the application of them is all your own. Your arguments are altogether yours, and are of the weakest description.' The hon. Gentleman (continued Sir Robert) went on to show, that the difficulty of reverting to the ancient standard was very great, and he had opposed all these plans for reducing the standard in a most able manner. The hon. Gentleman said, that the country must resume payments in gold, and must return to the ancient standard; and what then was the difference between the hon. Gentleman and himself? The difference was this. The hon. Gentleman said, that, on resuming cash payments, we must resume the ancient standard, but must at the same time proceed forcibly to reduce the Debt; and that we must resume the Church Lands [Mr. Cobbett said, he had made no such proposal in that House]. Oh, no; there was nothing of that kind in the present Resolutions, but he considered the hon. Gentleman as a public man; and if he adopted any line of argument out of the House different from what he used in the House, he would hold him responsible there for the language the hon. Member used [" No," from Mr. Cobbett]. He said yes. There was no public man who had claimed to exercise any influence over the public mind, for which he was not to be held responsible. The hon. Gentleman, then, was an advocate for reverting to the ancient standard; but he proposed with that a forcible reduction of the interest of the National Debt, or rather, a refusal to pay the just amount of interest. He said, that we paid too much to the public creditor. The only other point of difference between him and the hon. Gentleman was, that the hon. Gentleman said, that the country could not afford to pay pensions and large salaries, and they must be reduced. But there was no man in Parliament who would support a proposition similar to that of the hon. Gentleman. He was like the Phoenix of Cowley, "A vast species alone." He certainly had not adopted the hon. Member's views, and never had proposed, and never would propose, any measure which was a breach of public faith. But what did the hon. Gen- tleman say in answer to Mr. Western? "When you are crying out for confiscation and spoliation, by bawling out about robbery committed by the public creditor, you forget that these men always appealed to the Act of 1797, and very justly." Thus the hon. Gentleman's own opinion was, that the public creditor relied "very justly" on the Act of 1819, for repayment of his debt in gold. With what pretence then could the hon. Gentleman propose to reduce that debt? He would next refer to what the hon. Gentleman had said about the condition of the labouring classes. The hon. Gentleman had read a Resolution of certain Magistrates of Hampshire, which he said was a consequence of the Act of 1819. But the hon. Gentleman ought to have contrasted the situation of the labouring classes when that Resolution was passed, with their situation in 1819. "In 1819," said the hon. member for Oldham (and Sir Robert again quoted The Register to the following effect), "the Poor-rates were eight millions—the labourers were in rags—they were chained to carts—they had been banished from the farm-houses—they had no places but the worst hovels to dwell in—and if the devil himself had invented a system, he could not have invented one of greater suffering than that of which he was lamenting the consequence." He had followed the hon. Gentleman with the closest attention, and it was clear, that the only point of difference between him and the hon. Gentleman was not as to the propriety of resuming the ancient standard, but as to the policy and justice of other concomitant measures. The hon. Member required that the national establishments should be forthwith reduced; and because he (Sir Robert Peel) had not made that reduction, and because he had not made the proposition to reduce the interest of the Debt, which no hon. Member had made, or had the courage or the dishonesty to make; because he had not made the proposition, the hon. Member now moved an Address to the Crown to remove him from the Privy Council. He would not make any such proposition, and he would rather be dismissed from ten Privy Councils, if that were possible, than make such a proposition, He was to be dismissed, too, because he had not made such a proposition, when, according to the hon. Gentleman himself, the public creditor relied on the Act of 1797, and relied upon it "very justly." There was not, then, a shadow of difference between him and the hon. Member; they both agreed that the ancient standard should be resumed, and that the public creditor was entitled to expect justice, and not to be fleeced. The hon. Gentleman said, that sinecures should be reduced. If there were any sinecures, let them be reduced; but let no man cherish the notion, that any relief which could be obtained by the reduction of sinecures would be of the least avail. It would be like a drop in the Pacific Ocean. There were in fact no sinecures to abolish. He was ready to reduce establishments, not to the nominal state of any former period, but to that state which was compatible with the present security of the public, and the honour of the country. So much for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman—the public, plausible, parliamentary, grounds of the Motion! The other hon. member for Oldham had referred to the answer he had returned to the representations made of great distress in 1829, and to his taking no means to remove that distress. But at that very time he had sent persons to Burnley, Blackburn, and to other districts of Lancashire, to make inquiries into the distress, and he had given them authority where the distress was most severe, to relieve it; but they were instructed to say nothing of that authority, and indeed to be careful not to allow it to be known that they were agents of Government. If that had been publicly proclaimed, the whole object of the inquiry would have been defeated, and personal exertions on the part of those who were on the spot, would have been greatly relaxed. It was often necessary for the Government to conceal its intentions of relieving distress, otherwise its objects would be defeated. He denied that the expressions of the letter of 1829 betrayed any indifference to the distress of the people. He had promised to bring those complaints under the consideration of the Government, and he had done so, but he could not disclose or reason upon the plans of relief. Suppose part of the plan of relief to be a reduction of taxation, how could he prematurely mention that? He would not enter into details to refute the hon. Gentleman, who thought, because distress existed, and because relief was not instantly promised, and the mode of relief explained, that therefore public men were to be dis- missed from the Councils of the King. But what was the real object of the Motion of the hon. Member? The hon. Member well knew that he had not laid any parliamentary grounds for his Motion. The hon. Member said he anticipated a large majority. The hon. Member expected no such thing. The hon. Gentleman knew, that a motion so eminently absurd had no chance of success. The best answer to his motion was that incredulous burst of laughter with which his first announcement of it was greeted, and which would have penetrated any integuments less tough than the skin of the hon. Member. The hon. Member knew perfectly well, that it was hopeless to expect that the House of Commons would inflict any censure on one man for the faults of a whole Parliament, when, in the course of repeated discussions during seven years, only fifteen persons could be found in the Parliament to dispute or doubt the proposition on which the Bill of 1819 was founded. He knew that the House was opposed to the Motion of the hon. Member, but he would state, without any delicacy, what he believed to be the real motive—the unavowed object contemplated by the hon. Gentleman, in a motion which connected his (Sir Robert Peel's) name with all the calamities of the country, and all the distresses of the labouring classes. If he had taken another course, he was not mad enough to believe that he could have escaped the indignation of the hon. Gentleman. Suppose he had agreed with his hon. and much venerated relative, from whom he had, on that occasion, the misfortune to differ—suppose he had agreed that the continuation of the issue of paper money was safe—suppose he had not avowed the opinions he entertained, could he have escaped the hon. Gentleman's censure and vituperation? In one of the hon. Gentleman's books—the volume for 1819,—he found a letter addressed "To Sir Robert Peel, Baronet and Cotton-weaver." "Cotton Weaver!" There was nothing in the whole range of scurrility more disgraceful—nothing which was so offensive in the organs and instruments of party—as that scurrility which sought to depreciate a man because he had raised himself from obscurity by his own talents and exertions. The hon. Member addressed his letter "to Sir Robert Peel, Baronet and Cotton-weaver." When the hon. Gentleman wanted to get into Parliament, he did not disdain the assistance of a cotton-weaver. There were no men who were more distinguished for a vulgar deference to mere rank, than those who assailed it with scurrility, and affected to be superior to all prejudices—to be the chosen champions of liberty and equality. It was to them the most grievous offence that any man should emerge from that class amongst which they were destined to remain. They taunted him with the obscurity of his birth, as if they were themselves the descendants of the Courtenays and Montmorencies: but no; if they were, they would be too generous to despise those who had opened for themselves the avenues to fame and eminence. The illustrious blood which flowed in the veins of the really noble made them too generous to begrudge others the reward of their own exertions, and the public honours which industry and integrity could command. To make it a matter of reproach to any man that he was of humble origin, denoted nothing but inherent vulgarity of mind. And in this age, and with the principles of Government now prevalent, to taunt a man that he had raised himself to a station of eminence by his own exertions and his own talents, reflected discredit on the author, and not on the object of the calumny. So far from that taunt causing him any shame, he felt only proud. He professed the greatest respect for those who could boast of hereditary honours, but he professed equal respect for those new families, which had been raised to distinction by the virtue and talents of their founder. He had had the misfortune to differ from his father on the question of the currency, but the hon. Gentleman would not have spared him had he adopted the opinions of one whom he was bound to respect. And he would here remind the seconder of the Motion who put the hypothetical case of two brothers—A and B—A being a fundholder, and B a landholder; and contrasted the sufferings of B with the prosperity of A—B having suffered a depreciation of his property of twenty-five per cent. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that he himself, the object of his attack, was brother B. The question was, whether, if he had agreed with his lamented parent, would he have escaped this Motion; and though he might have escaped the public plausible motion, would he have escaped that which was the real, though unavowed object of the Motion? The hon. Member concluded the long letter to Sir Robert Peel, in which be attempted in every possible way to degrade him for having supported the Bill system, thus: The right hon. Baronet then proceeded to read the letter: "Now, Sir Robert Peel, I care little whether you reflect on these truths or not. I know well what is coming (those words being in Italics), and if I put your name at the head of this letter, it is not to reason with you, but to point you out" (also in Italics). What was the meaning of these Italics? Could the hon. Gentleman say, they had any good object? What could he mean by putting in Italics, "I know well what is coming?" and that his object in addressing Sir Robert Peel was, not to reason with him, but to point him out. He knew well what the object was, and no motives of false delicacy should prevent him from doing what he believed to be a public good, and to declare that, in his opinion, the hon. Gentleman had speculated then, and was speculating now, on the chances of public confusion. The intention of the present Motion was "to point him out." He did not make this charge on light grounds; he did not rest merely on the letter of 1819. He would refer to a later period, when they would find the hon. Member addressing the labouring classes, the physical strength of the country, and maintaining similar doctrines to those to which he had just alluded. On the 6th of April 1833, the hon. Gentleman recommended the formation, in different parts of the country, of what he called defence associations, the objects of which were to obtain, in reference to the direct taxes, an accurate list of the names and places of residence of all the great landowners in each county; to ascertain, as nearly as possible, when each of them came to his estate, and whether he got it by purchase, heirship, or bequest; and also to ascertain the probable worth of it. That a man talking as the hon. Member was in the habit of talking, of his attachment to liberty, should recommend the intolerable tyranny of this commission, to inquire into the nature and amount of property with a view to ulterior measures, was disgusting in the highest degree. The association was 'to cause to be printed, at a very cheap rate, a true pedigree of every great landowner showing how much of the public money he or any of his relations have received, not omitting his predecessors for three or four generations; showing how he came by his estate, and particularly showing whether the men, women, or children appertaining to him, are, or have been, on the pension or sinecure list, and to cause a sufficient number of these papers to be circulated amongst the industrious classes in his own immiediate neighbourhood, so that we may all know one another well." This,' continued the hon. Member, 'is the sort of commission that is wanted, and I would call it the reckoning commission, for it is absolutely necessary that we begin to make up our accounts and to have them ready. It would be a sad thing for us to be taken by surprise. When we all know one another well, we shall easily arrange matters quietly, we shall easily come to an equitable adjustment.' Now, where was the fairness—where was the courage In thus inciting the thoughtless and the ignorant to acts which would involve them in certain punishment—of adopting a course and throwing out recommendations, the effect of which was to drive men to desperation? The hon. Member could have no object but one connected with the accomplishment of that end which now led him, looking to public confusion, or "equitable adjustment," to bring forward the present Motion in order to point him (Sir Robert Peel) out in reference to this "reckoning commission," as in 1819 he had pointed out his father, "knowing well what was coming." It was on public grounds that the hon. Member assailed him. The hon. Member had not the same motives for attacking him which he had had for attacking others. He had never lent the hon. Member his confidence; from him the hon. Member had never received any obligation. His object doubtless was to strike terror by the threat of his denunciations, to discourage opposition from the fear of being signalized as a victim. But he told the gentlemen of England, that their best security was in boldly facing and defying these insidious efforts. God forbid that the hon Member's speculations on the prospect of "public confusion" should be realized. He laboured under no apprehension that they would. He felt confident, whatever might be the political differences that divided public men, that all who were interested in the upholding of law and property, would unite in their defence and put down such attempts. Not only would it be the greatest calamity, but a calamity embittered by the greatest disgrace, to live under such an ignoble tyranny as this.

Come the eleventh plague, rather than this should be;

Come sink us rather in the sea;

Come rather pestilence, and reap us down;

Come God's sword, rather than our own.

Let rather Roman come again,

Or Saxon, Norman, or the Dane.

In all the bonds we ever bore,

We grieved, we sighed, we wept; we never blushed before.

"But blush indeed we shall, if we submit to this base and vulgar domination; and I for one, believing as I do, when I read these comments of the hon. Member, and consider his present Motion, that I have been selected as an object of attack for the purpose of discouraging resistance to the insidious efforts which the hon. Gentleman is daily making to weaken the foundations of property, and the authority of law, I will at least preserve myself from the reproach of having furthered the objects he has in view, by any symptom of intimidation or submission."

, in rising to reply, was received with the strongest manifestations of disapprobation from both sides of the House. The hon. Member said, that more calumnious insinuations and more groundless charges than those brought against him on the present occasion had never been heard within the walls of Parliament [shouts of dissent]. If order was not observed while vindicating himself, he would move the adjournment of the House. If the House felt mortified in hearing him, they ought to feel still more mortification at having swallowed their own words on the 30th of April in reference to the Malt-tax. If they did not listen to him while he answered the speech of the right hon. Baronet, they would stand before the world in a light which he would not attempt to describe [the shouting increased]. If this interruption were continued, he must pronounce this to be the most unjust Assembly ever known. Nine-tenths of the right hon. Baronet's defence consisted of extracts read from books which were written by him (Mr. Cobbett), and the rest was made up of vulgar abuse and falsehood [Interruption from all parts of the House.]

interposed to order, and said, the hon. Member had uttered language which no Gentleman was entitled to use, and for which he was bound to apologise.

Sir, I most readily apologise to the House. If the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would only take off the Malt-tax, the House and Window-tax, and the taxes on soap and candles, he might set at naught all speculation in public confusion. But, Sir, I would much rather see public confusion than see the people trampled upon and knocked on the head, as they have been within the last few days [Here the hon. Member abruptly resumed his seat, finding it impossible to proceed any further].

then said: I am not aware of any precedent for the course which I am now about to call upon the House to pursue. But never in my memory, or within my knowledge, has a personal attack been made within these walls upon such grounds, or supported like the present. I feel, therefore, that it is unnecessary to detain the House by any further expression of opinion, being confident that the feelings of every hon. Gentleman will respond to my own, and agree to this proposition—"That the Resolution which has been moved be not entered on the Minutes."

put the Question, "that the proceedings be expunged."

The noble Lord has moved that the motion be not inserted in the Minutes of the Proceedings of the House. That, however, is not the way in which the Speaker has put the Question.

I will explain why I put the Question in the terms in which I did. The minutes of the proceedings are going on during the Debate, and the Motion of the noble Lord being that the Motion of the hon. Member should not be continued on the proceedings, the only way to effect that object is to expunge the Motion.

Expunging a Motion, and not putting it on the proceedings, are two different things.

I am unfortunate in not making myself understood. There is nothing which any Member moves in this House which (whatever may be the opinion of the House) does not, the moment it is moved and seconded, go upon the clerk's books. The question for the House to decide—what it owes to itself and to the public—is to consider whether, according to the merits and justice of the case, it will suffer it to remain on the books,

, I observed at the outset that I supposed that a Motion would be made to expunge these proceedings, but if they be not printed on the Minutes of the House, that is quite a novel proceeding. Many things have already been done by this Parliament to overset former usages ["question."] If the cries of question are continued I shall move the adjournment of the House. If this Motion is not to be printed by the order or vote of the House, then there are but two things remaining for Ministers to do—first, to let no man speak in this House without their permission, and next to move that the gallery be closed.

hoped that the House would indulge him whilst he stated his reasons for having been one of the very small minority who had voted on this question. He was not actuated by any personal hostility to the right hon. Baronet. It was on public grounds only, that he had ventured to be one of the minority. He was of opinion that the Bank Restriction Act had originally been the cause of the distress [The hon. Member was here called to order]. He thought he was speaking to the question, and must state that he considered the conduct of the right hon. Baronet had been injurious to the interests of the public.

was of opinion that it would not be wise, on the part of the Government, to press the Motion.

said, that he should wish at that late hour, to postpone the discussion on this subject till Friday se'nnight.

would, in that case, propose, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read this day six months.

said, he had never known an instance of a measure being got rid of in the way in which the hon. member for Bridport proposed to get rid of the present. He did not envy the hon. Member, as his only object must be to stifle discussion, It was inconsistent with the common courtesy of the House, that an Amendment of such a nature should be made when an hon. Member proposed to postpone a Motion merely for the convenience of the House. The Amendment was, as far as he knew, perfectly unprecedented, perhaps the hon. Member might be able to supply an instance of the kind; but he knew of none. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division.

said, it was obvious, from the petitions, that the measure of the hon. Baronet was agreeable to a great proportion of the people, though it might not be altogether popular. He thought, therefore, that at so late an hour it ought to be postponed, and he hoped that the hon. member for Bridport would not persevere in his Amendment.

said, he could not see that there was any inconvenience in proceeding to the debate at half-past eleven o'clock. If they were to proceed in such a course as that it would be impossible ever to get through the business of the Session. His reason for proposing the Amendment was, not in order to stifle the discussion; but, because he considered that the hon. Baronet, in postponing his Motion, was consulting his own convenience, rather than that of the House.

in obedience to the call of the House to go on, then proceeded, and observed that he did not come forward as a volunteer in this matter. On the former occasion, he had not fully explained his measure, which had done it some injustice. The idea of the Bill had not originated with himself, but with a number of humble individuals, tradesmen in the metropolis and elsewhere. There was no provision in it which had not; been prayed for by the parties to whom it was applicable. It was emphatically a Bill to prevent all manner of work on the Lord's Day, in order that every man might be free to keep it holy. He was anxious that the Mouse should believe that all its provisions were agreeable to the great majority of tradesmen themselves. It consequently did not dictate how the Sabbath was to be employed, but it forbade a man from employing other men on that day for profit or pleasure. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

had great satisfaction in supporting the Bill, conformable as it was to the wishes of so numerous a body of his constituents and others; and trusted that the House would, at least, allow it to go into a Committee, where it might receive any modifications that should seem desirable. There were three classes of people to whom the Bill would be beneficial; two immediately, and one indirectly. The first was the large class of persons to whom the Sabbath was a day of bodily rest; a class not to be discarded from the attention of the House, even if the Bill had no other object in view. Another class that would be immediately affected by the Bill was that composed of persons who did not so much require the Sabbath for bodily rest, as for receiving religious instruction, and discharging religious duties. He trusted that that class would not be lightly considered by the House. They knew that there was a world beyond the grave, and were anxious to obey the commands of their heavenly Master. The third class, which would be indirectly affected by the Bill, consisted of persons whose feelings and desires ought not to be outraged; and who thought that the profanation of the Sabbath was a national disgrace, and must lead to national calamity; and that, as Christians, they could not tolerate the profanation of that holy day, without incurring the divine displeasure. An objection that had been made to the Bill was, that it was not right suddenly to check any habits which had been long established. That might be true with respect to some things; but were the habits which the Bill intended to check such as ought to be allowed to continue? Ought they not, rather, to elevate their habits to the will of God, than impiously endeavour to bring down the will of God to their habits? The idea of compelling men to be religious never entered into the heads of the framers of the Bill. They knew that compulsory service could not be acceptable to the Deity. They did not wish, therefore, to force men to be religious; all they wanted was, to give all his Majesty's subjects an opportunity of being so if they chose to embrace it; of the want of which thousands now complained, and not to withhold from them the inestimable privileges which a benevolent Creator designed for them.

said, that the Bill would do neither more nor less than hand over all classes of society to the mercy of common informers. For instance, it was now a frequent practice for men, on a Sunday, between the two services, to go to a news-room for a short time to read the papers. What could be more innocent? Yet, by the Bill, a penalty of 50l. was imposed upon the keeper of any newsroom who opened it on Sunday. Again, a penalty of 10l. was imposed by the Bill upon any person who hired, or any person who let out, a horse on Sunday. If, therefore, a gentleman were travelling on Sunday (which certainly was not proper) with four horses, at every stage he might incur a penalty of 40l.; nay, he (Mr. Poulter) was not sure that he would not be liable to a double penalty at each stage, or 80l. The Bill rested on the erroneous principle of making the original law respecting the Sabbath delivered to the Jews, the rule of Christian observance. If the Jews had violated their Sabbath, they would have been subjected to the most severe visitations of Providence. But the Christian religion was less rigid. There was an instance under the Jewish law of a man having been put to death for picking sticks on the Sabbath. Jesus Christ required no such strictness. The fourth Commandment was no Statute to us. He was quite willing to set apart a day for the solemn worship of God, and that that worship should be accompanied by becoming sanctity; but he must protest against compulsory regulations, opposed to the sentiments and liberties of a large portion of society. He wished to see the hearts and the affections of the people improved; he did not wish to see them exposed to onerous penalties.

trusted the House would at once reject the Bill; the very preamble of which called upon the House to declare, that men were commanded by the Lord to respect the Sabbath Day; an assertion in which many conscientious people were quite unable to concur. AU introduction of tests of that kind was to be deprecated. He highly approved of the object of securing a day of recreation and quiet for the great mass of the population; but he as highly disapproved of the discord which the Bill was calculated to introduce into the country. He had read with great pleasure a pamphlet, by a dignitary of the Church, the object of which was to endeavour to break down unimportant religious distinctions, and to make all Christians brethren. The tendency of this Bill, on the contrary, would be further to divide and narrow sects; and to set up the means of discord among the people. What he desired was, that the people should have rest and refreshment on the seventh day. Let them look at the Bill, and see if it kept that object in view. It set out with observing, that all work ought to be prohibited on the Sabbath day. The only exclusion was, "the man servant and the maid servant;" so that although the hon. Baronet took the Jewish law as the foundation of the measure, he departed from that law in this essential particular. He was sure that those hon. Members could not have read the Bill who were not inclined at once to reject it. He would read only one of its enactments, and from that the House would see the spirit of the measure. It ran as follows;—"And be it further enacted, that every one who shall be present at any meeting, assembly, or concourse of people, upon any part of the Lord's Day, for any purpose of gaming, wagering, or betting, or for any wake, fair, baiting, or hunting any animal, cock-fighting, dog-fighting, or shooting, or any pastime of public indecorum, inconvenience, or nuisance." Now, let the House fancy a whole community obliged to agree with what any Magistrate might think proper to understand by the words, "public indecorum, inconvenience, or nuisance!" The enactment proceeded—"or for public debating upon or discussing any subject"—surely it was difficult to conceive any mode of passing a day more unobjectionably than in calm and rational discussion—"or for public lecture, address, or speech, or who shall be present at any news-room, or club-room, shall forfeit for the first offence any sum not less than 5s., nor more than 10s.; for the second offence, not less than 10s., nor more than 20s.; and for every subsequent offence, not less than 20s., nor more than 5l." So no man was to be allowed to ask a neighbour the news, or go to a room and quietly read the papers without incurring a penalty of from 5s. to 5l. A penalty of 50l. was likewise to be imposed upon the keeper of any news-room who opened it on Sunday. All the common conveniences of life, all social intercourse of human beings with one another on Sundays, was interdicted by the Bill. Nay, more than that. It was well known, that persons confined in towns were frequently compelled to breathe a fetid and unwholesome atmosphere; and that many of those persons could not go to a distance which would enable them to breathe fresh air, without hiring horses for that purpose. He, himself, was compelled to be in London six days out of the seven. He was an invalid; but by this Bill he should be incapacitated from breathing fresh air on the seventh day. If, indeed, he were so rich as to have a carriage of his own, he might repair to the environs of the town; but, as it was, if the Bill were to pass, he must breathe the noxious air of the metropolis on the seventh, as well as on the other days of the week. To him that would be a great evil; and was not that the feeling of the great majority of the middle and lower classes? One provision of the Bill was to shut up baking-houses on Sundays. The consequence would be, that every poor man's wife must dress his meat for dinner; while, at present, she was allowed to spend the day in peace and quiet; and a small number of persons performed that necessary labour. By this enactment, therefore, labour on the Sunday would be multiplied a hundred-fold. Females, of all persons, ought to be exempted from labour on the Sunday, and should take that recreation which was calculated to restore them, and fit them for the toil of the approaching week. But this Bill would prevent them from doing so. He had gone last Sunday down to Greenwich, on purpose to see how the population of the metropolis amused themselves on that day. Nothing could be a more pleasing sight, or more consonant to every good feeling. The people came out for air; they were walking quietly in the Park; enjoying the pure atmosphere, breaking no commandment, and violating no law. He would oppose the hon. Baronet on religious grounds, and tell him that true religion was not so cold and narrow a system as he represented it to be. God required no such painful and absurd sacrifices as his Bill would impose on the people. The Almighty required, that we should perform our duties to one another, without one particle of asceticism. By this Bill, one set of people, having peculiar ideas respecting a particular day, wished to compel all other persons to conform to their creed, and to worship God after their manner.

doubted the possibility of carrying into effect the various provisions of so complicated a Bill, though he acknowledged the propriety of its principle. He should vote for the second reading, in the hope that it would receive in the Committee all the modifications requisite for making it a useful and desirable enactment.

concurred in the principle of the Bill, but thought that beneficial alterations might be made in it. No one could deny that it was desirable to keep the shops shut on the Sabbath.

believed there was no man in that House who would quarrel with the principle of the Bill; but the details were in his opinion of so extraordinary a character, that he considered they could not depart from the usual parliamentary course of opposing it at once. Nothing in fact could be done with the Bill, but what would lead to the introduction of some new measure. The Bill could not be so altered as to retain anything like its present form. For his own part, he was most anxious to support any measure which would in practice be one of protection to those who desired to keep the Sabbath as a day of rest, and not of coercion to those who did not. But this was a Bill of Pains and Penalties—uncalled for and impolitic—not desired by the public, and not deserved by them; and he could not do otherwise than oppose it in its present stage. He wished for a measure, not to compel men to be religious, but to allow and enable them to be so. It was neither consistent with religion, with morality, nor with sound policy, to interfere with the old recreations of the people. Nothing would be more unfair, impolitic, or uncalled for. He really believed that the Sabbath Day was, after all, now better observed in these realms, than it had been for the last thirty years; but he was willing, from regard to those who were interested in such points—especially the tradesmen of large towns, to forward any measure which would really be one of protection, but he could not consent to a Bill, the details of which could not be worked into any other form than to impose unjust restrictions, and unmerited penalties.

did not deem it right in Government to throw the whole weight of their influence against the Bill. Without attaching undue importance to the prayers of the people, he would wish the House to remember that this was a question on which the people of England had shown a strong and decided feeling. Without yielding their judgment, or acting on any question without the most deliberate conviction, he must say, that any subject was deserving of anxious and attentive consideration which was borne to them on the prayers of 230,000 persons. He was happy that he could agree with the noble Lord, in the opinion that, during the last thirty years, there had been a great improvement in the manner of observing the Sabbath. But was that improvement not less than might have been expected from the increased means of religious instruction, which above all other countries, we had so eminently, during that interval, possessed? The Lord's Day in this country was observed in a manner superior to that in which it was kept in any country of Europe—Scotland excepted; so much so, indeed, that foreigners constantly complained of our strictness. But the question for consideration was, whether our observance was such as it ought to be, according to the commands of Scripture? Let them remember also, the cries of those petitioners who had asked our interference on a ground which no Legislature could rightly reject—that of protection. Was the hon. and learned member for Bath aware, that no less than 7,400 journeymen bakers had petitioned the House of Commons to enable them to observe the Sabbath? Whether it were right or not to grant their prayer, it was fitting that the Legislature should consider it well. Some of those who petitioned, might be influenced by worldly motives—but it could not be questioned that many were actuated by the purest and most sacred feelings—regarding the Sabbath as a divine institution, which they ought to observe. Some- thing; was due to both these classes; and the Bill contemplated nothing—so far at least as he could understand it; except matters of trading, travelling, and labouring on the Sabbath. There were several points respecting the meetings of municipal bodies, &c., on the Lord's Day; but those were unimportant compared with the provisions which he had mentioned. Was there anything in the principle of the Bill, as applied to these three provisions, to which the noble Lord could refuse his assent? He might refuse it as to the degree in which they were applied; but was he prepared to withhold it generally from the questions of limiting labour; closing shops, and preventing travelling for hire, on Sunday? The subject was attended with difficulty, in respect to interference with the amusements of the poor; and it was true that legislative enactments might press harder on the poor man than on the rich. But that arose from the nature of things; it was impossible to prevent either from doing what he pleased in his own house; but there was no such prohibition in this Bill. It did not apply to the poor man in his own house; it followed him to the public house—to the place where those scenes were acted which violated every law of decency, and morality. It improved the present law with respect to public-houses and beer-shops; and interfered with the resort to those places at particular hours of the day. Among the petitions presented to the House was one from his constituents—presented by his hon. friend and Colleague—in which the petitioners stated that they believed it to be the bounden duty of every Christian country to provide for the religious observance of the Lord's Day; and that the existing laws were insufficient to secure the attainment of that object. In the evidence given before the Committee on this subject, which sat last year, several gentlemen—police Magistrates and others—connected with the administration of justice stated, that the laws were inoperative—that they had, in fact, become a mere nullity; so much so, that persons had been known to offer to pay the fine for keeping their shops open at the beginning of the day. They said, "We will not give you the trouble of fining us; here is the amount of the fine, and we will keep our shops open, and violate the laws." Could the noble Lord justify such a state of things as this? If the noble Lord, therefore, would not pledge himself and his Majesty's Government to the introduction of a Bill which would at least repress such practices, he was not justified in calling on the House to resist this Bill, and in refusing his ascent to its principle, solely because he objected to the provisions by which it was proposed to carry the principle into effect. He could assure the noble Lord, that he would best consult the interests of the Government, and the wishes of the people, by allowing the Bill to go into Committee.

said, he would oppose the present measure, because he considered it a Bill of pains and penalties, and not calculated to secure the better observance of the Sabbath, or conduce to the interests of religion.

considered they ought not to hesitate in going into Committee. The Bill was founded on such principles as, with a slight modification of its details, could not fail to be acceptable to a majority of that House.

was much more disposed to trust to the gradual growth of religion, than to any new penal enactments. There was a clause, at the end of the Bill, which declared that it was not to extend to works of piety, charity, or necessity. Who was to be the judge of what constituted works of this description? Must it not be the individual who was setting out on it? If he could convince himself that a work on which he was about to engage was a work of charity or necessity—and thus feel himself at liberty to travel on a Sunday in furthering it—was it necessary for him to satisfy every innkeeper that he was really at liberty to hire post-horses? Suppose the case of an officer hastening to join his regiment—or of a child to visit a dying parent—;it would be urgent on both that they travelled without let or hindrance, and rapidly; yet they must, under this Bill, first satisfy every innkeeper, that they were engaged on a work of "necessity." To proceed as the Bill proposed, appeared to him to be acting on a novel principle of legislation. At all events, it went much too far, and he recommended that it should be withdrawn.

contended, that the observance of the Sabbath was a proper object of national care. If the present Bill were thrown out, he feared the people would think that the Reformed Parliament was disposed to deny the principle of this and former enactments on the same subject. He should, therefore, vote for the second reading.

suggested, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. If that were consented to, he would vote for the second reading, not otherwise.

could not support the second reading of the Bill, though he had voted for the first stage, unless he were assured, that in the Committee it would be very considerably altered.

hoped, that the Bill would be withdrawn, at least for the present, as he was convinced that such a measure would rather lead to the abolition of the present observance of the Sabbath than its due observance. It was, in fact, a Bill for the desecration of the Sabbath by the rich, and for the observance of it by the poor. While the chimney of the rich man might be reeking, and all his cooks employed, the poor man must be satisfied with his humble and Saturday-dressed dinner. This was not the time when the two classes ought to be brought into opposition, and least of all on such a question as the observance of the Sabbath.

thought, that Parliament ought to legislate no further than to regulate public trading; but, although the Bill went too far, it could be sufficiently altered and improved in the Committee. It was the moral and sound sense of the country which required some enactment on the subject, and he hoped Ministers would not set themselves against all improvement in this respect.

was of opinion, that the present laws were inadequate for the purpose, and that a Christian House of Commons ought to do something in order to cause the due observance of the Sabbath, which was instituted, not so much for the vexation of man, as for the honour of the Lord.

regretted that the subject had been forced upon the House—he had himself been made the humble instrument of presenting various petitions, most carefully got up—he meant petitions read to every person who had signed them—and the question was, whether the prayer of 200,000 petitioners was to be disregarded? If the Bill was inefficient, where was the hon. Baronet to obtain assistance to render it efficient but in a Committee of that House? He could get no assistance elsewhere. He was beset with opposition, and, unless a person was an enthusiast, he could scarcely get such a measure through. In spite of ridicule, he would vote for the second reading.

would only detain the House two minutes, but could not avoid saying, in answer to the hon. member for Bath, that the preamble of this Bill was copied from another on the same subject 107 years old. Bishop Porteus had said, and most truly, that the due observance of the Sabbath was the great bulwark of Christianity.

fully concurred in the principle and many of the details of the Bill. The opposition to the measure, and the disturbance in the House indicative of impatience, proceeded from that portion of the Members who were opposed to the Protestant religion. They might well object to the due observance of the Sabbath, on which the safety of the Church mainly depended. The hon. member for Dublin, at a meeting of the Trades' Union, had told those assembled, that the Sunday ought not to be spent in gloomy gravity, which sickened the human countenance and sallowed the complexion, and that he highly approved of the manner in which the Sabbath was usually spent in England. In his own country, the hon. and learned Member said, he had witnessed with pleasure dancing, playing at ball, and other amusements. But when such were the opinions of the hon. and learned Member, and his friend, he hoped they would have no influence over a Christian assembly.

could support so few of the clauses of the Bill which had been introduced by the hon. Baronet, that he must vote against the second reading, though he respected the motives of those who adopted a different course. A bill should give something like an accurate and defined outline of what was afterwards to be filled up and perfected in Committee, otherwise the process of amending would be endless, and the result almost always unsatisfactory. He was disposed to take effectual means of preventing any unnecessary barter or business on the Lord's Day, especially during the hours of divine service; but must, at the same time, remark, that many of the causes which led to the more serious violations of the Sabbath could not be reached by legislation. A practice (for he would only detail one instance), existed in Manchester, and many of the larger towns, of paying the workmen their wages in the public-house, at a late hour on Saturdays. This custom, almost as a certain consequence, led to a good deal of drunkenness and profaneness on the Sunday morning; and yet, consistently with any sound notions of freedom, it was difficult, impossible, he would say, to sanction interference, and fix by law any precise time when the parties should settle their accounts. To the vast discretionary power which the Bill proposed to give to Magistrates, he (Mr. Howard) was much opposed; and it would place, not only every Magistrate, but every toll-keeper, under the painful responsibility of judging whether or no a man had a justifiable cause for travelling on Sunday. He was not inclined to go so far in measures of restriction as the hon. Member (Mr. A. Johnston) who had last addressed the House. He did not wish to find fault with a certain degree of innocent recreation on the Sunday evening; and he suspected it was in human nature, that if the people were so rigidly debarred from all reasonable enjoyment, they would resort to those more guilty pleasures, which were alike condemned by the professors of every creed.