, on presenting the Petition of Mr. Levy Emanuel Cohen, Editor of The Brighton Guardian newspaper, for remitting the sentence of imprisonment against him, assured the House that he would not unnecessarily occupy their time in reading at length the whole of the petition, but would confine himself to a few of the leading points, making a few observations on the peculiar hardship of the petitioner's case, the most striking of which was the length of the imprisonment and the circumstance of his incarceration being fixed in a distant county, out of the reach of his friends but through the medium of a tedious correspondence. Why should he not have been sentenced to a gaol in his own county? or at all events within one post of his home, where he had left an aged mother to whose subsistence he had for years mainly contributed by his own industry? There were many other points which might be adverted to; but he would not trespass on the patience of the House. The hon. Member concluded by congratulating the House and the country upon the Motion for the amending of the Libel Law, introduced by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, and which he trusted would meet with the sanction and support of his Majesty's Ministers.

said, he could not help expressing his surprise and regret, after the statement of the hon. member for Brighton, of his having given notice of his intention to present this petition, that not one member of the Government was present to take notice of the complaints of the petitioner. He could only attribute it to neglect, or some extraordinary pressure of business, which prevented their attendance, for this petition was one of some importance, and should have been answered by a proper Minister of the Crown. But, not seeing either of the members for the county of Sussex in their places, and being himself one of that Bench of Magistrates at Horsham, to whom the libel referred, he felt it his duty to offer a few words on the subject. He should feel some delicacy in speaking of this individual, for reasons which affected him personally; but this party who came forward to-day, under the garb of an innocent man, had, on two previous occasions, been convicted of libels on various individuals. That ought not to be kept entirely out of view. He felt it his duty to inform the House of this circumstance, because they ought not to receive the petition blindfolded, before they were made acquainted with the character of the party from whom it sprang. The petitioner had already been convicted of libels. With regard to the parish of Horsham, which was eulogised by the libel, he knew of no particular eulogy that it was deserving of; he only knew that, in the neighbourhood, great endeavours were made to find employment for the poor; that good and sufficient employment had been sought, and proper remuneration given. That was the object the Magistrates had in view. In his judgment, much of the agricultural distress, which had occasioned the prevalence of incendiarism in the county of Sussex, arose, in a great measure, from the wages paid to the labourers. As to the Labourers' Employment Act, which he had the honour of introducing last Session, he regretted very much that it had been rejected, for he felt convinced, that it would have gone a great way to remedy the evil, for he believed that throughout England there had been no instance of these acts of incendiarism taking place where a Labour-rate Bill had been put in force. That fact spoke volumes in favour of the Bill, and, he thought, showed that it ought not to be rejected. He would not detain the House further, only he had thought it right, in the absence of other information, to state what he knew of the petitioner. He had never seen either Mr. Cohen or his paper, but from what he had heard of him, he believed his public character was liable to much and deserved animadversion.

said, he did not think it was proper to enter into a discussion on the private libels alluded to by the hon. member for Shoreham; they were not before the House; but the question was, whether, in the present instance, the petitioner's punishment did not exceed the offence for which he was now suffering incarceration in Chelmsford gaol. He (Lord W. Lennox) had no personal motive in the matter, or predisposition in favour of Mr. Cohen, who ever since he had conducted The Brighton Guardian, had done nothing every week but libel his family; but he nevertheless thought in this instance the utmsst severity had been adopted towards the petitioner. In the first place, the petitioner denied being the author of the paragraph, and then, when brought up for judgment, he was entirely exonerated by Mr. Justice Parke from the charge of exciting the peasantry to acts of incendiarism; and yet, from the month of March to the middle of November, the editor had suffered under the scandal and opprobrium inseparable from so foul an accusation. Then there was another fact which ought to be borne in mind, which was, that although previous to the publication of this paragraph, there appeared a disposition among the misguided peasantry to renew the devastating scenes of 1830 and 1831, yet, from the time of the appearance of this paragraph, there had not been a single fire during the whole of the following, winter. That showed that the paragraph did not do a great deal of mischief, indeed he thought that Mr. Cohen did not know that the paragraph was a libel, and he only received it late on the night before publication, which fact ought also to have been taken into consideration. There were one or two remarks made in the petition in which he did not concur, but which, however, he would not allude to. However, he would just observe that Mr. Justice Parke in charging the jury said:—" With the reasons why the Government had not prosecuted, they (the Jury) had nothing-to do. The case was now before them, and they were to look at it as it was, without taking that circumstance at all into consideration. One reason why the Government had not come forward might be, that when they did so, there was generally a strong feeling on the part of the people in favour of the defendant, of which, in most cases, the defendant availed himself." Now, why was there such a feeling on the part of the people? Because they thought that this man was aggrieved, that he supported the people, and that he ought not to be punished. He concurred entirely in the prayer of the petition, as far as related to the law of libel, than which a more dis- graceful law never existed, and he hoped a speedy alteration would take place in it. He wished the hon. and learned member for Dublin were there, for in offering a suggestion to so able a lawyer, he hoped he should not be deemed guilty of presumption; but he would say to the hon. and learned member who was about to bring in his Bill,—let him take the American Law of Libel for his pattern. It was the best code that ever was; it was found to answer very well; and it had been used in that country thirty years, where there was a much greater freedom of expression allowed than in this country. That law was, that truth was allowed to be brought forward in justification of the libel; but then the Jury had to consider whether that libel was published on public grounds; whether the publisher was actuated by public motives for the general good, to expose vice; or, whether he was actuated by private feelings, and inserted it to gratify private and vindictive feelings. If the Jury believed the man was actuated by public motives, in every such case a verdict of acquittal followed. There was no such thing as a farthing damages carrying heavy costs. He merely through out this hint, and hoped the hon. and learned member for Dublin would make use of it; but, on a future occasion, he should enter further upon the subject of the Law of Libel, which as it stood at present was the grossest absurdity, and was most unjust; it was an injustice which checked the free expression of sentiments without at all controlling the licentiousness of the Press.

was happy the noble Lord had preceded him; he had done justice to the question; and his (Mr. O'Connor's) feelings on the subject coincided with those of the noble Lord. He agreed with the hon. member for Shoreham in reprobating the conduct of Ministers, in not appearing to listen to the present petition; but he must reprobate the conduct of the hon. Member himself, in alluding to the former convictions. The hon. Member should have proved, that Mr. Cohen benefited by the former convictions; for the hon. Member had proved that, though he (Mr. Cohen) had been twice convicted of libel, yet when he published the present paragraph, he did not know he was committing a breach of the law. The noble Lord had told them, that notwithstanding; all the editor had done, notwithstanding all his former convictions, he did not know he was publishing a libel. And yet he was to be imprisoned in Chelmsford gaol! This came from the liberty of the Press of the Whigs! This came from the Government which professed to be so liberal! He thought in Ireland only the Government—[Sir C. Burrell said, this prosecution was instituted and carried on by the Magistrates of Sussex.] Yes, it was instituted by the Magistrates certainly, and carried on in their name; but they were under the direction of the Government, and the Government awarded the punishment. There had been more prosecutions under this Government to endeavour to put down the liberty of the Press, than under any other Administration, so that if Ministers continued going on thus, the House of Commons would soon have petitions from all the editors in the country, for a convenient prison for them to be imprisoned in. It was a peculiarly hard case that Mr. Cohen was to be removed from his own family, transported into a distant county, and imprisoned for six months for publishing a paragraph, when he did not know he was committing a breach of the law. He concurred in the opinions expressed by the hon. member for King's Lynn, that it was necessary that something should be done, to alter the Law of Libel, or the Press, instead of being the means of defending public liberty, would become the organ of an oppressive and corrupt Government.

said, there seemed to be but one opinion in the House about the absence of all the responsible members of the Government on the present occasion. There was an agreement made—or at least there was an understanding come to, between the Government and the Members of that House, at the commencement of the Session, that some member of his Majesty's Government should be present to listen to petitions. He thought it would be better that the morning sittings should not be held at all if the members of the Government could not be present. Petitions were presented for two purposes—for the purpose of presenting statements of grievances—facts—and for obtaining an answer from the Government to those facts in each particular case. If the absence of the noble Lord (Althorp) arose from his attendance in council on official business; surely there were so many Ministers Members of that House who were not Cabinet Ministers, that one ought at least to attend and give answers to the petitions. The reference which had been made to the Law of Libel had induced him to take the earliest opportunity of speaking, for the purpose of stating a fact, upon which he was sure the British Legislature would take some strong and immediate measure. That fact was this—that Mr. R. Barrett, the proprietor of the Pilot Dublin paper, was prosecuted for the publication of a letter bearing the signature "Daniell O'Connell." The prosecution had been instituted after the Jury Bill had been introduced, by which a Ballot was given in Special Juries. It went off in the first instance for default of Jurors; but it came on again after the Jury Bill had passed, but before it had come into operation. It was strongly pressed upon the Government and the Court, that the trial ought to be postponed till after the first of January, because the Jury Bill would then have come into operation, and such a Jury would be obtained as would try the question fairly. That application was refused. A list of forty-eight names was given by the Clerk of the Crown, out of which twenty-four were to be selected, and out of these forty-eight names there were only four Roman Catholics. The Clerk had furnished the names of but four Roman Catholics out of forty-eight Jurors; and the Crown Solicitor, in the execution of his official prerogative, struck off the names of these four Roman Catholics, and the case went before the Jury—of persons, who, to use a vulgar and strong phrase, were "packed. "The Jury then tried the question—a question where the name of Daniel O'Connell was involved was tried by a jury composed of persons, who, he would not say were of one party, but the public conduct of the most prominent individuals on which, was characteristic of factious feelings, and the greater part of that jury was composed of persons of the most aristocratical kind. The matter did not rest there. The defendant was found guilty, with a recommendation to mercy, and sentenced by the Court to six months' imprisonment, and the Court said the recommendation to mercy weighed upon them. And what had been the conduct of Government? They had availed themselves of an act passed in 1815, 55 Geo. 3rd c. 80, and issued an ordinance,—he used the word ordinance because the idea of an ordinance was associated with the whole transaction—to prohibit the granting of stamps to that paper (The Pilot.) So that the Government, in the first instance, availed themselves of an Act, not in existence in this country, by which they had incarcerated a man in this way, and not only deprived him of his liberty, but, though recommended to mercy, had deprived him of the means of livelihood. Was this to be tolerated by the British public? Was this a line of conduct to be sanctioned in a country where the liberty of the Press was boasted of as a part of the liberty of the people? They were then told the Irish Government were in the habit of acting in the spirit of fairness. He appealed—not to the Government, on this occasion, but to public opinion—he appealed to British sentiments; and he had no doubt, that it would not be long before a feeling of just indignation (of which he hoped the royal breast had no monopoly) would be evoked from the hearts of the British people at so scandalous—if it were not unparliamentary he would have given vent to the impetuosity of his feelings—but he would say, so unjust, so merciless, and so despotic a proceeding. He would submit the case to their justice, and he had to tell them, that it was one not only entitled to their sympathies, but bound up with their interests.

agreed in the opinions of the hon. member for Tipperary. He said, he felt a deep regret and deep displeasure at the proceeding to which the hon. member had alluded the moment he beheld the announcement, but, in the absence of the Members of his Majesty's Government he thought it was only due to them to state, that on reference to the Act it did appear, that no discretion was left to the Commissioners of Stamps, but under the provisions of that Act they were particularly ordered, that in case of the conviction of any publisher—The words of the Act were—" That if any printer, or publisher, or proprietor of a newspaper in Ireland shall be, by a due course of law, outlawed for any offence, or convicted of publishing any seditious libel, the said Commissioners of Stamps are hereby prohibited to send or deliver to or for the use of any such printer, &c, any stamped paper for the printing of news." Undoubtedly the words of the Act were specific upon the subject; and no persons connected with the Stamp Office could supply stamps to the editor of The Pilot without incurring the penalty under this Act. He felt it only due to the Government, that he should make this statement. He had, however, been informed, that the moment the Government found that this law was put into operation, it was their intention, with the greatest possible expedition, to introduce a Bill by which this compulsory clause should be repealed; and that this outrageous disgrace to the Statute-book should no longer be endured. He perfectly agreed with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Brighton. He regretted, and every man who advocated the liberty of the Press must also regret, the extreme severity of the punishment inflicted upon the editor of the Brighton Guardian. He regretted, that he (Mr. Cohen) should be transported, as had been so aptly said by an hon. member, from the county of Sussex, to Chelmsford. Why should they endeavour to crush him, to check his industry, to put an end to his paper, and break off his connexion with his family and friends? Those were the doings of former times. He hoped that the feeling of that House would be expressed upon the subject, and would show judges, that in their future sentences, they should be considerate:—that men were not to be torn from the soil on which they had grown, and were not thus to be destroyed.

thought, with his hon. friend below him, that this was a most disgraceful clause. The distributor of stamps could not be aware of the clause; but the truth was, the distributor of stamps acted under the instructions of Government; and it was too true, that it had been reserved for a Government professing to uphold liberty to enforce this abominable Act. His hon. friend said, the Commissioners of Stamps were obliged to enforce the law. He (Mr. O'Dwyer) had read the Statute; and he saw no penalty attached to the Commissioners for not enforcing the law. It was, therefore, quite within their power to continue to issue stamps to Mr. Barrett, and no penalty would have been incurred by them. But there was another part of the transaction to which he begged leave to call the attention of the House. Mr. Barrett could not have been treated in this way, but he was found guilty of pub- lishing a seditious libel. If that word "seditious" had not been introduced into the indictment, Mr. Barrett could not have been so treated. He had carefully examined the indictment; and he would defy any lawyer to say that the word seditious was not complete surplusage; it was not required; but it was introduced solely from a vindictive feeling, and for the purpose of bringing it within the operation of this Act. He should not detain the House now, as he had given notice of a motion on the case of Mr. Barrett; and when he brought it forward, he should see whether there was that opinion among them which he thought existed. He begged, however, to express his deep sympathy with the hon. member for Brighton on the case of Mr. Cohen. That gentleman had been prosecuted for a libel upon the magistrates of Sussex, a very serious offence he was willing to omit; but he thought he was justified in saying, that where the libel was against a particular class, Mr. Cohen should not have been tried by persons of the same class. He should have been tried by his peers, who were not magistrates, and persons who had not a sympathy with his prosecutor.

said, as the hon. member for Boston (Mr. Wilks) had declared that the words of the Act were imperative on the Commissioners, they it was clear were not to blame. No person could feel more indignant than himself at the conduct they had pursued; yet he thought it would only be an act of justice to wait until some one of the Ministers was present to defend their conduct. But to return to the question brought forward respecting the editor of the Brighton Guardian, he begged to say, he had read that paper for some years, and though he could not say he greed in all the editor's opinions,—he did not mean to say, that in his (Mr. Cohen's) opinion he had not sometimes gone further than was necessary in support of that cause which that editor advocated, and was still advocating,—and he trusted Mr. Cohen might never attack individuals,—yet he (Major Beauclerk) thought that great allowance ought to be made for the period in which that paragraph appeared. It was a time of extraordinary excitement; and if hon. Members would look at the Chronicle or Times, as well as many other journals, they would find far greater, more frequent;, and violent attacks made then upon the Government and even magistrates, and by a pen far more powerful than Mr. Cohen's, and calculated to have much greater influence; but no notice had been taken of these. And, therefore, their duty now was to release the petitioner, who was deprived of his liberty, and whose prospects would be blighted—perhaps ruined—if he were allowed to Wither in a distant gaol. He thought, if his Majesty's Ministers took the case into consideration, they would see it was one of great hardship. The petitioner had been tried for a most heinous crime, and when he satisfactorily proved that this charge was founded in an absolute want of truth, and when even the Judge acquitted him of all intention to incite the peasantry to acts of incendiarism, it was cruel in the extreme to declare that the petitioner was to be thrown for six months into a distant prison. He perfectly agreed with what had fallen from the noble Lord, the member for King's Lynn. His conduct was deserving of their applause. That editor, whose petition was before the House, might, in a time of excitement, have attacked his Lordship's family, but the noble Lord had declared, that he had thrown away all personal feeling towards him, and looked only to the present case as one in which he conceived the petitioner had been treated with great cruelty. There was no person he would more readily bow to, except in politics, upon which the best friends differed, than the hon. member for Shoreham; but if the hon. Member looked into the circumstances of this case fairly and without prejudice, and if he took into consideration the period when these attacks were made—a period when all the papers made attacks upon magistrates much more severe than Mr. Cohen had done; and when the hon. Member remembered the exceeding severity of the sentence, he thought the hon. Member would go with them in praying his Majesty's Ministers to release this individual. If the petitioner had done wrong, he trusted the hon. Member (Sir C. Burrell) would be satisfied with the vengeance that had been taken upon this individual, and would join with them in praying his Majesty's Ministers to release him from this unjust punishment. This case was one of compassion, and he hoped after what the petitioner had endured, the remainder of the sentence would be remitted.

said, that until the case was fairly brought before the House, it was impossible for him, and it was impossible for the House, to judge of it; for, in the absence of Ministers, they had no information on which they could rest. At the same time, in stating that the individual in question had been convicted of libels in other cases, he submitted, that it was more incumbent for them to wait till a full and efficient answer could be had to the complaints of the petitioner. He only wanted to add, that one hon. Member who had stated the case, had made a mistake with regard to saying, that the petitioner was tried by magistrates. He believed no magistrate was on that jury. Some of the magistrates were called by the Sheriff on the Grand Jury, and sent the libel to be tried, but not a single magistrate tried the petitioner. It would be doing a great injustice to the magistrates to send that statement forth to the world.

said, this prosecution was clearly not a prosecution instituted by the Government; they had nothing more to do with it than with any ordinary trial for a felony that had been tried in the county of Sussex at the last assizes. But, whoever were the prosecutors, he must say—knowing nothing of the case but what he had heard in that House, and hearing the publication read by the hon. Member who had presented the petition (for he had never read the libel, or the report of the trial)—but he must say, he was surprised that such a sentence could be inflicted upon any individual; that in such a case it should be imprisonment in any gaol, and much more in such a distant gaol. They knew that Government had nothing to do with the prosecution, but some hon. Gentlemen were so anxious to throw blame upon Government, that they seized every opportunity of doing it; and a discussion had been raised upon a question with which they had nothing to do, and he deprecated all discussions upon any subject that was not regularly before the House, as the parties concerned could not be expected to be present. He thought the hon. member for Boston would have done better to have postponed his observations on the case of Mr. Barrett; there were two notices of motions on the same question. He would not, therefore, anticipate that question, which would be brought forward in a distinct Motion by the hon. member for Drogheda, further than to make one remark upon the observation of the hon. member for Drogheda, relative to that Statute which had been quoted, and in which the hon. Member said, no penalty was specified for disobedience of the provisions of that Statute. The words of that Act were "That they (the Commissioners of Stamps) are hereby prohibited from issuing stamps" to any printer convicted of a seditious libel. Certainly there was no penalty attached to a disobedience of this provision, but every lawyer knew that disobedience of any Act of Parliament was an indictable offence, and punishable at common law. This was an oppressive and an improper law; but if the Commissioners had not put it; in force they would have been liable to an indictment at the prosecution of any person who chose to institute one.

said, this was not a matter connected at first with the Government, it was true; the Government did not commence the prosecution, and as far as that was concerned, the Government had nothing to do with it; but the Government possessed a discretionary power of keeping the parties referred to in gaol; and when an application had been made to them, as it appeared there had been in this case, he thought their conduct came very properly under the cognizance of the House. The Government had exercised that discretionary power, and it seemed they did not mean to release the petitioner, and, therefore, that House ought to act in the matter. From the beginning to the end of this transaction, he must call it a most disgraceful one. It was disgraceful to the prosecutors who instituted it—it was disgraceful to the Grand Jury who returned the bill—it was disgraceful to the jury who convicted the petitioner—it was disgraceful to the magistrates of Sussex—and he would say, it was disgraceful to the Judge on the bench. He would not use guarded language, because this was not a case in which guarded language ought to be used. They had come there to express their opinions freely, and he, for one, would do so. This unfortunate editor had inserted in his paper a paragraph relative to incendiary fires. He stated a fact, and a fact simply—namely, that in certain districts in Sussex, incendiary fires prevailed, and that in others, fires did not prevail, and that, in some districts, the magistrates were severe, and that in others they were not. The gravamen of the charge was, that the editor had incited the people to commit these incendiary fires, and yet the Judge, before whom he was tried, afterwards declared, that the charge was not made out. Then what was he punished for? Why, simply for saying, that the Magistrates in one district were harsher towards the lower classes than in another, and if he did say so, he was perfectly justified. It was an observation in which he (Mr. Roebuck) coincided. In every district where the people were against the Magistrates, they would find some specific cause for it. The people, generally, were fond of law; they never kicked against it, except on account of some persecution or oppressions. No man thought more than he did that a resident gentry and magistracy were of great service in promoting the interests of the people, but as magistrates, they held a great and powerful engine in their hands; and if they abused it, or made it the instrument of oppression against the people, it would only incite them against the laws and against themselves; and he knew they might, and did, in many instances, set the people against the laws. And this was a matter on which every man had a right to express an opinion; it was for expressing this opinion, that the proprietor of the Brighton Guardian had been punished; and the law, which in such a case gave power to shut a man for six months in a gaol, was a most disgraceful law, and disgraceful to those who administered it. They always found the Judges of the Court of King's Bench leaning to the most strict interpretation of the Libel-law in its penal provisions; they had made it what it was—a disgrace to the country. It was nothing but such unjust cases as this that had created the existing antipathy against the Libel-laws. Mr. Cohen had, by accident, inserted in his paper a paragraph, which he expressed himself willing to explain, and to show that he had always done quite the contrary to that which he was charged with. The Judges would not hear him, and he was punished for that single act of publishing a fact. When the Libel-law was administered, the Judges ought to have taken into consideration the man's intention, and Mr. Cohen was willing to come forward and show, that if he were to be judged by his previous acts, the whole tenor of his writings had been against these incendiary fires, and that he had always been an enemy to this species of depredation and destruction, and that though he had expressed his opinions in his paper before for seven years, yet no person had ever been able to say, except on the publication of this paltry paragraph, that he had ever, in any one instance, incited the people to acts of incendiarism. The Government had instituted a great many prosecutions at that time; there was one against the hon. member for Oldham, but that failed and he escaped; but they had caught the unfortunate editor of the Brighton Guardian; and, by means of a Special Jury, and the disgraceful Libel-law, he had been flung into prison, and the poor unfortunate Mr. Cohen was now suffering for all the rest. He besought the hon. member for Brighton not to let the matter drop here, but bring forward a distinct motion for an address to the Crown. It was disgraceful to keep the man in Chelmsford gaol, and it was disgraceful to those who kept him there. There was to be an alteration with respect to the law of Libel and they ought to express their opinions relative to it. They ought to know facts; and if a man published truth—if a statement were true and contained nothing but truth—then any man was justified in laying that statement before the country. For doing that was the editor of the Brighton Guardian committed to prison; and he did hope the hon. member for Brighton would move an address to his Majesty. The Secretary of State had determined not to interfere in the matter, and the only resource left was, an Address from that House to his Majesty, and if the hon. member for Brighton would bring forward a motion to that effect, it should have his cordial support, such as it was.

said, he was one of the Magistrates alluded to in the petition, and he felt it his duty to state, that a more honourable man than the prosecutor could not exist. He (Captain Curteis), with several other Magistrates, did not think it necessary to go on with this prosecution; but the prosecutor thought it absolutely necessary that it should be carried on, and conceived it to be his duty to file the bill against the petitioner. He hoped the hon. member for Brighton would move an Address to the Crown, and he would give it his support.

said, that he was a member of the Arundel bench, and if any persons were libelled at all in the paragraph, it was the members of that bench, and not one of them had thought it right that any prosecution should be instituted. They thought it would be giving a notice and importance to this paragraph which it did not merit, and as a proof of the very little mischief it had done, he begged to say, that there was not one fire in the whole Arundel district after the publication appeared, and there had not been to this time, and therefore he did not consider the paragraph worthy of notice.

rose to call the attention of the House to a question of great importance. He would, first of all move, "That that part of his Majesty's Speech, which related to Agricultural Distress, be read." The clerk accordingly read the following passage:—I have to lament the continuance of distress amongst the proprietors and occupiers of land, though, in other respects, the state of the country, both as regards its internal tranquillity, and its commerce and manufactures, affords the most encouraging prospect of progressive improvement'. The noble Marquess continued: In calling upon the House to take the subject of agricultural distress into its consideration, he was sure that the question was not inferior in importance to any that had been for a long time, or could be, submitted to its consideration. While he deeply felt the general embarrassment that pervaded the whole agricultural interest, and was most anxious to impress on the House the policy and the justice of applying an effective remedy, he was at the same time sensible of his own inability to deal with the subject as its great importance required. But, however inadequate his capabilities were to the execution of the duty that he had taken upon himself, he felt a sincere conviction that the House would go along with him in the persuasion that the distress was deep and general, and called at once for the saving hand of Parliament. From the facts which he would state—and they possessed a melancholy reality—he hoped he should convince the House, that the distress was silently but steadily advancing; and, though in some places its progress was more rapid, palpable, and decisive than in others, yet, for many years, its fatal existence and growth was evident in all. It was true the distress was more intensely felt in one place than in another; but then the dismal truth was notorious, that no place was free. He begged to remind the House, that, in 1821, a Committee was appointed to investigate the causes of the distress which then existed among the agriculturists, and suggest a remedy; but, though that Committee made a Report, no benefit resulted from it. From that year down to the last the distress had been acquiring additional growth, and threatening greater dangers. There was no diminution of the evil, and no remedy applied. In the last year, another attempt was made to arrest the evil, by the appointment of another Committee. He would, in alluding to that Committee, take leave to state, that the right hon. Baronet opposite, who presided on that Committee, showed every wish to do his duty to the House and the country zealously and well. No one could be more anxious to promote every investigation. He was not a member of the Committee in the year 1821; but he had attentively read its Report, and he believed he might say, he was acquainted with the character and the extent of the inquiry then instituted. The Committee of 1821 was fully satisfied as to the great distress of the agriculturists in general, and it expressed a hope—indeed he would quote the language which it had used:—'That the great body of the occupiers of the soil, either from the savings of more prosperous times, or from the credit which punctuality commands in this country, possess resources which will enable them to surmount the difficulties under which they now labour'. The Committee of 1833 however said, 'Your Committee, with deep regret, are bound rather to express a fear that the difficulties alone remain unchanged, but that the savings are either gone or greatly diminished, the credit failing, and the resources being generally exhausted; and this opinion is formed, not on the evidence of rent-payers, but of many most respectable witnesses, as well owners of land, as surveyors and land-agents." Year after year had passed without alleviation; the accumulated capital had been reduced; and the credit had been exercised almost to its full extent. Those were positions which he had again and again taken the liberty of urging on the House, and which had been fully made out upon inquiry. Such being the facts as to the situation of the agriculturists, he felt it to be his duty to take the earliest opportunity of bringing the subject under the formal consideration of that House. He did not at all attempt to deny that his feelings were strongly interested in the welfare of the farmer, and of the agriculturists in general. He confessed that he was almost entirely dependent upon the land for whatever of property he possessed, and therefore, from that reason, and he would add from others, he felt extremely anxious to watch over and to promote, in as far as he might have the opportunity, the protection and the welfare of that interest. He felt also that, having admitted his entire dependence upon the land, it might be said, that his motives were selfish, and were derived from personal interests, rather than from an enlarged view of the interests of the country. But, whatever motives might be attributed to him individually, it could not, it was impossible that it should, be denied by any one, that the occupiers and the cultivators of the soil had, by their exemplary conduct, loyalty, obedience to the laws, and immense importance to the general community of the country, a great and deserved claim upon the best consideration of the Legislature. The Committee of 1821 admitted, and indeed proved, the great state of depression in which the agricultural interest then stood; but it expressed a hope that that distress was temporary, and also that the stored wealth and credit of the agriculturist would be made beneficially useful by his persevering industry and economy; but the Committee of last year had repeated the statement as to the depression of the agriculturist, and had clearly shown, that the pressure upon the agriculturist was not ephemeral, but was, and would prove, permanent, unless some active and substantial measures for relief were adopted. The distresses of the farmer, it was well known to all, arose from a variety of causes; they were of a mixed character, being partly local and partly general. Unquestionably instances might be found of flourishing farmers—of occupiers of land who not only did not complain, but were well satisfied with their position. He apprehended, however, indeed he was confident, that such cases were very rare. Again, farmers who had capital to fall back upon, might be able to continue in spite of the existing difficulties; and there might be yet some unexhausted credit capable of being brought into operation; but he asserted positively and unequivocally, that the great body of the occupiers of the soil, that the great body of the landed interest, was in a state of deep and dangerous distress. The character of the prevailing seasons would of course affect particular descriptions of land; but it was not by exceptions that the state of this great interest was to be decided. It was imagined by some that though the farmer suffered the landlord had not suffered. Nothing could be more erroneous. He spoke of facts within his own knowledge. In the part of the country in which he lived, in the county of Buckingham, low lands, which used to let at from 35s. an acre to 37s. an acre, were now let at from 14s. an acre to 7s. an acre. Could it then be said that the landlord had not suffered? Assuredly not. But then that reduction in the means of the landlord fell with increased severity on the tenant and the labourer. The landlord being reduced, he was compelled to press, more severely on the tenant, and the tenant in self-defence was compelled to curtail the labourer. He, therefore, contended, indeed it was evident, that the land-owner, the occupier, and the labourer, were closely and intimately connected; that he who would inculcate a different feeling was the enemy of each class; and that the one class could not be benefited by a removal of burthens without the others sharing in the amelioration. He knew that it had been again and again said, that the landowners and the farmers were desirous of a monopoly. In that House he felt confident that it must be unnecessary for him to give any contradiction to such a charge; but still he never could consent to forego an opportunity of publicly, and honestly, and conscientiously declaring that, as one connected with and dependent upon the land, he desired no monopoly. All that he asked on the part of the agriculturist was, the observance of the maxim, live and let live. When he heard it asserted, that there was a monopoly in corn he denied entirely the truth of that assertion. The agriculturist in this country was protected, but he had no monopoly; and that protection was for the good of all. A free trade had been talked of; but a free trade was impracticable, consistent with the existence of society. It was said, let the ports be open for foreign corn without restriction. Why, let the circumstances be considered, and surely there would be an end to such a demand. It was utterly impossible that the farmer in this country could compete with the foreign corn grower, who paid his labourers but 1s. a week each, while the present onerous local and general burthens pressed with such fearful weight upon him. But, to show the falseness of the assertion relative to monopoly, it was only necessary to refer to the actual position of the farmer with reference to the other classes; and it I would be found that the agriculturist only received protection as other classes received; protection, and that there was no monopoly. Nor was it possible to advert to the language in his Majesty's Speech without feeling that the agriculturist, being admitted to be in a state of deep distress, was entitled to consideration and relief, especially when it was remembered that he had borne his privations with unwavering loyalty, patience, and without clamour. The farmers had not resisted the King's officers in their legal demands for taxes, but they had ever been devoted to the preservation of good order, and had contributed to their uttermost to the exigencies of the State. He had, therefore, naturally expected that the passage in his Majesty's Speech to which he had alluded, would have been followed up by some substantial measure for the relief of the landed interest. Unless such were to be the case, he was at a loss to imagine why the passage was inserted. The expectation, however, had not hitherto been fulfilled. It was true that the noble Lord, when he had opened his budget, had stated that the Government had not been unmindful of the distresses of the agriculturists, and that they intended to afford relief through certain measures operating on the Poor-laws and the tithes. Now, so far as the present distress could be relieved by measures affecting those subjects, doubtless the noble Lord meant to keep his word; but what he complained of was, that the relief would be too tardy. What the agriculturist wanted, was something more immediately operative. The tithes and Poor-laws were undoubtedly great burthens upon the landed interest; but with respect to the former, he confessed he did not see how any very great relief was to be afforded, the rights of property being maintained, unless the community at large was to contribute to the sum necessary for the commutation of tithes. Again, with respect to the Poor-laws, he could not allow that any measure could be proposed with respect to them that would at once, or even at an early period, afford to the agriculturist that relief to which his peculiar position entitled him. Relief, to be efficient and satisfactory, must be speedy. Indeed, unless something were done, the consequence must be that those very Poor-laws which the noble Lord proposed to amend would swallow up the interest their alteration was to relieve. Already there were whole parishes the rent of which was absorbed by the Poor-laws. He knew of one instance in Buckinghamshire in which a whole parish was in the hands of a Committee under the Poor-laws, and certainly in that parish the whole of the labourers had been furnished with employment. But, good God! was such a state of things to be allowed to gain ground? Such proceedings could not be permitted. They must be put a stop to, or the whole frame of society would go to pieces. He was confident, that if the progress in that direction were permitted to gain ground, it would soon become impossible, let who might be Minister, to save the country from confusion and from destruction. But he reverted to the charge that the agriculturists possessed a monopoly. It had been even asserted, by an hon. Member, a few nights ago, that the landed interest had a monopoly in, among a variety of other things, butter, eggs, and bacon. He was really astonished when he heard the hon. member for Middlesex make such an assertion. It was altogether at variance with the fact. If the hon. Member were a dairy farmer, for instance, he would very soon find that he had no monopoly in butter. He would soon find that the Dutchman would range his butter in the same market in opposition: that in fact the same quality of butter which had a few years ago sold for 18d. and 19d. per pound, was now sold at from 7d. to 10d. per pound. Again, what was the case with respect to meat? Upon that subject, doubtless, the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) was much better informed than he could pretend to be, but he believed the price had fallen to 4d. per lb. or 5d. In Northamptonshire the case might be different; but he could assure the noble Lord and the House that he had taken his figures from the accounts of a large farmer, and he had no doubt whatever of their accuracy. The wheat was 6s. 6d. per bushel; barley, 3s. 4d. per bushel; and beans 4s. per bushel. Now, he would ask the House if those prices could be considered the result of a monopoly? Indeed, he would ask the House if they were higher than the agriculturist had a just right to ask and to receive? But while the price of his produce had fallen, the burthens of the farmer had increased. Labour had risen from 6s. a-week, to 9s. and 10s., and, under these circumstances, he would contend that, taking the country in general, it was almost impracticable for the agriculturist to make the two ends meet, much less to acquire any adequate and fitting profit. He looked back with feelings of the deepest concern to the fires of 1829 and 1830, and most sincerely did he hope that such scenes might never again be repeated. He had no doubt that they originated in a design to attempt the reduction of rents and the abolition of tithes, but they had been found to produce only evil. And when hon. Members spoke lightly of making extensive experiments with respect to the agriculturists, he would remind them of the sentiments of Mr. Burke, who declared that the most dangerous of experiments were those that were directed against the agriculturists, for that they were exposed by nature to hazard enough already, and by law to as much burthen as they could well bear. He went along entirely with those sentiments, and he would say that nothing could be more prejudicial to justice or cruel to the agriculturist than the continued agitation for the repeal of the Corn-laws. He denied that those laws gave to the agriculturist any undue protection; and with a view of clearly justifying his position, he would state to the House some facts with respect to the charges upon farms and the nature of the produce which he believed to be fair samples as to the general state of the farming interest. In one case, of a grass farm, the value of the produce was 750l.; and in that in- stance the burthens, including poor rates, tithe, parochial, and county rates, and King's-taxes, amounted to 769l. 12s. The House would also remember that in addition to that sum there was a heavy Malt-duty, and also that any farmer was subjected to a duty for any horse that, though generally used for agricultural purposes, had occasionally a saddle put on its back. Further, the moment that an agricultural labourer found himself in a farmer's house or stable to saddle his horse, that moment the tax-collector entered him as a domestic servant, and the farmer had a duty to pay for him. So that, in addition to the heavy burthens he had first alluded to, the farmer had a high Malt-duty, Window-tax, and other taxes of a general character to bear. Now to show the extreme pressure upon the farmer, he would advert to a few instances with respect to the poor-rates at different periods. The first period he would take should embrace the six years from 1787 to 1792, and the second, should embrace the six years from 1828 to 1833. The result was frightful. In one case, in the six years ending 1792, the poor-rates amounted to 1,077l., and the six years ending 1833 to 3,670l.; in another instance the first period was 2,500l., and the second 7,139l.; in a third instance, the first period was 2,851l., and the second 9,777l. Such cases were not exaggerations. He knew the parishes in which they occurred, and he believed that they were fair samples as to the whole of the agricultural parishes. Such were the facts, and the parishes were so circumstanced, and the difficulties were from year to year so increasing, that, unless something was done to abate their operation, the fee simple of the land must soon be in the hands of the paupers. Therefore, when the noble Lord stated that relief was to be afforded, and that that relief was to be an alteration of tithes and of the Poor-laws, his reply was, that the necessity of the case required immediate succour; and, that before relief could be obtained by those means, the farmers would be ruined. The plan of the noble Lord might be well enough in as far as it went, but it did not go far enough, and must be too remote in its operation. In the cases he had alluded to, he had confined himself to parishes in the county in which he lived; but he held in his hand a communication from a highly respect- able farmer in Somersetshire. He was not personally acquainted with his informant, but his high respectability was perfectly well known to many hon. Members of that House, and there could be no doubt as to the accuracy of his statements. The first referred to a farm of the best land, 40s. an acre, situated in the vale of Taunton. The produce of that farm fetched 584l., and the outgoings upon it were 587l.; in the second case the farm was one of second-rate land, the rent of which was 28s. an acre, and the produce sold for 766l., and the outgoings were 883l. Such he really believed to be the state of the agricultural interest in general, as to outlay and receipt, and he believed that except where the farmer had previous accumulations to fall back upon, he was year after year increasing his incumbrances, till at last, and at no distant period, he must be destroyed. What he wished then was, that something should at once be done; that the Ministers should at once adopt some measure that would give substantial and immediate relief to the farmer. The noble Lord, when he opened his Budget, had said, that he would relieve the householders of the House-tax. He did not wish at all to find fault with that proposition. Indeed, he sincerely congratulated the towns upon the relief which would be afforded them; but he could not help saying, that he should have been much better satisfied if the noble Lord had not made the concession to clamour. The noble Lord said, the House-tax was unpopular, and there was no doubt that such was the fact; but the Malt-tax was not differently situated. When the House repealed the Malt-tax [Lord Althorp said, across the Table, that the Malt tax was not repealed] Oh! yes, it had been repealed, and the vote rescinded four days after. The noble Lord did not appear to think, that unpopularity, unless enforced by something more impressive, was enough to justify the repeal of a tax. The noble Lord had stated, notwithstanding the distressed state of the agriculturists, that the revenue was so prosperous that he should be able to reduce taxation to the amount of 1,200,000l. And, having done so, the noble Lord at once locked up a sum of 800,000l. for the West-India interest; but which, as he understood the noble Lord, that interest would not be able to touch for months after the period at which the noble Lord, laid the money by. Then, why not make use of that 800,000l., and give relief to the farmer to that extent? If relief could not be afforded to the extent of the repeal of the Malt-tax, still a great boon might be conferred. He should say, the Window-tax, and several small taxes, might be repealed, if the noble Lord had seen fit to have imposed an additional duty upon gin; and if an increased duty had been laid upon French wines, then the noble Lord might, without the slightest inconvenience, have done that which the Speech of his Majesty would necessarily appear to call for. He did not at all wish to alter the plan of reduction laid down by the noble Lord in as far as it went; but he must say, after hearing the language of the King's Speech, and to find the only reduction proposed,—to the amount of 1,200,000l.,—devoted to the relief, not of the patient, suffering, and forbearing agriculturists, but of those who had been clamorous, though they were not distressed, and had set the laws at defiance, did appear to him extraordinary. The farmers throughout England had laid the case of their hard sufferings before that House; they had done so by petition; they then did so through him; and he implored that House not to turn a deaf ear to their prayer, and thereby give a denial to loyalty and endurance with which clamour and resistance had not been visited. The agriculturist still adhered to the Government of the country, and respected that House, and employed neither violence nor threat to obtain justice. He had thus stated, too feebly, he felt, the grounds upon which he had called the attention of the House to the subject, and upon which he should found his Motion. He felt that, in taking the course he had done, he was honestly discharging his duty by his constituents, and by the country; and he protested, that he was in no way animated by a desire of opposing the Government. All, in fact, that he was desirous of doing, was to propose to the House such a proposition as must, he thought, be deemed only a natural consequence of the language in the King's Speech. In that Speech the agriculturists were the only class spoken of as being in a state of distress; and, therefore, it appeared to him only reasonable, there being a surplus revenue, that they should be relieved by the reduction of taxation. He implored the House, then, not to refuse the just prayer of its petitioners; but, by cordially conceding to their wishes, to give to them that encouragement which would, of a certainty, confirm them, if possible, more fixedly than ever in a love of loyalty, and an unshrinking obedience to the laws. Nor could he resume his seat without entreating the House to bear in mind what might be the consequence if the boon now solicited should be denied. If deferred till the next year it might come too late. The House might take his word for it, that the distress complained of must be conquered by its interference, or it would destroy those upon whom it now preyed, and who would soon be unable longer to right against it. It was not of a passing, ephemeral nature, but, if unchecked, would go on from bad to worse, till its effect was utter ruin. He had commenced by lamenting his inability to do justice to the cause he had undertaken, and he now felt severely that his lamentation had been too well founded. But he had honestly, and to the best of his poor ability, stated the just pretensions of those among whom, and through whom, he lived; and he left the decision of the case in the hands of the House, fully trusting that every country Gentleman would discharge his duty faithfully, and that the cause would not suffer through the insufficiency of its advocate. He moved, as an Amendment to the Motion for reading the Order of the Day, that the following Resolution be substituted:—" That, in any reduction of the burthens of the country, which it may be practicable to effect by a remission of taxes, due regard should be had to the necessity of relieving, at the present period, the distressed condition of the agricultural interest, adverted to in his Majesty's Speech," instead thereof.

seconded the Motion of his noble friend; and, in doing so, said he felt that he should ill discharge his duty to the country and to himself if he hesitated one moment in doing so; agreeing, as he did, most cordially in the sentiments which had been expressed by his noble friend. That noble Lord had entered at large into the discussion, and had dwelt upon topics which it was not his intention to discuss. He was satisfied to confine himself to a few remarks on the general proposition contained in the Resolution. The noble Lord called upon the House, by that Resolution, to state that, in any reduction of the burthens of the people, by a reduction of taxation, due regard should be paid to the necessity of relieving, at the present period, the distressed condition of the agricultural interest. The whole purport of this Resolution was simply confirmatory of what was contained in his Majesty's Speech from the Throne, and of that of the noble Lord opposite, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had manifested his wish to give the relief required, when he spoke of the burthen of the poor-rates upon the agricultural interest. That being the case, he could not suppose, that the noble Lord would hesitate in giving the assurance which his noble friend had required. The noble Lord, however, was aware, and the House was equally well aware, that other opportunities would arise, when this question must be taken into consideration more at large. It was, therefore, at the present moment, not necessary that he should enter into any discussion; but he thought (fully acquiescing, as he did, in the opinion of his noble friend), that the House was bound to call upon his Majesty's Government to give an assurance, that the agricultural interest alone should not be excluded from any benefit arising from a reduction of taxation. His noble friend had alluded, in terms which every one in the House must admire, to the case of those persons whose cause he had so ably advocated. He begged to repeat, most positively, that there was not to be found in the country a better disposed class of persons than those of whom his noble friend had spoken. He did not mean, however, to contend, that, on this ground alone, they deserved assistance and relief; he would say, that the manufacturing, or any other class, were equally entitled to the consideration of that House; nor would he attempt to set up one class against another, for their interests were all bound up together. Nothing which might be done in that House would have the effect of inducing him to retrace his steps; and he would do his duty, as he had promised to do, by seconding the Motion of the noble Lord.

said, that he agreed in what had fallen from the noble Lord, and the hon. Baronet, in relation to the distress which pervaded the agricultural classes, for he was perfectly well aware that they were in a state of great distress. Certainly there was no part of the speech of the noble Lord in which he more cordially concurred than in the wish which he had expressed, that every exertion should be made to remedy the evils which unhappily existed. But, on the other hand, he certainly differed from the noble Lord on many of the points which had been urged by him. There was one statement of the noble Lord in which the House must, at once, see that he should agree with the noble Lord, that, namely, in which the noble Lord adverted to the effect of the poor-rates. He concurred with the noble Lord, that the proportion they bore towards any other of the burthens of the State was very great. He was bound to say, and he was satisfied that, whatever might be done with other taxes, or with the agricultural interests, in other respects, the endeavour must be made to give relief in respect of the poor-rates, the growth of which, if not checked, would swallow up all the surplus property of the country, and they must remove other evils. He was as much interested as the noble Lord, or as any man could be, in the prosperity of the owners and occupiers of land; and when he spoke of those who advocated the landed interest, he referred to them only as taking a prominent part in the questions relating to land, as contradistinguished from those who took an equally prominent part in questions relating to manufactures and commerce. He differed widely from those who said, that relief to the other interests in the country would not bear advantageously on agriculture. He was of opinion, that the tax, the repeal of which would give the greatest relief to the agricultural interest, was that which most interfered with the general interest and welfare of the country. It was upon this that the country must depend, being a source of greater wealth than in any other country; and the state of the agricultural interest was better than in any other country. Under these circumstances, he could not concur in the doctrine laid down by the noble Lord,—that because, in the plan suggested, the repeal of the Malt-tax was not given, that, therefore, there was no relief given to the landed interest. If it could be proved, that the existence of the Malt-tax diminished the wealth of the country more than any other, then he would say it pressed upon the landed interest. There was one point to which he begged to call the attention of the House. He was not denying any facts which went to prove that there was distress amongst the occupiers of the soil; and he was about to refer to the subject only as illustrative of what the effect of the general prosperity of the country on the landed interest must be, and showing that the wisest course to pursue was that which should be most likely to promote the general prosperity. He alluded to the great alteration which had occurred in the price of wool; and he was sure, that Gentlemen connected with the country were aware that the price of this article, five or six years ago, was 9d. per lb., whereas it was now raised to 2s. Thus there was a difference, or increase of price, of 15d. per lb. Now, if Gentlemen would consider what a great addition this must have made to the receipts of the occupiers of the soil, they would see that the repeal of the whole of the Malt-duty—if it all went into the pockets of the farmers, which it certainly would not do—would not be equal to the relief which they had derived from the increase in that article alone. He was not prepared to go into details on that point, but he was sure he was not wrong in what he had stated. But why had this great increase taken place? Was it not owing to the general prosperity of the other interests, or, at least, to a great improvement in their circumstances? He was aware that this rise in the price of wool was owing, in part, to the deficiency in the supply. He was ready to admit, that the deficiency of supply had operated, to a certain extent, in raising the price; but it could not be denied, that the main cause was the increasing demand from the improved circumstances of other interests. They thus became more extensive customers to the agriculturists than before; and it must follow, that a measure of relief which would promote the interests of those who purchased from that class, would do them good as well as those to whom the relief was more immediately given, and more good than they could derive from any small amount of direct remission. The noble Lord had expressed his concurrence in the remission of the House-duty, but expressed his regret that it should have been conceded in consequence of the resistance made to it. [The Marquess of Chandos had used the word "unpopularity."] It was true that he had stated that the unpopularity of the tax was one ground of his objection to it; but it should be recollected, that he had, in a great measure, pledged himself to the re- peal of the tax, before any resistance had been made to it; and that that contemptible resistance, if he did not use too strong a word, had been put down, and the law vindicated, before he had brought the question forward in the House. The noble Lord thought, that, because he had given up the House-duty, he had also the means of relieving the agriculturists to somewhat near the same extent. As to giving them relief from the application of any portion of the sum set aside for the payment of the West-India loan before such payment became due, it was out of the question; for it had been agreed, that the interest should be payable from the moment the parties should entitle themselves to receive it, which would probably be about the month of August. It had been very truly said, that, in the present year, the Government would not have to pay more than half a-year's interest on the loan for the compensation of the West-India proprietors; but, at the same time, it was equally true, that it would be, in the highest degree, improvident to apply the funds allocated for that purpose to any other; such a practice would be most dangerous to public credit; and it could not but be obvious that, in providing the ways and means, it was impossible for him to take such a consideration into account. With respect to what had been said on the subject of an increased duty upon spirits, he was perfectly ready to admit, that the duty should only be limited by the amount that it was practicable to collect. He should be willing to go to the highest amount in duty that had not the effect of diminishing the revenue; but these observations, or admissions, contributed nothing to the support of the noble Lord opposite in the position which he took up. For the reasons, then, which he had stated, he should object to the Amendment then before the House: he could not agree, that the diminution of this, or that, particular tax would obviate the agricultural distress which at present existed. He was aware, that the small taxes payable off land were vexatious, but they did not take much from the farmer; and far greater benefit, in his opinion, would accrue from placing the poor-rates on an improved footing, than from anything that could be done in the way of relieving the landed interest from the pressure of direct taxes. Even the Malt-tax, of which so much had been said, would not afford the relief which was imagined; though some parts of the country might gain, others would not. He admitted, that there was considerable distress; but he begged it to be borne in mind, that the owners of the barley-growing lands were not those at present in the greatest distress; the heavy lands were, at present, the least profitable. After much reflection, he was quite convinced, that there were other taxes than those mentioned which would afford relief to the agricultural interest; for example,—the removal of any taxes which interfered with the general industry of the country. Upon all these grounds, he must refuse his assent to the Amendment.

called upon the House to consider the state of the manufacturers. Let them look at the miners who worked undergound, at the blacksmiths and other trades, whose wasted figures and tattered habiliments gave but too true a picture of the distress and privation under which they were suffering. He had a right, then, to call upon the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to consider the state of those poor sufferers. He had a right, too, to expect the support and co-operation of the noble Marquess in any measure which might be proposed for their relief. He asked it not of the noble Marquess as a boon or favour; he called for it as an act of justice to these wretched sufferers. Let the House remove the monopoly upon the people's food. This was not only the means by which relief could be extended to the poor manufacturer, but it was also the only real course by which the farmer could be rendered independent and trade made to flourish. The fact was, that the agricultural and manufacturing interests were joined, and must stand or fall together.

said, that, with respect to what had been said relative to the price of wool, and the alterations which had taken place in that trade, it was not his intention to enter into that question. Indeed he thought they were altogether irregular in having deviated from the Motion which the noble Marquess had brought under the consideration of the House. Surely they were not, upon the discussion of that Motion, to turn aside and follow the hon. member for Wolverhampton in his dissertation respecting the Corn-laws! That was a question which was to come before the House in a separate form. The real fact for the consideration of the House was simply this:—The House had last year appointed a Committee to inquire into the distresses of the agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial interests, and the Report of that Committee was, that the greatest distress prevailed amongst the agriculturists, while manufactures and commerce were in a state of general prosperity. The same thing was repeated to Parliament in his Majesty's Speech this year, and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down with a sort of anticipatory budget, and, in his financial statement, appeared to have come to the strangest of all possible conclusions. The noble Lord admitted, that he was about to extend a portion of relief by a reduction of taxation to those who were in prosperity, while he refused to extend any to those who were admitted to be in distress. It was true, that if relief from taxation could be extended to all, all had a right to it; but when there was only an apportionment of reduction, then surely it should be made where distress was universally admitted to exist. The noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had maintained, that when they relieved the manufacturers, they relieved the landed interest, by giving rise to an increased consumption; but he begged the noble Lord's pardon for stating, that the converse of the principle held equally good, for if they relieved the farmer they would enable him to increase his consumption of the manufactures of the country, and thus the manufacturer would enjoy increased prosperity. He must, upon the whole, say, that he conceived hard measure had been dealt out towards the landed interest. To be sure the noble Lord had told them to wait, and he would introduce a measure which would afford them extensive relief. One source of relief was a commutation of tithes. But this, however beneficial, inasmuch as it might remove several causes of annoyance and discontent, could not be productive of any extensive relief to the agriculturists. Again, the noble Lord had told them, that great relief was to be extended to the landed interest from an alteration in the Poor-laws; but of the nature of this latter measure, the House and the country were left in total ignorance. It might be that such would be the fact, but it would be of the greatest importance to the agriculturist, to be made acquainted with the nature of the measure, or at least to receive some information upon it; in such an event the agriculturist might be induced to remain quiet while this partial reduction of taxation was going on. If it was intended to place a part of the poor-rate upon some other property it might afford great relief to the agriculturist, but in the absence of all information, how were they to decide that point? There was one great difference between the agriculturist and the manufacturer, which was this. The manufacturer took up labour. He used it while he wanted it, and threw it down when he no longer needed it, without caring for or looking any further about it. But not so the farmer; when he employed labourers he was saddled with them in one shape or another for all his life afterwards, no matter whether he wanted them or not. He for one must protest against the course pursued by the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) until he knew what was the nature of this great measure of relief which he held out to the country. It might be a measure which would come into operation some eight or ten years hence, and perhaps not for fifteen or twenty years to come, in which case it would be altogether inoperative in affording the relief which was at present so imperiously called for. He would repeat, that this was no answer to the question, why the agricultural interest, which was admitted to be the most distressed, should not receive the benefit of even a partial remission of taxation. The noble Lord, in his budget, had told them he proposed to repeal a tax which his own good sense told him was not the best tax to be repealed, but that he proposed it because the House-tax was an unpopular tax; perhaps it was so. They all knew that meetings had been held in various quarters on the subject—that hundreds of thousands of persons had attended those meetings, and that numerous assemblages of persons had marched down to the Home Office, or to the Office of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) in pairs, to petition for its repeal, so that in acceding to this petition, the noble Lord was only getting rid of the importunities with which he was assailed. The noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had told them that there were two agriculturists on one side, and two manufacturers on the other, and that these were equal quantities. But this was not so. There was no doubt that in cases of public petition and clamour like that in question, the cities and great towns would beat down the voice of the agriculturists, and if any proof of the fact were wanting, they had it before them in the proposal of the noble Lord with respect to repealing the House-tax. The hon. member for Wolverhampton, who always addressed the House with great earnestness on behalf of his constituents, said, that they were bound to remove the corn monopoly, as he called it, in order to give the people cheap bread. Now, it was the fact, that bread was cheaper at the present moment than it had been at any period within the last 150 years, for the century before 1793, the average price of wheat was 50s. per quarter, while, at present, it was only 48s. 9d., according to the latest average taken. It was true that the price of wool had latterly risen, and so had the price of meat; but, unfortunately, that rise did not go into the pocket of the farmer. On the contrary, the flock farmer found that the rise in the price of both articles did not compensate him for the losses he had sustained during the last three years by the rot amongst his sheep. With respect to what had been said about the repeal of the duty on malt, he thought it might be much more advantageously proposed than that of the duty on houses, because if the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to repeal a portion of that duty, he would lose only one-half. If, for Instance, he was to take 5s. off malt, he would lose no more than half-a-crown, as the increased consumption would meet the remainder. He would further say, that the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would, on a further consideration of the subject, find that the half of the Malt-tax might be taken off with advantage to the community generally, and more particularly the farmer, while the manufacturers of Wolverhampton and other districts would also derive their share of the benefit. Upon the whole, it must be evident to the House, that the agriculture of the country had been hardly dealt with. There was another subject upon which he wished to say a few words. Last year a Committee had been appointed to inquire into the demoralizing effect of beer shops; scarcely a Grand Jury in the country but had made representations against them; the increase of crime was a consequence of these establishments. There was hot a clergyman, a Magistrate, nay, even a respectable farmer, or farmer's labourer, who had not cried out against them; and yet the noble Lord opposite, after taking the question out of the hands of another noble Lord last year, and after complaining that he was not supported more, now came forward and stated that he could not do anything further on the subject. All persons, no matter what their religious or political opinions were, agreed upon one point—namely, that these beer-shops must be put down in some way or other, if they wished the morals and purity of the country to be restored.

said, that he entirely subscribed to the correctness of the statement made by the noble Marquess respecting the distress existing among the agricultural classes, but he could not agree with him as to the remedy for that distress, From what did it arise? Chiefly from the pressure of poor-rates and tithes; for, in his opinion, the Government taxes had so little connexion, with it, that they ought not to be included in the calculation. He remembered, that the Duke of Wellington, when in office, laid on the Table of the House of Peers a document very ingeniously, but, at the same time, very fairly drawn up, demonstrating that the distress under which the agricultural interest was suffering was in no way attributable to the pressure of the Government taxes. If there was any truth in the noble Duke's statement at that time, it must carry with it greater force at the present moment, when the agricultural classes had been relieved from many of the imposts which then pressed on them. He should object to the repeal of the Malt-tax, on the ground that it would give partial and not general relief to the country.

wholly differed from the noble Lord in the principles he had laid down on this subject; and he would explain that to him directly; he would, however, in the first place, address himself to what the hon. Member had asserted, that agricultural distress was in no way attributable to Parliamentary taxation, but wholly to tithes and poor-rates. Indeed! he would just ask the hon. Member at what time it was that tithes were first instituted? Was it five years ago, or ten years ago, or was it not rather earlier? The hon. Member must remember the good times for agriculturists; he must remember the cattle shows at Holkham, and the other specimens of the arrogance of the agricul- tural aristocracy. These were good times for the agriculturalists, yet tithes existed even then. And this simple fact would suffice to show, that agricultural prosperity or adversity had nothing to do with tithes. This would do as an answer for the hon. Member: the error of the noble Lord was of much greater consequence, because he gave it as his reason why he would not give the agricultural interest the relief they wanted—the reduction of their taxes. The noble Lord was right enough in saying, that all taxes fell indirectly or directly upon all classes; if they instituted a Land-tax it would fall upon the labourers; but he would say, that if there were any taxes which were more particularly injurious to one class than another, they were those which had deterred the farmer from keeping labourers as servants, and providing them with beer. The taxes on agricultural servants and the Malt-tax had produced all those dissolute manners which had never been known among agricultural labourers before. The noble Lord said something about a proposed alteration in the poor-rates; he must, of course, mean to lessen the amount of that relief. Before the noble Lord talked of poor-rates being the burthen upon landholders, he should have put the House on an inquiry as to how those rates had been caused. Had they been inflicted on the people by an act of Providence? No. Had the poor themselves instituted them? No. Let the noble Lord look over the Treasury Records; and he would there find that the amount of poor-rates had gone on in exact coincidence with the progressive increase of taxation; and unless the noble Lord in-tendedto take off the taxes—which he, by the bye, strongly advised him to do—it was entirely out of his power to alleviate the case of the farmer by anything he could do with regard to poor-rates. There had been another cause of constant misery and distress among the farmers, which he also found to be studiously overlooked. It was not the poor-rates, he repeated, that had ruined the farmers. He remembered the time when wheat fetched 40l. or 50l. a load, yet the poor-rates were higher then than now. There had never been a year of greater agricultural prosperity than the year 1812, yet the poor-rates were higher then than now [Cries of "No, no '"] He said yes, yes; and he should like to hear any one disprove his assertion. Pshaw, continued Mr. Cobbett [a laugh]; no such thing. He was stating facts, which could be proved from documents. He repeated, that in the year 1812, the agriculturists were in a state of the highest prosperity, yet poor-rates, as he could prove by the Parliamentary Returns, were higher then than now. The payment in gold brought down the price of wheat, and in this the great cause of the distress was to be found. The noble Lord said, the poor-rates had been the cause of the ruin of the country. These poor-rates had now been 250 years in operation, and yet it was only lately that they were discovered to have produced this ruin. Much had been said about checking the poor-rates, but how—how were they to be checked? Was it by a law to prevent the relief being extended? Was it by giving the poor less wages or allowance than now? How much less? He would appeal to the member for South Wiltshire to know in what degree the allowance could be lessened. That hon. Member knew that, in his neighbourhood a gallon loaf and threepence per week was the allowance; and how could this be lessened? The gallon loaf was about a pound of bread per day. Could they reduce this allowance? The allowance made by the Magistrates of Hampshire to the poor labourers was 3s. 6d. per week all the year round; and if they objected to this, there was no allowance for them. In Dorsetshire they were allowed a penny a week more. Where was the room for reduction in this allowance? Could the noble Lord reduce it lower? If such a measure were attempted, the consequences which he (Mr. Cobbett) predicted the other night would ensue, and they ought to ensue. How much superior was the condition of the soldier, who did no work, who only carried a bayonet, and yet received his 1s. 6d. per day, as well as fuel and lodging, to that of these poor labourers, who had only their gallon loaf and threepence per week! To meet the distress there should be a general reduction of taxation. No extensive relief could follow from a reduction of two millions in the navy and two millions in the army. There could be no effective mode of relieving the distress, unless by some such general reduction as that which followed the last peace, and this could not be done except by a removal of that cause which compelled the Government to keep up the standing army. It would be unreasonable in Members to expect that Government could reduce a single tax, unless they stood by them in an effort to remove the debt.

believed, that agricultural distress was very great; but he did not think that the measure proposed by the noble Mover was calculated to afford relief, or to effect the objects which he had in view. He agreed with his noble friend (Lord Althorp), and was convinced that his plan would do more to improve the agricultural interests, because it would take off the burthens that immediately and locally affected them. He had heard with great satisfaction that the noble Lord contemplated a measure of relief with respect to the Poor-laws. No measure that could come under the consideration of that House was entitled to more attention. So deeply did he feel it, that he had no hesitation in saying, that, if some measure of the sort were not speedily introduced, nothing like prosperity could return amongst the agriculturists. With reference to the particular question before the House, he believed that great benefits would arise to the agriculturist by the commutation of tithes. The hon. member for Essex had said that, if, under the commutation, the same sum were taken from the agriculturists that was taken now, they could not, by any possibility, find any relief. This he denied. He totally differed from the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Baring). The settlement of the question of tithes alone would encourage the application of capital to the cultivation of land. The tithes, in this respect especially, was one of the greatest evils under which the landed interests laboured. He, for one, sincerely trusted that Ministers would redeem the pledge they had given to the House, and that they would introduce some measure with respect to the Poor-laws.

was of opinion, that the repeal of a part of the Malt-tax would, for every interest in the community, have been more desirable than the repeal of the House-duty. If the Malt-tax had been (in part even) repealed, it would have prevented the labourers from going to beer-shops, and thereby do good to them and their employers.

agreed with the abstract proposition, that the best relief to a community was a relief from taxation. He considered the repeal of the House-duty to be beneficial to the agricultural, as well as the manufacturing, or commercial in- terest; for, surely, farmers lived in houses, and their landlords, he supposed, also lived in rather splendid houses. So far, then, the agriculturists would share in the relief afforded by the repeal of the House-duty equally with the other classes in the community. It was but right to repeal the House-duty, for it was grossly partial, to say the least of it; and a partial tax was always oppressive. Already had the Beer-duty been taken off to benefit the agriculturists—the duty on spirits also had been much reduced; and as to the consumption of malt, it had increased amazingly since the year 1820.

In 1820 the number of bushels of malt was	27,889,310
In 1853	40,164,783

thus showing an increase between these periods of 44 per cent in the consumption of malt. It was charged against the Government, that it had yielded the repeal of the House-duty to the cry raised against it by the town people; and even had they done so, they would, in his opinion, have been fully justified. He voted for its repeal, not for the sake of the number of his constituents, large as they were, but for the cause of justice.

only rose to correct a great mistake which had been just now committed by the hon. member for Oldham, when he laid it down as an incontrovertible position, that poor-rates bore an exact proportion to the general taxation of the years 1812 and 1832. Since the hon. Member had made his speech, he (Lord Howick), had consulted the returns, and he found that

In 1812, the poor-rates were	£6,656,000
In 1833	6,731,000

while the whole amount of taxation was

In 1812, about	£65,000,000
In 1832, about.	46,000,000

thus showing the difference in the poor-rates to be little more than 100,000l., while the difference in the general taxation amounted to 19,000,000l.

said, the repeal of the House-duty had his cordial support, for it was monstrous that the Metropolis alone had to pay fully the one-third of it. With respect to the poor-rates, he would observe, that the population of the Metropolis and of Yorkshire were nearly equal: The rental of the Metropolis was, in 1814, 5,700,000l., and of Yorkshire, 4,709,000l., while the amount of the poor-rate paid by Yorkshire was 450,000l., whereas the Metropolis paid 680,000l.

did not rise to enter into a discussion of the question of agricultural distress. He wished to remind the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that he had stated at a county meeting, held at Northampton, that he would not support a Motion for the repeal of the Malt-tax, but he should leave that to the Ministers. The noble Lord, however, had learned a good deal since he had been Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had improved himself upon the subject. He (Mr. Cartwright) had seen the heads of what he supposed was to be expected from the Board of Commissioners on the Poor-laws, and he was not sanguine as to the result. The agriculturists were under an obligation to the noble Marquess for treating the question in the way in which he had; and he would give the Amendment of the noble Marquess his hearty concurrence.

said, that his hon. friend, the member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Clay), had observed, that if a remission of the House-tax would not relieve the agriculturists, it was, because they had been improperly exempted from its operation; but if that hon. Gentleman would let him (Mr. Cayley) his house in London for the same rent that a house in the country of equal accommodation would fetch, then he would willingly pay the tax upon it. The tax upon a well-situated house in the Metropolis, being rated according to its value in the market, was as large or larger than the entire rent of a house of equal size in the country. Each should be taxed in the ratio of the rent; or in proportion to their marketable value. The noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said, that he did not anticipate any great relief to the land from any remission of direct public taxation. He agreed with the noble Lord; but was that a reason for believing that agriculture was not in distress? The main cause of the complaint of the agriculturists was, that they had invested an enormous amount of capital in land on the faith of a Parliamentary sanction of a certain rate of prices; the maintenance of that rate of prices could alone return to them the common rate of interest for the money they had sunk; and Parliament had deprived them of those prices, and with that had deprived them of their property. Of what use was it to talk of our property being relieved from public taxation, when it was gone? An eminent writer, in a celebrated Northern Review, stated, that the interest alone of capital invested in the improvement of the soil, amounted to 24,000,000l. sterling—equivalent to a principal of 800,000,000l. sterling. If one-third or one-half of those soils were thrown out of cultivation by a fall in prices, what was that but a confiscation of 300,000,000l. or 400,000,000l. of landed property? And yet Members were taunted with the high-sounding names of national faith and public robbery, when they intimate a desire to keep up prices to that point which had been sanctioned by Parliament. To effect a rise in prices, which they might effect, was the only efficient mode of relieving the agriculturist. The noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proposed to relieve the agriculturists by some alteration of the Poor-laws; no one could be more thoroughly convinced than he was of the impolicy and demoralizing tendency of those laws; but did the noble Lord expect to effect any amendment in them, during a period when there was a great and a growing deficiency of employment for agricultural labourers? The only means of securing an efficient alteration, was to stimulate employment, by raising the price of agricultural produce. But was it to relieve agricultural distress that an amendment in the Poor-laws was first proposed? Had not the Poor-law commissioners sat two or three years; whilst it was only last Session, or the beginning of this, that the House could be prevailed upon to acknowledge the existence of distress? The other project of the noble Lord to relieve the farmers was, an alteration in the tithe system. It was recommended to amend the system of tithes long before Parliament admitted the existence of agricultural distress. And what was the relief to be expected from those two projects? His constituents, in Yorkshire, were not overborne by poor-rates—which were not more, on an average, than 1s. 6d. or 2s. in the pound;—and many of them were tithe-free. But what immediate benefit could those who were not tithe-free expect? If a general law were to pass on this subject, how bitterly hard would it fall on individual cases! The tithe owners had been in the habit of remitting their claims in various proportions from ten to fifty per cent; and clerical tithe-owners were professedly more lenient in their exactions than the lay impropriators. The noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, stated, in the Agricultural Committee, that if capital had been invested on the silent sanction of an habitual remission of thirty and fifty per cent, it would be a total confiscation to make a general tithe commutation on a basis of a twenty Per cent remission. No remarks made in the course of the debate had more influenced him to rise than those which had been made on the high price of wool. His right hon. friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, in the Resolutions which he proposed, and on which was founded the Report of the Committee, attributed the rise in the price of wool to the great loss by the rot of sheep. He ventured to divide the Committee upon that question, and it decided, that the rise was to be referred to the loss of sheep. The noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said, the rise was from 9d. to 2s. a pound, that it was a great advantage to the farmer, and must have been occasioned by the late fillip in our manufactures. But how could it be an advantage to the man who had lost the whole of his flock? To him it must be a loss, even if he had capital, to renew his stock. The upland farmers had been kept in existence by the ruin of their brethren, but for them to be merry on such an occasion, would be like the delicate exultation of a second brother at the untimely end of the eldest born. But even the upland farmer had not been in a very fit condition to take advantage of this rise in wool:—The greatest rise had taken place since last clipping-time; in other words, since the wool left the farmer's hands: he, therefore, had not reaped the benefit of it. It would be in the recollection of the House, that, immediately subsequent to 1825, there were two or three years of successive draught, which, on the wolds of Yorkshire, destroyed many flocks; and when water occasionally was had, fifty and sixty in a flock would die in consequence of drinking; thus, before the wet seasons came, the drought had diminished the upland stocks, and their wasted capital had been too small to replenish them fully, so that the high price had only benefited the upland farmers on a diminished flock. He could show, from a valuable Return (entitled Trade and Navigation) lately laid on the Table, that the rise in wool was essentially connected with its scarcity. Notwithstanding that rise, it appeared by the Return, that, in the year ending January, 1833, the importation of sheep and lambswool into this country was 23,128,973lbs., and in the year ending January, 1834, 38,475,247lbs.; being an increase of upwards of 10,000,0001bs. in one year, which, if there had been no scarcity, would have depressed the price of wool. A good deal was said by hon. Members about the difficulties in the way of our export trade, from Corn-laws and the high price of raw materials; yet the declared value of the export of woollen manufactures in the year ending January, 1833, was 5,479,866l., and in the year ending January, 1834, 6,511,780l. Notwithstanding the immense rise in the raw material, then, there had been an actual increase in our export of woollen manufactures. Another proof of the present comparative high price in mutton and beef being in consequence of the decay of the flocks was, that if it were caused by an increased consumption, it would be accompanied by a rise in bacon also; but the price of bacon was never so low. In the markets in Yorkshire, it was, at Christmas, from 3s. 9d. to 4s. 3d. per stone. The present price of fresh meat as well as of wool, was to be attributed to the loss of the flocks, and when and how that was to be remedied was a matter for serious contemplation. The cold clay and wet soils had rotted sheep; and the farmer, jealous of trusting to them, or unable to buy sheep, had scourged his land by a severe course of tillage, until it had gone out of cultivation, being too expensive to cultivate, at the present prices. A considerable portion of the old sheep-walks, in consequence of the low price of live stock immediately after 1825, the introduction of bone manure, and the rise in wheat during the wet seasons of 1828, 1829, 1830, and 1831, (which was favourable to their crops on the high lands,) had been broken up; and these soils now, in a great measure, supplied our wheat. It was a problem, therefore, how the former supply of wool could be replenished, as far as our own soils were concerned. Turn your cold clay soils to grass, said the town-bred political economist. Nothing betrayed the ignorance of these theorists more than that ignorant assumption. Did they know how land got out of cultivation, or why? It was because the price was insufficient to pay the cost of production; but it was not thrown up at once in a rich state fit to lay down for pasture; the farmer losing more and more every year, put less and less manure upon it, till, at last, he merely ran his plough through it, till it would produce no more. When its vegetative powers were exhausted, they were told to turn it to pasture. Under the most favourable circumstances it took eight years to create a good pasture, and that at a considerable expense; but, under the circumstances supposed, it would be at a sacrifice of many yearsrent, and of fifteen or eighteen years of time. There was yet another very alarming symptom in the state of our agriculture. The old heavy wheat soils could not be kept in cultivation at the present prices. The upland wheat soils, particularly the limestone heights, yielded as much wheat as barley; and as it was a more certain and more valuable crop, it had, of late, grown into a custom with the necessitous farmer, not to follow the usual course of turnips, barley, seeds, and wheat, but to grow wheat both before and after seeds. That course of cultivation could not last, and then upon what was the country to depend for wheaten bread? If scarcity of corn did not produce famine as of old, it would lead inevitably to a much higher range of prices than what the agriculturists were now seeking; for. And for what purpose?—to give a momentary stimulus to our export trade. Much had been said of the identity of interest between the agriculture and trade of this country: in that doctrine he was a thorough believer, so far as it related to the internal trade of the country. That was corroborated by the depression of the agricultural and inland towns, and the retail trade, with London at its head, contemporaneously with our agriculture. But the export trade was distinct from the internal trade, and might flourish when the other was depressed. Manchester and some other towns, so far as they ex-port manufacture, was concerned,—and Liverpool, which had a commission on every export and import,—might be thriving when the rest of the community were bordering on a state of ruin. It was plain that the export trade might prosper when the internal demand had comparatively ceased. Although the disastrous state of our agriculture was ably described by the right hon. Chairman of the Committee in his Report last year, there were some strong points, either omitted, or not sufficiently dwelt upon, which he would briefly refer to. One of the most alarming was, the great diminution of the capital of the tenantry, so that, if the landlords were to be exacting and to sell them up, not more on the average than about one-third would be in a state of solvency. The ancient yeomen, with a property of from 50l. to 300l. per annum, had rapidly and sensibly diminished, and, in some instances, had been even entirely swept away within the last fifteen years, and a considerable consolidation of landed property had taken place, cither from a union of small properties by monied capitalists, or by the largest proprietors adding small parcels to their estates. The ancient usage of farmers having stocks of grain in their rick-yards, at periods shortly antecedent to harvests, had been, for a lew years past, a matter of rare occurrence. The cultivation for some years without profit, and the exhaustion of the capital of the tenant, had produced the natural result of a scourging of the land; and a diminished produce from a given portion of the soil was the consequence. The exhaustion of the capital, in many instances, of more than one race of tenantry, had caused a scarcity of tenants with capital among the children of yeomen and farmers, out of which the best tenants had hitherto been obtained. The necessities of the farmer had induced him to force his cattle on the market at an earlier age, so as to trench upon his breeding stock, and to produce a scarcity of live stock—a scarcity greatly aggravated by three or four years' rot among the sheep. A reduction in rent of 10 to 50 per cent had been submitted to by the landlords since the war; but in order to bestow on the tenantry a means of livelihood or possibility of profit, under a wheat price of 53s. or 54s. per quarter, a further reduction of from 20 to 30 percent, must, be submitted to. A compulsory reduction to that extent was alarming enough to induce the Legislature to interfere to prevent it; but when he stated that since the Committee sat, wheat had experienced a further fall of 7s. or 8s. per quarter, and if this depression remained, a reduction in rents must take place, at least 50 per cent, on the whole; whilst, in many instances, large tracts of land must go out of cultivation, and rent entirely cease. In conclusion, he would affirm, that nothing which the Government had proposed to do would operate as an efficient remedy, or even lessen, much less remove agricultural distress. The disease was too deeply seated to be got rid of by superficial nostrums. That disease was caused by a change in the value of money to an almost inconceivable extent; and the cure must be effected by some modification of our present monetary system. He was disinclined to oppose the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but his publicduty left him no alternative, and he meant to vote for the Motion of the noble Marquess.

could not repress his surprise at the speech of the hon. member for Bridgenorth. Most persons admitted, that all those burthens, direct and indirect, which fall exclusively on agriculture, should be reduced before the Corn-laws were altered; it was reserved for the hon. member for Bridgenorth, who had given notice of a Motion to effect an alteration in the Corn-laws, to contend that they ought to remove the protection and continue these burthens. His noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that, in his financial arrangements, he was consulting the best mode of effecting the prosperity of all classes. He begged, however, to ask the noble Lord, how it came to pass, if whatever promoted the prosperity of the manufacturers was sure to increase the wealth of the agriculturists, that the price of corn, and, indeed, of all other articles of agricultural produce (wool only excepted), had, for many months past materially fallen? The average price of wheat was only 48s. and a fraction. Under these circumstances, he meant to vote for the Motion of the noble Marquess.

felt himself compelled to vote for the original Motion. He was certainly much inclined to give every possible relief to the agricultural classes; but were he to support the Amendment, he should in effect be voting for a repeal of the Malt-tax, which he could not do. The noble Marquess assumed that the distress which had fallen on the landed interest was owing to the pressure of taxation. This he denied. In his opinion it was attributable to the alteration which had taken place in the currency. Certainly there did exist great distress amongst the agricultural classes, particularly in Ireland. He had asked a very intelligent farmer in his district, why he had forsaken his plough and taken to agitation? and the reply he obtained was this:—" I minded my plough as long as my plough paid me; but now were I to attend to my plough as I once did when my agricultural pursuits brought me an adequate return for my industry, my plough would produce nothing but ruin; but agitation may possibly give me something." This was a most distressing state of things, and demanded the utmost inquiry and attention on the part of the Legislature. The Legislature had done the wrong, and it was bound to administer the remedy. It was not yet too late. The measure of confiscation was not yet complete. The independent body of farmers, though dwindled away, was not yet extinct. The remedy, however, was very different to that suggested by the noble Marquess, and though he respected his motives, he could not support his proposition.

observed, that the noble Marquess called upon the House, by his Amendment, to express its conviction that the agricultural part of the community ought to be entitled to any reduction which could be made in the shape of taxation. Everything which had taken place, from the moment his Majesty pronounced his Speech, to the Debate on this question, showed the justice of that proposition. It appeared that there was a surplus revenue which might be applicable to the reduction of taxation, and it also appeared that the manufacturing interest was in prosperity, and that all the relief which had yet been given by a reduction of taxation, had been given to the trading and commercial interest. No answer had been made to the statement of the noble Marquess, that no relief had been given to the agricultural interest.

could not help remarking upon some arguments which had been used in the course of the Debate. It was assumed that the agricultural interests, without any exception, were in a state of unmitigated distress, and that commerce and manufactures were in a state of progressive improvement. If this were, indeed, the case, the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, might well be asked why he gave relief exclusively to that class which was in a prosperous condition. But he must beg leave to contradict the assumption that, because the King's Speech made such a statement, therefore it must necessarily be true. He certainly admitted that distress did prevail to a considerable extent amongst the agricultural classes, and he should be glad if it could be relieved, but the noble Marquess must excuse him if he begged to remind him that, in the able and manly speech with which he had introduced this question on behalf of the agricultural interest, he had not stated any means by which the existing distress was to be relieved. He had merely moved a Resolution, stating that the agricultural interest ought to obtain a portion of whatever relief could be given to the people? Now how was that to be effected? If this motion were granted, the noble Lord could not give up the House-duty. If he were to compromise the matter and say, "I will give 600,000l. to the householders, 600,000l. to the agriculturists, he (Mr. Robinson) would be glad to know what relief this amount would be to the lower classes? It appeared to him, therefore, that this proposition could lead to no result. One word with respect to the assumed prosperity of commerce and manufactures. It seemed the measure of mercantile and commercial prosperity was taken by the quantity, while the prosperity of the agricultural interests was estimated by the returns. Let them, at least, have the same data for calculating the success or depression of either of those interests. Let it not be said that, because the manufacturers sent abroad so many millions more yards of cotton, therefore, manufactures must necessarily be in a flourishing condition. He would ask the noble Lord, supposing he had sent last year 150 sheep to market, and received 150l. for them, and that this year he sent 200 and got but 100l. in return, would he consider this a proof of agricultural prosperity? And yet such was the calculation which was adopted in the case of commerce and manufactures. He affirmed that the commercial interests, although not so much distressed as the agricultural interests, were far from being in such a state of prosperity as the King's Speech would Seem to imply. But there was one interest which had not been alluded to at all during the discussion—he meant the shipping interest. In a consideration of the great leading interests of the country was the shipping interest of so little importance that it ought to be completely lost sight of, and not even mentioned? He could assure the House, that if this proposition were adopted he should feel it his duty, on the next Motion for a Committee of Supply, to bring forward a similar proposition in favour of the shipping interest, for he considered it equally entitled with the other interests to a share of whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have to spare. He maintained that whatever distress prevailed amongst the agricultural classes, there was equal or greater depression in the shipping interest, if that distress was to be measured by loss of capital or diminution of profits. He could not vote for the proposition of the noble Marquess, not because he did not sympathise with the distress of the agriculturists as well as of any other class, but because he thought that the Resolution, if adopted, would lead to no good whatever.

said, that while he fully admitted the right of the agriculturists to participate in whatever relief could be afforded to the country, he thought the means proposed by his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be more effectual for that purpose than those suggested by the noble Marquess. With respect to the repeal of the Malt-tax, he maintained that that would be no relief to the farmers generally; because, as the noble Lord stated, it was amongst the farmers of heavy lands, on which barley was not grown, that the greatest distress prevailed. The only other remedy proposed in the course of the discussion, was that suggested by the hon. member for Wexford—namely, a return to paper money. Now he (Sir George Phillips) thought that he greatest relief would be afforded by a better administration of the Poor-laws. He was convinced that the agriculturists themselves would feel a measure for the Amendment of those Laws, to be the greatest concession that could be made to them, for the great outcry amongst the farmers was directed against the poor-rates. That measure and the commutation of tithes could not fail to afford the most important relief. He concurred with his noble friend that relief could not be afforded to one class without the other interests feeling the benefit of it; and he was sure that the reduction of taxes which had taken place, and which was to take place, would be attended with the greatest possible benefit to all parties.

said, that, although the example had been set him, he should not enter into the question either of the Currency or the Corn-laws, but would confine himself to the question before the House, which appeared to him to be simply this;—If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could reduce taxes, what was the principle which should regulate the House in that reduction? He admitted that the repeal of the House-tax had been so pressed upon the noble Lord, both on account of the severity of its operation in the neighbouring districts, and in consequence of certain pledges which had been given, that, placed where he was, he could not well refuse to repeal that tax. But it was for the House to consider what was the principle upon which taxes should be reduced, so as best to reconcile the conflicting interests of the country. He assumed that the agricultural distress was admitted and proved, and that the commercial prosperity was, as the hon. Member below him (Mr. Robinson) said, at least doubtful. The arguments of the honorable member for Ipswich, who had seconded the Address, seemed to him to be built upon a sandy ground; for that hon. Member, in order to establish the prosperity of commerce and manufactures, confined himself to a calculation of the quantity of work done, leaving wholly unnoticed the question of the rate of profit at which that work was done. If the question related to a particular branch—the cotton trade, for instance—the Vice-President of the Board of Trade would find no difficulty in telling the House what was the best mode of upholding that trade. The right hon. Gentleman would, as he had done last year, repeal the duty on the raw material. And why should not the same course be pursued in reference to the most important of our national productions—agricultural produce. If it were possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the burthens of the agriculturists, he would effect two good objects—he would not only reduce taxation, but would enable the grower to bring his produce to the market at a smaller price, and to compete with the foreigner. If the Malt-tax were reduced, not only would the consumers of beer be able to procure the article on lower terms, but the growers of barley would be enabled to produce it at a cheaper rate, and to enter into competition with the foreigner, if at a future period it should be deemed advisable to make any alteration in the Corn-law. With regard to the amendment of the Poor-laws and the commutation of tithes, he did not expect from those measures the immediate relief which the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated from them. On the contrary, he thought they would, in the first instance, be attended with considerable expense, which must be borne by the country.

said, he would vote for a repeal of the Malt-tax, whenever that question came before the House. In the mean time he strongly recommended his Majesty's Ministers to impose a tax upon absentees. The present system was a premium upon absenteeism, because a man by going out of the country escaped from those taxes which he was obliged to pay if he remained in it.

meant to vote for the Motion of the noble Marquess, and he wished to state as briefly as he could his reasons for doing so. He would vote for the repeal of the Malt-tax, and of every other tax which bore upon agriculture, because he knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer never gave up a tax until he was compelled, and the more the reduction of taxation was pressed upon him, the more benefit the country was likely to derive. Another reason for his supporting this proposition was, that if there were a majority in favour of it, there would then be another pressure upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by the hon. member for Worcester, on behalf of the shipping interest. The noble Lord very candidly admitted that he yielded to these pressures. He talked of the unpopularity of a tax, which unpopularity meant nothing more than the extent to which its reduction was pressed upon him by the people. He appealed to the House whether, in this wisest of all countries, we had not been guilty of one of the greatest possible blunders with respect to the debt. The country owed 1000,000,000l., and was thus in the situation of an individual who owed 1,000l., and went to his creditor and said, "I owe you 1,000l., and I am very ill able to pay you, but I will tell you what I will do, instead of 20s. in the pound, I will pay you thirty shillings." That was done by the wisest nation on the face of the earth. One-half at least was added to the value of the currency in order to enable the country to pay its debt. Another wise notion was, that taking off taxes would be no relief. He thought it an established proverb in this country, that a shilling saved is a shilling gained. Every man knew that if he was obliged to pay away a shilling he could not keep it in his pocket; and yet it was said that the taking off of taxes would be of no relief. He should like to try at all events. But, absurd and preposterous as these things were, there was a solecism, in the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, considering the King's speech, was more inexplicable than any thing that had ever appeared before the public. The King's speech represented the commercial interests as being in a thriving condition, and the agricultural interests in a state of depression. The commercial interests were to be stated at the highest rate of prosperity and the excellent and accomplished political economist who seconded the address proved, by the most conclusive specimens of vulgar arithmetic, that that prosperity was real and substantial. As to the agricultural distress, every one was agreed upon that point, and distress prevailed in England, Scotland, and Ireland. Even in Ireland, where they differed as to everything else, they agreed in that statement. Commerce was prosperous, and agriculture was distressed, "and therefore," the noble Lord said, "I will give relief to commerce and none to agriculture." That was the amount of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. Yes, yes, that was the plain English of it. Let him ask in sober sadness, was it not admitted that the agricultural interest was depressed? Had any man connected with them one third of the income he enjoyed during the war,—certainly no man had one half; at least he would answer for it that was the case in Ireland. Few had one third, and certainly no man had two-thirds. But he would tell the House who had increased incomes; those persons who were proprietors of the public debt. They got three times what they were entitled to. It must be looked to. The interest of the debt must be reduced. It was 29 millions. Let the noble Lord strike off one-sixth of the interest, and that would give him four millions and a-half to begin with; let him then come and reduce taxation to the amount of four and a half millions. He heard a great deal of talk of justice and national faith, and everything else. Talk of the cant of national faith indeed! He contended that national faith so called was national injustice. The reports year after year proved that the distress of the country was increasing. First hope was held out to the people. That hope was disappointed; and then came despair and darkness, only illuminated by the flames kindled in the agricultural counties by the incendiaries. The gentlemen who questioned this fact could not be in the habit of reading the newspapers. He had never perceived, amongst the monied interest, who were so anxious to enhance the currency, the slightest feeling of compassion for the sufferings of the agricultural classes. It was said that we ought not to talk of adverse interests. But the people and the proprietors of the debt had adverse interests. The people wanted to pay them as cheaply as they could, and the proprietors were determined to get as much as possible. Let the Government reduce the interest of the debt and the amount of taxation; and, at the end of twelve months, if one-sixth were not sufficient, let them take off another sixth from the interest. He knew the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had a great deal of poetic imagination. He had given a most poetic description of the future prospects of the country. He had depicted green and glowing fields, verdant valleys, and everything that, a virtuoso could desire; but he held out no prospect of a reduction of the debt; he gave no encouragement that in a thousand years it would be reduced by a thousandth part; but by his plan there would, at least be a beginning. Determined as he was to vote for lessening the taxes as much as possible, he should support the proposition of the noble Marquess.

could not deny the existence of agricultural distress, The Committee of last Session proved it; and his Majesty's speech at the opening of the present Session declared it. If, therefore, the Resolution proposed by the noble Marquess went only to confirm that report, and that declaration, he should not feel any strong objection to it. But, after what had passed that night, he thought the House ought to look a little further into the practical effect of the noble Marquess's motion. He did not pretend to impute to the supporters of the motion generally the motives by which the hon. and learned member for Dublin had declared he was actuated. He entertained much too great a respect for most of them to cast upon them any such imputation. But, after what had passed, he begged the House to look at the practical result. The motion had been supported on grounds which, if acquiesced in by the House, would lead, not to the benefit or injury of one particular interest merely, but to universal confusion. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had just told the House, that his noble friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) never gave up a single tax till he was driven to it. "Use force with the Chancellor of the Exchequer," said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "and he will acquiesce in your proposition." Now, really he (Mr. Stanley) did not think that that was a charge to which his noble friend was peculiarly liable. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, declared, that he would vote for the motion of the noble Marquess, because it would follow as an irresistible consequence that the Malt tax must be taken off. He knew that the repeal of that tax would be popular, not only on account of its large amount, but of its nature. But the interests of Ireland, about which the hon. and learned Member always seemed peculiarly solicitous, surely her interests would not be advanced by the repeal of the Malt-ax? He would put it to the right hon. member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) whether he was prepared to support the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for repealing the Malt-tax,—to that right hon. Member who asserted that 1,200,000l. were all that it was possible to take off from the burthens of the country by a diminution of taxation? He would ask the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Baring), who had bitterly reproached the Government for encroaching on the diminished margin of the surplus revenue, whether he was prepared to favour the abstraction of 5,000,000l. from the interest of the national debt? A partial reduction of the Malt-tax would not afford that degree of relief to the agricultural interest which some hon. Members might expect. To take off half the tax would not be a removal of half the burthen, for the expense of collection would remain pretty nearly as at present. A more conclusive and satisfactory statement than that which the House had just heard from the hon. and learned member for Dublin he had never heard—a statement in the course of which, the learned Gentleman showed that he was prepared to provide for what the hon. member for Essex once denominated "the margin of taxation" by a direct incroachment on the interest of the public debt. This was the learned Gentleman's mode of filling up the margin. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed an immediate reduction of one-sixth of the interest of the national debt; and if that should not be sufficient, he would reduce another sixth in twelve months. He had heard the other night with surprise some mention made of "the pretext of an Act of Parliament;" but with infinitely more astonishment did he now hear the learned Gentleman talk in a British Parliament of" the cant of national faith!" He granted that the mode in which the present repetition of that expression was received, and the tone of contemptuous derision with which it had been originally met, fully vindicated the House from the charge of partaking in any such absurd and profligate opinions. He owned "profligate," was a very strong expression—of course he meant "profligate opinions" in the sense of principles leading directly to acts of political profligacy—but he could not make use of a lighter term when characterizing the sentiments referred to. He rejoiced to hear the tone of derision with which the House had received the hon. Gentleman's observation, inasmuch as that unequivocal expression of feeling saved the House from all suspicion, vindicated it from the imputation of participating in the sentiment, and sustained within the walls of Parliament, not "the cant," but the high principles of integrity, and national faith and honour. He had merely risen for the purpose of commenting on the hon. and learned Gentleman's expression, and also to call the attention of the House to the fact, that a great number of those who were prepared to form part of what he expected to be the majority, might do so without entering into every financial consequence, but simply because they would not, by so large an abolition of taxation, endanger the national honour, which they were determined to uphold and vindicate. He should only add, that according to every maxim of political prudence, the House ought not to accede to a Resolution on the ground that it merely contained the assertion of a truism, without being prepared to follow out the principles of that truism in the way which its supporters advocated.

concurred in all the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman at the conclusion of his speech. Nothing could be more painful than to be compelled to vote on the same side with those who avowed opinions that were in direct opposition to every principle of honour and national faith. He should be ashamed of himself, however, if he let a consideration of that nature deter him from the course which a sense of public duty required him to pursue. He rejoiced to hear the hon. and learned member for Dublin avow his political creed, because when they came, in a few days hence, to the consideration of the Repeal of the Union, they would bear in mind under what auspices, and with what views that measure was proposed. "O all you," exclaimed the right hon. Baronet "who have interest in the funds in Ireland—O all you Protestants who hold lands in Ireland, learn, by this timely declaration, what your fate will be when you shall have been delivered up to the tender mercies of a popular assembly, returned by the influence and adopting the principles of this man, who makes a jest of national honour, and talks of the Cant of public faith." "I thank thee, Jew, for teaching me that word." The question of the Repeal of the Union had been decided by that preliminary declaration. Who that had anything to lose would not draw the inference, that if such slender pretences could be brought forward to justify the violation of national faith, there could be no security for any property of any description? While, therefore, he voted on the same side with the hon. and learned Gentleman, he could not too strongly express his abhorrence of the principles which he professed. He was not prepared to admit, as a necessary consequence, that an acquiescence in this Motion must lead to a violation of the national faith. He, for one, would not consent to grant any relief even to the agricultural interest at the expense of disturbing confidence in public credit. They were placed, however, in these circumstances. The noble Lord had stated the other night, in what he must call a very unusual and premature declaration, that the national revenue was in an exceedingly prosperous condition, and that he had a certain sum to apply to the remission of taxation. The noble Lord said, that he was rather inclined for a Repeal of the House-tax, but he added, "that he would leave the matter open for a certain period, so that each Member might present his plan to the House; and if any hon. Gentleman should succeed in inducing the House to prefer any other tax for remission, he would not propose to repeal the House-tax." With such an avowal as this, such an advertisement for counter-proposals, it would be perfect treason, on the part of those representing any interest requiring a remission of taxation, not to urge their claims. The noble Lord, too, was a perfectly fair arbitrator, for his mind seemed quite free from bias in favour of his own proposal. He said, that he had given a sort of pledge to repeal the House-tax; but he admitted, that there were other taxes which he thought it would be much better to repeal. Now, they could relieve the noble Lord from the difficulty of his pledge, by proposing the remission of some one of those other taxes which the noble Lord himself thought a better tax to repeal. The noble Lord was the last person to object to this gentle violence. There never was so clear an invitation to be ravished. The noble Lord had consulted his friends, the political economists, and they had convinced him, that the House-tax was not the tax which he should repeal; therefore, he would, for six months, give a clear stage and no favour to all those who were anxious to make him change his course. Now, they had this admission from the noble Lord,—that the agricultural interest was so intimately connected with the commercial and the manufacturing interests, that the best mode of advancing and improving it would be to extend our commerce and manufactures by opening new markets; byre-moving those regulations, as well fiscal as political, which interfered with or impeded their extension. These observations were very just. The agricultural classes would be benefited by the extension of our commerce; but, he would ask the noble Lord, whether the House-tax was one—the remission of which would remove the pressure from the springs of industry, or tend to give to our manufactures new encouragement in foreign markets? Nobody would say, that the repeal of the House-tax would afford any relief, either direct or indirect, to the agricultural classes. And why not attempt to repeal some tax which should benefit them. There were few taxes less open to just objections than a House-tax levied on fair principles. It partook something of the nature of a Property-tax, without its inquisitorial character. The House-tax fell much more on the higher than on the lower classes. If the noble Lord had been anxious to afford relief to the agricultural interest, the repeal of the Window-tax would, in some measure, effect that; but he doubted, whether it would be possible to select any tax, or duties of any kind, to an equivalent amount, the reduction of which would not give more alleviation to the agricultural interest than the reduction of the House-tax would give. It had been stated, in the course of the Debate, that considerable relief would be afforded to the agriculturists, by some intended alterations in the Poor-laws. He thought that an alteration of the Poor-laws was necessary not merely to the agricultural interest, but to all interests. He believed that the independence, the comfort, and the happiness of the lower classes were intimately involved in the sound consideration and amendment of the Poor-laws. But, when the evils had become so manifold and so complicated, many years must elapse before any very perceptible improvement could be effected, or any great relief could be afforded to the agricultural interest. It was a delusion to the agricultural tenancy of England, to say, that any measure connected with the Poor-laws could afford them immediate benefit. It was not his (Sir R. Peel's) intention to go into the question of the Malt-tax, or endeavour to show that the remission of any part of it would afford great relief to the agriculturists. He would, however, express his anxious wish, that the noble Lord would appoint a Commission to inquire into the bearing of different taxes, general and local, on the various classes of the community, to see whether the present system of taxation did not unduly press on the farming and agricultural classes in particular. He was anxious that such an inquiry should extend to the whole of the local taxation, to the expense of criminal prosecutions, to the maintenance of country bridges and roads, to ascertain whether the pressure was anything like equal on the different classes. He doubted much whether the necessary expense for ensuring the security of life and property, namely, the punishment of crime, did not fall with extreme weight on the land. The towns chiefly contributed the criminals, and the land almost the whole expense of bringing them to justice. Some observations had been made with respect to the surcharges to which persons in large towns were liable in consequence of the operation of the Assessed-taxes. Now he (Sir R. Peel) would venture to say, that the surcharges on land were not less in amount or less vexatious than those which occurred in towns, and the surcharges on the county were not so easily got rid of. In towns, in case of injustice, the neighbours met together, public meetings were called, and memorials were sent to the Treasury; but, in the country districts, the power of remonstrance was much less effectual, from the absence of all combination, and the want of knowledge as to the best mode of resistance. He had that morning received a letter which had been sent to him in consequence of some observations with which he troubled the House the other evening. The person who sent the letter, and of whom he (Sir Robert Peel,) knew nothing, had seen in a newspaper some observations of his, and had he not seen them, would probably have remained silent under a grievous oppression. The letter was from Oundle in North-amptonshire, the county which the Chancellor of the Exchequer represented. The writer stated, that he held a dairy farm at a rental of 200l. a year, and his farm was the only means he had of obtaining a livelihood. He was possessed of a horse, which he used entirely for the purposes of his farm. Last year, he was greatly surprised to find himself charged for this horse by the tax-gatherer as for a riding-horse. The writer of the letter said, that he appealed against this charge, but his appeal was dismissed because, according to the Commissioners, "grazing," was not "farming" within the meaning of the Act. The farmer very naturally asked, whether there was any authority for this decision. Yes, was the reply; and they referred him to Johnson's Dictionary. By that work "husbandry" meant "tillage," and "tillage" meant "ploughing." The charge, therefore, was ordered to be confirmed, because the farmer had no ploughed land. He very naturally asked whether, if he ploughed a part of the land, and left the remainder as a grazing farm, he should be still liable to the charge; and the reply was, "Yes, unless the greater portion of the farm is ploughed." How many isolated cases of this kind might occur in the country, and how much hardship might be inflicted without its being known! Whereas, in towns, publicity would instantly be given to the cause of complaint, and publicity would most probably be followed by redress. He hoped, that the noble Lord would be induced to see whether he could not altogether relieve the agricultural classes from taxes which pressed on them in this vexatious manner. He had not intended to address the House; but he felt anxious to do so in consequence of the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He wished, as he voted with the hon. and learned member for Dublin, utterly to disavow any participation in his opinions. The hon. and learned Gentleman reminded him of the elephant wounded in battle, which was often more dangerous to its friends than its foes. One remark only he wished to make before he sat down. It had been stated, with a view to show that the agricultural classes were not in such a distressed state as had been represented, that the price of British wool had risen considerably. Now, the high price of wool, instead of being an indication of the prosperity of the agricultural classes, was rather an indication of their distress. He had no doubt that that rise in price had chiefly been the consequence of the prevalence of wet during the last three years, and the consequent diminution of the flocks. He did not believe that the increase in the price of wool afforded anything like a remuneration to the farmer for the loss in his flocks. It was observed, that at present the price of wool was high, whilst that of corn was low. He feared that the farmer had been obliged, in many instances, in consequence of the pressure of his difficulties, to plough up his grazing land; to realize an immediate gain at the risk of permanent injury, and that, in consequence, corn had become unusually abundant, and wool unusually scarce. No man, he thought, could deny that the agricultural classes laboured under great distress. It had been said, that this would be diminished by repealing the Corn-laws. He believed, that any such measure would only aggravate the distress. He would not consent to a Repeal of the Corn-laws, because it would make a great and sudden revolution in the relations of the different classes of society, which would be productive of the greatest misery. In conclusion, he would say, that if they had any taxation to remit, it would be right to remit those taxes which bore either directly or indirectly on agri- culture, rather than repeal the tax which had been suggested by the noble Lord. He thought, that the agricultural population had a strong claim to the commiseration of the House, not only, as was admitted, because more distressed than any other class, but also in consequence of the loyalty, the patience, and the submission with which they had long borne the greatest suffering.

having; moved, "That the Resolution adopted by the House on the 13th of February be read, relative to Baron Smith," and it having been read, the hon. Baronet proceeded to say, that he was well persuaded, that the House would feel it would be infinitely the more agreeable course, as he apprehended it undoubtedly would be the more convenient one, if it were possible, at that hour of the night, to postpone the discussion of a question which he deemed it his bounden duty to submit to the anxious and solemn consideration of the House. He was fully aware of the disadvantages under which he rose to claim the attention of the House, engaged as it had been for so many hours in the discussion of a question of the highest magnitude, and delighted as it had been by such brilliant displays of eloquence, which must render anything that he had to address to it but little calculated to arrest its attention. With all these disadvantages, however, against him, he felt it his duty, even at that late hour of the night, to bring this question under the consideration of the House. Though he felt that it was his duty to proceed with the task he had undertaken, he must, at the same time, confess, that he was fully sensible of the extreme difficulty, and, perhaps, delicacy, of the position in which he stood at the present moment. He was about to do that, which was, though very unusual, not without precedent. He was about to call upon the House to consider the propriety of rescinding a vote to which they had come on a former evening; and he could assure them he would not have presumed to take such a course if he were not fully impressed with the great importance—if he had not felt that he had strong and reasonable grounds for bringing forward the proposition which he should submit to their consideration. When he recalled to the House the serious charges which the hon. and learned member for Dublin had brought against Baron Smith—when he brought to their recollection the strong sensation which the announcement of these charges had produced upon the House—when he reminded them of the intense feeling that was entertained upon the subject out of doors—and when they considered the very peculiar circumstances under which the vote was come to, he was persuaded that he should stand, not only acquitted, but justified, for the line of conduct he proposed to adopt. In the course of the previous discussion which had taken place on this subject, the right hon. the Secretary for the Colonies said, that he was induced to take a part in it rather in consequence of the mode and manner in which the debate was carried on, than from any importance which he attached to the statement made by the hon. and. learned member for Dublin. He was ready to believe that the former discussion did take an unusual course; but why it did do so he was unable to say. The debate certainly was tinged with party spirit; and that, he was willing to admit, might have induced the right hon. Secretary and other hon. Members to vote as they had done. He begged however to assure them, that he alone was responsible for the Motion which he was about to bring forward, and he hoped, indeed he was confident, they would give him credit when he declared, that he did not bring it forward as a party question. He was incapable, on such a momentous question, of being influenced by any such motives and the ground on which alone he submitted the Motion with which he meant to conclude, was the dangerous effect which such a vote was likely to have upon the independence of the Judges of the land, and the difficulties to which it would expose them. Among other consequences he felt the great injustice that would be done to the eminent and learned individual implicated by it if such a vote as this were allowed to remain unchallenged. That able and excellent gentleman had now for up-wards of thirty years presided on the Bench, and never to his knowledge, never according to the information which he had obtained, had taint or suspicion before assailed his conduct. The public character of all men was of the first importance to them, and to none was public character of greater value than to persons on whom depended the administration of justice. The public character of no man, of no Judge, was ever more appreciated than that of the eminent and learned individual upon whom this vote cast so unmerited a reflection. Such a vote he must say, never ought to have passed that House; but as he wished to avoid any expression that would lead to angry discussion, he would abstain from saying more lest he should fall into the very error which he desired to guard against. He could not, however, help expressing the regret which he felt at the expressions in which the hon. and learned member for Dublin indulged at the expense of the learned Judge. He was quite at liberty, he believed, to refer to what had occurred on the former occasion, and if he merely confined himself to what had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Dublin, the House must feel convinced that he had abundant materials for even acrimonious observation. He would not, however, cast blame on either the hon. and learned member for Dublin, or any one else; that was not his object. His purpose was to move the House from the false position in which it was placed by the vote of the other night, and by having the question reconsidered to secure their own independence. When the subject was first brought forward, the hon. and learned member for Dublin made an observation which was not un-frequently advanced by him both in and out of that House. He said, that it was altogether an Irish question, and that, therefore, they would, he doubted not, treat it lightly, as they were in the habit of doing all questions relating to that country. He did not understand why the hon. and learned Member made use of an observation so unfounded. But the hon. and learned Member proclaimed on all occasions, that the interests of Ireland were altogether neglected by the British Parliament. He denied that the assertion was borne out by fact; and he proclaimed, not only for himself, but also on the part of every other hon. Member of that House, and he spoke only the truth, that on no occasion within his recollection, had he, or had the Parliament of this country, neglected the interests of Ireland. It had ever been his desire and most anxious care to pay the utmost consideration to any measure that was brought forward for the advantage of that country; and he would boldly affirm, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was not more solicitous about its welfare than he was. Whether the questions brought forward related to the interests of Ireland, or to the interests of England, his course had been, and always should be, to do justice, as far as he was able, to both countries. He would at all times pay the same dispassionate attention to all questions, whether they were English or Irish; and he thought the hon. and learned member for Dublin had no right to charge either him or the other hon. Members of that House, with being negligent of the interests of Ireland. He was ready to admit, that no man should ask the House to retrace its steps who was not prepared to show sufficient grounds for the adoption of such a course. He was also bound to show, that in bringing forward a proposition like this he could not be suspected of being actuated by party motives. He dis- claimed any thing of the kind, and repeated, that he was influenced by no motive so unworthy; and in proof of this, he would take the liberty of stating the case as it stood, without recurring to any circumstances that was likely in any way to give rise to angry discussion. It should not be forgotten that this distinguished individual, whose public character was so wantonly assailed, was a person who had occupied an important place on the bench for the last thirty years, and against whom not even the shadow of imputation had been cast, from the period of his elevation to the judicial seat, down to the moment when those charges were brought forward by the hon. and learned member for Dublin. He must first remark, that it was not usual for the conduct of a Judge to be inquired into by a Committee of that House. The case of Lord Macclesfield was, he believed, the only exception of the kind that had occurred from the period of the Revolution to the present time; and he must say, that he, for one, did not approve of such Parliamentary investigations. He was aware that there were two other cases in which the conduct of two Irish Judges was complained of. He alluded to the cases of Mr. Justice Fox and Mr. Justice Johnson; but neither of those cases had led to a Parliamentary inquiry. Between these two cases, however, and the present, there was not a single feature of similarity. The conduct imputed to the two Judges he had named, and that which the hon. and learned member for Dublin had attributed to Baron Smith, were widely different. In no point of view could the hon. and learned member for Dublin be justified in the use of such terms as those which he had employed in bringing forward this accusation against a Judge, who was alike distinguished for his honour and his learning, and the great liberality of his political sentiments. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had made two charges against Mr. Baron Smith. In the first he stated, that the learned Judge had been guilty of neglect of his judicial duties, and in the next he alleged, that the same learned personage was a violent political partisan. With respect to the first accusation, that of neglect of duty, he entreated the House to pause for a moment, and consider of what that charge consisted. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had asserted, that Mr. Baron Smith was constantly in the habit of going into Court at a late hour in the day, to the great inconvenience and injury of suitors. The practice of which the hon. and learned Member had complained was perhaps inconvenient, and might not be regarded with much favour in this country; but then it was important to know, however objectionable, that it was a practice which generally prevailed among the Judges in Ireland. Undoubtedly such a practice did not sound satisfactory in British ears; but if the same thing happened in the case of other Irish Judges, he could not understand why the hon. and learned Member should have selected Baron Smith, as the object against which to direct his thunders. The charge, it was apparent, was general rather than specific, and, consequently, there was the greater difficulty in answering it. The hon. and learned Member had only told them of two instances of neglect, and one of those was the Liverpool case. But had the hon. and learned member for Dublin ventured to tell them that he had, even in his capacity of counsel, made any representation to the learned Judge, with respect to his alleged neglect of duty? He had not; but if the hon. and learned Member had known of such misconduct as he attributed to Baron Smith, was it not his bounden duty to have made a representation to him upon the subject? If the hon. and learned Member had taken this course, and his representation was not attended to, unquestionably he would have good grounds for complaint, but not before. Another instance of the dereliction of duty attributed to the learned Judge by the hon. and learned Member, related to a bankruptcy case.

said, that he had not attributed the dereliction of duty in the case alluded to to Mr. Baron Smith, but to another Judge.

; What! did the hon. and learned Member mean to deny that he attributed the neglect in the bankruptcy case of which he had complained to Baron Smith? The hon. and learned Member had stated, that he was in Court when a certain trial had taken place, and that he had made observations to the Jury, to show that the Judge was unfit to be on the bench—so unfit, that the hon. and learned Member told the Jury, that if the Judge interfered at all it would only be to stop the administration of justice, and now the hon. and learned Member told them, that he alluded to some other Judge.

repeated, that he had not and could not have alluded to Mr. Baron Smith, for he had said, that the Judge who had been guilty of the conduct which he had described, had remained on the bench for two years afterwards.

certainly it was his impression at the time, and he believed many other Gentlemen supposed as he did, that Baron Smith was the Judge to whom the hon. and learned member for Dublin referred, as having been guilty of laches. In this he knew the testimony of many hon. Gentlemen would bear him out. It now appeared, however, that that case did not refer to Baron Smith. But that admission was in itself a powerful argument in proof of the injustice of the line of proceeding that had been adopted towards that learned Judge. The learned Gentleman brought a charge against Baron Smith, and, in doing so, he referred to a case of neglect of duty on the part of another Judge in Ireland, far greater than any imputed to the learned Baron; and yet no complaint had ever been made to Parliament of the conduct of that Judge. He did not want to know his name—he supposed, indeed, that the case was in reality one that did not call for investigation; and he only referred to it to show what a peculiar measure of injustice had been visited on the head of Baron Smith. He recollected that, in the outset of his speech, the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that the charge which he was about to prefer against Baron Smith, was generally applicable to the Judges in Ireland. How did it happen, then, that Baron Smith should be selected as the first victim for the hon. and learned Gentleman's vengeance? How did it happen that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had himself so often sounded the praises of that learned Judge, who had so often spoken in the highest terms of approbation of his impartial and excellent conduct, should thus turn round upon him, and in his old age, endeavour to excite the public odium against him? If there was any point in the character of that learned Judge that stood out more distinguished than the rest, it was this, that he always supported those he imagined to be op- pressed, and he always opposed those who he supposed were their oppressors. When the hon. and learned Gentleman was, with the rest of his Catholic countrymen, in the opinion of Baron Smith, suffering under oppression then Baron Smith was the advocate, the able advocate of Catholic Emancipation. But now that matters were changed, and that that hon. and learned Gentleman, instead of being in the situation of an oppressed man, was, in the opinion of many, exercising oppression over others, Baron Smith, true to the enlightened and noble principles which had always influenced his conduct, was to be found opposed to him. He must say, that never had a charge of misconduct against a Judge been brought forward or sustained upon evidence more lame and insufficient. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Colonies, had said, in the former debate on this question, that the charge against Mr. Baron Smith, for his conduct at Armagh, had not been answered. But surely the right hon. Secretary must have long since perceived, that, as far as regarded Baron Smith, the evidence had entirely failed. The whole of the imputation of neglect of duty rested on the conduct attributed to the learned Judge at the Assizes of Armagh; but what was the testimony which the hon. and gallant member for Armagh had borne on this subject? Why, he had told the House—and he made the assertion upon his own responsibility, upon his own honour as a; Member of Parliament—that, in no one; case which had come before the learned Judge, had injury been inflicted upon any party, nor had the due course of the administration of justice been in the least impeded. Here was a triumphant answer to so much of the hon. and learned member for Dublin's charge. It short, it must be evident to every Member of that House, that the first charge was destitute of any foundation. But why, it might be asked, had it been brought forward? He would state why. It was impossible to conceal the fact, that it had been brought forward in order to prop up the second charge. No one could doubt this. It was not heard of till after the charge delivered at Dublin. It was that charge which constituted the real offence; and this would be manifest when he stated that, until Baron Smith delivered his charge to the Grand Jury in Dublin, no complaint whatever had been urged against I him by the hon. and learned Member in reference to his conduct at Armagh. He would defy the hon. and learned Member to deny this assertion. If, then, the charge which the learned Judge delivered to the Grand Jury in Dublin in October last had never been uttered, it was perfectly clear that the charge relative to his neglect of duty would never have been heard of. He certainly was not an advocate for Judges making political charges, because he thought that political charges might lead unconsciously to something like political bias on the part of a Judge. Than this nothing could be worse or more injurious to the pure administration of justice, and, therefore, he disapproved of it. Although such was the opinion which he entertained, he must, at the same time, admit, that cases might occur in which it would be the imperative duty of the Judge to speak on political subjects. This was a proposition which he did not think the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies would deny; and if, therefore, a Judge was justified in blending politics with law in the discharge of his judicial functions, it would be a difficult matter to say where his discretion should begin, and where it should end, for no man, however accurate, could settle such a point. There were, however, many instances where Judges delivered political charges, and adverted to the state of the country; and he need hardly remind the House, that Baron Smith made a charge of this description about two years ago, which was not only lauded by the right hon. Secretary himself, but received the approbation of the public generally. The practice of delivering political charges had long existed both in this country and in Ireland; and he should be glad to know whether it would be wise or expedient to render Judges criminally amenable to that House, for every slight political error into which they might fall, in consequence of their endeavour to perform a duty which justice, expediency, and policy alike called upon them to discharge. In the course Baron Smith had pursued, he had only followed in the footsteps of his predecessors. He could refer to an instance in which another Judge, of high character, had pursued the same practice, but without having been censured for it. A charge of a political nature was delivered by Mr. Justice Day in the year 1811, when the public tranquillity in Ireland was disturbed by the agitation of the Catholic Question; but at that period nobody was to be found who would come forward to say that Parliament should interfere and procure a censure upon him. When charging the Grand Jury in the year 1811, the language of Mr. Justice Day was this:—'This happy state of the country is perhaps the more gratifying when we reflect upon the activity of incendiaries to inflame and corrupt the public mind. At no former period have orators, scribblers, and printers circulated with more busy industry their maddening poisons through the land. These mischievous advocates of civil and religious freedom, as they call themselves, have engaged in their service a number of the prints of this city, and those prints, instead of sustaining the character of the Irish Press by liberal, fair, and candid discussions, have lent themselves to sedition'. At the period this charge was delivered, there were several prisoners for trial for political offences; and if it was not wrong in Mr. Justice Day to deliver such sentiments as these from the bench, surely it could be no crime in Baron Smith to speak as he had done, though there was not a single person charged with a political offence to come before him, and when the tranquillity of the country was endangered by the agitation that was going forward. As Mr. Baron Smith spoke of the promoters of the question of the Repeal of the Union so Mr. Justice Day spoke of the advocates of Catholic Emancipation. That learned Judge went on to say, in the charge to which he referred, that 'The professed object of all this is Roman Catholic equalization, figuratively called Catholic emancipation; but do these libellers fancy that a measure the most momentous, pregnant with the most serious consequences to the whole empire, is to be carried by storm?' Observing, moreover, that, For myself I uniformly and earnestly supported every retaxation of the Popery Laws; but, in The hottest moments of my zeal for that measure, I always presumed to think that there was an object of still more value to the State than even Catholic emancipation, and that is, the public peace. The public peace must not be resigned by its best avengers, the Grand Juries and Petty Juries of the country, to factious and turbulent men'. Here was a case in which another Judge, eminent for his integrity and learning, pursued the identical course which Baron Smith took. But this was not the only case that might be mentioned. He would, therefore, ask the House, if, because one learned Judge had followed the course adopted by all other Judges, he was on that account to be dragged before a Committee of the House of Commons to have his conduct investigated. But he should like to know, if even a Committee were appointed, how they were to proceed, or whether, in short, they could proceed at all, in such an inquiry. It might be a question, whether the Act of the 1st of George 3rd, the only law that had any application to Judges, could be ever enforced in such a case as this. There was clearly no ground for addressing the Crown to have Mr. Baron Smith removed from the Bench; and, therefore, the utmost a Committee of that House could do, would be to make a Report, which would amount to something in the shape of a censure for a little indiscretion on the part of the Judge. But would it be right thus to assail the guardians of the liberty, the property, and the lives of the King's subjects with censure, and to leave them upon the Bench with such a stigma affixed to their character? The consequences of such a step would be most injurious; and he, therefore, hoped the hon. and learned member for Dublin would be baffled in his object, and that a high-minded and eminent Judge should not be exposed to censure because his political opinions did not please that hon. and learned Member. Having had time to consider this subject attentively, he took upon himself to say, that the House could not persist in the mistaken course upon which it had entered without great detriment to the pure and independent administration of justice. He implored the right hon. Secretary for Ireland to reconsider his former opinion, to examine it apart from all personal or party considerations, and to be influenced in his decision solely by the intrinsic merits of the case. It was not alone the principle of the Motion that had been carried, of which he had to complain, but also of the most extraordinary conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had brought it forward, and of the members of the Government who had supported him. They had suffered the learned and respected Judge to remain in ignorance of the charges that were to be brought against him. Nay, more, he was led to believe, up to the very hour at which the Motion was to be decided, that the Government would oppose the attack that was to be made upon him. He disclaimed all party feelings, all party considerations; and he hoped the House would do him the justice to observe, that nothing irritating or extraneous had fallen from his lips in the course of the observations which he had made. He could not, however, injustice to himself, in justice to the independence of the bench, and in protection of the fair administration of justice, avoid coming forward to protect the independence of the judgment-seat; that independence was, he thought, secured by the Act of George 3rd. Unto that Act he appealed for the protection of the Judges. It was in behalf of their independence that he appealed to the House. He appealed to Parliament to protect the Judges from all intimidation, to secure them in the exercise of their unbiassed opinions. This was the main point upon which he pressed his Motion; and if he had not felt that the vote of the other evening was both unwise and unconstitutional, he would not have brought forward the present Motion. He acknowledged, that he felt strongly upon this matter, because he considered the principle involved in this discussion one of the most important which had come under his notice since he had taken any part in public business. Parliament, like all other bodies, was liable to commit mistakes; but it was true wisdom rather to acknowledge the error than in the least to endanger any of the institutions of the country. On this occasion there was every reason for correcting the error which had been committed. Let the House only remember, that the Motion was carried at the suggestion of an hon. and learned Gentleman who had left nothing that was venerable, nothing that was sacred, nothing that was ancient or respectable, in our institutions unassailed. He would not dwell on that topic further than to remind the House of the suggestion that had been made that very evening by the same hon. and learned Gentleman,—a suggestion at which the whole feelings of the House revolted, and to which it was unnecessary for him further to allude after the expo- sure made of it by his right hon. friend. He wished, however, he could awake the Government, and the House, to a true sense of the situation in which they stood with regard to that hon. and learned Gentleman. His powers were well known to the Government and to himself, and were often but too well exercised for the particular purposes to which they were applied. Whatever these powers might be, be would venture to say, that the policy pursued that night by the hon. and learned Gentleman, would do more injury to his character in this country than any act of his life. In saying this, he did not mean to accuse the hon. Gentleman of entertaining any feelings of evil; all he meant to say was, that the policy chosen by him on this occasion was the worst he could select to recommend himself to the people of this country. It was peculiarly incumbent on that House to look carefully and dispassionately at this question; to weigh all its accompanying circumstances, and to consider, apart from all personal considerations, whether there was not, as he firmly believed there was, a question involved in this debate beyond, and of higher importance than that which they would be verbally called upon to decide. The great paramount object with all was the pure, the independent, administration of justice. That was the great bond of society; it was the link that bound the Government to the people, and gave stability to the other institutions of the country. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving, "That the order for appointing a Committee to inquire into the conduct of Mr. Baron Smith be discharged."

seconded the Motion. The course proposed by the hon. Baronet was the only one which the House could adopt consistently with its own dignity, and with the respect due to the Bench.

could not, as he had been so directly alluded to, avoid saying a very few words; and he should do so without partaking in any degree of heat or excitement. In some of the concluding remarks of the hon. Baronet he fully agreed; and it was impossible for him to dissent from the proposition, that it was essential to the best interests of the country, to secure not only the independence of the Judges, but the most perfect purity and propriety in the administration of justice. In looking, then, at a subject of this magnitude, the House, he was sure. would, while it abstained on the one hand from indulging false delicacy in correcting abuses, it would, on the other hand, refrain from all unnecessary interference with the independence of the Bench. The House was bound, at the same time that it secured that independence, to guard against abuses; and he, for one, did not partake of the fears expressed by the hon. Baronet, who dreaded the most fatal consequences from exposing the conduct of Judges to the observation and caprice of popular assemblies. It seemed to him, that the hon. Baronet had mistaken the position in which this question was placed, and it was, therefore, necessary for him (Mr. Stanley) to remind the House how far they had proceeded. Charges of a two-fold nature had been brought forward against a learned Judge, and the House had barely asserted that these allegations were of a nature that ought to be inquired into. The House had proceeded no further, and, in his opinion, whether in reference to the character of the venerable Judge, or in reference to the practice of the House on such occasions, he thought there were sufficient grounds for hearing more fully the whole particulars of those charges. In saying this, he wished to avoid the expression of any opinion; but this he must say, that when this Committee would be appointed, it would be the business and the duty of the hon. and learned Member to bring forward his charges before that Committee. It would be his business to bring forward distinct and specific charges. The hon. Baronet had appealed to him, whether he would like himself to be called upon to make his defence upon such charges, and whether he would not consider such a call as tantamount to a censure. To that he would, at once, answer, that so far from deprecating inquiry on such an occasion, he would implore to be heard, and would prefer any investigation to that half sort of censure which was implied in refusing to meet such accusations. That was the course he should pursue; that was the course, he believed, every honourable and high-minded man would pursue; that was the course which he was sure would be sought by Baron Smith. That honourable, that high and proud-minded man, was of all others the most likely to seek inquiry. His proud mind revolted at any imputation, and, feeling deeply sensible, as he did, of any stain attempted to be cast upon his character, he would be the more anxious for an opportunity to wipe it away for ever. He (Mr. Secretary Stanley) cast no such stain upon the learned Judge's character. He insinuated no imputation upon his integrity. On the contrary, he believed, as he was bound to believe, that that learned person was actuated by the most conscientious motives; but still he might have deviated from what must be considered the strict line of his duty. That, however, was a proper question for the Committee—a Committee which ought to be selected in such a way as to place its decision above all suspicion. It was before such a Committee that the venerable and learned Judge would most probably desire to make such statements of his conduct as would procure a Report that would exonerate him from all blame. The hon. Baronet who had brought forward the present Motion had complained, that he (Mr. Stanley) had taken an over active part in the debate on this question the other evening, and that he had, by doing so, considerably influenced the House in its vote of the other evening. It was not to produce such an effect that he had spoken early, but it was because he considered he had a great public duty to discharge. He did not mean to dwell on the charge brought against Baron Smith on account of what had occurred at Armagh; but he would beg the House to recollect that the very same charge was brought forward last Session of Parliament by the hon. member for Mona-ghan, and that the opinion of the House was then asked on the matter. With respect to the other accusation now first made, namely, that the learned Baron had introduced certain political topics into a charge to the Grand Jury delivered by him at the last Dublin Assizes, he must confess, that some very weak arguments were brought forward to justify him. He really could not see how it was possible to vindicate Baron Smith, by adducing the practice and example of other Irish Judges; nor did he think that the case of the charge delivered by Judge Day, in 1811, was at all in point. There was a wide distinction to be drawn between a Judge travelling out of his way in his charge to a Jury and a Judge who, in his charge, confined his remarks and allusions to the nature of the crimes mentioned in the Calendar The hon. Baronet had contended, that both charges were the same; but such was not in reality the fact. In the one charge, the political state of the country was unnecessarily introduced; whilst in the other (Judge Day's), it was necessary to do so, since seditious publications were the objects of prosecution; and, in telling the Town Grand Jury what was the nature of these prosecutions, it was almost impossible not to introduce political topics. The charge delivered by Baron Smith did not at all apply to the cases that were to be brought before the Jury he addressed. He, therefore, considered that the hon. Baronet had been rather unfortunate in his precedent. Indeed, it was not a precedent at all in favour of Baron Smith, but one that might be very properly cited against him. He owned that when he first found, that the hon. Baronet had given notice of the present Motion, that he thought he had some new circumstances bearing upon the case to lay before the House; that he had some explanation to make on the part of Baron Smith, or some communication to make to the House, in order to induce it to depart from the first course adopted. However, when he referred to the hon. Baronet's speech, he saw nothing new in it. No additional facts, and nothing in any way to cause the House to depart from its first Resolution. He agreed with the hon. Baronet about not prejudging the question; though a charge was brought, no one could consider it substantiated until they had the Report of the Committee of the House. Upon the question the House had come to a Resolution, which Resolution could not, without considering all the circumstances of the matter, be hastily rescinded. As he had said in the outset of his speech, he thought that Baron Smith himself would not ask them to rescind their original Resolution, but would beg of them to proceed instantly with their investigation. They ought to proceed with that investigation, unless previously some circumstance or circumstances should arise to induce the House to pause and modify its first Resolution. It was on these grounds, that he took his stand, opposed the present Motion, and advised the House to adhere to their first vote. He hoped, that what, he had said before, and what he had said now, would be taken in the spirit of temperance, and that the debate would be conducted in the same way. Under these circumstances he must call on the House not to consent to the rescinding of a Resolution which had been so lately adopted.

, in rising to reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, had to intreat that indulgence which he at all times required when he addressed the House, but of which he never stood so entirely in need as on that occasion. The question, for the second time brought before the House, was, perhaps, the most important which the House was ever called on to decide; and although he thought the recent Reform introduced into the House was too sudden and too violent, and, on that account, justly obnoxious to some prejudice in the minds of those who composed it, still he was persuaded, that, in a case involving the independence of the judicial bench, as well as the public reputation, the personal character, and the private feelings of an individual Judge, an assembly of English Gentlemen would calmly and impartially hear, and well consider all the facts and circumstances before they proceeded to decide upon them. And if he were asked why, for the second time, bring forward the case of Baron Smith, when, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there was no new matter to rely upon, by which to change its character, he answered, that he had not only new matter to offer, which he had collected since the first decision, but further to allege, that the case then was considered under the most peculiar disadvantages to the learned Judge, and, as regarded himself, under circumstances of the most peculiar embarrassment; for that learned Judge had no notice of the charge to be brought against him in the Motion of the hon. and learned member for Dublin; nor had he (Mr. Shaw) any conception of the reliance that would be placed on the Returns upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman grounded that Motion—they were moved for, and afterwards abandoned by, the hon. and learned member for Monaghan last year. He had not looked into them since the last Session of Parliament, until he sent for them when they were referred to in the Debate. The House would, he was sure, recollect that there were other circumstances calculated to excite his feelings, and perhaps warp his judgment. He was led to expect that he should have had to defend Baron Smith against the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) and his party alone. He had not sufficiently reflected on the fact, that the case was to be brought before an English audience; and regarding an attack upon a Judge, or the abuse of those in authority, on the part of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. O'Connell), as the sort of words, of course, with which he usually enters on his daily business,—he had treated the subject too lightly; and having come into the House under a promise of the support, he had to encounter the opposition, of the Government. He was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, attempt to account for the change which took place in his opinions, on the ground that the Motion then brought forward had been substantially altered from what it was when the first notice was given of it. When the right hon. Gentleman was asked on the part of Baron Smith what course the Government would take, when a serious charge affecting the character of a Judge should be brought before the House of Commons—its seriousness being no doubt much lessened on account of the quarter from whence it came—although still it was a serious charge—the right hon. Secretary for Ireland answered, that the Government would oppose the Motion—that he would express some disapprobation of particular expressions in one of the charges of the learned Judge, but would not give utterance to a single word that could hurt his feelings. What was Baron Smith to infer from such an answer? But he would not engage in any special pleading on the point—he asserted that the notice and the Motion were substantially the same. The notice was, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would call the attention of the House to the conduct of Baron Smith, "with a view to his removal from the bench;" the Motion afterwards was a Motion for inquiry into the conduct of that learned Judge, also with a view to his removal from the bench; for he would say, that no other Motion could be entertained. With all respect for the authority of the House, he would contend that it would be incompetent to the House to institute inquiry into the conduct of a Judge with any other view than that of addressing the Throne for his removal; and that ground, he might observe, being a difficult one for the right hon. Gentleman to maintain, he had carefully and dexterously avoided it in his speech that evening. If the conduct of a Judge could be inquired into with any other view than to address the Crown for his removal, then he would say, that the independence of the judicial bench was a mockery; and the Statute referred to by his hon. friend (Sir Edward Knatchbull), as having been recommended by George 3rd, was no better than waste paper. If every error of judgment which a Judge may commit, was to be brought before that House, it would become a mere Court of Appeal. The table of the House would be strewed with petitions after every circuit, from constituents of hon. Members, complaining of charges and other judicial acts of the Judges; and while the Act of Parliament should protect them from the influence of the Crown, they must become slaves to the caprice, and tools to the passions, of every passing breath of popular opinion. A primâ facie case sufficient to justify the removal of Baron Smith from the bench, ought to be made out, before the House could proceed with the inquiry; and that point the right hon. Gentleman left wholly untouched on the present occasion, because he had no ground to stand on, although the other night his whole argument went on the omission of the words "with a view to his removal from the bench;" and why? Not because that omission made any substantial difference, but because the omission in point of form was the only peg on which the Secretary for Ireland could hang his desertion of Baron Smith;—and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley), as the advocate general of the Treasury Bench, seemed, as it were, bound to defend them in the point in which they were most assailable. That ground being now abandoned by the right hon. Gentleman, he should have had little more to say, had not the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as the Solicitor General, affirmed that the grounds stated were sufficient, if fully supported, for the removal of Baron Smith from the bench. So also said the hon. and learned member for Dublin; and to effect that object was still his avowed purpose. Now let the House shortly examine the grounds thus alleged to be valid and sufficient to authorise the House to lend its aid in the accomplishment of that object. The hon. and learned Member divided his charge into two parts. The first related to the Returns moved for last year by the hon. and learned member for Monaghan (Mr. Perrin), and very judiciously abandoned by him, because he could find nothing in them that could justify the removal of Baron Smith; and he (Mr. Shaw) trusted the House would bear with him for a few moments, while he endeavoured to point out the utter futility of the charge which the hon. and learned member for Dublin attempted to raise upon these Returns. He had indeed endeavoured to confuse the Returns, by mixing up other matters with them; he had spoken of the sittings at nisi prius, and he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman's statements on that subject were grossly exaggerated; but it should be observed, that, even if they were not, it was not the regular business of Baron Smith to sit at nisi prius at all; it was that of the Chief Baron; and, in case of his absence, from sickness or any other unavoidable cause, any one of the three Puisne Barons might sit; and this duty distributed amongst them would not, probably, occasion Baron Smith to sit more than once in twelve months. Then, as another make-weight, the hon. and learned Gentleman had endeavoured to throw in some accusation, regarding circumstances said to have occurred on the Munster Circuit, at the Limerick Assizes, and had thus afforded the House an example by which to judge of the manner in which he has been sweeping up the indiscretions, if such they might be called, of the learned Judge; for the fact was, that Baron Smith had not gone the Circuit in question for eleven years. The right hon. Secretary for the Colonies, stated, that the hon. and learned member for Monaghan, objected to the attendance of the learned Judge on the north-east Circuit, at the last Spring Assizes; that he moved for Returns in consequence, and that it was on those Returns that the right hon. Secretary relied. No doubt that learned Gentleman (Mr. Perrin) selected what he considered the strongest sample—the worst feature in the imputed misconduct. He entreated the attention of the House to these Returns, and he implored them, at the same time, to strip the question of all party and political considerations, as it was his sincere desire to do; and he did not entertain a doubt that a reference to these very Returns would satisfy them that there was not a shadow of foundation for the charge. The Returns related to the Spring Assizes in the year 1833, for four counties—Monaghan, Armagh, Antrim, and Down. Baron Smith did not sit in the Crown Court at Monaghan, until the last day of the Assizes, when, he did so merely to assist his brother Judge. At the Assizes for Down, he sat each day from about half-past eleven to about half-past six. He would now, having cleared the ground of what was not relied upon, come to the sitting at Armagh, which had in truth been made the whole gravamen of the charge. He had a letter from the High Sheriff of that county, stating that, when Baron Smith was at Monaghan, the writer, as bound in his capacity of High Sheriff, waited on him with the calendar, which then contained the names of but twenty-four persons for trial. The Sheriff congratulated the Judge on the prospect of a light Assizes, and as the calendar at Monaghan was heavy, Baron Smith said he would remain there to assist the Chief Justice, on the Thursday on which he (Baron Smith) was to open the Commission at Armagh. He accordingly sat for some hours in Monaghan, and thence proceeded to Armagh, and, at three o'clock, took his seat on the bench, and sat till seven o'clock. The next, and every morning, he went into Court at half-past eleven; and here he would observe, that there seemed to be some mistake about the hours at which the Courts in Ireland had been accustomed to sit. What he said on a former occasion was, that in Ireland, in the superior Courts, it never had been the practice of the Judges to sit before eleven o'clock. Every day at the Armagh Assizes Baron Smith sat at half-past eleven o'clock; no complaint was made so far as regarded the sitting on the Friday. He would next entreat the attention of the House, and of the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies in particular, to what was to follow. He knew that the right hon. Secretary of State was incapable of wilfully misrepresenting a fact, but in this part of the case he fell into a great error; and he was confident he could explain it to the right hon. Gentleman's perfect satisfaction. Baron Smith sat again on Saturday, at half-past eleven; when he arrived at Armagh the Sheriff informed him that, during the four days which had intervened between his sitting at Monaghan and his arrival at Armagh, the calendar had trebled, which was occasioned by the circumstance of a number of persons who had been out on bail, having unexpectedly come in to take their trials. He consulted the convenience of the bar, and the gentlemen of the county who were in attendance, and said, he was willing to give up all his time and do all in his power to deliver the gaol of the prisoners, and allow all persons who had business at the Assizes to return to their homes with all convenient expedition. Would it not be admitted by every hon. Member, that sitting late at night was productive of much less mischief, than it would be to leave a large number of prisoners over for trial at the next assizes? Baron Smith took the Bench again on Saturday morning; and owing to the great and unprecedented pressure of business, he sat until a quarter before twelve that night, which was as late as he possibly could sit without infringing on the Sabbath. He took the Bench again on Monday, at the same hour, half-past eleven, and he found the greatest difficulty in getting through the business—he sat for eighteen hours without moving off the bench. Was this a mere whim or caprice? Could this have been any enjoyment to an old man of nearly seventy-five years of age? But, above all, was it a neglect of duty? He then went to bed for five hours, and, in five hours and a-half, he returned to the Bench to perform his public duty; and he sat from half-past eleven until seven that evening, which was upwards of eight hours, and without taking rest or refreshment he got into his carriage, and that night he performed a journey of nearly fifty miles, for the purpose of being at his post at the next assizes town on the following morning. And, good God! was this the neglect of duty (forthat was the only charge the House had to decide) for which an aged Judge was to fall under the censure of the House of Commons? If it had suited the purpose of the hon. and learned Gentleman—if this learned Judge had been countenancing, in place of denouncing agitation, what an excellent ground it would have been for a vote of thanks to have been moved to him by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The result of these extraordinary and most laudable exertions on the part of the learned Judge was, that he had been confined to his bed by illness for a considerable time after his return to Dublin. He trusted he did I not promise too much when he said, that he would endeavour to explain the second part of the charge as satisfactorily as he trusted he had done the first. He need not remind the House of the lamentable state of agitation in which Ireland had been for the last few years; that his Majesty's speech at the commencement of the last Session spoke of the "violence and insubordination" having risen in that country to a most fearful height—" rendering life and property insecure," and defying "the authority of the law." Baron Smith speaks to the same effect, in the commencement of the very charge to which he would more particularly refer—that delivered in October last. It was true that the House laboured under the peculiar difficulty of not knowing what was the precise and actual accusation that was brought against the learned Judge by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The first part of the charge was for a neglect of duty; the second, that he had introduced political topics into his charges to Grand Juries—not confining the accusation to any one particular charge. The learned Baron commenced his series of charges in the south of Ireland, in the course of which he made reference to the predial disturbances then going on in that part of the country. He was next in the north of Ireland, dwelling on what he stated to be the prevailing evil there, party processions. Having in the Queen's County alluded to the predial disturbances, what did he say when he got into the county of Antrim? He there makes some strong and very pointed allusions to the orange processions, and gives most excellent advice to the persons who were engaged in them, beseeching them to lay aside all such demonstrations of feeling, and "to abstain from whatever may tend to irritate dissension, or provoke jealousy." He then came to the city of Dublin, where the Judge sat, as one of the two Judges, at what may be termed a Special Commission, appointed for the purpose of trying cases of more than ordinary difficulty and importance, and he (Mr. Shaw) thought the time and place were peculiarly adapted to a charge of the nature which he delivered. If, among the persons to be tried before the learned Judge, there had been any charged with offences arising out of the agitation to which the learned Judge was advert- ing, he admitted it would have been the duty of the Judge to define the legal offence, and state to the Jury what was the particular nature of the indictment, and the evidence that would be necessary to substantiate its averments; but it would be exceedingly improper then to dwell on the enormity of the offence, or to make use of observations calculated to prejudice the minds, or inflame the passions of the jury against the offenders whom they were about to have brought before them. He could not, therefore, have selected a better time for making the remarks which occurred to him, than an occasion when no specific crimes of the nature he referred to came under their consideration; and then with regard to the place, he chose the city of Dublin as the seat of agitation—the very fountain from which flowed the streams of faction, turbulence, and sedition, which were then poisoning the entire country. In the charge to which he (Mr. Shaw) now referred, Baron Smith commenced by saying "that when the stale of the calendar or of the country called for observation from the Bench, he had given such admonition as the case seemed to him to require. When, on the other hand, no such necessity existed, he had not been in the habit of stringing together a chain of nothings, and thus wasting time that might be more beneficially employed. The consequence had been, that while, upon the whole, during the many years he had a seat upon the Bench, he bad seldom charged Grand Juries, yet, during the last two years, he thought it his duty repeatedly to address them. When the alarming situation of the country did not seem to be understood, he had sounded the tocsin, and subsequent events proved that this was no false alarm. The audacity of factious leaders was augmented by impunity, and the progress of that sedition which they circulated increased in the same proportion. Hinc illœ lackrijmœ! But although the hon. and learned member for Dublin might have taken great offence at this allusion of the learned Baron, still he maintained that it did not prove the Judge to have travelled out of his proper course, or departed from his strict duty. The learned Baron went on to deprecate the resistance to tithes and other legal payments, and he then made this observation: "So far as is connected with the due control and influence of that with which I have most concern—the law—I conceive the epidemic of our day to be a turbulent abuse of the valuable right of petition, making it a channel for the conveyance not of submissive prayer, but of refractory invective and insolent dictation." The learned Judge considered this to be an interference with that which he considered to be his duty to explain and protect—namely, the ordinary course of the law. It was not his intention to trouble the House by going through the charge at length, but he could not help referring to an expression particularly relied on by the noble Lord, (the Paymaster of the Forces,) and he would pardon him for saying that, aware how excellent a judge the noble Lord was of the English language, his observations upon it satisfied him that the noble Lord had not read the charge when he made them—the noble Lord would set him right if he was mistaken. The expression to which he alluded was "vulgar numbers." Baron Smith was observing, that Catholic Emancipation having been granted (of which he was one of the most distinguished advocates) that the agitators now insisted that there was a "universal people" whom the Government could not resist, and in regard of whom they even must not re-main "neutral." He then continued—I "If such doctrine were to be admitted, what would be its result? That there was nothing sanative in the supposed, Relief Bill—that it left popular discontent and factious extortion in full morbid vigour; and merely stripping it of one pretext for agitation, drove its ingenuity upon another. But it was as Catholics they had been a party; it was now in the character of the universal people that they were working, and Government must not presume even to be neutral—it must not decline to work along with them. Now, it was even boasted that an over-whelming majority of the universal people was Roman Catholic, while those who observed the movement of the mass, had to inquire of themselves, whether it was in any degree as Catholics, or in the mere capacity of people unconnectedly with sectarian objects that they were thus in motion." Again, "Independently of its faith, what was this universal people? Did it embrace the property, the rank, education intelligence, or merely the physical force, and vulgar numbers (phrases plainly meant here as syuonymous) of the country? and if its objects were not sectarian, were they not insurrectionary, republican, revolutionary?" If such were Baron Smith's opinions, had he not a right, as an independent Judge, to express them, that the physical force of the country, taking on itself the right to dictate to the Government what course they ought to pursue, had a tendency to lead to consequences "insurrectionary, republican, and revolutionary." The learned Judge then referred to the Coercion Bill, and said, that he hoped the effects it had produced would be lasting and permanent, and if so, that all the objects of his charges would be accomplished. And then, in words conveying a delicate compliment to the head of the Irish Government, and, at the same time, as it were, winding up the series of those charges called for, as he stated, by the extraordinary state of the country, he proceeds—" Had not the representative of his Majesty done something like proposing this as his noble end, and would not the Government furnish all appliances and means for its attainment; then, indeed, amidst the universal congratulation of all but those whose wishes and whose works were evil, we should accede to the sentiment which a French poet had expressed, that the chorussed and exulting cry of a contented and prosperous people, formed the only eloquence appropriate to the praise of kings." The charge that was addressed to the Grand Jury of the Queen's County contained every topic, every argument, every sentiment, almost the same expressions; was equally figurative, metaphorical and eloquent (and he had yet to learn that these were crimes), with the charge most particularly objected to by the hon. and learned member for Dublin. The House would, he was sure, pardon him for calling their attention particularly to this charge, to be found printed in an Appendix to a Report of a Committee of that House, which was open to every objection that could be brought against the one more specifically the subject of complaint. The only difference between them was, that the one referred to prædial disturbances; the other to political agitation; both of which, in his opinion, it was equally within the Judge's province to allude to. This charge—the one published by this House—was delivered by the learned Baron at the Mary borough Lent Assizes of 1832. He talks of a tumultuary array against rights long un- disputed; of persons giving advice to the people to obey the law, and meaning that they should do exactly the reverse; he talks of subverting a "Christian Church," and says, that should the havoc once commence, it will not spare establishments, however sacred; and he then uses the very word which the noble Paymaster of the Forces so much objected to in another charge, the word "vulgar," in the very same sense. At the time that this was printed by the House of Commons, they did not think it so very objectionable. The learned Baron then says, that a resistance to tithes will eventually lead to a resistance to the payment of rent and taxes, the particular in which his October charge was most objected to; and he then observes, upon very delicate ground, had it been in the last charge:—" But a remonstrance has been urged against suffering pomps and vanities to soil the purity of our Church—hypocrisy and cant. In short, there is not a topic in the one charge that is not to be found in the other; and they both equally come within the words and meaning of the terms of the order of the House, which it is this night sought to discharge. But the one to which he was then referring, was printed at the recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons. In their report they refer to it in terms of the highest approbation in the following words:—" The very able charges of the Chief Justice and Mr. Baron Smith, published in our appendix, afford the fullest information with respect to the nature and extent of the outrages and disturbances that have taken place." And this identical charge was included under the words of the Motion of the hon. and learned member for Dublin; for in it were to be found "political topics in his charges to Grand Juries." Would the right hon. Gentleman contend that more was said, even that he would call "political," in the case of the Dublin charge with respect to political agitation, than was said in the case of the Maryborough charge with respect to predial disturbance? If the quotation of poetry—if the citing of classical authors—if the use of figurative language be an offence,—he is equally guilty in both instances. But, if he be guilty, the House must be considered an accomplice in his iniquity; for they have adopted his language, printed it in their Appendix, and approved of it in their Report. But, perhaps, it might be imagined, that this was the Report of a Committee of old inveterate Tories, or the political partizans of this Judge. He (Mr. Shaw) declared, with the utmost sincerity and honesty, that he thought the subject bore no reference whatever to any party question. He thought, as a question involving the privilege and the haracter of a Judge of this country, it ought to be divested of everything that could have the smallest relation to party feeling. But, he would read the names of this Committee. The chairman was Sir Henry Parnell, next comes Mr. Stanley, Lord Ebrington, Mr. Rice, Lord Killeen, Mr. Crampton, Mr. More O'Ferrall, Sir John Burke, Mr. Wyse, Mr. J. Grattan, Mr. Wallace, Lord Oxmantown, Lord Dun-cannon, the Earl of Ossory, Mr. J. Lambert, Mr. Chapman, and, above all and before all, Mr. Daniel O'Connell. This Committee not only published this charge of Baron Smith, and referred to it in their report in terms of the most marked approbation, but the Chief Justice, the head of the Irish law bench, having spoken of Baron's Smith's charge in language of the warmest praise, the Committee published his approbation of the charge, as well as the charge itself, as he (Mr. Shaw) would then read to the House, from the same Appendix to their own Report. The Chief Justice thus speaks, referring to the charge of Baron Smith—" An appeal from this bench upon all those topics which you cannot have forgotten—an appeal carrying with it a weight, instruction, and persuasiveness, upon which, placed as I now am, I am not left at liberty to say more, than that I will not, by a worse than useless repetition, run the risk of effacing the profound impression made upon your hearts and understandings." Then, as regarded the Government—the very Government who were now supporting this Motion—their Attorney-General, their first law officer and public prosecutor, in opening a Special Commission after a number of those very "charges" of Baron Smith's had been delivered, refers to them in the following terms:—" All that can be said upon the subject may be expressed in a single sentence, in an address of Baron Smith, delivered at the last Spring Assizes, and which I am happy to say, has been published, and is in extensive circulation. His Lordship says, "No grievance which the people can suffer, would be so great, as that which they would inflict upon them- selves by the subversion of the law." He would then ask the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Stanley), if he had not himself praised, those very charges when he was Secretary for Ireland?—if he had not selected the very Judge whom he now joined in censuring as a "political haranguer," after he had pronounced a considerable number of those charges that are now called "political harangues?" Aye! and because he had pronounced him the fittest Judge to preside with the Chief Justice at a Special Commission. He (Mr. Shaw) would further inquire, had any counsel, any criminal, any Grand or other Juror, or any human being connected with the administration of justice, ever made a complaint to the Government, or of which the Government were aware, of Baron Smith, either in respect of his alleged "neglect of duty," or of those alleged "political harangues?" Or had the Irish Government, with whom Baron Smith was in constant communication, or the Lord Chancellor, or any one in authority, ever intimated or hinted to him, before this measure of extraordinary severity was resorted to, that objection was taken either to his late hours or the topics he had introduced in his charges. He answered, never and he would close this part of the case by emphatically asking of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland—and he entreated, that if the right hon. Gentleman could give a satisfactory answer, he would interrupt him (Mr. Shaw) to do so—had he, or any other individual connected with the Irish Government, ever directly or indirectly, made a communication to Baron "Smith on the subject, save and except one, and that one—a promise that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government would oppose the Motion against Baron Smith, which they were at that moment supporting, with reference to the peculiar and extraordinary condition of Ireland, which induced Baron Smith, as he himself has stated in these charges, to depart from his ordinary habit, and introduce unusual matter into his charges to Grand Juries. He, in proof of it, need only quote the King's Speeches of the last and the present year, and the language in which the Prime Minister, in recommending the Coercion Bill to Ireland, described that part of the United Kingdom; he said, that "the most extensive combinations were formed against the laws;" that all their "ordinary func- tions were suspended;" that "injured persons dare not prosecute, witnesses give evidence, or jurors convict;" and that, in short, all the ordinary means of enforcing the laws, or vindicating their authority, had been tried in vain. Would this have been correct, unless he could have included the best exertions of the Judges of the land in support of those violated laws and their despised authority? And is it then to be considered a crime demanding the censure of Parliament—that one of these very Judges should raise his warning voice from the bench against the very practices which Lord Grey denounced as the cause of all this evil—should trace crime to its true source—should endeavour to arrest agitation on the direct road to a transgression of the law, and caution the deluded and unfortunate "misled" against their factious and seditious misleaders?" Lord Grey very justly reminds the Legislature that "salus populi, suprema lex." Lord Bacon has informed the Judges that they, above all other things, must attend to that conclusion of the Roman tables, "salus populi, suprema lex"—and that, "unless laws are in order to that end, they are but things captious." And here he (Mr. Shaw) might be permitted to quote a passage from a charge of that distinguished author, bearing precisely on the present question. Lord Bacon, in his speech to the Judges before the summer circuits, in the year 1617, observes,—" Next, let me commend unto you the repressing, as much as may be, of faction in the counties, of which ensue infinite inconveniences and perturbations of all good order, and crossing of all good service in court or country, or wheresoever. Cicero, when he was consul, had devised a fine remedy, a mild one, but an effectual and apt one; for he saith, Eos, qui otium perturbant reddam otiosos.' Those that trouble othersquiet—I will give them quiet. They shall have nothing to do, nor no authority shall be put into their hands. If I may know from you, of any who are in the country that are heads or hands of faction, or men of turbulent spirits, I shall give them Cicero's reward as much as in me is." Now, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Littleton) seemed perfectly acquainted with Cicero's remedy, but to have applied it after a truly Irish fashion; Lord Bacon, when instructing the English Judges in their duty, says to the Judge, "Let me know of any who are heads of faction, or men of turbulent spirits, and, as much as in me is, I will give them quiet—they shall have Cicero's reward;" but, in Ireland, the right hon. Secretary says to the head of all faction and all turbulence, point out to me the Judge who thwarts you in your course—who mars your projects, or checks your agitation—and, in the fullest transposition both of the letter and the spirit of Cicero's maxim, "qui otium perturbat," let me but know, and "eum reddam otiosum." The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) said the other night that he protested against any inference that he ever admitted Baron Smith had "learning" or "integrity"—that he never did admit he "was a learned Judge," a "man of enlarged views," or who "understood the law of the land."

denied having used these words.

said, he read them from a note he had made at the moment; that he was borne out by the recollection of many hon. Members around him; and that all he could say, was, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had not spoken the words himself, some other person had spoken them out of his mouth. He would refer upon that point to an authority which was not wholly inapplicable:—In the year 1827, there had been much interest excited in Dublin by an action which was brought against a Roman Catholic clergyman, the reverend Mr. Maguire; and shortly after it had terminated he found it reported in the Eveniny Post; but the hon. and learned Gentleman would recollect, that the Evening Post then, was not the same Evening Post it was now; it then supported the political views of the hon. and learned Member. The extract, however, was as follows—it purported to be from a speech delivered by a leading member of the Roman Catholic Association, on the 15th December, 1827, he said, 'He had a Motion to make, but although notice of it was not on the books, he was sure they would dispense with it—he alluded to the triumph achieved by the reverend Mr. Maguire; it afforded one instance of the perfectly pure administration of justice; we had the Bench filled as it ought to be filled on that occasion; a truly learned Judge presided, whose dignified impartiality is graced by almost superhuman talent; his great mind is like the diamond whose brilliancy and preciousness renders it of inestimable value'. Who was that Judge? The same who this night stood accused before this House. Who pronounced that glowing encomium?—The same individual who this night stands before you as his accuser. Yes, in 1827, Catholic Emancipation had not yet been granted; Baron Smith had been one of its ablest advocates; a Roman Catholic clergyman had obtained a verdict; under the sanction, no doubt, of his righteous judgment; and Mr. Daniel O'Connell of the Irish Catholic Association (I speak of an historical fact) said Baron Smith was "a truly learned Judge;" his "dignified impartiality "adorned the Bench, and was an example for all others. His talents were "superhuman," and the diamond was a suitable emblem of his "preciousness," and his "inestimable value." In 1834, a Repeal of the Union is the question which serves to keep up agitation in Ireland. Baron Smith was a friend of the Union; he had felt it his duty to warn the deluded instruments of agitation against those who would mislead, and afterwards betray them; and the hon. and learned member for Dublin not only said, he (Baron Smith) was neither learned nor talented, but that he never said he was, and described him as a "political partizan "—one whose object it is to "excite and perpetuate religious animosities"—one "who will not administer the law impartially, but preaches disturbance and enmity among the people." Why, the hon. and learned Gentleman was not satisfied with deluding the people, but he wanted to delude this House; he knew well that if he made that charge against Baron Smith before an Irish audience, choose them from what rank or class, he might—no matter of what religious persuasion, or what political creed—that there would not be one individual amongst them who would believe him. Nay, he doubted not that he would yet adduce as an argument in favour of the Repeal of the Union, that he told them Baron Smith was a "political partizan "—the "promoter of religious strife"—a man before whom "a Roman Catholic could not expect a fair trial "—and that those Englishmen were so ignorant of the affairs of Ireland, and the opinions and feelings of Irishmen, that they believed him. But he would not weary the House by longer dwelling on the inconsistencies of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He trusted that he had convinced the House that there had neither been neglect of duty or the introduction of improper matter into his charges, on the part of Baron Smith; but supposing even there were some trifling indiscretion; some expression or allusion that you would rather had been avoided; was that the real question? Has there been the remotest crime—the approach to an offence imputed—which could justify the extreme and extraordinary exercise of power this House was called upon to put forth? 'No (continued the hon. and learned Gentleman) I challenge the boldest adventurer in Irish agitation to stand forward before an assembly of English gentlemen, and bring a charge of the slightest corruption, partiality, oppression, or any other species of criminality against Baron Smith. Let them be-take themselves to the veriest haunts of faction, turbulence, sedition, and cater in the foetid atmosphere of the most squalid misery and vice—let them include, nay, I should wish they would, every criminal that learned Judge (who, if he had a fault, it was that he was too humane) has ever tried, and I defy them to carry thence one single breath wherewith to sully the pure and untarnished reputation of that distinguished man." Had one individual dared throughout the two nights of this discussion, to cast the shadow of an improper motive across the long and honourable path of his Judicial life. What then? Would that House—the question was not whether they approve or disapprove of some particular phrase or figure, or some trifling unpunctuality; but without the imputation of a crime—without the charge of an offence—drag that venerable man—the father of the Irish Bench—the head and ornament of Irish society—the pride of Irish literature; him—who in the days of his youth, his vigour, his health, had illumined the brightest pages of Irish history—now, when the brightness of his former fame and great attainments was sinking into the peacefulness of retirement, full of years—covered with the honour, respect, and esteem of his entire country—and place him a criminal at that Bar! Forbid it justice, honour, truth! Was there a generous mind, a feeling heart, a noble sentiment in Ireland, that would not revolt against an act of such grievous injury—such wanton, crying, cruel, un- precedented injustice? And who was his accuser?—who was it that asked the House without evidence, and upon his mere statement, to condemn that aged and venerated Judge? The factious, turbulent, and seditious Agitator; the man who caused the passing of a special Act of Parliament against Illegal Associations—violated its provisions, and escaped its penalties by its accidental expiration—who is, at this moment, vicariously suffering in the person of another the punishment of that sedition of which he is this night the advocate—and whom that very Parliament are now only holding within the bounds of allegiance and the limits of the law, by the provisions of an extreme and extra-constitutional Statute. Was that the man at whose feet they would prostrate the laws of the land, and in place of their mild and salutary sway, set up the iron rule of his dictation? Would they subvert the Judicial Bench, and for it substitute the arbitrary will of one despotic tyrant? Would they render insecure their persons, properties, and lives? Would they, at his bidding, drive peace, and safety, from Ireland, and leave the inhabitants, and their children, at the mercy of the lawless agitator—a prey to the midnight murderer, and the voluptuous assassin? Would they overturn the altars of the Protestant religion? He spoke that in no spirit of religious or sectarian bigotry—he had been himself friendly to the concession of political equality to his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen—he thought they would have then been content; but he was grievously mistaken. They cried aloud for the destruction of the Protestant Church; and if this policy be continued, it will but inflame the infuriate zeal, with which the Irish Agitator thirsts for the life's blood of Protestantism. He spoke not personally of Protestants, but religiously of Protestantism. If they confirmed the vote, they would set the most fatal precedent that ever was established in a British House of Commons—they would abrogate the boasted Charter of Judicial independence, passed not to uphold the personal rank and dignity of the Judge, but as the best security of the rights and liberties of the subject. And as to Ireland—they would stab to the heart her laws, her liberties, her peace, and her prosperity; and with them would fall withered to the ground every hope of amelioration in the unhappy condition of that unhappiest of countries.

said, that no man was more disposed than he was to discuss the question before the House with perfect coolness and tranquillity of temper. He might, perhaps, lose in point of figure, but in the observations he had to offer he was sure he could not lose by contrast with the concluding part of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for the University of Dublin. He felt he had a painful task to perform; but he would endeavour to discharge the duty he had undertaken, notwithstanding the abuse and personalities by which he had been assailed. It was not his intention to occupy the time of the House in defending himself against these personal attacks. He had been accustomed to these attacks, and so far from their producing any effect upon him, he now gave to every hon. Member the completest latitude for personal abuse. He was not there to defend himself, but to state to the House the reasons why they should not sanction the Motion of the hon. Baronet, and, in doing so, he would endeavour to be as brief as possible. In bringing the charge, he had been actuated by no personal or political feeling; he had undertaken it solely on public grounds; and now he called on the House to consider the case as it really stood. On Thursday, they came to a solemn determination, expressed by a deliberate vote of that House, to do—what? Why to inquire into certain charges preferred against a Judge in Ireland; and what were they now called upon to do? They were called upon to rescind the determination which they came to on a former night, after the most grave and deliberate consideration. What, he asked, would be thought of a grave deliberative assembly, who came to a solemn decision on Thursday, and in a week afterwards rescinded that resolution? He hoped that they would not stultify themselves by sanctioning such a proceeding. Did the House recollect a case which occurred in the last Session, when, upon a question involving the most serious consequences, when the revenue of the country was at stake, they had, upon a Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting the Malt-tax, rescinded the vote which they had passed but four days before? Were they not taunted in every shape and form?—and did they hear the end of it for months afterwards? If, upon that occasion, they yielded to the Motion of the hon. Baronet, and upon a question like the present, in the second Session of a Reformed Parliament, again reversed their former decision, what would the country think of the absurdity—he might almost say the turpitude—of such an act? Oh, there was one reason for the course which the hon. Baronet and learned Gentleman had adopted. No matter what delinquencies were perpetrated against the people, they conceived that there should be perfect impunity for the offenders. The party which the hon. and learned Gentleman represented, had never been called to account or punished for the crimes they had committed against the people; and that opposition was got up for the purpose of perpetuating the old system of Tory misrule in Ireland. But he called upon the House to show them that this impunity was at an end; that a faction should no longer be permitted to trample upon public liberty—a faction whose energies were directed to engender strife in the country—to destroy every social feeling, and who, under the mask of religion, had taken every opportunity, through the medium of their travelling conventicles, to insult the religion of the people. The people of Ireland felt that the present Government intended to redress their grievances; they had every confidence in the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, because they felt that he was disposed to benefit their country; they had experienced, even during the short administration of the right hon. Gentleman, a proof of his determination to deal out to them impartial justice; and it was because the hon. and learned Gentleman saw that the reign of impunity was threatened, that he entertained the House with the pathetic and lachrymose oration which they had just heard—"Hinc illæ lachrymæ." Hence the tears which were so profusely shed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Oh, they were not party tears at all; they flowed freely and spontaneously from the pure fountain of charity; they were, in fact, the genuine essence, the very "life's blood of true Protestantism." The hon. Baronet, and the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin, had both talked much about the independence of Judges. The Judges in Ireland were certainly independent of fear; but were they independent of favour? They were independent of the Crown; but were they to be independent of Parliament? Was there no power to which they should be responsible for their misconduct? The Judges were independent of the people, because no action could be instituted against them. The hon. Baronet had talked a good deal about his love for Ireland. During his Parliamentary career he had an opportunity of showing it, but the manner in which he evinced his love for the people of Ireland was, by voting against their liberties. He might, no doubt, and he believed the fact to be so, that the hon. Baronet acted from conscientious motives, but he confessed it sounded somewhat strange in his ears, to hear the hon. Baronet talk about his love for Ireland. He had been taunted with not having his list of names ready when the House voted for the appointment of a Committee; and this circumstance bad been urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman as a proof that he did not expect that his Motion would have been carried. This point could be easily explained. He did not come down to the House with the names of a Committee, because he could not foresee the course which it might be necessary for him to take. Circumstances arose in the course of the discussion which obliged him to alter his original intention. Some members of the Government had voted against him. Was he wrong, he would ask, under all the circumstances, in asking the assistance of the Government in naming that Committee? In the course which he pursued, he could solemnly affirm, he was solely influenced by motives of the strictest justice towards Baron Smith, and his object was to divest the case of the slightest appearance of party or partizanship. In proof of this, he might adduce the fact, that when the hon. and learned Gentleman requested a postponement for a week, he not only assented, but, unsolicited, offered to postpone it for a fortnight. He would next advert to the case of Judge Day, which had been relied on by the supporters of the present Motion. With respect to the charge of that Judge, there were parts of it of which he certainly could not approve; but was it to be used as an argument, that political charges were justifiable because Judge Day had made one?—His charge against Baron Smith was two-fold. The first part related to a neglect of duty—the second, to a political charge delivered by him in October, He took up the two topics. But, before he proceeded further, he must say, with respect to an observation which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman in the course of his speech, that if he understood him to disparage the talents of Baron Smith, he had completely mistaken him. The case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred was too strong in his recollection, but it was a curious fact, that this very party who now had taken up this case for the learned Baron, were his most violent assailants at the very period to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. Indeed, if such language had been used towards a Judge of the land by persons who did not belong to the party for whom there was then perfect impunity in Ireland, they would have been prosecuted, convicted, and punished for the offence. He would then speak of his charge. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, that he (Mr. O'Connell) had made this charge upon his own authority, and unsupported by any documentary evidence. Now, this was not the case. He produced the Return, showing that fourteen persons had been tried, with one exception, for felonies, between the hours of six o'clock in the evening, and six o'clock in the morning. He had also shown, not by his own assertion, but by a Parliamentary Return, that Baron Smith never went into Court before half-past eleven in the morning. If Baron Smith's object was to expedite the public business, had he not a very plain and simple course by which he might have accomplished it? Instead of taking the bench at half-past eleven, could he not sit at eight; and between that hour and eight in the evening, would he not have gone through much more business, than he could possibly accomplish between six in the evening and six in the morning. It had been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the calendar was more than double, in consequence of persons who were sent on bail coming in to take their trials, and that the cause of Baron Smith's late sitting arose from an anxiety to deliver the gaol, and get through the business of the Assizes with as much dispatch as possible. If this was really his object, why could he not have tried those who were in gaol charged with felonies during the day, and leave those who were out on bail for the last; and if he found he could not get through the latter cases within the pre- scribed time, could he not adjourn the Assizes, and come back again to finish the business of the county. This plan, it might be said, would inconvenience the Jurors; but would it not be a much greater inconvenience to Jurors, and a still greater injustice to the prisoners, to compel them to proceed with their trials during the night? The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated another instance of expedition on the part of Baron Smith, where he described him as setting off in the night on a journey of sixty miles, in order to be in time to open the Assizes in the next town on his Circuit the following day. Now, it turned out that these so called sixty miles were scarcely forty. [An hon. Member: Thirty-eight.] An hon. Gentleman near him said it was only thirty-eight. Well, he would not quarrel about the distance; but he altogether denied the necessity of those midnight expeditions, because Baron Smith was not to preside in the Criminal Court in the next Assize town. The case which the hon. and learned Gentleman had adduced, only proved that the learned Baron entertained the same passion for travelling, as he did for trying prisoners by night. It was said, that the hon. and learned member for Monaghan (Sergeant Perrin) did not intend to persevere in his Motion, because he said he had not grounds to substantiate his charge. The hon. and learned Gentleman would be incapable of bringing forward a charge against any Judge, unless he were satisfied that he was able to prove it. But the hon. member for Monaghan had assured him that the quantity of public business which remained at the close of the last Session, alone prevented him from going on with his Motion; but he had been fully determined to bring it forward in the present Session, if he (Mr. O'Connell) had not taken it up. It was stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the habits of the Irish Judges were much later than those of England. He admitted that, during term, the Judges in Ireland did go into Court later than the English Judges; but this was because they had not so much business to do. But in the county towns, on Circuit, the usual hour at which the Judges took their seats was nine, certainly not later than ten o'clock; and he (Mr. O'Connell) defied any hon. member for Ireland to instance the case of a single Judge (Baron Smith excepted) who was in the habit of taking his seat at a later hour. He would state to the House a fact, which he knew of his own knowledge, respecting Baron Smith. It was the practice of that learned Judge, during the sittings in nisi prius, not to take his seat upon the bench until twelve, one, and sometimes two o'clock; and a client of his had been seriously injured, being obliged to submit to the postponement of his trial in consequence of the irregularity of the Judge. With regard to what had been urged in defence of the learned Baron, relative to the late hours at which he entered Court, and the unseasonable hours to which the sittings were prolonged, he begged to say, that such was not an occasional occurrence, but was, to a certain extent, a habit with him. Hon. Members would recollect the affray, some time since, at Castle pollard, in which eleven persons—some say fourteen—but certainly eleven persons, lost their lives. The police were put upon their trial for murder, and Baron Smith was the Judge who tried the case. The Court did not sit on the first day until half-past three in the afternoon, and on the following day, not until half-past seven. The counsel for the prisoners wished for an adjournment, but that was refused. The Court sat on the second day until six o'clock on the following morning, when the Jury, not being able to come to an agreement, the prisoners were acquitted in consequence. He did not mean to say that they ought not to be acquitted; he thought they ought not. One of the Jury had caught a cold upon the occasion, and had, from that day to the present, been afflicted with deafness. [A laugh]. Was it, he would ask, a subject for laughter that an Irish Juror had been afflicted with an incurable disease from his zealous discharge of his public duties? He was glad that he had misinterpreted that laugh. So far for the first charge of neglect of duty. That part of the case, he thought, was proved, entirely and completely. He (Mr. O'Connell) had been called a prosecutor in this case. He did not mean to refuse the designation. He was bound in this case to be a prosecutor; and he was ready with the proofs of the charges he had submitted. Who was it who was shrinking from the inquiry? It was the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin, and not he (Mr. O'Connell). It was his party who was shrinking from the charge; and finding he had but one chance, he endeavoured to awaken the sympathy of the House, by an appeal in favour of a Judge venerable from his years. That, in his judgment, was an improper proceeding, and one to which the learned Gentleman should not have had recourse. In the accusation which he (Mr. O'Connell) had brought forward, he would appeal to the House had he displayed any symptoms of party or of factious feeling? Why then was it sought to be made a party question? In the defence which had been set up, many of Baron Smith's charges were referred to, while he had merely grounded his accusation upon one—that delivered at Dublin. To be sure it might be said, that in his notice he had used the word "charges." He had done so, and he had done it from the sole motive that Baron Smith's defenders might, in the Committee of Inquiry, have any advantage that could be derived from his other charges. He had done it merely to give them an opportunity of defending him by reference to all his charges, if any extenuating matter could be found in them; but the Committee and not that House, would have been the proper place to have referred to them. What was the defence set up for that charge? Why, that there was political agitation existing at the time in Ireland, and that, therefore, Baron Smith was bound to deliver the charge. He should deal with the fact before he came to the inference. In point of fact it so happened for the preceding fifteen years there never was a period in which there was less agitation than at the time that charge was delivered. The charge was delivered in October, and from the preceding February, not a single meeting had taken place in Ireland. To the right hon. Secretary for Ireland he would appeal for the truth of this statement. The right hon. Secretary was in Ireland for several months before, and could bear him out in that statement. So that the charge was not to put down agitation, but was itself the beginning of agitation. The agitation which had slumbered from the preceding February, was recommenced by Baron Smith's "sounding the tocsin." Now, he would suppose the case to have occurred in England. He would suppose a Judge, in London, presiding at the Old Bailey, who took upon himself the duty of sounding the tocsin, by making a political harangue. Would that be tolerated? Would the House for a moment refuse to grant an inquiry into his conduct? It had been said, indeed, that it was a "special commission at which the charge was delivered, and that it was necessary for the Judge to deliver a political charge at it. He had often heard of special pleading; but grosser special pleading than that he had never heard. "You have approved," it was said to the House, "of political charges made at Special Commissions; but this was a Special Commission, and, therefore, why not approve of this?" More unfounded reasoning could not be attempted to be imposed upon the House. That Commission was appointed to be held six times a-year, and the Judges presided there in their robes, and there was nothing "special" about it, no more than there was in the Recorder's own Commission, where he presided in a King's counsel's gown and wig. At a Special Commission Judges were unquestionably bound to explain the nature of the crimes which had called for the Commission—but, in a regular Commission, such as that at Dublin, with no political crime upon the calendar, what excuse was there for launching into a long and inflammatory dissertation? If the House refused this inquiry, let them look to the monstrous principles it would establish. It would establish the right of Judges at every commission to enter into political dissertations, to deliver lectures upon agitation, to neglect their duty, and say to Grand Juries, "As there is nothing upon the calendar to call for observation, let us talk of the state of the country." That would be really the principle the House would establish. It was the principle contended for by the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin. It was right in the opinion of that hon. Gentleman for a Judge to dwell upon any topic or every topic but that to which it was his duty to advert; it was quite right for him to spread the seeds of religious animosity, and to halloo Protestant against Catholic, and Catholic against Protestant. That was the learned Gentleman's doctrine. The House had seen in that Gentleman's Address, a specimen of the party which he represented; from which they might judge from what a political thraldom the people of Ireland had escaped. There was—and he regretted it—a party spirit in Ireland, and the House had seen a melancholy specimen of it that evening. But the defeated had a right to be angry. He could not quarrel with the hon. and learned Gentleman when he reflected upon the desperation of his cause. There were two factions in Ireland, directly and mainly opposed to each other. But was it not desirable that justice should be fairly administered between them? Was there, not to be, at least, one spot free from the influence of factious feeling, to which both parties might look for impartial justice? Ought not the Bench, at least, to be free from partiality? And could it for a moment be held that Baron Smith had steered clear of party feeling in the discharge of his duty? Why to such lengths had he gone as even to include Cabinet Ministers in his dissertations. If the House then stultified itself so far as to refuse the inquiry, after having promised it, who could suppose the people would have any confidence in the administration of justice? And the only excuse they could offer to the country for so strange a step, would be that the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin, who, it would be recollected, was no party man—not at all influenced by any factious prejudice—had made an appeal to the passions of the House which had influenced them to retrace their steps. When speaking of that learned Gentleman he did not at all mean to deny, that he had discharged his official duties efficiently and impartially. He had no personal feeling in depriving the learned gentleman of the merit he deserved, and he could readily pass over his attempts to be severe upon him; for while he was rewarded by the confidence of his countrymen, and that they were pleased to think his exertions were of service, he could afford, in the consciousness of the purity of his own motives, to overlook the attacks made upon him. All he wanted of the House was, to give fair and impartial justice to Ireland; not to suffer the kindly-disposition which was just springing up towards his country to be thus wantonly crushed. He wanted them, in fact, to preserve Ireland from her friends—from such friends as the hon. Baronet, whose acts were at such direct variance with their professions. He wanted the House not to suffer judicial negligence to pass over with impunity. He should conclude where he had commenced, and call upon the House not to extend, in the present case, that impunity which had so long appeared to be the chartered right of a party in Ireland. For a long time the people of Ireland had been accustomed to see this impunity extended even to positive acts of oppression, and it was not till the accession of the present Ministry that they indulged a hope of fair and impartial justice. He implored the House not to destroy the feeling of confidence they had created, and stultify themselves by deliberately rescinding a decision which they had as deliberately formed.

said, that he should not presume, at that late hour, to trespass upon the attention of the House, notwithstanding the importance of the question then under discussion, were it not that, having the honour of an intimate acquaintance with Baron Smith, he wished to bear his testimony in favour of the worth, the talent, and the high character of that venerable and estimable person. It was unnecessary for him (Colonol Conolly) to superadd anything to the eloquent and convincing statement made by his hon. friend, the member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Shaw), and to which the House had paid the tribute of its applause; but he could not help remarking that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, had not attempted, in the course of his speech, to reply to a single argument adduced by his hon. and learned friend. The hon. and learned Gentleman had gone wide of the mark, was evidently writhing under the castigation he had received, and, as was usual with him, who, in fact, could not open his lips but when he indulged in vituperation and scurrility; and charged the learned Judge with being the cause of that party malignity which all his efforts were directed to assuage. [Several Members rose to Order.] Colonel Conolly said, that, seeing the line invariably adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he considered himself authorized in using the term scurrility; but if the House thought the expression too strong he should retract it. He would contend, however, that, instead of arguing the question, the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had gone on asserting, and without adducing a shadow of proof in support of his assertions, that Baron Smith had tried to stir up religious strife in Ireland, and was, in fact, the cause of the party malignity which no man could doubt existed in Ireland, and which all good men must deplore. He must deny, most emphatic- ally, that hon. Members on that side of the House were actuated, in the line they were pursuing, by party or political feeling-, They considered that Baron Smith had been treated with precipitate injustice in the course that had been followed on a former evening, and they now called upon the House to reconsider a decision which, if not reversed, must be fraught with the grossest injustice to the individual, and with the most incalculable mischief to the country. If any man on the Irish Bench—and all the Judges in that country were men of the purest character—if any man,: he would repeat, on the Irish Bench stood freer than another from the charge of political partizanship, it was Baron Smith. He was considered at one time the idol of that party who were now so anxious to inculpate him. He continued their idol until he had the courage to expose the fallacy of the Jesuitical sophistry which was deluding the people of Ireland into a belief that passive resistance to the law was not merely legal, but praiseworthy. When he found Juries intimidated, the laws laid prostrate, and justice a mockery, he raised his warning voice—he addressed his deluded countrymen, not in the language of reproach, but of admonition; and his charges at Maryborough and Mullingar, and which were praised by the Chief Justice, the Attorney General, and even by a Committee of that House, had the effect of inducing Jurors to do their duty; criminals were convicted, the majesty of the law was asserted, and the country tranquillized. And was it for producing such effects that Baron Smith was to be dragged to the Bar of that House? He perfectly agreed with his hon. friend that there was nothing in the present charge, in the least, to inculpate him. There was nothing, in fact, to submit to a Committee—there was nothing, in fact, to inquire into, inasmuch as his Majesty's Ministers had stated, that supposing all the charges preferred by the hon. and learned member for Dublin to be proved, that no case existed to warrant the House in addressing the Crown to remove the learned Judge. What the hon. and learned member for Dublin considered as a crime, entitled Baron Smith, in his apprehension, to the greatest possible praise. And was it to be tolerated, that because he had the courage to denounce agitation—because he pointed out its evil tendency, and did his duty fearlessly by his country and society, that he was to be sacrificed to the very Moloch of agitation? Could any man believe that Baron Smith was the promoter of agitation, and the hon. and learned member for Dublin the promoter of peace and harmony? Yet the hon. and learned Gentleman would have the Mouse believe that such an inversion of facts would enable them to come to a just conclusion. That hon. Member called upon the House not to stultify themselves by reversing a decision come to on a former night; but in his opinion, the House would more completely stultify itself by granting the inquiry. In conclusion he besought hon. Members to pause before they dragged to their Bar a venerable individual, who had, for upwards of thirty years, filled a high judicial situation with credit to himself, and with benefit to society, merely because he denounced everything that was pernicious to his country, and thereby earned for himself the hatred of the agitator and the demagogue.

was convinced, that the House—this being the second night's Debate upon the merits of this subject—must be most anxious to bring the discussion to a close. Before he made any other observations, he would promise, and rigidly adhere to the promise, as he never wished to force himself upon the attention of a reluctant audience, if the House would lend him their attention for a very: short time, to introduce no irrelevant topic, and to steer clear of all considerations of a merely personal or party nature. He considered that the Motion implied a great compliment to the House. It implied a confidence in their integrity and; moral courage, thus to give them the opportunity of revising what they had once determined; and, if they felt that determination to be wrong, to reverse it. Numerous appeals had been made to the House to-night; appeals to false pride; appeals to the sense of shame, and to the fear of ridicule. He knew the force of those appeals, and the obstacles they interposed in the way of retracing the path on which they had once entered; but, he felt confident, if the House should be convinced, that they were placed in a critical and embarrassing situation—if they had reason to believe that the precedent they were about to establish was pregnant with future danger—that the step which they had taken involved an act of injustice towards an individual, and that individual I an aged and venerable Judge—he had I that confidence in the impartiality, the good sense, the moral courage of the House, that he could not doubt that it would revoke a hasty and ill-considered decision. Two charges had been preferred against the learned Judge; and the House had resolved to appoint a Select Committee to consider those charges. Now, let them weigh dispassionately the force of every argument, by which it was attempted to convince them that they ought to adhere to their resolution. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Colonies, said, that his main reason for having acceded to, and for now adhering to, the proposition, was, that it was the interest of Baron Smith that the inquiry should be made. "Here are charges," he said, "preferred against a Judge; and why should we not give him an opportunity of disproving them? "Was the House, then, prepared to adopt now—and to act in future upon—that principle? Were they to permit, to invite, as it were, every dissatisfied suitor to bring his charges against a judicial character, and then, because charges were preferred—because, perhaps, they assumed a plausible shape—were they to devote the public time to investigations into their truth, and to diminish the efficiency and value of the services of the Judge, under the pretence that it was his interest that the accusation against him should be inquired into? Ought they not to ask themselves this preliminary question? Was the accusation a grave one? Did it affect the impartiality, the integrity, or the moral character of the Judge?—if proved, would it justify an appeal to the Crown for his removal? The first charge in this case against Baron Smith was, neglect of duty:—and what was the allegation to sustain it? Why, that this aged Judge sat, in the administration of justice, for eighteen hours together—that, for four days, on an average, he sat not less than fourteen hours a day. Neglect of duty, indeed! Here was a Judge, advanced in years, of health far from robust—entertaining the honest, perhaps the mistaken, impression, that justice and mercy required that the trials of prisoners should not be delayed; he gave up his days and nights—he consumed his strength, and impaired his health in the performance of his high functions—and the result was, that he wag to be tried for neglect of duty! It might be much better to open a Court of Justice at ten o'clock than at half-past twelve: but, before the House determined that there was any primâ facie evidence of neglect on the part of the Judge, they must look a little into the habits of society; they must inquire whether the habits of Counsel in Ireland correspond with those of barristers in this country; whether it were the custom of Counsel to hold their consultations in the evening? Whether they were not, on the contrary, almost uniformly held in the morning? and whether the opening of the Courts ill Ireland, at a later period than in this country, did not arise from the state of society there, and the habits of life of those whose presence was essential to the administration of justice? It was easy to prefer vague charges of neglect of duty. Suppose such a charge were preferred against his Majesty's Ministers; suppose a Member were to rise, and after gravely and justly observing, that the time of Ministers was the property of the people, and that it was not decorous that the petitions of the people should be presented in the absence of Ministers, were to assert, and offer to prove, on unquestionable evidence, that the House sat every day for the reception of petitions, from twelve to three in the afternoon, and that Ministers were never present? Supposing, after thus having preferred his charge of neglect of duty, he should move for a Committee of Inquiry,—would the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Colonies, think it would be for the interest of Ministers to accede to the Motion?—that it would be consistent with the influence of a Minister in this House, with the dignity of his station and character, that because a plausible primâ facie charge of neglect of duty was preferred, he should be forthwith sent before a Committee of Inquiry to repel the charge, and to account for his absence? If trumpery charges of that kind, involving no moral delinquency, implying no taint of corruption, might be preferred against public functionaries; and if, because they were preferred, the House was bound to appoint Committees of Inquiry—that would be a principle fatal to the discharge of all other public business,—fatal to the efficiency, and degrading to the character, of all public men, whether Ministers or Judges. The hon. and learned Gentleman had. abandoned the official documents which had been laid before the House, and on which alone his original charge was founded, and proposed that he should be allowed to institute a vague and general inquisition into the whole life and practice of this Judge, in the hope that he might discover some new ground of charge. He said, that he could establish the fact, that, for many years past, Baron Smith had been in the habit of opening his Court at a very late hour. Was it fair of the hon. and learned Member, having never made a complaint against this alleged practice, which had prevailed for years—having given no notice to the learned Judge that such a complaint was to be preferred, was it fair to prefer it now? They had been told that Baron Smith had tried prisoners at unseasonable hours. Did not the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, know that in many parts of this country—at Quarter Sessions in particular—criminal trials had been proceeded with, at hours which, without any reason assigned, would, at first sight, appear most unseasonable? In the noble Lord's own county, Northamptonshire, was it not the practice, until very recently, to begin the trials of prisoners at a late hour of the evening, and to continue them till midnight? There might have been, there was, probably, sufficient reason for the practice: but supposing a charge were brought against the noble Lord, and the other Magistrates, on this account, would the House of Commons, there not being the slightest imputation of partiality or of practical injustice, send the noble Lord on his trial before a Select-Committee, merely because such a charge had been preferred? Let them consider the course on which they are invited to enter, and the consequences to which it would lead; let them inquire whether, since the period when the independence of the Judges was established by law, there were any precedents for inquiry into their conduct; and whether, if there were such precedents, they had redounded to the credit of Parliaments. When the House of Lords called Lord Chief Justice Holt before it, to account for his conduct in the Banbury case, for his having in that case delivered a judgment—by which he set aside the jurisdiction of the House of Lords—the Chief Justice did, indeed, appear before the Lords, in compliance with their summons; but what was his answer to the demand that he should account to the Lords for the judgment complained of? 'I hold', 'said he,' an authority independent of yours. I gave my reasons for the judgment I delivered in that place, in which I had sworn to administer justice. By the House of Lords I look to be protected, and not to be arraigned; and I will not assign the reasons on which I founded my judgment'. Did that case differ from the present, in so far as the judicial charge of the Judge was concerned? Might not Baron Smith who delivered his charge, in the conviction that he was honestly performing his judicial duty—might he not demur to the jurisdiction of the House, and deny its right to put him on his trial for a judicial act, on the mere ground that the House differed from him as to the prudence or discretion of that act? The charge of neglect of duty stood on different grounds; and if it were a grave charge—if the proofs of injustice arising from that neglect were numerous and strong—he did not deny the competency of the House to inquire into it; but he denied the wisdom—the prudence—the justice—of arraigning a Judge, unless upon some charge of personal corruption—of gross and grievous neglect of duty, warranting his removal from the Bench. No such neglect was imputed to Baron Smith; and the accusation was frivolous in the extreme. With respect to the other accusation—that founded on the improper matter introduced in the judicial charges of the Judge—how was it possible to deal with it? The express complaint was, that certain charges, delivered by the Judge contained political matter. Yet all admitted, that, under certain circumstances, it was the right and duty of a Judge to introduce political matter into a charge. What, then, were they about to do? Were they to establish a censorship of Judges' charges? Were Judges' charges to be licensed by them, to have the sanction of their imprimatur? Were they about to lay down the precise formulœ to which Judges must adhere, to establish the rules by which the discretion, the good taste, of the Judges must be regulated? Was it on the topics or on the terms of judicial charges, on which their lectures were to be delivered? And were they to be the parties who were to proscribe political matter in judicial charges; they, who printed, at the public expense, the political charge of Baron Smith to the Grand Jury of the Queen's County, who referred to it-in terms of high commendation, who found the Reports of the Committees curtailed, because they were enabled to embody in them the able charges of the Chief Justice and Baron Smith—they who learnt, with satisfaction, that those charges were not, perhaps, directly by the Government, but by Magistrates acting in concurrence with the Government, printed and placarded throughout the country, as useful warnings to the deluded people—with what decency could they institute or countenance an accusation against Baron Smith for having delivered another political charge, not differing in substance or in terms from that which they sanctioned and circulated? The duty of the Committee, if unfortunately it were appointed, would be, of all others, the most difficult. It would have to examine every sentence contained in the Judge's charge, to attempt to make some discrimination between its different parts—to select those deserving of censure, and those deserving of approbation; and when the House should be in possession of the Report of the Committee, in what manner were they to proceed? If the charges were fully proved, would they be a ground sufficient to authorize them to address the Crown for the removal of the Judge? If they had not ground to address the Crown for his removal, was it fitting that they should attach a label of partial infamy round the neck of this high officer of justice, and then send him to administer the Jaw to others? Was there, in truth, any alternative between petitioning for his removal, and leaving his conduct exempt from imputation? If there were no charge against him of partiality, corruption, or ignorance of the law, or serious neglect of duty—if they felt in their heart and conscience, that he must still continue in the administration of his trust—was it not for the public interest that he should stand erect, not only in the consciousness of innocence, but in the possession of the public esteem and respect? To appoint a Committee was evading the law, which required an Address from both Houses of Parliament! to authorize the removal of a Judge; because, if that Judge were a man of honour, I and if the House implied the slightest censure agrainst him, his own sense of propriety would tell him that he could no longer remain effective as a Judge. Again, was it wise, on light ground, to unsheath the powerful weapon of impeachment in trusted to their keeping? Were they not" I blunting its edge by drawing it on trifling and frivolous occasions? Of whom did he ask these questions?—Of those who encouraged Baron Smith to deliver this very charge, by having expressly sanctioned and circulated a former one. Let them read the present charge, and compare it with that printed at the public expense, and with the approbation of the House, and they would not find one expression in the latter that was not as open to censure as the expressions of the charge now complained of. If they disliked quotations, they would find them in plenty; if they disliked irrelevant matter, it was plentiful; if they disliked political matter, the first charge contained nothing else. He had no anxiety in regard to Baron Smith. Let the House take what course it would, he was secure, because he was innocent; and they would but rally round him the esteem and sympathy of all good men. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said, that he expected some expression of regret on the part of the Judge. Baron Smith had no expression of regret to tender. He had such confidence in the conscious innocence of Baron Smith—such confidence in his high spirit—that he felt assured Baron Smith would never seek to avert this charge—he would never demean himself by anything in the shape of an apology. He was far advanced in years; the infirmities of age, increased by those very labours now cited against him in proof of his neglect of duty, might have abated the ardent spirit with which he would once have confronted his accusers, and courted the conflict to which he was summoned—

Lenit albescens animos capillus

Litium et rixæ cupidos protervæ.

With equal truth, he might exclaim—

Non ego hoc ferrem callidus juventâ,

Consule Planco.

And though the fire of youth might be somewhat damped by years and infirmity, yet, when he felt that in his person was to be fought the battle for the independence of the judicial office, he would be inspired with new energies. Conscious that these accusations were frivolous and unjust—conscious that no public inconvenience, no injustice, had arisen from his devotion to his duty, even at unseasonable hours—conscious, too, that he delivered these political charges, partly from the conviction that he was supporting the cause of order, and advancing the purposes of good Government—partly because he was sanctioned and encouraged by the approbation of Ministers—partly from an honest, a pardonable pride, that the official documents of that House were graced; by the adoption and publication of his judicial labours—conscious of his own rectitude, whatever fate might impend over him—he would meet it without submitting to the voluntary humiliation of an apology. If in other times—if in the unreformed Parliament—if under a Tory Government—if, after Judge Fletcher had delivered his political charge in the county of Wexford—if he, as Secretary for Ireland, had brought forward such an accusation as this—if he had proposed to drag the learned Judge from the Bench before; a Select Committee of that House—what a scene would have been witnessed! Let them tax their imagination so far as this—let them fancy that this was the year 1814—that he stood, as Secretary for Ireland, in his place as a Minister, and that, with Judge Fletcher's charge in his hand, after reading certain passages displeasing to his taste, he had proposed a Select Committee before which the Judge should appear to answer for his errors of judgment, and account for the breach of judicial decorum; then fancy the present Lord Chancellor—fancy Mr. Brougham rising from the place in which he now stood'—fancy, if they could, the indignant terms in which Mr. Brougham would have chastised the arrogant and contemptible folly of that Minister who should have dared to assail the independence of a Judge, by proposing, on such a frivolous charge, to subject him, for a judicial act, to the degrading investigation of a Select Committee! There was a feeling abroad—a feeling that was every day becoming more prevalent—that. those who declaim most loudly about their love of liberty, and speak in the most exaggerated terms of their hatred to oppression, employ those speciosa nomina as the mere instruments by which they may secure their own aggrandisement—that such words are but the ladders of young ambition, to be thrown down when the object to which it aspires is reached. Three days only had elapsed, since a proposition was made within those walls—to a willing audience—for the purpose of establishing, as it was called, the liberty of the Press. It was proposed that the law of written libel should be placed on the same ground with that of oral scandal—that ex-officio informations should be abolished—that truth, in public matters, should no longer constitute a libel. That proposal was accompanied by touching lamentations—that there was now no alternative for a public writer, but to flatter his Majesty's Government, and all those in authority; inasmuch as censure might wound their feelings, and, according to the rigid construction of the law, might constitute a libel. Apply those principles to Judges' charges. Was there to be no liberty of speech for the Judge? Was he to have no option, but that of flattering the Government? Were they, who permitted that Bill to be introduced, to permit the Judge to be placed on his trial without proof of authorship—without evidence of guilty intention—without the allegation that he had said what was untrue? How could they profess to respect liberty of speech, or liberty of discussion, if they instituted that which was ten times more vexatious and oppressive than any ex-officio prosecution, on the mere ex-parte statement of an individual, himself a party in the case. Ought they, on the mere allegation of an individual Member of the House—in the absence of even a petition charging injustice—in the absence of any complaint, either from the accused who were put on their trials, or on the part of Counsel, ought they to summon from Ireland a Judge of the land, far advanced in years—interrupting the performance of his judicial duties, in order—not that he might answer a specific charge, but that the learned Gentleman (his sole accuser) might bait him before a Select Committee, and try to find, by a roving inquisition into his whole judicial career, the matter for a formal charge? And would they, after they had done that, profess a desire to establish the liberty of speech, and to protect the rights of free discussion? One argument which the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Colonies, brought to bear against Baron Smith, he could not pass over without notice. He said that Baron Smith might have been at liberty to introduce political matters into his charge under certain circumstances, but that here there was no case in the calendar connected with treason or insurrectionary violence—that this was not a Special Commission—and that, therefore, he was not warranted in introducing political matters into his charge. This, then, constituted the gravamen of the accusation against Baron Smith. Now, Judge Fletcher went, not on a Special Commission, but on the usual circuit, to the county of Wexford; and he began his charge, extending over twenty-four pages, in which he discussed every topic connected with the domestic policy of Ireland, in these words,—Gentlemen of the Grand Jury—'It is with sincere pleasure I congratulate you upon the appearance of the state of your county;—I say appearance—because I have no means whatever of knowing anything upon the subject, except from the calendar now before me. In that calendar I find very few numbers indeed—two, or three, or four crimes, of general occurrence in the country; one homicide, which appears to have been committed, certainly with circumstances of atrocity; but, as far as I can collect from the examinations, originating in private malice and individual revenge, and not connected with any of those disturbances, of which we have heard so much, in different parts of the kingdom'. Thus, then, it appeared, that Judge Fletcher—not sent on a Special Commission—seeing no crimes in the calendar connected, in the remotest degree, with political disturbances—delivered that charge to the Grand Jury, which was full of political matter—which commented with the utmost freedom on the acts of the Government and of Parliament, and which was praised in this House by the party then in opposition, but now in Government, as a model for judicial charges. If, then, it had been the practice and habit of the Judges of Ireland to deliver political charges—if they had felt it their duty to adhere to the advice of Lord Bacon, to warn the people against the consequences of agitation—if the late Chief Justice Downes—if the present Chief Justice Bushe—if Judge Day—if Judge Fletcher—had all felt themselves called upon, by a sense of duty, to deliver charges that involved political matter—he implored hon. Gentlemen, before they took such a fatal step, to consider—not whether this charge of Baron Smith's met their approbation, but whether there was any pretence to apply to the House of Lords for their concurrence (and it was indispensable), in an Address to the Crown for the removal of Baron Smith? Let those who most disapproved of political charges—who most condemned particular passages in the charge of Baron Smith—weigh against this error of judgment, (if it be an error) the whole to nor of his judicial career—the high attainments—the integrity—the impartiality, which were all admitted by his accusers. The hon. and learned Gentleman—the chief accuser in this case—had, himself, compared Baron Smith to a diamond of the brightest lustre. But, remember, that in diamonds, the purer the water, the more visible are the slightest specks and flaws—and that so it was with the little indiscretions of those whose character was the most unsullied. On all these grounds—considering that there was no specific charge against the Judge; that the charge, vague and general, as it was, if fully established, could not justify his removal from the Bench; that partial censure, however qualified, must lower and degrade him in the public estimation;—that there was no precedent for the proposed proceeding—that the precedent, if now established, would be full of future evil;—on all these grounds, let the House have the manliness and courage to revoke a decision, hastily and inconsiderately formed—let them refuse to persevere, from the suggestions of false pride and false shame, in a manifest error—and to embitter the few remaining days of a venerable Judge, by listening to a frivolous, a ridiculous, and unfounded accusation.

agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that if, on mature consideration, it should appear that it was not right to persevere in the course already adopted, the House was at full liberty to retrace its steps; but he must, at the same time, say, that it was decided by the House of Commons, on a former evening, that the conduct of this Judge ought to be inquired into, and that decision ought not to be changed without deliberation. With regard to the first accusation, he admitted, that the neglect of duty attributed to Baron Smith in coming into Court late, and sitting late, had been lessened, if not explained away, by the explanation of the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin. But he thought that the statements which had been made, and allowed to remain uncontradicted, showed that it was not at Armagh, alone that Baron Smith had been in the habit of entering and leaving Court at late hours; and this circumstance, and that, mentioned at Castlepollard, would indicate that Baron Smith had conducted himself on a system which might be characterized as improper. He had heard, that in the case at Castlepollard, the Counsel protested against the trial being continued. The right hon. Baronet alluding to what had been stated by his right hon. friend, to the effect that this question might have been changed in character if any person had been authorized by Baron Smith to make any communication to the House, spoke as if he thought it would be inconsistent with the character of that Judge for him to have so acted. He thought differently; the House having voted an inquiry into certain parts of his conduct, and certain political charges delivered by him, it would have been becoming in that learned Judge to have taken such a step, and have authorized some one to speak for him. It had been said, that the learned Judge was encouraged by his previous charges having been printed by this House, and by the example of former Judges. The right hon. Gentleman had dwelt on this argument; but there was a distinction between a Judge trying political offences, either on a Special Commission or on the ordinary circuit, who might indulge in remarks on political matters, and a Judge who, without any reason whatsoever, uttered a political charge. It might be said that the offence was not one of grave import, and that, in the case of Judge Fletcher, no course such as this was adopted, nor was the question even mooted in the House. If it had been, the expression of opinion would probably have been nearly the same in that case as in this. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of Judge Holt's case, and would have the House believe that it had no right to interfere; but, if a Judge made a charge which was improper, was he not answerable to Parliament, if called before them? If he were not, the result was simply, that a Judge might make any charge he pleased. The right hon. Gentleman said, that there was no alternative between dismissal and the House taking no notice of this matter. Would it not, then, be a great evil if a Judge were allowed to make any charge, or conduct himself in any manner that he pleased, short of taking a course which would justify an Address for his removal, and yet be liable to no censure? The charge brought was made upon the responsibility of the hon. Member; and if it should, on inquiry, be found frivolous, the Committee should express a strong opinion on that point. But to say, that no inquiry should take place before a Committee, except in such cases as those in which the charges, if established would justify impeachment, was to lay down a rule which could not fail to be most detrimental. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the principles of the law of libel ought to be applied to Judges' charges. The principles of that law ought to be to give as much liberty as possible to political discussion; but, surely, the charge of a Judge ought to be confined within much narrower bounds. He did not, therefore, see any reason for the House to alter its recorded decision on this matter. The statements brought forward were almost precisely the same as were advanced on the former occasion. If the learned Judge had authorized any Member to state that he would not continue to pursue the course which had been complained of, he (Lord Althorp) might not have been disposed to press for the inquiry; but since it appeared, though Mr. Baron Smith had communicated with some hon. Members, he had not authorized them to hold out any hope that he would alter his conduct, he could not consent to the proposal to discharge the order for the appointment of the Committee.

next addressed the House, but the shouts of discordant noises which were kept up without intermission whilst he was speaking, rendered him totally inaudible.