I have a Petition to present from Charles Frederick Barber, of Boston, in the county of Lincoln. The fact of the existence of the public grievance here complained of—namely, corporate abuses—does not rest solely upon this document. A petition, containing similar allegations, and signed by many inhabitants of Boston, was, I believe, presented to this House by my hon. colleague about two months ago. That which is new to the House is the individual case of Mr. Barber, which demonstrates clearly the injury inflicted upon him individually, and upon the community at large, by the practices complained of. The petitioner accuses the Corporation of Boston of having applied to political and party purposes their authority as Magistrates, and the resources of the town of which they are trustees—of having expended large sums of money to uphold illegal claims. He asserts, also, that at all the late elections for Members of Parliament, they have been in the habit of forcing their dependents to vote according to their dictation under pain of losing their situations. Upon these public grounds Mr. Barber appears before the House as a petitioner, and it becomes my duty, however painful, to call its attention to the state of the Corporation of Boston. I now proceed to the case of the petitioner, and I am bound to say, that the statement I am about to make is, from all I can learn, substantially true. At the election of 1831 party spirit ran high, and gave rise to much contention; on one occasion a disturbance took place, windows were broken, and damage was done to other property. But as these unlawful proceedings arose out of the customary licence of elections, an earnest wish was felt by a majority of the inhabitants, when excitement had subsided, that the offenders should not be prosecuted. In order to smooth the way for this act of clemency, and restore peace and harmony among neighbours, at a public vestry it was agreed, upon the express understanding that no prosecution should take place, that the amount of damage done should be paid for out of the parochial rate; and it was paid accordingly. Nevertheless, an indictment was preferred by the Magistrates and others of their party against nine men implicated in the tumult, and they were convicted and sent to gaol. It was thought in the town, that these men were hardly used, that the promise of an amnesty had been violated, and considerable interest being felt for their case, several addresses were printed and published, exposing the hardship to which they were subjected. A considerable number of copies of one of these addresses was publicly circulated from house to house, was put in the windows of a great many tradesmen, and exposed to view in other public parts of the town. The petitioner, among the many who had placed these Bills in their windows, were apprehended under warrants, taken before the borough Magistrates, and by them convicted on the oath of the Beadle, and fined in the full unmitigated penalty of 20l. for publishing a printed bill without a printer's name. The petitioner solemnly declares, that he was neither the author nor the printer of this bill. The penalty inflicted may be supposed to have no reference to the contents of the Bill—they were vituperations—the Corporation was the object of their abuse, and the corporate officers composed the evidence as well as the Bench, which convicted in 20l., having a power of mitigation to 5l., the crime being the exposure in a window of a hand-bill printed without the name of a printer, and previously circulated through the town. Rigidly to exact the full penalty to such an amount, and for such an offence, under such circumstances, appears to me, I confess, an Act of extreme severity, to say the least of it. This is only the beginning—much more and worse is to come. At the last Midsummer Assizes at Lincoln, these parties, after having paid these penalties, were indicted for a libel on the Corporation of Boston, said to be contained in the aforesaid handbill. A true bill was found. It must now be supposed that a measure of punishment was likely to fall upon these offenders, at least adequate to the crime laid to their charge. The prosecutors did not think so. Two more degrees of aggravation are still to be enumerated. At the following Assizes, the case was not brought to trial, but was removed by certiorari to the civil side; by this process time was gained, the torture of suspense, and the fear of aggravated expenditure were superadded. Lastly, application was made (and refused, I am happy to say) to the Court of King's Bench, a few days ago, for a rule to change the venue, on the plea that an impartial Jury, Special or Common, could not be had in the large county of Lincoln, to try the matter at issue between the Corporation of Boston and the petitioner, Charles Frederick Barber. Now, Sir it is, natural to inquire who is Mr. Barber? Hon. Gentlemen will suppose that he must be some person of great wealth and influence whose consequence has rendered him an object of jealousy to a public body controlling great public resources, and wielding Magisterial authority. Mr. Barber must be the patron of the anti-corporate party. The man against whom, not the whole force of the law alone, but that more tremendous engine—the law's delay—has been employed, must at least be wealthy! No such thing, Mr. Charles Frederick Barber, the object of this long-spun prosecution, is a poor lame tailor with a large family (I believe three children), and possessing nothing in this world but his industry wherewith to feed and clothe them. His goods were distrained for the payment of the penalty of 20l., but released by the kindness of his friends. This petitioner, therefore, humbly prays your hon. House to take his case under your serious consideration, and in your proposed enactments on the Law of Libel, as in the reforms which you are about to enact in municipal institutions, to take especial care to enact such laws as shall prevent the officers and members of the Body Corporate of this borough, and other public bodies, from expending the funds with which they are intrusted in bribery and corruption at elections, or in the prosecution of individuals opposed to them in politics. And that a Committee of your hon. House be appointed, or a Commission sent down into this borough, to investigate and examine evidence on the spot as to the abuses of the Corporation officers. Sir, I stand not here to call upon this House to interfere between individuals struggling before the legal tribunals; my object is not to screen from just and adequate punishment any man, be he rich or poor, who may have offended against the existing laws; but I feel it to be my duty to expose, in its true colours, a case, in which the authority of a powerful institution appears to have been prostituted, and the discharge of Magisterial functions to have been tinctured with feelings of a vindictive and malignant nature. This is no squabble of individuals. It is here stated, and I believe correctly stated, that these prosecutions are supported out of the corporate funds. It could never have been the intention of the donors that their benefactions should be so employed. This is not a case of individuals, for it is well known, that a body, in which there is a divided responsibility, will in many cases adopt measures which no individual of that same body would venture to pursue singly. It will not now be said, that Corporations are authorised to hold property as an individual, and to apply it to purposes having no sort of reference to their Charter. But suppose a divided interest in a Corporation, is a majority to make such extraneous application as to deprive the minority of all advantage whatever to be derived from property which all hold in common? Towards the Corporation of Boston, individually, I have no feeling of hostility; for one Member of it I entertain the highest respect, from him I acknowledge with pleasure to have received essential obligations; he, I am sure, never concurred in these harsh measures. But, Sir, in my mind, the case of this petitioner affords a strong illustration of the injuries done to individuals and to communities by combinations authorised by law; consequently, an undeniable proof of the defective state of the law. But is the mischief confined to individuals or to small communities? Or does it affect the condition of the public weal by corrupting the source of legislation? Does it not strike at the root of purity of elections?—and have not these combinations, by corrupting the Legislature, brought this country into a slate of debt and difficulty of which no man can say what will be the termination? In vain has the Reform Bill been passed, in order to secure purity of elections, if the sources from which corruption flows remain unchecked; if the instruments by means of which the legislative powers were formerly usurped are still to retain full force and vigour; if patronage shall continue to lure the Alderman, and the Alderman have still corporate powers wherewith to corrupt the burgess to yield obedience, or means to corrupt him at the public charge; if party feeling and private interest are still to control the appointment to petty offices, the distribution of public charities, and the administration of public justice, then is that great measure, for which the people have done and suffered so much, a mere dead letter. As long as these practices shall continue, so long will the measure of Reform granted be unsatisfactory; it will be justly so, for it is incomplete, and will every day be less effective. It is to be deplored, that there is but too much disposition in these days to hold the constituted authorities in contempt. When such things are, as those which I have related, it may be matter of regret; but it can cause no surprise. When authority, when the powers confided by the law for the benefit of the people, is converted into an engine for oppressing them; when all sense of due proportion between crime and punishment gives way to feelings of political and private rancour; when the poor man is pursued, persecuted by a body of men, separated and segregated from the people, armed with privileges to sit on the vantage ground of the judgment seat for their protection; when the constituted authorities by their conduct merit contempt; then is this House imperatively called upon to examine, investigate, and interpose, that it may in the time of need rescue the laws from abuse, the people from oppression. It gives me great satisfaction to hear, that the Committee on abuses of Corporations have recommended, and that it is the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to appoint a Commission for the purpose of inquiring into the practices of those bodies.

supported the prayer of the petition, and expressed a hope, that when the question of Corporations was brought before the House, it would not forget the case of Boston, and of the unfortunate Barber.

presented a Petition from the Corporation of Cutlers in Sheffield, setting forth that they, in common with others of his Majesty's subjects, had sustained great loss in consequence of the confiscation, several years ago, of property to a large amount by the Danish government, which belonged to British subjects. The hon. Member, in laying that petition before the House, pressed upon their attention the oppressive and unjust conduct of the Danish government, and their utter disregard of those principles which had hitherto regulated civilized warfare. But the petitioners had also a strong claim on our Government, arising from the fact, that our Government had confiscated 1,200,000l. of Danish property, a part of which ought to be appropriated to pay the petitioners. Protection was due from the British Government to every member of the British nation, at home and abroad; and he was sure there was no expense to which the nation at large would more cheerfully contribute than that which relieved their fellow-countrymen from the injustice, however provoked, of a foreign power.

supported the petition. The claim was only for 100,000l., and that was not one-tenth of the sum received as droits of Admiralty by the Government on Danish property.

would not occupy much of the attention of the House on the present occasion. The object of his Motion was, to repeal the proviso in the 27th clause of the Reform Act, relative to the payment of rates and taxes as a qualification for exercising the elective franchise. The effect of that clause, which was a very short one, had been, as he was informed, to disfranchise not fewer than 300,000 voters all over the country. In Westminster it was expected that the number of voters, under the Reform Bill, would have been from 18,000 to 20,000, but, in consequence of the proviso in question, he believed they did not exceed 6,000, 4,600 being the largest number polled at the two last contested elections. He thought the clause highly objectionable, inasmuch as it tended to limit the constituency, the number of voters under a 10l. franchise subject to this qualification not being greater than it would have been under a 20l. franchise. Government originally proposed the payment, not only of rates and taxes but of rent, as a qualification for voting; but the payment of rent was abandoned at the instance of the opponents of Reform, although he thought Ministers had quite as good a right to require rent to be paid as to insist upon the payment of rates and taxes. He, however, objected to the existence of any such qualification, the only effects of which were improperly to limit the constituency, and open a door to corruption. Hundreds and thousands of voters had had their rates and taxes paid for them by candidates; in fact, he believed there had been as much corruption at the last as at any previous general election. One of the evils of the clause was, that it gave an undue power of interference to the collectors of rates and taxes, who were persons likely to interest themselves in election tactics. Upon every ground of expediency and justice he objected to such a qualification. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend so much of the Reform Act as related to the payment of rates and taxes as a qualification for exercising the elective franchise.

wished to abstain from making alterations in the Reform Act during the present Session, and until the working of the approaching Registration should be observed. The object of the clause to which the hon. and gallant Member objected was to afford a satisfactory proof of occupancy. He was aware that, at the last election, its effect had been to restrict the exercise of the elective franchise more than was intended or expected: but he thought that objection would not apply to the next Registration. It was partly owing to the mode of collecting rates, and partly in consequence of the carelessness or imperfect information of electors, that the constituency had been so limited under this clause; but neither of those causes were likely to operate again; and he did not think that, in the Registration about to commence, there would be found that diminution of voters in consequence of non-qualification of which the hon. and gallant Member complained. The hon. Gentleman stated, that hundreds and thousands of voters had had their rates paid for them by candidates; he (Lord Althorp) was not at all aware of that, and thought that the hon. and gallant Member's information on the subject was fallacious, or greatly exaggerated. Under the former system rates could be paid at the time of polling, which was evidently encouragement to corruption; but now that taxes were required to be paid by a certain day distant from the time of election, a material obstruction was thrown in the way of bribery. He apprehended, even taking the hon. Member's statement as to what had occurred at the last Registry to be correct, that a similar result would not occur at the next Registry. The object of the clause which the hon. Member now sought to alter was, that the occupiers of 10l. houses claiming a right to vote therefrom, should be bonâ fide the occupiers of such houses. Whatever might be the amount of qualification giving the elective franchise, it would be admitted by every one, that precautions should be taken so as to prevent the privilege from being acquired by fraudulent means. Now, the object of this clause was, to prevent persons who pretended to occupy a house of a certain value, which it was not, from acquiring the right of voting. He felt bound, from experience of the working of the Bill in this respect, and upon general principle, to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member.

was sorry that the noble Lord was opposed to this amendment of the Reform Bill. If, as the noble Lord admitted, the effect of the clause in question had been to limit the constituency, and as, of course, the noble Lord's object was to enlarge the constituency, he was surprised to find the noble Lord oppose this Motion. He understood the noble Lord to say, that he would agree to this alteration next year.

said, he intended to propose other alterations, but not this one, in the Reform Bill, in the next Session of Parliament.

regretted that this alteration was not to be included amongst the intended amendments. During the Mary- lebone election he had himself seen several letters to one of the candidates from electors, who stated, that circumstances of a temporary nature had prevented them from paying their rates, but that if he would assist them in doing so they would vole for him. Such a clog should not be imposed on the right of voting. If a man possessed a house of the bonâ fide value of 10l., that ought to be sufficient security to give him the privilege of voting, and the payment of taxes should not be at all taken info account. When this part of the Reform Bill was under discussion, he (Mr. Hume) opposed it, and he was informed at the time that this payment of the rates, as a condition prior to voting, had been for years the fruitful source of bribery and corruption in Westminster. As an election was likely to take place in the course of the next year, it was most important that they should adopt this alteration, in order to increase, instead of diminish, the number of electors, as the clause as it stood was calculated to do.

replied. He had heard no satisfactory reply from the noble Lord to the objections which he had stated to the clause referred to in the Reform Bill. The conduct of his Majesty's Ministers, in resisting this Motion, was not calculated to increase their popularity in the country. He felt compelled to go to a division on the Motion.

, after presenting a Petition from the inhabitants of Wolverhampton, praying for a repeal, or at least considerable alteration, of the Corn-laws, proceeded with his Motion for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend Act 9, Geo. 4th, c. 60, commonly called the Corn-law. The hon. Member, in doing so, observed, that this was a far more important measure than any which had been brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers; it was a measure that regarded the support and maintenance of the people of this country. What was it he wanted? What did he aim at? His object was, to procure sufficient employment and sufficient food for the people of this country. Radical reformer as he was, that was all that he aimed at. He did not seek to pull down the aristocracy, or to dethrone the King; all that he aimed at was, to obtain for the people employment and bread, and he wished to effect that object by repealing one of those bad laws which had been made in that House by a landed oligarchy in despite of the people. His end was good. Now, what were his means? His means were honest. He wished to abolish all monopolies, and, first and foremost, that, without the repeal of which nothing else would avail—the monopoly of food, the monopoly of labour—by repealing the Corn-laws. The repeal of taxes, such as the House and Window-tax, would do no good unless the Corn-laws were repealed. The Corn-laws prevented us from exporting our manufactures to corn-growing countries in exchange for their corn, and limited our consumption of corn. The opening the trade to China would only render tea cheaper, it would effect no other good, as we could not send manufactures there: but we could send our manufactures to corn-growing countries if we were allowed to take their corn in exchange. What was the nature of slavery in the West Indies? There the slaves were forced under the fear of the cart whip to labour for the advantage of their masters. The white slaves in England were forced to labour for the advantage of their landlords, who had made wicked laws, like the Corn Bill, to compel them to do so. In the year 1815, when that bad Bill was brought forward, it was opposed by Lord Grenville on the principles of justice, though Lord Grenville was a Tory. And there were Tories now a-days; but what were they? They glorified Pitt, but knew not how to imitate him. Expediency was their motto. They were all their lives voting against emancipation, like the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, when all on a sudden they veered round, and voted for it. Why? Because it was expedient. The same with Reform. They had always opposed Reform; but in one day turned round and were ready to vote for it, and upon the same plea, namely, that it was expedient. Oh! these were bastard Tories, born on a dunghill. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite had no occasion to laugh at the Tories. They were themselves degenerate, apostate Whigs, possessed of no statesmanlike principles; who, having been borne into office on the shoulders of the people, had since deserted the popular cause; ingrates, who had kicked down the ladder by which they had mounted to power, alike dishonest to their friends and enemies to themselves. Taxes should be placed upon fixed property, and not upon the backs of the people, until the last feather broke them. On what ground, he would ask, did the landlords call for protection? He would denominate the protection which they got nothing but robbery. One pretence for this law was, that it gave remunerating prices to the farmer and encouraged agriculture. He was as anxious as any one could be to encourage agriculture; but he would contend that this law did no such thing; it merely rendered the farmer a conduit-pipe to put greater profits in the pockets of the landlords. The farmers were rendered by this law mere serfs and vassals, and sponges for the landlords to squeeze. It was said, that the farmers suffered from the pressure of the Poor-rates. Who caused the Poor-rates? [An Hon. Member: "The Manufacturers"]. No, it was the landlords who caused the Poor-rates; by their exactions they prevented the farmer from cultivating and manuring his farm; they ate up his capital, and in that manner brought him to starvation. The landlords asserted, that heavier taxes were imposed on them than on the inhabitants living in towns. Even if that was the case, which it was not, it ought to be so. They had no right to pay the interest of the debt by taxes on labour. Such taxes should be laid on the property of the country. He was not one of those who would take off taxes so as to violate the public credit, or so as to prevent the Government from doing all the good they could; and he would therefore say, tax all the luxuries of life—tea, coffee, sugar, tobacco, &c., but let the people have their labour free, and get in exchange for it cheap food; tax those luxuries, but let the industrious have cheap bread. The price of food affected the manufacturers because the master could not afford to give the same wages for ten hours of labour as he could for sixteen hours, and therefore the labouring classes were obliged to work the greater number of hours, in order to maintain themselves and families, and without which excess of labour it was impossible for the manufacturer to compete with foreign countries. When the abolitionists came to ask him for his support, he had asked them, whether they would do away with the Corn-laws? They told him they did not understand the question. "Then away with you," cried he. He, however, wished to make friends, and he would ask those who cried out for the abolition of slavery, and had crossed the Atlantic to find it, to look at home, and endeavour to free the white slaves in England; he could assure them, if they did not vote with him to-night, the people of England would say that all their zeal and exertions to accomplish the abolition of negro slavery were based in cant, and (he would add) hypocrisy. The Cotton Lords, too, instead of asking for delay with the Factory Bill, for which he would vote, in order to rouse them, ought to come forward, and boldly and stoutly demanda repeal of the accursed Bread-tax, and also the repeal of all taxes upon raw materials of manufacture; he should vote for the Factories Bill, in order to compel the Cotton Lords not to grind down the labourer. The repeal of the Corn-laws would work beneficially for the interests of the country, by effecting a rise in the price of corn in other countries, and thereby disable them from competing in manufactures with this country, or at least would bring them to the same level. There were some who cried out for emigration, and said, that emigration was good, because it enabled people to live abroad who would starve here, and leave a plenty for those who remained behind; and the best of our workmen accordingly left us; but, he would say, instead of sending them abroad in search of food, let them stay at home and import it, in spite of all the borough mongering landed oligarchy. Let the funded interest look about them too, if this 20,000,000l. for the Colonists be added to the funded debt, for it was a debt that would taint the whole, and would be sponged off with the rest. As for the Ministers, they did not seem to know what they were about, the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer could not tell one day what he meant to do the day after. "Oh! there must not be this vacillating; it will never do." As to the Corn-laws, their continuance on the present system would ruin the farmers, and, eventually, the landowners; and these richly deserved it. The noble Lord had all but called the hon. member for Whitehaven a rogue; but the noble Lord was to do something like what was proposed by that hon. Member. This looked something like the Barringtonian method. Ministers looked upon this question as upon others—as Basil Hall went to America—with one eye; and here he would repeat what the Massachusett farmers said to Basil Hall, "that the English landed interest were killing the goose for the sake of the egg." If he was asked who were the greatest enemies to the important interests he had mentioned, he would point to those now occupying the Ministerial bench, because they went with the oligarchy in supporting and keeping up this unjust tax, and the consequent cruel and baneful monopolies. If he spoke to Christian men, he need not say more; the justice of his cause was as immutable and unchangeable as the heavens themselves. But before he sat down, he must say a word or two to his Majesty's Ministers. Some time ago they had agitated the country from one end to the other—they had indirectly, if not directly, encouraged Political Unions—had advised the King to dissolve the Parliament—had told the Bishops to put their house in order—and, to crown the whole, they had (to use the slang terra of the day) swamped the House of Peers. For what had all this been done? The Government had answered, "why, for Reform." But he begged to ask where the Reform was, or in what it consisted? Surely there was no Reform in the Irish Coercion Bill? There was no Reform in the Irish Church Temporalities Bill; in short, there had not been a single measure brought forward that would benefit the people of England. The expediency-Tories were laughing, jeering, and sneering at their adversaries opposite, and crying out to them "that they had got the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." True it was, that the people had got" nothing but the Bill." The noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) had himself admitted the other night that he had abstained from bringing forward certain measures, dear to his heart, because he was afraid of a collision. This statement he (Mr. Fryer must say was not statesmanlike. The noble Lord ought to bring forward these measures even in defiance of the House of Commons, and then, if that House should refuse to do justice, it would be open to the noble Lord to appeal to the people by a dissolution. That would be the truly fair course, and it must come to it. There was now, it was well known, a strong impression abroad that affairs could not remain as they were at present, great apprehensions were entertained of a great and sudden change. The country stood now, as it were, upon a Vesuvius, and there must either be Reform or Revolution. He sought by his present Motion, which was for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act 9th George 4th, c. 60, commonly called the Corn-Law, to return back to the system which prevailed in the year 1791, when the country flourished and prospered. At that time, when the price of wheat was between 50s. and 54s. the duty per quarter was only 2s. 6d. He should hope the noble Lord opposite (Lord Althorp) entertained something of the same opinion on this subject as himself, at least he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade ought to do so, for if he (Mr. Fryer) had read the right hon. Gentleman's speech correctly, he had at Manchester hoisted the flag of free trade.

thought, that the question having already been fully discussed during the present Session of Parliament, it was not now necessary to enter into another discussion upon it, particularly as the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the ground of the former decision of the House upon the Motion of the hon. Gentleman's colleague was not a direct rejection of the Motion, but merely that at the present time it was not desirable to enter into it. He was ready to tell the hon. Gentleman, that his (Lord Althorp's) own opinion accorded with many of the statements which had been made by the hon. Gentleman, but he differed from him in the mode in which he proposed to deal with the subject. He (Lord Althorp) considering the quantity of business still before the House, and the advanced period of the Session, could not think it convenient to enter into a discussion of this question, and the more so because at present, as the hon. Gentleman well knew, there was no immediate necessity for legislative interference in this respect, but, on the contrary, the manufacturing districts were admitted to be in a much better situation at present than the agricultural districts, and therefore the question did not seem to press so much as the hon. Gentleman inferred. Under these circumstances, he should not now enter into any argument on the topics introduced by the hon. Member, but should do that which he had done on a former occasion when the question was introduced—namely, move the previous question.

thought, that many of the topics which had been urged by the hon. member for Wolverhampton were well worthy the attention of the House and the Government. The real question was, whether it was fit that the people of England should get their food as cheaply as possible and be fully employed. The present system effected neither, and he agreed with the hon. member in thinking that a change would effect both those objects. Was the present system of injustice to continue until the next Session, or was the Legislature to perpetuate the misery and starvation arising from the existing law? It ought not to be. He concurred with the hon. member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fryer) in thinking, that the present system would ultimately ruin the landholders. If they wished to persist, he (Mr. Hume) cared little if they were ruined, and in that respect they might have their own way. But this question affected other parties besides the landed gentry, and whom it was the duty of the Government to protect. He could not help thinking that the landed proprietors ought themselves to be the first to advocate a chance in the system, the abolition of which would give renovated vigour to all the interests in the country. In every point of view he could not but express his opinion, that no subject could more deserve the attention of the Government, and that six weeks of the present Session would have been much better employed on this subject than in discussing the Irish Coercion Bill. The greatest measure of relief to the country that the Government could take up was the opening of a free trade in corn, which, instead of injuring, would really be productive of good to the landed proprietors, would increase the revenue, and generally benefit the whole community. He, therefore, could not understand how the noble Lord opposite could satisfy himself by a postponement of the question for another year, and particularly at the present time; when the manufacturing population were not in deep distress and up in arms, afforded a most fitting opportunity for a discussion. He with pleasure supported the view of the subject taken by the hon. Member who had brought forward the Motion, and only regretted the Government should not now meet the question.

said, it appeared that with the hon. member for Middlesex, it was a matter of utter indifference whether the landlords and agriculturists were ruined or not. He was glad the noble Lord had not taken the advice of the hon. member for Middlesex, and foreborne from going into an inconvenient discussion on the subject. He was quite sure that if the six weeks employed on the Irish Coercion Bill had been employed on the Corn Question, the result would have been a Report from the Committee that the present Corn-laws gave to the grower and the consumer the fairest price that could be established for the interests of both. The law as it now stood was not originally adopted by a willing House of Commons, but had emanated from the distress in which both the manufacturers and the agriculturists were involved, and this circumstance forced Gentlemen on both sides of the House to unite in placing the question on its present basis. He was sure that the landed interests were quite as much identified with the lower orders of the people as the manufacturers. The hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Motion charged the agriculturists with being the cause of dear bread, but he admitted that the manufacturers worked the children in their factories sixteen hours a day. He would say, let us adhere to the adage, "Live and let live," Convinced he was, that so far as regarded rents, the agriculturists did not look to the Corn-laws to keep them up. If the whole rental of the country were abandoned to-morrow it would not make a difference of 1s. in the price of wheat. He wished that his Majesty's Ministers were in a situation to go fully into the question, for at present the non-settlement of it threw doubts upon the relations between landlord and tenant. As, however, they were not in such a situation, he would vote for the Amendment.

said, that the hon. and gallant Member misunderstood what had fallen from the hon. mover in reference to factory children. That Gentleman had expressed his determination to vote for the Factory Bill, though one of its effects was, to diminish the amount of wages. That Bill was undoubtedly called for by humanity, although it must be admitted, that the parents of the children would not have their condition much improved by it. But still it was necessary, and he hoped it would speedily be carried. Surely, if any thing ought to be free from a tax, in a manufacturing and industrious nation, it was food; and it was in consequence of its being taxed, that children were obliged to work sixteen hours a-day. He, for one, entered his solemn protest against any measure tending to make food more dear, and on that account would support the Motion.

said, that if the Corn Laws were as disastrous in their effects as they were described to be, they ought to be instantly repealed; but he should be prepared to show, whenever the proper time came, that the effects of those laws were very much misunderstood. He deplored very much the jealousy which was getting up between the different classes, which could only be injurious to both. For the agriculturists, he claimed a protection commensurate to the heavy burthens which were laid on the landed interest; and he was sure, whatever the manufacturers might suppose, that the ruin of the agriculturists would be the annihilation of their own hopes. He wished the manufacturers to look to the home market. There was a time when the use of tea, and sugar, and fine clothes were unknown, but they were now found in every cottage in the country. The farmers formerly spun and made their own cloth, and went without these luxuries, and probably were as happy then as now; if they were to return to their former habits, it was not for him to say who would be the principal losers. If the Legislature relieved the farmers from the Poor-rate, which, in 1792, was 2,000,000l., and was now 9,000,000l., and from the national debt, the interest of which was then 10,000,000l., and was now nearly 30,000,000l., he should most readily consent to a complete free trade in corn and all other things.

regretted, that the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) should have deprecated discussion, should have proposed no measure to amend the laws, and yet should have stated that those laws wanted amendment. Such conduct could only have the effect of unsettling the public mind. At present, no contract could be made about land, no farms could be let, no land could be bought or sold, because the question was in an unsettled condition. He conceived that the present Corn-laws were the best possible for the farmer and for the consumer; but if they were to be altered, the sooner that were effected the better. He hoped that the noble Lord would propose the alteration which he thought necessary, and not leave people continually to expect an alteration which never was made.

never said, that he meant to make any alteration. He had merely admitted, in reply to the hon. member for Wolverhampton, that these laws were not the best possible.

said, the Corn-laws were a monopoly of the worst description, and he could not understand how any Administration which advocated free trade, could keep up that monopoly. They were about to open the trade to China, why not open the Corn monopoly. He thought this a very good opportunity for making the alteration; for, by letting the Colonies send all their produce here, we might make some abatement in the 20,000,000l. it was proposed to grant them.

thought, as respected the end of the Session, that this was not a favourable opportunity for making the present Motion; but, as respected the full employment of the manufacturers, it was a most favourable time to alter the Corn-laws. It would be far better to do it, when the manufacturers were employed and contented, than to do it under the pressure of their great distress. He would not then enter into the subject; but he could not avoid making an observation or two. For example, he put it to Gentlemen to consider for one moment what would have been the state of the hand-loom weavers in Lancashire at this time, if the Corn trade had been thrown open, and kept open since the peace? It was plain, that there would have been a steady demand for the produce of their labour to pay for the foreign corn, and they would have been much better off than they now were. If that market had been established, they would have been continued in employment, and they would not have had the mortification of seeing the raw material—for he could call cotton twist nothing but the raw material, it having undergone only one operation—exported, instead of the produce of their labour. With free trade in corn, cotton cloth, and not twist, would have been exported. That was a view of the question which was of great importance to these people. He believed, that when it was closely examined, it would be proved that the present system was the worst possible. We could not wholly dispense with foreign corn, but instead of obtaining a ready supply by means of our cotton goods, continually exported, whenever it became necessary to buy foreign corn, gold had to be sent out of the country in the first instance. The exchange went against us, and there immediately ensued a risk of a panic. He had seen only one, but that was a time which he never wished to see again. It was necessary to keep a supply of precious metals, but there was great danger of that supply being diminished under the present system; whereas, if there was a regular trade in cotton and corn, the deficiency of a harvest would occasion no such evil consequences. The landed Gentlemen spoke as if they bore all the burthen of the Poor-laws. That he denied. The large manufacturing towns absorbed a large part of the surplus population of the country, and when that population was not employed, the town people had to support it. He believed, that the manufacturing community with which he was connected, supported not less than 40,000 natives of the sister kingdom. He was quite ready to go into an investigation of the subject, and he regretted that it had not been brought forward at the lime when a subject of far less interest, the Coercive Bill for Ireland, occupied the attention of the House. They might then have had time to do an act of justice to the country, and till that was done, till the Corn-laws were repealed, all the reductions in expenditure which could be made, all the reductions of taxation possible, would give the country no relief.

did not defend the Corn-laws on principle, but he was satisfied that the present was not the proper time to alter them. He was connected with both manufacturers and agriculturists, and he was convinced, that his manufacturing constituents were assured, that if they crippled their agricultural neighbours, they would cripple their best customers. They were also assured, that if the Corn-laws were repealed, it would not be one part only of the land which would go out of cultivation, but the whole. If the manufacturers were willing to take upon themselves the whole burthens of the landlords, they might open the Corn trade; but unless they were willing to do that, to open the trade, to allow of importation, even at a low rate of fixed duty, would not destroy a part of the agricultural interest, but the whole. Till the manufacturers were ready to take upon themselves all the burthens of the landed interest, the protecting duty must be continued.

said, that he would support the Motion on this ground, that if the Motion were carried, and a Bill brought into the House, they would then be able to say what alteration could be effected in the present system of Corn-laws. He would have contented himself with this declaration, had it not been for the extraordinary conclusions at which the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Pease) appeared to have arrived. He (Mr. Whitmore) denied the accuracy of those conclusions, contending, that if the trade in corn were to be thrown open, very little of the land, if any, would be thrown out of cultivation. The Corn-laws were greatly injurious to the agriculturists themselves, and, if repealed, a greater impulse, he contended, would be given to the manufactures and general commerce of the kingdom, and consequently greater prosperity to the agricultural interest. They rested, in fact, on no solid foundation in reason. He had so recently, however, discussed the merits of the question, that he would not now take up the time of the House by making any further observations on the subject.

said, that to have an open trade would lower the price of corn in the first instance, then the land would go out of cultivation, then would come scarcity, and then there would be a famine price. Under the free system, the people would be continually exposed to fluctuations—one year starving, and the other rioting in abundance; one year the manufacturers would be plunged in the deepest distress, and the next the agricultural labourers would be out of employment. A free trade in corn would not be advantageous till there was a free trade in every thing else; and though a good deal was now said about free trade, there was in fact no such thing known. Some persons said, it would be desirable to have our population crowded into workshops. He did not think that; he desired to see the present mixture of manufacturing and agricultural pursuits, and he thought the Legislature ought to maintain it. He could say, that at present, the manufacturers were flourishing, which showed that they were not starved by the Corn-laws. If they did not get adequate wages, that was owing to the avarice of their masters. The agricultural labourer now got good wages, and had not been so well off" for thirty years. He had made these observations only to show, that the Corn-laws did not, as was said, starve the people.

said, that he had never raised his rents for upwards of forty years, and that they were not so well paid now as formerly. This he mentioned to show the "great advantage" he derived from the much-talked-of monopoly of the Corn-laws. He presumed that other agriculturists were enjoying the same beneficial effects from it. He could not, of course, know what proportion the rents of others bore now to that which they did in the first period. He knew, too, that many respectable tradesmen of the different towns in his neighbourhood complained most bitterly, and most justly, of the very high prices of corn during the extravagantly dear times; but when corn afterwards fell to ruinously low prices, those very gentlemen assured bins that they suffered greatly from being thereby deprived of the custom of their best friends.

would support the Motion, as it did not go to put an end to the Corn-laws, but only to modify them. Certainly the present laws had been intended to protect the agriculturists, and in that light they had failed.

did not object to leave being given to bring in the Bill, but advised the hon. Member not to press it, as it would be utterly impossible to get through the subject this Session.

thought it a pity to waste the time of the House by bringing in a Bill on this subject at this period of the Session, nor did he see why they should legislate on this subject expressly for the people of Scotland—why should there not be one law for both countries?

said, the hon. member for Middlesex appeared to think that any measure brought in for England might be applied to Scotland, but he would inform the hon. Member, that the Bill which had already been thrown out did not go far enough for the people of Scotland. He knew the feelings of the people of Scotland; and he hoped the hon. Baronet would take high ground.

said, it was impossible to consider the subject satisfactorily this Session; and he hoped the noble Lord's good nature would not induce him to permit the time of the House to be wasted by the introduction of a measure of this description.

thought it would be hard indeed upon the hon. Baronet, who had taken so much time and pains to make himself acquainted with this subject, to refuse him an opportunity of having his Bill discussed, unless, indeed, they were resolved to adopt the same course in all similar cases. He trusted the noble Lord would not allow himself to be influenced by the statements of hon. Members; but allow the Bill to be brought in and receive a fair discussion.

did not think it desirable that there should be any variation between the laws for England and Scotland in this particular.

said, he had seconded the Motion of his hon. friend without pledging himself as to its details. He confessed, however, that he was surprised at the course taken by the hon. member for Middlesex, which, after all, was vox, et prœterea nihil. That hon. Member should bear in mind, that however he might have been opposed to the hon. Baronet's Bill with respect to this country, the people of Scotland were of a different religion, and were governed by a different ecclesiastical law, and that therefore those regulations which might be inexpedient here, might be very wise and effective in that country.

said, that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Johnstone) had said, that the Bill formerly introduced by the hon. Baronet did not go far enough for the people of Scotland, and they all knew what sort of a Bill that was, and how it was received both in doors and out of doors. From this statement, the House might judge what sort of a Bill the hon. Baronet proposed to introduce now.

said, he did not wish to introduce a new law, but to amend existing laws.

begged to call the attention of the House to a Motion which he considered of great importance. It had reference to persons who had been imprisoned for tithes. The persons imprisoned under the tithe laws at Kilmainham, Kildare, and other parts of Ireland, were allowed every possible indulgence; they were permitted to have wine and such other necessaries as they wished to procure, while those imprisoned in the gaol of the county of Cork were treated with the greatest cruelty. They were locked up in stone ceils at four o'clock in the day, and treated in every respect as convict felons. One of the persons so treated was his own cousin-german. He applied to Judge Moore, by whom the parties had been tried, and that learned and humane Judge immediately applied to the Castle, and the consequence was, that the High Sheriff of the county of Cork was called upon to report upon the case. That gentleman did make his report, and the case was again referred to Judge Moore, who expressed his indignation at finding that three persons had been confined in a cell about ten feet square, and subjected to such persecution. He (Mr. Ronayne) applied day after day, to Sir William Cosset (the Lord-lieutenant's private Secretary) on the subject, until he at length gave it up from a feeling that the Government found themselves too weak to oppose themselves to the Conservative Committee of Magistrates of the county of Cork. He hoped the House would not, under these circumstances, reject his Motion for the production of the documents necessary to explain the whole of this transaction. He would mention a fact or two, which perhaps the House might laugh at, but which no honest man could fail to give weight to. The first was, that when the Sheriff and he visited the: gaol, the Sheriff gave orders that the men should not be confined to their cells, but be allowed the range of the corridor) the outer door only being closed) and gave a written order to that effect. The Sheriff, on quitting the gaol, turned to him and said, "I should not at all wonder if the gaol committee should rescind that order." And what the Sheriff predicted came to pass; the order was rescinded, and the parties were driven to their cells as usual. The other fact was, that he found on inquiry, that there was not such a thing as a night-chair in the cells. He ordered one from the hotel, and the Sheriff ordered it to be placed in a separate cell; but this order, too, the gaol committee rescinded, and ordered the night-chair to be placed in the cell with the three men. The hon. Member concluded by moving for "copies of all the memorials to the Irish government from the prisoners confined in the gaol of the county of Cork under sentence of the Judges of Assize, at the last Autumn Circuit, for offences connected with tithes; and of all communications made on the subject of every such memorial by the hon. Judge Moore; and of all letters from the Irish government in reply to any such memorial to any prisoner, or to the Sheriff of the county of Cork; and of the letter or letters of such Sheriff to the Irish government on such subject; and of all communications between the Irish government and the gaol committee of the county of Cork on the said subject."

said, that in seconding the Motion, he felt it his duty to say a few words, because he had acted as counsel for the accused parties. He had advised them the course which they had pursued upon their trial, but upon hearing of their sufferings in gaol, he felt it his duty to represent the case to Judge Moore, who said he would not have passed such a sentence upon them, had he known that they were to be so punished in gaol. If the Motion of his hon. friend were to be refused, he did not see how any Motion for the production of papers could be carried, and the result would be, that the magistrates of Ireland would be an irresponsible body.

should have no objection to the production of the documents required, as he was convinced that they would add to the confidence which the people reposed in the Government, He would, therefore, accede to the production of all the communications required, with the exception of one letter of the hon. Judge Moore, on the principle, that being on private business, it could have nothing; to do with the case. If the hon. Member saw the letter, he would, he was sure, agree, that it was of no importance.

said, he hoped the whole arrangement with respect to the Archbishops and Bishops, would be reconsidered by his Majesty's Government; but as there was a confusion between the words Tuam and Cashel, he merely for the present suggested as a verbal Amendment, that they should throughout the clause stand, "Tuam and Cashel," as under the present arrangement, the archiepiscopal jurisdiction of Tuam was to merge in Armagh, and Cashel in that of Dublin.

rose pursuant to notice, and proposed that all the words after the words "Episcopal See," in that Clause, should be left out for the purpose of inserting the following Amendment:—" And be it enacted, that no Bishop, who was not, at the time of passing this Act, in possession of an Episcopal See in Ireland, shall hereafter sit in rotation in the House of Peers; and that whenever the number of the Irish Bishops who now possessed sees, shall, by decease or demise, be reduced to twelve, then two Irish Bishops only shall sit in the House of Peers: and whenever the number of Bishops who are now in possession of Sees in Ireland, shall be reduced to six, then one Bishop only should sit in the House of Peers; and whenever all such Bishops shall become extinct, then, that the right of all the Irish Bishops to sit in Parliament shall entirely cease; provided always, that nothing in this clause contained shall prejudice the right of an Irish Archbishop to sit in Parliament." His object was to separate the offices of politician and churchman, which were not compatible. By relieving the Irish prelates from the burthen of acting as legislators in Parliament, he felt he should be promoting their ecclesiastical efficiency, and thereby the interests of the Established Church. He framed his clause so as to preserve the existing interests of the Established Church.

had, on a former occasion, objected to a Motion in reference to the translation of the Irish Bishops, on the ground that such a proposition was ill-timed, as not being consistent with the object and details of the present Bill; a fortiori he should, therefore, object to the present Amendment, which involved a great principle, that required not only a separate, but a most serious consideration; and which, therefore, could not be properly discussed in that House unless as a distinct substantive Motion. The proposition was neither more nor less than the expelling the Irish Bishops altogether from Parliament. Now, this involved a great constitutional principle, which could not be thus introduced in a side-wind. If the circumstance of the parliamentary duties of the Irish prelates being likely to interfere with their ecclesiastical functions should be admitted to be a just ground for the present Amendment, in common fairness how could they avoid extending it to the English Bishops, and exclude them also from the Legislature? [Cheers]. He could not mistake the import of that cheer, and therefore begged leave not to be misunderstood. He did not mean to express any opinion on the principle involved in the hon. member's Amendment, and should not be understood as at all sanctioning it. All he meant was, that no argument held good for the expulsion of the Irish Bishops from Parliament, which would not equally apply to the English Prelates.

said, he could not, on hearing the amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman, avoid turning to the order book, as he recollected that on that night week the hon. Member had a notice for a substantive Motion on the same subject standing in his name. But, strange to say, upon reference to the terms of that motion, it appeared to have for its object the removing of all disabilities that prohibited clergymen from sitting in that House. Now, he would leave it to the hon. Member to reconcile the inconsistency between that Motion and his present Amendment, the more particularly as the ground upon which he rested his Amendment that night was the "incompatibility of the offices of politician and churchman." He could not really suppose that the hon. Member was serious in his Amendment, and as he had quite sufficient to do to combat the real innovations of his Majesty's Ministers in reference to the Irish branch of the United Church, he would not waste the time of the Committee by seriously discussing the crude proposition which the hon. Member had submitted.

said, it seemed to be admitted that the ecclesiastical duties of Bishops were interfered with by their sitting in the Legislature; but that injury would be less by their sitting only occasionally, as in the case of the Irish Bishops, than by their occupying seats permanently. The question then ought to be put—what was intended to be done? The Act of Union could not be taken to be in favour of the abolition of the ten Bishops, and at the same time construed against the abolition of them all. The Union with Scotland had never stood in the way of any improvement that was deemed necessary, and he hoped that there was no Irishman in the House who would urge the Irish Union as an impediment to improvement. The best thing for the Bishops was to place them in the best situation with their flocks, and his belief was, that the removing the Prelates from the House of Lords would do very much towards setting them right with those under their charge. If this were a good thing it were best to have it done at once; and why, if it were good, should it be postponed for years, as was now proposed? But the right hon. Secretary (Mr. Stanley) had said he was not prepared to propose for Ireland what he would not do for England. He was, however, quite ready for both. He would, therefore, only ask of the hon. Member to alter his Motion, and make the Bishops cease their attendance at once, or after the next term. It was, to be sure, only a small reform, but it was good; and if it were to be greater in future, there was nothing like a speedy beginning.

said, that the hon. member for Middlesex had contended, that political and religious duties could not go hand in hand. He knew well the sort of friendship the hon. member for Middlesex felt for the Established Church; but he (Colonel Perceval) viewed the hon. Member's attack upon the Irish Representative Bishops as a direct attack upon the House of Peers. It was well known that the Established Church in Ireland had no direct representative in that House. He (Colonel Perceval) meant the clergy were not represented by any one of their own body in that House; and unless it was intended to sweep away the whole Establishment, he did not know what was the meaning of this atack upon the Irish Representative Bishops silting in the House of Peers.

said, this was a most serious question—for on what right did the Irish Bishops hold their seats in Parliament? Upon a solemn compact, agreed to between the two nations, when there were twenty-two Bishops holding seats in the Irish House of Peers. It was by that compact agreed that they should be represented in the United Parliament by one Archbishop and three Bishops. Others might insist that absenteeism was the great bane of Ireland, and on that ground propose that the twenty-eight temporal Peers should be reduced to sixteen, or to eight—leaving the remainder to reside in Ireland for the benefit of the country. If the one proposition were adopted, there was no reason whatever which could be urged against the other.

would observe, that, from the arguments brought forward, this was rendered a more important question than any other connected with the Bill. It appeared certain to him that no one could argue this question upon any other principle than this—whether any spiritual Peers should be permitted to sit in Parliament at all; and to declare that they could not, would be a sweeping change in the Constitution. Every law was at present passed by the Lords spiritual and temporal and the Commons in Parliament assembled, and such had been the practice of the realm. The hon. Member had, however, brought forward this subject rather as a question of convenience than of principle; but he (Lord Althorp) could not agree to the propriety of this—for there was no one who would say, that it was improper for the Irish Bishops to sit in Parliament, if the English Bishops were permitted to retain their seats. But to effect this change would be to make an entire alteration in the Constitution; and he would ask whether it was either proper or possible that such an alteration could be made by an Amendment upon a clause in an Act of Parliament relative to the temporalities of the Church of Ireland? If such a question were to be entertained, it ought to be brought forward separately, and deliberately and attentively considered. He was sorry to find such a question at all mooted in that House; and he hoped and was confident that no such feeling was entertained as to induce a doubt whether it was the wish of the country or of the House of Commons, that the Church of England should not be represented in the House of Peers. Every one was aware of the animadversions and sarcasms which were uttered on this important subject out of doors; but he did not suppose that there was any person, acquainted with the Constitution of the country, who would wish even to attempt such a change without the most serious consideration. He should feel grieved to find a precedent of this description sanctioned by the House; and he should be most sorry to see such a motion as that of the hon. Member acceded to without a due consideration of the general principle.

had listened with infinite satisfaction to the sentiments of the noble Lord, who, as the organ of his Majesty's Government, had declared that the representation of the Church of of England in the other House of Parliament was an indispensable part of the Constitution [cries of "No, no.!"] Did those hon. Members who cried "No, no!" mean to say that the Bishops did not hold their seats in the other House of Parliament by indefeasible right? By what tenure did the Irish Bishops hold their seats there? By the same tenure as the Irish lay Lords—the Act of Union. It would be impossible to deny, that Ireland would be treated with the greatest injustice, if a successful attempt were made to remove the Irish Bishops from the other House of Parliament. The Committee had been truly told by the noble Lord, that if they entertained the present proposition, they would in fact entertain the proposition that the Church of England should be altogether unrepresented in Parliament. He had been delighted with the noble Lord's distinct declaration on the subject; and he congratulated the country upon it.

, in reply to the observations of the hon. Baronet, that the Irish Bishops held their seats by virtue of the Act of Union, observed, that one Act of Parliament was good, and ought to be obeyed, until it was rescinded; and no longer. Two Acts of Parliament had declared that Bishops should sit in the other House of Parliament. If an Act should be passed declaring that they should not sit, that Act would be as good as its predecessors, and ought to be as implicitly obeyed. The noble Lord had contended that there was no wish whatever for such a change—

observed that what he had said was, that he was persuaded the general feeling in the country was against any such change.

was satisfied, that ere long the noble Lord would find that he had been deceived on that point.

admitted that, to a certain extent, there was such a feeling in the country as that described by the hon. member for Middlesex; but attributed it to the lessons which the people had received from most unworthy and unjustifiable instructors. With respect to the Amendment, the hon. mover of it was utterly mistaken in one respect, for he seemed to consider that the right of the Bishops to sit in the House of Peers was founded not on considerations of public good, but on personal considerations merely. That was a great error. The hon. Member proposed that the right should cease as those who at present enjoyed it dropped off. Now he (Mr. Estcourt) agreed with the hon. member for Middlesex, that if it was unfit that the Bishops should sit in the House of Peers, the best course would be, instead of allowing them to die off, as the hon. mover of the Amendment proposed, to sweep them all away at once. The hon. mover of the Amendment treated the subject as if it were one of mere personal gratification to the Bishops themselves. Now that was not the view taken of it by the Act of Union. The Act of Union provided that the Representatives of the Irish Episcopacy should sit in the House of Peers for the public benefit, not for their own personal gratification. If the Irish Bishops were to be excluded, there could be no reason why the Irish lay Lords should not be excluded also. Perhaps the hon. Member would include them in his proposition. They stood upon an equal footing. They all sat in the House of Peers, not for their own gratification, but for the public benefit.

recommended the hon. member for Huntingdon to withdraw his Amendment. Of this he was quite sure; that by dividing the Committee upon it, the hon. Member would not do justice to himself. He himself (Mr. Gisborne), although he would not say what his opinions might be if the question were brought separately and distinctly under the consideration of Parliament, could not vote for the proposition thus irregularly introduced.

, as he found that the sense of the House was against his proposition being brought forward in its present shape, expressed his disposition to withdraw it.

said, that this discussion had incidentally taken a very serious turn, which could not at all have been anticipated from the Amendment introduced by the hon. Member. He had heard, as well as his hon. friend (Sir Edward Knatchbull) with pleasure, the distinct disavowal of the noble Lord, of the extraordinary doctrines which had been broached, with reference to the House of Lords. But he must say, that the noble Lord had not been equally explicit with respect to the new and highly dangerous construction that it was sought by hon. Members to put upon the Act of Union. He solemnly protested against the Act of Union being treated as an ordinary Act of Parliament. It had been well described by his right hon. friend (Mr. Wynn) as a national compact, and if that compact were violated, he for one, as an Irishman, independently of all peculiar or party politics, would deny the competency of any other than the original contracting parties to resettle that great question. The hon. and learned member for Dublin might well remain quiet, and rest satisfied, while English Members were doing more to promote the great object of his wishes, than any individual exertion of his own could possibly accomplish. His Majesty's Ministers were greatly mistaken, if they for a moment supposed that there was not much nationality of feeling in Ireland on this exciting subject. And he thought a more inappropriate opportunity could not have been selected by his Majesty's Ministers to evince indifference to the levity with which the Act of Union had been treated by English Members, than upon a discussion relating to the church establishment in Ireland; for he could not repeat too often that the continuance and preservation of the Irish branch of the united church, which had that night been so lightly spoken of, indeed, so openly denounced, was not only an essential and fundamental part of the Union, in the express terms of solemn compact made between the countries—but he would go farther, and say, that the maintenance of the Established Church in Ireland was, independently of that express contract, the real bond which united the feelings and the interests of the Protestants of Ireland with this country. He need scarcely say, that the Roman Catholics, almost to a man, were opposed to the legislative Union. It behoved then his Majesty's Government to take care how they estranged from it the affections of the Irish Protestants. He did not so much complain of the hasty and inconsiderate expressions that might fall in the heat of the debate from individual Members of that House—but he did feel that the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers was wholly inexcusable in allowing it to be advanced in their presence that the existence of the Established Church in Ireland depended upon a common Act of Parliament, which it was competent to the present Legislature to make or unmake at their pleasure. It was time that the members of the Established Church in Ireland, should be distinctly told whether or not that establishment was to be supported. He (Mr. Shaw) had always endeavoured openly and plainly to declare his sentiments on that all-important subject; he hoped that the noble Lord and his Majesty's Ministers would not shrink from a distinct avowal of their opinion upon a question which, though incidentally and somewhat irregularly introduced, was second to none, in its bearing upon the best interests of Ireland, and he might add of the empire at large.

objected to those prelates having to pay over a large sum annually without reference to their actual receipts.

fully agreed with his hon. friend (Mr. Estcourt) that it was unfair to bring the full charge against these prelates, when possibly their rents might be in arrear. Such a mode of taxation would be considered unjust in the case of other landed proprietors. He particularly objected to this principle, as in case of his suggestion being adopted of reducing the incomes rather than the number of the other bishoprics, it might be generally applied. He had before slated that in reference to the bishopric of Derry, he considered it would be much more desirable to retain Raphoe and Derry at 4,000l. a year each, than Derry alone at 8,000l. a year. Still he felt that every justice should be done to the present Bishop of Derry, who had been appointed with an understanding that the arrangement now proposed should be carried into operation.

proposed an amendment, to reduce the annual value of the Irish bishoprics, on the next avoidance, to a sum not exceeding 5,000l.; and of Irish archbishoprics, to a sum not exceeding 6,000l.

said, he understood the object the hon. Member had in view, but he did not perceive how that object could be achieved by the Amendment he had proposed; and if the hon. Member's Amendment should be adopted, the preamble to the clause would run thus—" Whereas the revenues of the archbishopric of Armagh, and bishopric of Derry, and the other archbishoprics and bishoprics in Ireland, greatly exceed the other bishoprics in Ireland, it is expedient to diminish such excess." Such would be the wording of the clause, and he need not say that it was impossible that it could be agreed to in that shape. Undoubtedly they had left to the Primate of all Ireland a large, and perhaps in the opinion of some, a splendid income. Allusion had been made to the present primate, and he (Mr. Stanley) was sure it would be readily admitted by every one who had the least knowledge of that distinguished individual, that there never was a prelate whose conduct was more exemplary, and however large his See might be, it was impossible that it could have been expended in a manner more serviceable to the Church, or more beneficially to the community at large, than it had been by the distinguished prelate at the head of the Irish Church; and as to the patronage which his Grace possessed, he believed that not a single relative of the primate's had been promoted by him to a benefice. The present income of the primate was to be continued to him for life, but afterwards the revenue of the archbishopric would be reduced to 9,000l. a year; and he did not think that for the Primate of all Ireland, the head of the Church in that country, and upon whom necessarily many expenses were entailed, that 9,000l. a year would be a very large income. The revenue of the archbishopric nominally would be 10,000l. a year, but when the per centage was deducted it would be something under 9,000l. The revenue of the other archbishopric would be 7,500l., and deducting the per centage it would be less than 7,000l. The Archbishop of Dublin was to have the whole of the South of Ireland under his charge, and there were in his diocese a greater number of poorer clergy than he believed in any other diocese in Ireland, whom of course he would be expected to assist and relieve. The incomes of the Bishops would fluctuate between 4,000l. and 5,000l. a year. The greater part of them receiving between 4,000l. and 4,500l. a year, he confessed he did not see any great advantage that would result from making the revenues of the Irish bishops uniform. There was an approximation to equality, but it did not actually exist. He saw no reason for making such an alteration as that proposed, and he should therefore oppose the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member.

objected to the Bishop of Derry having a higher salary than the Archbishop of Dublin. He also thought that 10,000l. a year clear income would be little enough for the Primate of Ireland, who was next in rank to the Lord Lieutenant of that country.

said, with respect to the Archbishop of Dublin, he could bear testimony to the great expenses that were incident to that particular See, and he heard individuals who had been translated from smaller sees with nominally a less income say, that they found themselves losers in a pecuniary point of view. As regarded the Primate, it was quite impossible that any income however large, could be expended with more advantage to the country, or so as to reflect more honour on the Established Church, than by leaving it at the discretion of the distinguished and revered individual who then adorned that high office. He felt, that the system of equality in the incomes of the Bishops was not free from objection and difficulty; but he still considered it far preferable to a reduction of their numbers, and to the last moment before this Bill should pass into a law, he would cling to the hope that the Government would abandon that most objectionable portion of it, which went to diminish the influence and efficiency of the episcopal bench in Ireland. It would be at all events but reasonable in the filling up of the blanks in this clause to postpone the payments to the Commissioners until the 1st of July and January which should occur next after the first half-year alone should be payable.