presented a Petition, agreed to at a public meeting at Leeds, signed by Thomas Boslan, in behalf of the meeting, condemning the sentence passed upon the six Unionists at Dorchester, for violating an obscure Act of Parliament, and hoping that the House would interpose, and not allow one law for the rich and another for the poor. He supported the prayer of the petition, and was happy to hear, that the hon. member for Stamford said, "that, although he was violently opposed to Trades' Unions, yet he thought the law in this instance was overstretched." It would be the wildest scheme the Government ever attempted, to strike in such a manner at the Unions, and he hoped that Government would recall the men. If no other Member did, he would move an Address to his Majesty, to restore those poor men, all of whom had wives and families, to their country. He entreated his Majesty's Ministers to accede in this instance to the voice of the people, and not to strive to put down their Unions by a method which was unjust. When they did any wrong, no man would be more ready than he to put them down; but he was persuaded, that they were not to be put down by such means. Let Ministers look across the Channel, and see the French government attempting to put down the people by the bayonet, but though much blood might be shed, force would never accomplish it. Let the Government rather give relief by reducing the taxes, and so promote contentment.

supported the petition. The meeting, at Leeds consisted of 20,000 persons, the proceedings were most orderly, and the sentiments of the petition unanimously adopted. He had several petitions to the same effect to present to the House; one from a meeting at Marylebone, of 3,000 persons; and meetings were taking place everywhere to remonstrate against this act, for a more cruel, or unjust act, had never been perpetrated by any Government. The sentence might certainly be legal; but when he looked at the higher classes, and saw that they formed Unions, and administered oaths on the admission of members, he was led to inquire why the law was not also enforced against them? The Act under which these men were condemned, was one of Mr. Pitt's Gagging Bills, and the other night the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, said—"Did any man expect that the principles of Mr. Pitt would be sanctioned by this Government?" That was now the fact in this case. What had taken place? A few individuals, suffering from want under low wages, were ill-advised to think they could relieve themselves by uniting in such associations as they had formed; but they were ignorant that they should render themselves liable to such a punishment as had been inflicted upon them. The Government ought, at least, to have suspended the hasty execution of such a sentence; and, for not doing so, they deserved to be severely condemned. He must say, when he saw the law drawing such a glaring distinction between the rich and the poor, that the Ministers ought not to have lent their aid to such an act, nor have given it so speedy a sanction. He would admit that the sentence was legal; but were there no crimes of a much more serious cast which were frequently pardoned? Upon what grounds, therefore, did the Government act in this case? He could attribute it to nothing but a cowardly feeling on its part, which, finding the Trades' Unions opposed to its views, was anxious to get at them, and had seized the first victims it could. He had no hesitation in saying, that any individual who had broken the laws, ought to be punished. But the individuals in this case had broken none but an obsolete law; and people looked upon the revival of that as an attempt to put them down, and felt only hatred at the interference. The people had been driven to their present proceedings by bad laws, and ought to be sympathized with, instead of being subjected to punishment. If the people did err, their errors ought to be viewed with mercy, and not be met in the severest manner the law allowed. He joined with the petitioners in imploring the extension of the Royal clemency to these unfortunate men. He hoped Government would pause, and not rouse the whole of the working people to oppose it. Let the Ministers recollect, that the multitude might be oppressed for a time, but it was impossible to oppress them for ever.

said, as the question would come regularly before the House in a few days when the heads of his Majesty's Government, Members of that House, would be present, and when they would doubtless defend the measures that had been adopted, it was not his intention at the present moment to go into a full discussion of the policy pursued by his Majesty's Government with respect to Trades' Unions, feeling that, in the subordinate situation he occupied, he had no right to do so; but he could not sit in that House and listen to what had fallen from the two hon. Members who had addressed it, without offering a very few remarks. The hon. member for Middlesex had stated very fairly the principle—he had stated, that he regretted that so mistaken an idea should be entertained by the labouring classes, that they could raise their wages by combination. The hon. Member had also said, that as long as they kept within the law, no punishment should take place. He concurred most cordially in that sentiment, thinking that Parliament did that which was no less politic than just, when it repealed those severe statutes against combinations which existed previous to 1825. He considered it the undoubted right of every man to determine for himself on what terms he could part with his labour; and it was not just to withhold from a number of persons, that which was lawful for any one individual. He was content to put the matter on the principles of the hon. Member opposite; but the House and the country must know, that the Unions had not confined themselves to combining to raise wages, but, with the most daring effrontery, they had endeavoured to usurp the rights of others, and had invaded, in the most gross and scandalous manner, the first principles of the rights of industry; they had attacked life and property, in order to prevent other men from selling their labour upon the terms they thought fit. They had set up the tyrannical power of declaring not only for themselves (which they had a right to do), but for others, who did not ask for their interference, at what rate labour should be paid. It was only yesterday that he had seen an account from Huddersfield of a written complaint by two labouring men who had dared to incur the displeasure of the Sovereign Union of that town, because they had endeavoured to obtain employment from masters obnoxious to the Union to support their families. The reason for prohibiting the masters from employing these men was, not that they were bad workmen, or unfit for the trade they professed, but that they had been formerly members, of a Committee of Trades' Unions, and had ceased to be so. On account of that, an interdict was laid on the masters from employing them, which, if they broke through, their service would be totally deserted. Now, for the interests of those trades themselves—for the general prosperity of the country—so dangerous a precedent of tyranny should be strongly and firmly resisted. What was the circumstance which caused a distinction between legal and justifiable Unions, and Unions of another description? It was the imposition of an oath, which rendered combinations illegal; and it was by an oath that improper Unions were kept together. No fault could be found with meetings of men assembled on good principles, and manifesting no bad intention; but when secrecy was imposed, and the orders of irresponsible leaders obeyed—when such took place, there was nothing to prevent the power of those leaders from driving their misled followers to any proceedings they chose; for they were protected from detection by the secrecy of an oath, and were implicitly obeyed in every mandate they thought proper to issue. Every one would acknowledge, that such a power should be checked; and the oath that was taken gave that power, and made the important distinction between legal and illegal societies. The hon. Member said, that these men were punished for doing what they did not know to be illegal. He denied that statement. They might be ignorant of the precise Act of Parliament, and of the precise clause under which they were punishable, but they were perfectly aware they were doing what was decidedly wrong, as the circumstances of their meetings being held at night, of the great precaution, and the spies that were set round to give the alarm if any stranger should approach, in order to prevent their proceedings from being known, distinctly proved. These circumstances showed that they knew they were doing what was decidedly wrong. If they meant nothing wrong—if they meant nothing illegal—if they had no dangerous designs—if their objects were legal and justifiable, and intended as a means of obtaining a higher rate of wages, why all this precaution?—why all this concealment? Did not the whole tenor of their conduct prove, that they were perfectly conscious that they were committing an illegal act? If these men knew, that they were acting improperly and illegally, was there ever heard of such a criminal jurisprudence which would say, that because these men knew not the precise Act of Parliament, and the precise clause of that Act, and the precise amount of the penalty to which any breach of it rendered them liable, that therefore they were to escape with impunity? That was a principle which no man would venture to maintain. In punishing these persons, and checking proceedings which might produce such dreadful consequences, the Ministers had adopted a course of true mercy, for there could not be a more injudicious humanity, than to relieve persons from a penalty which they had incurred. These were the first persons who were detected: and Ministers were in hopes that the punishment of them would be a check to the similar dangerous proceedings of others. He knew it was said that these were ignorant and unoffending men, and an appeal had been made to the compassion of the House and the country in their favour. Those who made the assertion, must be totally ignorant of the facts. Those six persons, who were now undergoing punishment, and who were far off on their passage to the land of banishment, were not ignorant persons, who had not the means of knowing the character of the crime of which they were convicted. Two of them had been accustomed to act as Methodist preachers, and therefore could not be such ignorant persons as was pretended. Another of them, it was said, was a man of good character, against whom nothing could be alleged; but for a long time he had been known to be a person of very indifferent habits, and a certificate from the gaoler, that he had been in custody in 1829, having been sentenced for a felony to four months' hard labour, was then in his hand. He believed (and he had reason for doing so) from the papers found on that man, and from information which he had received, that in this instance, very fortunately, it was not the mere deluded instruments who had been reached by the hand of justice, but the ringleaders and instigators of proceedings which were intended to go on, and which, if allowed, would have gone on to the most dreadful extremities. He could not sit down without noticing the allusion of the hon. and gallant Member opposite, to the disturbances in France. It was said, that this ought to teach them that it was not by a course of rigour that they were to put an end to proceedings of this kind. These proceedings taught him, however, a very different lesson from that which the hen. Member had learnt. They taught him, that unless such illegal societies were checked in time, they were likely to grow into power; and then would come what had come in France, a struggle between two classes, and whichever side obtained a victory, a dreadful and lamentable slaughter must take place. He would make but one more observation. He had been informed, that on a former occasion, when he was not present, great complaints had been made of the conduct of his noble friend under whom he served, respecting the manner in which his noble friend had received a deputation on the subject of the sentence passed on these men. He had reason to believe, that what had passed at that interview, had been greatly misrepresented. Lord Melbourne had informed the deputation, that before the sentence on these men should be carried into execution, the petition in their favour should be laid before his Majesty; and it was on that account asserted, that his noble friend had encouraged an idea that hopes of mercy should be extended to them. He could inform the House, that the fact was totally misrepresented. The petition being addressed to his Majesty, his noble friend informed the Deputation, that he would not fail to lay it before his Majesty; and accordingly, within half an hour after it was received, it was presented to the King; but not the slightest hope was held out by his noble friend, that he would recommend the case to the mercy of the Crown. So far was he from doing so, that he informed the Deputation, that however painful it might be to him, it was his duty to advise that the course of justice should not be arrested. With respect to the form of the answer which he (Lord Howick) had returned, by the direction of his noble friend, Lord Melbourne, he could only say, that the ordinary form had been observed, and was misconceived as being no answer at all. Every Gentleman acquainted with the mode of transacting business must be aware, that the form of rejecting a petition to his Majesty was to say, that the Petition had been laid before his Majesty, and that he had suggested no answer. It was necessary to make this explanation, and to offer a few remarks in answer to what had fallen from the two hon. Members who had preceded him, on the subject of these proceedings. If what he had said was not satisfactory, he hoped that the House would not come to any determination on the subject, until they should have heard the explanation of the more experienced and responsible Ministers of the Crown.

said, that the noble Lord had inferred, that the proceedings of these men had led to the intimidation of life and property. Then they should have been tried, as he had stated on a former occasion, under the Act of the 52nd Geo. 3rd, instead of the 37th Geo. 3rd. The former Act went to explain the latter, to which those unfortunate men were not at all amenable, as it had reference merely to persons who incited others to commit murder or treason. The noble Lord had brought it as a charge against these men that they met during the night. It was the only time they could meet. When could persons in the rank of agricultural labourers meet except at night? Admitting that the Judge who tried them was right in his interpretation of the law, he must complain of the mad precipitancy with which the unfortunate men had been hurried from the dock to the hulks. It had often been a subject of complaint that the convicts were kept six and nine months in the gaols, occasioning enormous expense to the country, but in this case the opposite principle had been suddenly acted upon. Were not his Majesty's Ministers bound to listen to the remonstrances of that House? There was much commiseration, he could assure them, abroad at the present moment for these men, and it would compel his Majesty's Ministers sooner or later to yield. It was monstrous, whilst the whole country was commiserating these men, for the noble Lord to come down to that House and tell them, that the men were upon their way out of the country. The Ministers should have recollected that even at the opening of Parliament his Majesty's Speech alluded, in terms of regret, to the agricultural interest; and had there not been meetings of that body in various parts of the country? If all who met for the purpose of taking into consideration the depression of the agricultural interest had been tried, how many hon. Members of that House would be liable to transportation! There was a society called the Society of Odd Fellows, who met and took oaths in secret. How many of those persons should be indicted, if the noble Lord's principle were to hold good! Was it, therefore, prudent or wise of the noble Lord to make the Speech he had done, and enter into the subject with all the ardour of a partisan Judge? The conduct of these men had been indiscreet and imprudent; but it had not been illegal. The noble Lord said, that two of them were Methodist preachers, and, therefore, could not be quite so ignorant of the law as was supposed. But their being Methodist preachers did not make them acquainted with the law. He trusted, that notwithstanding the mad determination of his Majesty's Ministers not to yield to the prayers of the people, or the remonstrances of that House, the House would teach them that they must listen to their remonstrances, and sooner or later the people would compel them to listen to their prayers.

rose to protest against the long discussions which arose on the presentation of petitions, which prevented other Members from bringing forward those petitions with which they were intrusted. With regard to the sentence on the convicted men, he thought the country was under great obligations to his Majesty's Ministers for not remitting it. In that part of Sussex with which he was acquainted, some Unions had been formed, and oaths taken at them; but since the conviction of the men at Dorchester, the labourers had left the Unions.

felt he should not do his duty, if he did not say a few words on the petition. He contended, that the convicted men did not commit any illegal act. He referred the House to the words of the Act of Parliament, the 39th of Geo. 3rd, and said, that the species of offence of which they were convicted was not named in it; but, with some trouble, one sentence might be so wrested as to include it, viz., "or to disturb the public peace." There was a case known to every lawyer, "The King v. Marks," in which the late Lord Ellenborough refused to admit a party to bail, because he was accused of sedition, and that case had been relied on in the present instance. But there were then Combination-laws, and parties had combined to obstruct their masters, which was an offence, and was for an illegal purpose. Here there was no offence, and no illegal purpose. As to two of the men being preachers, the noble Lord must know, that many ignorant men preached; and, indeed, some of the clergy of the Church of England were very ignorant, and knew not of the existence of such a law; The whole country, and that House itself, knew nothing of it until the case of "The King v. Marks" was dug up from obscurity. Many lawyers were ignorant of the existence of the law. Half the profession would say, that the sentence was not legal; and all would acknowledge, that the law was most severely administered. At the cross-examination of one of the witnesses, it was affirmed, that no oath had been tendered; and the Judge took the cross-examination out of the counsel's hands, and asked the witness whether the word "eternity" was not mentioned? The latter acknowledged that it was, and the judge afterwards relied on that in his charge to the Jury, to show that an oath had been taken. The noble Lord, in speaking of the strict legality of the sentence, did not sufficiently consider the circumstances that should mitigate that sentence. Ignorance of the state of the law, if not a palliation of the offence, was a plea for the remission of the punishment. It must, indeed, be stated, that these men were really suffering, not for any crime they had committed, but for the crimes of the whole of the Trades' Unions. It was well to recollect, that the proceedings of Government, in that case, gave those Unions a political character, which they would not otherwise have acquired. They would learn quickly, that they could not raise their wages by combination, and their own interests would teach them to dissolve and desist from their plans. But, now that those men had been so severely punished for forming a Union, they were bound together by a motive of vengeance; and what was to prevent the same disturbance in this country as had taken place in France? Had the Government issued a Proclamation, that such a law existed, and, if it were afterwards violated, had carried the sentence into execution, it would have been perfectly justifiable. But he was prepared at present to impugn—first, the manner in which the trial was conducted by the Judge; and next, the legality of the sentence.

admitted, that the question brought before the House by the petition was one of great importance. The arguments used against Government were proofs, in his opinion, that the Act was necessary, and that, probably, it had saved many other unfortunate men from falling into the same snare. The Unions were now well aware of the illegality of their proceedings, and were so from the very first. But, supposing the case had not been properly judged, and the law of the land had been misinterpreted (which he would not admit to be the case), this was not the place to discuss that subject. He could not say that he was a lawyer, but he had read and endeavoured to make up his mind upon the case, and he did think, if there was ever a point of law, or a case more clear than another, it was this; and he thought the opinion of the learned Judge perfectly consonant with the spirit and letter of the statute. The determination of the Government he considered an act of mercy, and they had no other course to pursue in regard to those interests which they were bound to protect, for they must not slink from the exercise of the law. He, for one, protested against the doctrines of the hon. member for Bath, and publicly thanked the Government for their conduct in this business.

observed, that the hon. Baronet, in saying, that the House of Commons was not the proper place for discussing the question of law upon the case, had thrown a greater slur upon the Government than any previous speaker. It was by a side-wind blaming the Government most severely for the haste they had displayed in sending these unfortunate men out of the country—such a haste as was not the usual way of dealing with persons sentenced to transportation. The sting of the thing was this, that, as he had understood from the hon. and learned Gentleman who had preceded him, the legality of the conviction could not be brought before the King's-Bench in the absence of the men. He really was at a loss to understand the speech of the noble Lord; he could scarcely think it was intended to be a serious speech. He said, that one of the men was a previously convicted felon, and that two more of them were Methodist preachers. Well, be it so; but then there were three who belonged to neither class. Further, he would observe, that the convicted felon had suffered his punishment, and he was yet to learn, that, because men were Methodist preachers, they were to be punished more severely than any other person convicted of an offence. He was decidedly of opinion, that the example would have been quite as sufficient if the men had been sentenced to two months' imprisonment, as to seven years' transportation.

had never said, that the men had been punished more severely because they were preachers, than they otherwise would have been. He respected the Methodists, as he knew but for them it would have been impossible to have carried the Slavery question. He said, that they were Methodist preachers, merely to to show that they were not such ignorant men as they were represented to be, and that they knew well the nature of the matter they were engaged in.

was convinced, that nothing could be more detrimental to the best interests of the country, or more dangerous to the constitution, than Trades' Unions. He was also informed, that the Magistrates of Dorsetshire had published hand-bills, which were distributed throughout the country, stating that such oaths were illegal. He thought, however, that the sentence having been passed, the Government might have mitigated it, as the people had been led to believe, that there was no law against combinations, since the repeal of those known as the Combination-laws. The question was not whether the House were to interfere with the sentence of the Judges, but whether Ministers were to be subject to reprehension in the House, for not having interposed the mercy of the Crown between that sentence and its execution. He certainly thought, that the unfortunate individuals in question had been hardly dealt with; for though some of them were persons of bad character, they had not the slightest idea that the offence they had been guilty of could be brought within the range of an Act of Parliament, or that they subjected themselves to transportation; while he thought Ministers had not acted prudently, he believed they had been actuated by the best of motives; and he was glad to see, after having invaded rights of a much more sacred description than those referred to, they were returning to a sound policy.

believed, that the conviction was legal, and deeply regretted that the violent and intemperate conduct of those who pretended to be friends of the unfortunate individuals, had placed his Majesty's Ministers in such a situation as rendered it imperative upon them to carry the sentence into effect.

was anxious to defend the learned Judge who had sentenced those unhappy men; he had known that Judge for many years, and no one deserved the name of cold-hearted and cruel less than he did, though both those epithets had been applied to him, and his humanity was questioned, in consequence of his having passed so rigid a sentence. The law left no discretion to the Judge; no less a term than seven years could be mentioned in the sentence. He was sure, that, if it had been possible, consistently with the law, to reduce the punishment, the Judge, prompted by his own feelings of clemency, would have done so.

said, that the Resolution which he had to submit to the House, was one to which he did not anticipate much objection, and which would occupy very little of the time of the House. In the year 1814, a considerable augmentation was made in the number of Knights of the Order of the Bath, and at the same time, the Order was divided into three classes. One of the classes was to consist of a very great number of officers, and from that period to the present, no new regulations had been made to govern the Order, or to limit the number of members. His Majesty had been advised to consider the propriety of establishing new Statutes for the government of the Order of the Bath, so as to regulate the number of members of each of the several classes, and to prevent the extension of the Order to such a degree, that the conferring it would become less a mark of distinction than of degradation; for, he might be permitted to observe, that if the number of each class should be increased to an indefinite extent, the exception, and not the rule, would become the source to which the public would look; and being decorated with the Order, would cease to be considered as the reward of honourable service. In consequence of the changes in the Order to which he had alluded, it had become necessary to make some changes in the Statutes, which did not equally apply to the three classes. His Majesty had, therefore, been induced to hold a Chapter of the Order to consider the subject. It was judged on a late occasion by many Members of that House, that military and naval officers who received this high Military Order should be exempted from the payment of fees, which on many occasions were felt to be very burthensome, and the imposition of which was of no use whatever. It was on this ground, therefore, that his Majesty was induced to direct that all officers who should hereafter have the hon. Military Order of the Bath conferred on them, should be exempted from the payment of all fees on the occasion. The House, perhaps, was not aware of the extent of the burthen on officers who were not possessed of great wealth. The burthen was so great that the payment of fees became a matter of very serious consideration. The amount thus received was distributed partly to the officers of the Order, partly to the officers of the Lord Chamberlain, partly to the officers of the Lord High Marshal, and partly in a miscellaneous manner. For instance, he found that there was a fee of 6l. to the King's barber. He would ask whether anything could be more ridiculous or unnecessary? The amount of fees paid on admission to the Order was not less than 300l. He need hardly say, that the payment of such a sum must be extremely inconvenient to many deserving officers who had this mark of distinction conferred on them. The officers of the Order were nine in number, with salaries amounting to 550l., charged on the Civil-list; and, besides their salaries they obtained about 250l. a-year in fees from those upon whom he believed nobody conceived the charge should fall. The fees of all foreigners upon whom the distinction was conferred were paid by the Treasury. Of course the amount of these fees would vary, but he believed the average was 250l. It was intended to reduce the number of officers of the Order from nine to four, which would make the charge less. It was proposed also, to do away altogether with the fees now paid; but as many of the persons holding these offices received the fees by patent, it was necessary that some previous steps should be taken, before the fees could be got rid of. When it was found that a great public object could not be gained without depriving the holders of patent places of the remuneration they received, he thought that no one would deny, that compensation should be made to the persons holding such places. It was for that purpose he proposed, that inquiry should be made by the Commissioners of the Treasury into the amount of the fees, and into the rights by which such fees were claimed, and that they should be authorized to award such compensation as seemed meet for the loss of the fees. It was for that purpose he intended to introduce a Bill. He should move a Resolution, upon which, if the Committee assented to it, such a measure would be founded. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by handing the following Resolution to the Chairman:—"That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury be authorized to make compensation, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to such officers of the Military Order of the Bath as shall be deprived of salaries and fees to which they are entitled under the existing Regulations and the Statutes."

said, that of all the various Motions that bad been submitted to the House since he had been a Member, not one had given him greater surprise than the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. The fees paid by the Knights of the Bath were large, but they were not the sort of fees he was desirous to get rid of in the manner proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He certainly did not intend to give compensation for the fees paid by the Knights of the Bath, or Peers, when he expressed a general acquiescence in the removal of fees and the payment of officers receiving them, by salaries. He admitted, that the payment of these fees was objectionable, but the nation ought not to be called upon to give compensation in such cases as this. At present, the charges in the shape of fees, on officers appointed to situations in the colonies, were enormous. He found, from a statement on the Table of the House, that Sir George Hill, when he was appointed to the Governorship of St. Vincent, had actually to pay fees on his appointment, before he could go abroad, to the enormous amount of 520l. Sir Lewis Grant had to pay fees on his appointment to the Governorship of a colony in the West Indies, to the amount of 440l. Sir Lionel Smith, when he was examined before a Committee up-stairs, said, that he merely desired to remain in his office in the colonies till he could recover the fees which he had paid on his appointment, which amounted to 516l. He was most anxious that all such fees should at once be got rid of. He agreed, that it was objectionable that meritorious officers should be called upon to pay large fees upon their being made Knights of the Bath; but he did not think that the House should be called upon to interfere in the matter. If the fees were to be got rid of, and it was deemed desirable to grant compensation to the persons now receiving them, surely the resources of the Crown were enough for that purpose, without coming to that House. It rested with his Majesty to make alterations in the Statutes of the Order of the Bath; and the matter was not in any way connected with that House. These Orders of Knighthood might be very necessary appendages to royalty, but he thought, that it would be extremely improper for the House to take any steps or interfere respecting them. When he objected to fees to the amount of between 500l. or 600l. being charged on the warrant of a Knight of the Bath, he never thought that an attempt would be made to throw the charge on the country. It appeared that foreigners were not charged with the fees, and he found among the Knights of the Bath, the names of the Prince of Orange, the late King of Spain, and Don Miguel. The Order of the Bath might be considered as an Order of Merit, but when it was conferred on such persons as were hinted at by the right hon. Gentleman, it might become any other than an Order of Merit.

declared, that he had said nothing of the kind. What he had said was, that the Order might be conferred to such an extent, that it might become a mark of degradation instead of distinction. It was to avoid that, that his Majesty proposed to make a change in the Statutes of the Order.

did not perceive how he had misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Hume) was as anxious as any Member that the Order of the Bath should be one of honorary distinction, and that those who had it conferred on them should not be heavily taxed. The charge for their fees, however, should not be thrown on the nation. He found that the public did pay the fees on creating a gallant Admiral a Knight of the Bath; and he did not object to its being conferred on that gallant Officer, who had greatly distinguished himself; and he was sure, that the proceeding had met with the general approbation of the country. He found the fees charged amounted to 556l. and of this sum 166l. was paid back to the public purse for stamps. The remainder was distributed in fees amongst a number of officers. For instance, he found that 5l. was paid to the Herald. Any one might suppose that this went to some poor man. But, he would ask, whether it was not paid to the Duke of Norfolk? Ingenuity, for ages, seemed to have been exerted, to devise means of getting money in this shape of fees, from the pockets of the people. He had paid much attention to the subject for years, and he was constantly finding charges in the shape of fees, of which, previously, he knew nothing. There should be a searching inquiry into the fees charged in all public offices, with a view to see whether such patent offices, as they were called, should be allowed to continue. He was of opinion, that no patent office was beyond the reach of the House, and that the King could not have the right to authorize persons to make charges in the shape of fees, without the permission of the House. It was at present merely sufficient for the King to sign a piece of paper or parchment, to authorize a person to make a charge in the shape of fees. This was, in point of fact, saying that the King was entitled to tax the people without permission of the House. The whole matter ought to be investigated before a Committee up-stairs, and the Reformed House of Commons would not do its duty if it did not proceed to put a stop to all proceedings of the kind. Many of those things were new to him. Only a few days ago, he discovered that there had been a grant from the King of a charge on bills of entry, in the shape of fees, which amounted to the sum of 11,000l. a-year, for the last ten years. There was a salary paid out of this of 1,000l. a-year, and the rest went to some charitable fund in the Custom House. He had heard of the bills of entry, and was anxious to get some information on the subject, but he had been unable to do so for many years, notwithstanding all his exertions. A short time ago, on asking a question of a witness examined before the Committee on Lighthouses, he found out the nature of the charge. He asked why such a large charge was made in the entry roll office at the Customs, and was told that it could not be done for less, because it was a patent office. There was a charge of 6l. where there ought not to be a charge of 1l. That, and many other matters of the kind ought to be looked into, and the right by which fees were exacted should be investigated in every case. But to return to the question. He had no wish to interfere with his Majesty in making as many Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Barons, or Knights of the Bath, as he pleased, but as the House had nothing to say in the matter, he thought that they ought to let his Majesty do it at his own expense. The people, in many districts, were almost starving, and he protested against any charge of such a nature as that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman being thrown on them. Let not the people of England be taxed for the purpose of paying these fees, but let them be paid out of the noble income allowed by the country to the King. He could not help observing, that it was rather a singular circumstance that, although England was a civil country distinguished from the military despotisms of the Continent, yet all the honorary distinctions, with very few exceptions, went to military and naval officers. There was no Order of Knighthood in this country for men of great genius, or those who distinguished themselves by their intellectual acquirements. If it was thought desirable to confer a marked distinction on men of eminence, either in science or li- terature, it was necessary to go to the Guelphic Order: so that, in point of fact, we must go to Hanover for a means of rewarding the merit of our distinguished men. Every person visiting the Continent must know, that the King of Prussia rewarded men of literary or scientific attainments in this way. So it was with other sovereigns on the Continent. There was, however, nothing of the kind in England, and yet England was quite as proud of her arts as her arms. He objected to leaving the question of compensation to officers of the Treasury, who were under influence from behind the curtain. Experience should teach the House that the paying compensation had been carried to an improper extent, and it was this, amongst other things, that had reduced the country to its present state. On that account, he thought that the House ought not to consent to the Motion without inquiry, and not inquiry of an isolated nature, but into all matters in which the public was called upon to contribute a single farthing in the shape of compensation. Last year, before compensation was granted to the Officers of the Court of Chancery, inquiry was made before a Committee, and there could be no reason why it should not be done in the present case. The hon. Member concluded with moving that his Majesty's Message be referred to a Select Committee to report on the same.

remarked, that the Amendment could not be entertained, as a Committee of the whole House could not refer a matter to a Select Committee.

would then move, that the Chairman report progress, and said, if his Motion were agreed to, he should propose that the subject be referred to a Select Committee.

supported the Amendment. He thought that when such ridiculous fees as that paid to the King's barber was exacted, it was tolerably clear that other fees stood on similar grounds. He was of opinion that inquiry was necessary, not only for the relief of the persons upon whom the distinction was conferred, but also in justice to his Majesty. He wished it, however, to be understood, that he did not contend that those who had possession of certain offices to which privileges were attached, might be deprived of them without compensation.

was much surprised at some of the observations he had heard from the hon. member for Middlesex. He felt bound to say, that the objections urged held out no very great inducement to come forward with propositions to make reductions in fees which were, at the same time, burdensome to the public, and objectionable in their nature. The hon. member for Middlesex objected to the payment of fees altogether. It was very possible that, in many cases, payment, by means of fees, was not desirable. He thought that the present was one of those cases, and in abolishing the fees, at the same time asking for compensation to those who had a just right to receive them, he believed that he was only acting in conformity to the wishes of the House. The Government proposed to do away with some fees that had existed since the institution of the Order in 1399. The fees were not arbitrary, nor were they changed at the will of the Sovereign; on the contrary, the regulations concerning them had not been changed since 1725. Ministers proposed that the fees should cease altogether, but it should be recollected that the fees were granted by patent, and for life, to the holders of the offices; and he was sure that the Members of that House would never consent to sanction a violation of property. Such would be the case if they abolished the fees without granting compensation. The hon. member for Middlesex complained that, while there were so many military and naval Knights of the Order, there were very few civilians who had had that mark of distinction conferred upon them. The hon. Gentleman might have looked round the House, and have seen, at least, one distinguished instance, to show, that the Order of the Bath was not withheld from those who distinguished themselves for their civil services. With respect, however, to the naval and military officers who had fought the battles of the country, and who had merited the distinction of having the Order of the Bath conferred on them, he would remind the House, that their fortunes were, generally speaking, not very large, nor were they well able to pay large sums in the shape of fees. If the House were anxious to get rid of those fees, he called upon them to do so consistently with justice. He asked the House to allow an inquiry into the nature of these fees; by what tenure they were held, and by what right they were demanded; and to such officers as had a permanent interest in the fees, he proposed to give compensation; and to such as had no just title, no remuneration would be given. All that he asked was, that the sum charged by custom should be inquired into, and where it was the opinion of his Majesty's Treasury that there was no necessity for compensation, none would be given; but where a just claim was established, that it should be granted. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the fees charged in the Earl Marshal's Office, and observed, that it might be supposed that that officer was a poor man. But these fees were not paid to that officer, but, probably, formed part of the salary of some inferior officer. It was also probable that a part was paid to the fee-fund of the country. The hon. Gentleman objected to the matter being referred to the judgment of the Treasury. As far as he was concerned, he should have no hesitation in referring the matter to a Committee of the House of Commons. He was perfectly satisfied that it would be clear to such a Committee that there were fees that could not be taken away without doing injustice to the persons receiving them. The question was then simply this, whether they would make the officers pay their fees, or whether the House would allow some few hundreds a-year to be charged on the country for that purpose? That was the whole object of the Message that had been sent down by the Crown, and it would be a most ungracious mode of proceeding to report progress and return no answer to the Crown. He was sure that the House would not sanction such a mode of proceeding.

felt himself interested in the subject, and trusted he might be allowed to make a few observations. He hoped that no Amendment would be allowed to interfere with the benevolent object that his Majesty had in view in sending that Message down to the House. He recollected when the bill of fees was originally sent into him, on his being made a Military Grand Cross, he was quite shocked at seeing its amount. It did not, however, give him much pain, as he was determined never to pay one farthing of it; and had continued obstinate in his refusal. The officers in question used very gracious language, but it had no effect. He thought that the demanding fees for conferring a distinction of this nature was very like buying some- thing of equivalent value. When he received the bill he sent it to the First Lord of the Admiralty, who said, that it was very hard on him, but, he replied, not in the least, as he had made up his mind not to pay a farthing of it. He was told that fees were regulated by an Order in Council, and that he must pay them, but he had declared that he had nothing to do with the Order, and he would not pay the fees. He did not ask for the distinction, and he would not pay a single shilling for it. He wished every officer had done the same thing. He found in the bill sent into him a charge of 122l. for fees to the King's Household. What patent right had the King's servants to such a demand? That portion of the fees might, at once, be got rid of. He admitted, that some few persons might have fair claims for compensation, and those he might be willing to recompense, but the King's Household could have no such claims. There could be no justifiable grounds for calling on officers on whom this honour had been conferred, to pay such fees; at the end of the late war a great number of officers had this honour conferred on them, and then being called on to pay such exorbitant fees, they all went to the levee at Court, and left their bills on the table for the King to pay them as he pleased. They never paid a farthing of them. So far from disapproving of this Motion, he thought that it should meet with encouragement as a good beginning. The bill furnished to him was dated in 1830, three years after the honour had been conferred upon him, and he would read it to the House. It was as follows:—Secretary of State, 16l. 17s. 6d.; seven officers of the Order, 164l. 17s. 2d.; King's Household, 122l. 2s.; the Lord Chamberlain's Office, 26l. 14s. 6d.; College of Arms, for Supporters, 55l. 16s.; making a total of 386l. 7s. 2d. He repeated, that he told the First Lord of the Admiralty that he would never pay a farthing of it. Some time after this, his Lordship sent to him to say that he would hear no more of it. All other officers ought to have done the same

said, that the public were greatly indebted to the gallant Officer for the statement he had just made. He had shown, by that statement, that there existed no right or claim whatever to demand those fees. The bill, as he understood, was intended to submit those claims to the investigation of the officers of his Majesty's Treasury. He entertained every respect for those public officers, but he should most unquestionably prefer that, involving, as it did, a question of public expenditure, the investigation should take place before a Committee up-stairs. Under all the circumstances, however, he hoped his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, would postpone his Motion for the present, but give notice of his intention after the second reading of the Bill, to move, that it be referred to a Select Committee of the House.

conceived, that the first step was to ascertain whether there existed, on the part of any of the officers of the order, any legal claim to remuneration. It would appear, from what had been stated by the hon. and gallant Admiral opposite, that no legal claim to fees or salaries existed.

remarked, that in the instance alluded to, there could be very little doubt that the distinguished officer had received the order for meritorious services.

said, the hon. and gallant Admiral had said much more—namely, that many officers having received the orders at the end of the war, had left, at the levee which they had attended, the bills for their fees upon the King's table.

was of opinion, that all military and naval officers upon whom the Order of the Bath might be conferred for their services, ought to be exempted from the payment of any fees. He, at the same time, thought that, both on the principle of equity, as well as the uniform practice of the House, any officers of that Order who had any legal claims to fees or emoluments, should be indemnified for any loss arising from their abolition. He did not remember the precise terms of the Motion before the House, but if its design were to relieve meritorious officers from the payment of fees on receiving the distinction in question, and, at the same time, to indemnify those who held patent offices, he could not see any objection to its adoption. Of course, the legality of the claims to fees, &c., must be established; and he doubted whether the public departments could not make that and every similar inquiry, more efficiently than a Select Committee of the House itself. He rose, however, on the present occasion, for the purpose of noticing a suggestion thrown out by the hon. member for Mid- dlesex, which had quite as much surprised him as it had the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Colonies. The hon. Member had suggested the propriety of instituting a new Order, for the purpose of rewarding literary and scientific men. The prerogative was already vested in the Crown to confer honours upon persons distinguished for their high literary and scientific attainments, and that power had recently been exercised by the conferring distinctions upon individuals of various professions. The establishment of a new Order would depreciate the honours which it was at present in the power of the Crown to confer, and was not in the least calculated to raise the character of this country for literary and scientific acquirements. The hon. member for Middlesex could not think, that it was essential to the character of Sir Isaac Newton, that he should have appeared in a blue or red riband, or worn the star of any Order. If such an Order were established as that suggested by the hon. Member, it was not improbable many hon. Members of that House might lay claim to such a reward for their public services. An Order of the nature proposed would but ill accord with the English character and with the elevated character of science, which it would only tend to make ridiculous. There was a clear distinction to be drawn between meritorious military and naval services, and literary and scientific acquirements. He hoped and trusted the suggestion of the hon. member for Middlesex would never be carried into effect.

was opposed to an indiscriminate distribution of honorary distinctions or Orders, whether new or old, and thought, that the dignity of literary and scientific pursuits could not be heightened by such honours. He thought the suggestion of his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, had been misunstood. His hon. friend did not oppose the principle of compensation in cases where a good title could be proved, but he claimed an inquiry into the legality of that title, and that investigation he concurred in thinking, ought to be had before a Select Committee of the House, rather than be made by the Treasury. Every precedent was in favour of the former course; and, as one instance, he was content to allude to the case of Sir Abraham Bradley King, to whom the compensation awarded by the Treasury was pronounced by a Committee of the House to have been made without a legal claim. It was true, that decision had been reversed by a Bill subsequently introduced for the purpose of awarding compensation to that gentleman, and the measure passed, not on the grounds of a legal claim, but the peculiar hardship of the individual case.

thought, that very little, if any, difference of opinion seemed to prevail on the question really before the House. It had never been intended to grant compensation to individuals not legally entitled; and if it should be thought fit, when the Bill was introduced, to refer it to a Select Committee, that was to him a matter of perfect indifference. At the same time, he concurred with the right hon. Baronet (the member for Tamworth) in the opinion, that the inquiry as to claims for compensation would be likely to be more efficiently and satisfactorily made by the Treasury than by a Committee of that House. In answer to the precedent quoted by the hon. member for Bridport, he begged to state, that the claims for compensation on the abolition of their respective offices by the Commissioners for Hackney-coaches, and for Hawkers and Pedlars' Licences, had been referred to the Treasury, and not investigated before a Committee of the House.

concurred in thinking, that a reference of the subject to the officers of the Treasury was preferable to the investigation being held before a Select Committee. He could not avoid expressing his opinion, that the profuse distribution of honorary distinctions recently made, had much deteriorated the value and importance of such distinctions. Honours should be conferred with a most sparing hand, if they were to be preserved in great value. After the peace of Amiens, the First Consul conferred so many dignities, that General Moreau had said, in ridicule of the profusion of titles that were then flying on every side, that he would grant one to his cook. On the cook serving upon one occasion a dinner which pleased the general, he was summoned to the dining-parlour, and there, before all the guests, he was invested with a saucepan of honour. He was satisfied a restriction in the distribution would make these honours more highly estimated and appreciated, both by military and naval officers.

contended, that no compensation whatever ought to be given without the consent of the House. Inquiry was necessary, for it appeared, that formerly the whole amount of fees did not exceed 120l., while, at present, they amounted to 1,200l. annually; owing, probably, to the increased number of honorary distinctions. He conceived the system was one of extortion, and compensation would be only shifting that extortion from the backs of gallant officers to whom honours were granted, to the shoulders of the public. He was anxious to relieve meritorious officers receiving the Order of the Bath, from the payment of any fees, and was also willing to grant compensation to such individuals as could make out a legal claim to it. After what had fallen from the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies, however, he was induced to hope, that his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, would be satisfied, it being understood, that the compensation should be granted by the House alone.

objected to the fees, or compensation for fees, being added to the burthens of the people, and the more so because the amount of that compensation had not yet been ascertained. He was of opinion, that instead of compensation being granted, it would be much cheaper to pay the fees upon any creations which might take place, and that when the individuals holding patent rights should die off, a new system should then be adopted.

said, that it mattered not to him whether or not the Bill should be referred to a Committee, before or after it had been read a second time. Under such an arrangement, he could not object to the principle of the resolution proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stanley). He would withdraw his opposition to the measure, on the understanding that in some stage it should be referred to a Select Committee.

said, that, in answer to a question he had put on a former occasion, as to the grounds or authority upon which a reduction in the salary of the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench had been made, he had been informed it had been made under a clause in a recent act of Parliament. He had referred to the Statute-book, but could not find any such provision; on the contrary, he had found in the Civil List Act of 1832, which provided for the payment of the salaries and allowances to high official functionaries, that the salaries of the Judges of England, appointed before a certain time, in the act specified, was fixed at 5,500l.; and if appointed after that period, at 5,000l. per annum. The act also fixed the salary of the Chancellor of Ireland at 8,000l., and most distinctly provided, that the salary of the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench in England should be 10,000l. per annum. It was most inexpedient that any functionary having a right to a judicial salary, should waive that right; indeed, he felt satisfied that nothing short of an act of Parliament ought to deprive a high public officer of his full salary. He should be glad to have an answer given to the question.

said, that if the right hon. Baronet would repeat his inquiry on Monday, he would be prepared to refer him to the clause under which the reduction had been made. The clause not only existed, but had been very fully considered, though, looking only at the act referred to, the right hon. Baronet's view was perfectly correct.

had always understood, that the salary of the Chief Justice of England had been fixed by law at 10,000l. per annum; and he certainly thought, that no other authority than the law should alter it. On the assurance, that the reduction was according to law, and that the law should be pointed out to him, he was satisfied.

as this was a new item of expenditure, felt it necessary to explain the circumstances under which it was proposed. In the course of last year, communications were made from the town of Liverpool setting forth the frauds which were practised on poor people who, being desirous of emigrating, were induced to come over from Ireland to that town, and take their passage in ships which were represented as being about to sail immediately, but which frequently did not leave the port till several months after; and, in the mean time, the means of these poor persons being exhausted, they were left either to starve or to be supported by the parish in which they might happen to be placed. In consequence of the extent to which this grievance had been carried, he last year tried the experiment of sending an agent to Liverpool, to watch over the interests of persons desirous of emigrating, and, from all parties, from the people of Liverpool, and from emigrants themselves, he had received the most gratifying testimonies of the benefit which had resulted from that proceeding. Since the appointment of this officer no less than 15,000 persons had come under his supervision. His duties were to receive applications from emigrants, to give them advice as to the course which they should pursue, to see that no frauds were practised on them; and, if the provisions of the law were not complied with by the merchants, to direct the emigrants to the quarters in which they could obtain redress. The officer at Liverpool had, by his exertions, succeeded in putting an end to a long train of abuses, and in putting the trade on a more respectable footing than it had ever stood upon before. The officer was a lieutenant of the navy, and his salary was 100l., and 50l. for expenses. Encouraged by the success which had attended the experiment at Liverpool, he (Mr. Stanley), had sent notice to the sea-ports of the kingdom from which persons usually emigrated, that he would appoint agents if they would afford the same facilities which had been offered by Liverpool, and to all ports which acceded to that proposition agents had been sent. The ports at which emigration agents were at present established, were Liverpool, Bristol, Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, Greenock. Persons desirous of emigrating had nothing to do but to write to one of these officers; and letters might be addressed to "the Government Emigration Agent," without stating the name of the officer, and every information would be furnished them with respect to the sailing of vessels, so that they need not stir from their homes until just in sufficient time to reach the port and embark. The small annual expense which the country would incur in consequence of this new establishment would be ten-thousand-fold repaid by the effect which it would have in assisting the progress of spontaneous emigration.

bore testimony to the advantages which had resulted from the establishment of the emigration agent at Liverpool.

thought, that no money had been voted for the last ten years for so useful a purpose as that now asked for. He approved also of the appointment of naval officers to fill the situation of emigration agents; they were a deserving and useful class of men. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, that there was no place in the kingdom where an emigration agent was more wanted than in London. Every week he received a great number of letters and applications from persons wishing to emigrate. He mentioned this, in order to show the anxiety of the public to obtain information on the subject. There could be no doubt that the Corporation of London would afford every facility to the establishment of an agent.

said, he was now about to propose the Irish Estimates; and here he apprehended that he should have to meet the objections of two sets of antagonists—one complaining that he had carried reduction too far, and the other that he had not proceeded with it far enough. It was, however, gratifying to him to be able to state, that since he had been in office, he had effected a reduction in those estimates to the extent of 104,000l., without, he believed, sacrificing any portion of the real interests of Ireland. Would any Irish Member say, that it was necessary to maintain the Protestant charter schools or the Foundling Hospital? ["Yes."] An hon. Member said "yes," but he was prepared to contend that it was both immoral and impolitic to encourage such a gross abuse, and such a shameful waste of the public money. It was his intention to propose a reduced vote for the Foundling Hospital for the present year, with the view of abolishing it altogether hereafter. There was one vote in the present Estimates for which the present Government were peculiarly responsible,—namely, that relating to education. Never had an experiment more fully justified the hopes of those who ventured upon it than the new plan of education, which had been found to do justice to all classes of the people. From the evidence before Parliament it was clear, that the new system had triumphed over two objections which had been made to it,— one, that it was impracticable, and that the people of Ireland would not avail themselves of it; and the other, that it was vicious in principle, because it separated civil education from religious duty. So far from the plan having been found to be impracticable, the vote to be proposed upon the present occasion was insufficient to meet the demands for assistance towards the establishment of schools; and it was a matter for consideration with the Government whether, even in the present year, they should not apply for a larger sum. There was one vote in these Estimates which he should propose with great satisfaction—namely, 2,000l. for the Belfast institution. It was well known, that this excellent institution had, for a number of years, been supported almost entirely by voluntary subscriptions, upwards of 30,000l. having been collected for this purpose from the friends of education in Belfast. Some new lecture-rooms were about to be built, which would cost 4,000l., of which 2,000l. had been subscribed, and the vote for 2,000l., contained in the present Estimates, was intended to cover the deficiency. The right hon. Gentleman concluded with moving, that the sum of 20,000l. be granted to enable the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland to issue money for the advancement of education in that country.

regretted that this grant should be reduced, as Ireland was not in a situation, as England was, to support such an institution from its own resources.

would remind the House of what had been stated by the hon. and learned Member, the Recorder of Dublin,—that the crime of infanticide had increased since the grant to this institution had been reduced.

said, that the returns and inquiries which had been made on the subject would lead to a different conclusion; but even if some slight increase of infanticide had been the result, that would not justify the Legislature in supporting such an institution by grants of public money. It had been placed beyond all doubt by the inquiries which had been made on the subject, that the institution had not answered its intended object. It had neither contributed to preserve physical life, nor to improve public morals; and if so, he did not see why the Legislature should continue to expend large sums of the public money upon it. The whole of the sums which had been voted to that establishment amounted to not less than 1,200,000l.,—a grant for which, he was sure, no man in the present day would be found to hold up his hand.

said, there were parts of this sum, the application of which he could not approve,—he meant that which was for the support of paupers in that House of Industry; for he did not see, why the people of England should be called upon to maintain the paupers of Ireland. He thought the House should consider, whether this part of the grant (about 6,000l.) should not be deducted from the vote. The paupers of Dublin would then be driven to claims on their parishes, which ought to support them, rather than cast them on the people of England.

would not defend the general principle of Parliamentary grants for the support of paupers; but the grant had been made for some time, and he did not see that it would be fair to withdraw it at present, when a change in the law with respect to the poor in Ireland was in contemplation. It would be hardly fair to leave those aged and feeble paupers, who had been hitherto relieved by this grant, in a state of destitution, until some general change was made in the law relating to the poor.

thought, that the paltry sum which was voted in this way was much better bestowed than the much larger sums paid out of the public money for the purchase of pictures. He did not see, why those paupers had not a fair claim to some assistance out of the public money as well as those of England.

could not concur in that view of the question. The poor of England were not supported out of the public purse. They were supported from a private tax raised on the people, independently of these contributions to the public purse; and it was too much, that, when they supported their own poor, they should be called upon to contribute, out of the public purse, to maintain the poor of Ireland. He agreed with his right hon. friend (Mr. Spring Rice), that, pending the inquiry now going on as to the state of poor in Ireland, it would be hard to withdraw this grant; but this led him to ask, when they might expect the Report of the Commissioners; for, as a change was about to be made with respect to the Poor-laws in England, it was time to expect that something on the subject of the poor should be done in Ireland.

was sure, that, when the hon. member for Middlesex considered the large sums of money drawn yearly from Ireland to be spent in this country,—and for which Ireland got no equivalent,—his humanity would prompt him not to grudge such a paltry pittance as was included in the vote, for the aid of a few aged and infirm poor in Dublin, who were, be it observed, chiefly maintained,—not by this sum, for it was wholly inadequate,—but by local contributions.

, in answer to the question of his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, said, that he had reason to believe, it would be impossible to expect the Report in the present Session; but it would be ready in the next. There were not the same facilities for carrying on the inquiry in Ireland as existed in England. The Report, however, would be ready as soon as possible; and from the zeal and diligence of the Commissioners, he was sure that, when it was prepared, it would give satisfaction to the public.

had not expected, that this vote would have been brought on this evening, which, as he understood, was to have been devoted to the discussion upon Irish tithes; and he regretted the consequent absence of his hon. friend, the member for Oxford, and others, who felt a decided objection to this grant. But, although the sentiments which he entertained were by no means popular in the House, yet, as he had conscientiously adopted them, he should not shrink from the duty of a candid and public avowal. He could not forget the nature of that solemn oath, which he had more than once taken at that Table,—an oath which involved the principle, that the Popish worship was, in his opinion, to say the least of it, irreconcilable with Scripture truth,—an oath, which, though now abolished, yet stood recorded, as far as he was concerned, in Heaven; and which he could not have safely taken then, if he did not fearlessly adhere to it now. He deemed the College at Maynooth a great source of the evils which afflicted Ireland,—that it was a dan- gerous institution; and those who were educated there, were, in the opinion of those persons whom he considered as best qualified to judge, less well-affected than others to the institutions of their country. He thought that, without any impeachment of their motives, or derogation from the respectability of Roman Catholic priests, they were bound by duty, as well as prompted by inclination, to labour with unremitting and zealous assiduity, and with a feeling that they were doing God service, not only to overturn the Protestant Church in Ireland, but to subvert the Protestant religion under every possible modification. The celibacy of the Popish clergy, which severed them from many domestic ties, caused the current of their affections to run the more strongly and exclusively in favour of the Romish Church, which was by them considered as father and sister and brother and mother. This was his deliberate persuasion; and he should think he betrayed the cause of his country and of his God if he voted a national provision for the education of individuals who must direct the best energies of their minds to the overthrow of those principles which he deemed most essential to the public good. He should as soon think of granting money to a college for the education of officers, who, when carefully trained at the public expense, would direct all their efforts to the subversion of our civil institutions. Every Protestant must be a rebel against lawful authority, in the estimation of every priest. It was true, that the Papal power was at present at a low ebb: the loudest thunders of the Vatican, if wielded by the successor and namesake of those who excommunicated the Emperors Henry 4th and Frederick 2nd, Henry 4th of France, and Queen Elizabeth, would not now shake the weakest of Sovereigns on his Throne, or seduce the wickedest of subjects from his allegiance. But the spirit of Papal domination was unchangeable and unchanged; and the Roman Pontiff viewed all the Protestant realms throughout the world with the same jealousy and indignation which Ferdinand 7th experienced, when he saw the revolted colonies in South America enjoying that independence, which they had earned by shaking off his hateful yoke; and which independence, though he could not annihilate the colonies, he never would acknowledge. Between the Protestant and the Papist, he considered that, in regard to religion, there was a great gulf fixed. The Presbyterian could receive, with joyfulness and brotherly affection, from the hands of the Protestant Bishops, the sacred symbols of a Saviour's dying love; the Baptist might derive edification from the ministration of the Independent; but, although there were exceptions, it was undoubtedly the rule, that the Roman Catholic would deem it a profanation to approach the Protestant altar, to read the Protestant Bible, or to join in the domestic worship of the Protestant family. With these sentiments, and for many other reasons, which he should not obtrude upon a reluctant audience, he should deem it a sacred duty, as an Elder of that Church which had experienced Popish persecution in its infancy, and had always borne testimony against Popish doctrines, to enter a solemn protest against the grant now proposed.

said, that after the very extraordinary speech which the House had just heard, it would be their bounden duty to make some arrangement which would take this grant out of the Estimates, and settle it in some other way, so as that Roman Catholics would be relieved from the grievance of having, year after year, on the introduction of this vote, to complain of misrepresentation and distortion of their opinions and intentions put forth by gentlemen who happened to differ in opinion from what, in Ireland, might be called the religion of the country. He little expected, on that evening, to have heard such a speech as that just uttered; but, as it might be a lesson to the Government to prevent the recurrence of such, he scarcely regretted that it had been uttered. Gentlemen from Scotland might talk of the gulf that existed between Protestantism and Catholicism; but when they remembered that the country for which this grant was proposed was almost entirely Catholic, the consideration should have the effect of lessening their zeal. Objection had been taken to the Catholic Priesthood; but if there were grounds for such objection, those who looked into the reason of things would find, that, perhaps, they might be found in the smallness of the grant given to the institution in question. If it were inure liberally supported, it would be reasonable to calculate that a class of candidates for the priesthood more eligible, it might be, than those who at present sought admission would be found; and the character of the Catholic priesthood would be exalted to its proper dignity.

said, he was sure that his hon. friend would not have made the speech which the House had just heard, neither would he have offered any opposition to the vote then before them, if he had been at all aware of the effect which such a line of conduct must produce in the minds of a deeply religious and conscientious people. If his hon. friend knew, that his words would be denounced and repeated from one end of Ireland to the other, a little more caution would have marked his observations. He was quite sure that his hon. friend would not have given expression to such sentiments had he been in the least degree aware that that which was his individual opinion would be proclaimed throughout Ireland as the opinion of any proportion of that House. He begged to remind hon. Members that the vote then before them was a vote of ancient date—that it had been introduced on the recommendation of Mr. Burke, and continued under the sanction of Mr. Pitt—that it had been recommended in time of war, when every possible inducement was held out to the candidates for the Irish Catholic priesthood to seek for education in foreign countries, while they, under the influence of very laudable feelings, declined those offers of foreign potentates, and preferred to receive their education in the country to which they belonged, and under the sanction and authority of that King to whom they owed allegiance. Although he concurred generally with his noble friend behind him, yet he hoped that the time would never arrive when the means of maintaining the college of Maynooth would be removed from a Committee of Supply, for, in his opinion, it was important, that it should not only proceed direct from that House, but that it should be made annually. He was not only favourable to the vote, but he was an advocate for it in the precise way in which it then stood on several grounds, and, amongst others, on this—the length of its continuance and the circumstances under which it had originally been granted. He would ask, was the present a time in which such a vote ought to be rejected—was it in the year 1834, that a great nation, and a powerful priesthood, should be made to feel, that their loyalty and attachment to British connexion and their native country—that their rejection of foreign offers in times of difficulty and danger—were ungratefully forgotten? Did any hon. Member suppose, that if the money were withdrawn, that immediately thereupon the College at Maynooth would cease to exist? So far from any result of that description being in the remotest degree probable, he had not the slightest difficulty in saying, that if an evil as it now stood, that evil would be immeasurably increased, and that the new institution rising on the ruins of the old, would stand forth disfigured by many defects from which the present establishment was altogether free. No man who possessed the slightest knowledge of Ireland could for a moment doubt, that the population of that country would, as one man, stand forward with pecuniary aid for the support of the Roman Catholic College at Maynooth, influenced as much by a desire to support that institution as by a wish to mark their indignation at any refusal of the customary grant. He had spoken of the matter before the House as one might who conscientiously dissented from the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, for if the question was, whether or not they were now to create a Catholic religion, he should at once say—no; but, having found it in existence, what were they to do? Were they to leave the clergy of that persuasion without suitable means of education? In making these observations, he begged it to be distinctly understood, that he was far from saving, that the college of Maynooth was all that it might advantageously be made. He confessed, he should wish to see a more liberal course of study established there, and a higher class of students attracted to that seat of learning. Before he sat down, he wished to make this other observation, that it was quite a fallacy to suppose, that it was mere cheapness of education which brought students to Maynooth; for the fact was, that education could be obtained upon lower terms abroad than at Maynooth. The right hon. Gentleman, in conclusion, bore testimony to the excellent character of the priesthood educated at Maynooth, and expressed an earnest hope, that in future they would not mix up polemics with politics, for, as had often been well said, religion perverted politics, and politics degraded religion.

observed, that however desirable it might be to have avoided the discussion altogether, it had now advanced to a point at which it could not be allowed to remain. It was decidedly his opinion, that the main objection to the grant was, its being too small. In consequence of what had fallen from his hon. friend, the member for Caithness, he thought it right to say, that in Scotland there were few persons, indeed, who participated in the sentiments which the House had that evening heard, and to which they must have listened with surprise, and with more than surprise, when they remembered that the people of Ireland so largely contributed to the maintenance of an Established Church from which they derived no advantage.

said, that the only feeling of the Irish Government on the subject was that of regret at so niggardly a grant being made. It was his opinion, that whatever defects might be found in the system of education at Maynooth, they were entirely attributable to the parsimonious scale upon which its expenses were conducted.

declared, that as a Protestant, he was adverse to such an application of the public money as was involved in the present vote: as a conscientious Protestant, he could not bring him self to vote away any portion of the public money for the maintenance of that which he believed to be a false religion. He must, therefore, express his hearty concurrence in the statements of the hon. member for Caithness.

said, that the documents of the Roman Catholic Church were decidedly hostile to the existence of Protestantism. The House, if it granted this vote, placed itself in a dilemma, by its maintenance of heresy, for if it could not prove the Catholics heretics, Protestantism must acknowledge itself guilty of schism. From the first moment of his entering that House, he felt the necessity of opposing the grant then under consideration, on the ground that it would be inconsistent in a House, exclusive as that then was, to support a vote which granted money for the purpose of educating a priesthood, the duty of which was to circulate doctrines different from, and hostile to, those which the granters of the money believed to be the true ones. He could not now urge this line of argument, for the House had changed its character, and was no longer exclusively Protestant. It had been insisted that the priests educated at Maynooth exhibited an inclination more favourable to the British connection than those educated on the continent, but there lately occurred a case in Cork, where a priest educated at Maynooth gave but a bad specimen of the system pur- sued there. He did not intend to say, that individual cases formed general rules, but a case of this nature could not be overlooked. At the last Assizes in Cork it had been proved that a priest had connived at the murder of one of his Majesty's subjects, by withholding evidence, which would acquit the accused, and for this purpose he made an evasive use of his sacerdotal privileges; but when the question was put to him, whether the evidence which he withheld was given under the seal of confession, he was obliged to acknowledge that it was not. This was but an individual instance, to be sure, but, coupled with other things, it might serve to argue a general inclination. As to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rice) with respect to the year 1834, he (Lord Mandeville) did not see the force of the application. Instead of urging it as a reason for supporting this grant, it was on the contrary an additional one which might be urged in opposition to it, as the circumstance to which it referred furnished new grounds why no grants for the support of any exclusive establishment should be brought before that House.

allowed every Gentleman in that House full scope for the expression of his opinion, but the same licence which he granted to others, he would also look for at their hands. He felt it due to himself to deliver his conscience from the self-reproach of permitting this vote to pass without an objection. He could not understand the inconsistency of those who, professing one religion, voted funds for the propagation of another, whose doctrines they believed to be erroneous. He believed in the error of these doctrines, and, thus believing, he felt bound in the honesty of his conscientious conviction to oppose the vote, and meet with a decided negative a grant in which, though he might not be able to prevent it, he would not concur.

was astonished at the opposition given by the hon. and learned Gentleman to so paltry a grant to the teachers of a religion from whom he had in his high professional practice received so many fees, and of whose money he had pocketed far more than the sum now proposed to be granted. The hon. and learned Gentleman was under a mistake when he stated that this grant was made for the propagation of the Catholic religion. The religion was established beyond any power in the State to put it down, and whether this grant was or was not made, its tenets would continue to prevail in Ireland. The question before the House was, not whether it would aid in propagating any religious system, for the system was already fully established, but whether it would assist in yielding to those who were to be its ministers a full and sufficient education to enable them to impart useful instruction to the persons submitted to their ministry. He should not be surprised to hear in his own country such a speech as that delivered by the hon. Gentleman who opposed the grant; but he confessed that in that House he did feel astonished to find a Gentleman of education stand up and say, that he would prefer an uneducated teacher to an instructed one. To convert the Roman Catholic priesthood to any other persuasion of Christianity would be a hopeless task; and it was, therefore, the duty of an enlightened Legislator to afford to those who had the government of the popular mind every facility which would fit them to fulfil their duties in the most beneficial manner. As to the accusations put forth against the Roman Catholics, whether they were uttered by a Scottish or any other Member, he would scorn to rise up in that House to refute or repudiate the charge. "Exterminate" was no term to apply in the way in which it had been applied; and on the part of the Catholic body, he denied, that they had any such intention or wish. All men who believed firmly were anxious to make converts to that belief; and it would scarcely be denied that this was the disposition of all religious sects. Beyond this the Catholic did not go. As to the hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded him (Mr. Lefroy), if he were expressing his own private opinion amongst his friends, he would not make the assertion that it was the wish of the Catholics of Ireland to exterminate the Protestants. It was true, he had not made this assertion himself; but by adopting the sentiments of the hon. Member who preceded him (Mr. Sinclair), he evidently concurred in it. There were other colleges in Ireland for the education of Catholic clergymen, which, even if the grant to Maynooth were withheld, would increase in public patronage, and the propagation of the Catholic religion so dreaded would increase in proportion, whilst at the same time the Irish people would naturally say that they owed nothing to the British Government, which, whilst it extracted so much from the country in so many shapes, was still unwilling to grant a small pittance in return for the education of their clergy. As to the charge against a particular clergyman brought by the noble Lord, the very friends of that clergyman would and did admit, that his conduct in the instance alluded to was censurable; but was the act of an individual to be visited upon a whole body—a whole nation? If such was the standard—if the conduct of an individual was to be the test, he would fearlessly ask in that House what sect, what religion, would be free from the grossest accusation?

complained, that no intimation had been given that this important vote would be brought on to-night, and declared, that if he only received the support of two Members, he would divide the Committee against it. He had heard no argument adduced in the course of the present discussion which could soothe the conscience of any sincere Presbyterian for voting in favour of the proposed grant. If money was to be voted for the encouragement of Popery, what, he asked, was the use of the Reformation? He was told that Popery had of late years changed its character; but he was at a loss to discover any change which the Roman Catholic religion, unchangeable and infallible as it had ever been assumed to be by those who professed it, had undergone. What was the use of the Articles of the Church of England, or of the Church of Scotland, when so many Members of that House, belonging to both those churches, were ready to support the proposed grant? In the Articles of the Scotch Church he found the doctrines of the Church of Rome stigmatized as idolatrous; and could he then, holding as he did a spiritual office in the Church of Scotland, with any consistency, give his consent to a grant of money to be applied to the instruction of the Roman Catholic Priesthood? He was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. and learned member for Kirkcudbright express his concurrence in the present vote. He fancied that the hon. and learned Member would find, that his constituents entertained a very different opinion on the subject. But the hon. and learned Member had travelled in the East; and he supposed this circumstance had liberalised his ideas, and caused him to reject all those old-fashioned prejudices to which strict and honest Presbyterians still pertinaciously adhered. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland also intended to support the vote; nay, he carried his liber ality still further, for it appeared from the newspapers, that he had been pleased to give a liberal donation towards the build- ing of a Catholic Church. This was doubtless all in keeping with the liberal notions entertained by the right hon. Secretary; but if the right hon. Secretary was a member of the Church of England, all he could say was—"Alas for the principles of the right hon. Secretary!" The hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Treasury, had expressed a hope, that politics and religion might never be united. He hoped, on the contrary, that they never would be separated; for if ever they were, he believed that ruin and desolation would fall on the empire of Britain.

denied, that there was anything unfair or unusual in the manner in which the present vote had been brought forward. No different notice than that which had been given on the present occasion had ever been given before, and in fact no different notice could be given, according to the forms of the House. The hon. Member who last spoke also misrepresented the few observations which had fallen from him (Mr. S. Rice). He did not express any wish to separate religious and political feelings; but he had complained of the introduction of polemics into the House of Commons, and nothing that had fallen from the hon. Member had induced him to change his opinion.

, having been pointedly alluded to by the hon. Member (Mr. A. Johnston), begged to observe, that he was prepared to justify before his constituents every sentiment he had uttered. Those sentiments were, he admitted, liberal; but, he would assert, they were Christian; and he was prepared to vote money for the education, not only of the Catholic clergy, but, if necessary, of the Hindoo priesthood too, because he was convinced that religious instruction tended to civilize men and make them better subjects.

had heard with pain the sentiments which had fallen from some hon. Members in that House. He felt no objection to the proposed grant; and though not belonging to either the Church of England or the Church of Rome, he was ready to admit, that there was a good deal of truth contained in the doctrines of both. If, however, he felt any objection to the grant of money to a clergy not teaching the same belief as he professed, that objection would apply as strongly against the Church of England as against the Church of Rome.

deeply regretted, that any Scotchman should have given utterance to such sentiments as had fallen from the hon. Member opposite. That hon. Member had asked, what was there to soothe the consciences of Presbyterians for voting in favour of the proposed grant; and he should like, in return, to be informed, what was there to soothe the consciences of the millions of Dissenters of this empire, and the Catholic peasantry of Ireland, who were heavily taxed for the support of doctrines to which they could not give their assent? In his opinion it was highly creditable to Scotland, that so few of her representatives had spoken against the proposed grant. The hon. Member had taken care to inform the House of his holding a spiritual office in the Church of Scotland. That was a fact of which he was aware; and as he voted for the exclusion of the Bishops from the House of Lords, so, on the same principle, did he wish, that the hon. Member was confined to the performance of his spiritual duties.

denied, that the noble Lord (Mandeville) had formed a proper estimate of the Irish character. The noble Lord, it was true, had made the tour of Ireland—but in what capacity?—as a Methodist preacher; but many itinerant preachers were much better acquainted with the feelings of the people, and more extensively versed in divinity, than the noble Lord.

said, that after the attacks which had been made on the Catholic clergy, he was sure, that the Irish people, who could not but apply to themselves the insulting and unjust aspersions cast on their spiritual instructors, would be glad to see the grant withdrawn for the present, and brought forward on another opportunity, with a view to having its merits fully discussed. He for one shared in all the sentiments entertained by the Catholic clergy of Ireland, and he asked the House to decide whether he was inclined to exterminate the Protestants? He protested against the imputation thrown out against the Roman Catholic clergy; and he declared the statement made by the noble Lord (Mandeville), that the Catholics were arrayed against all lawful authority, insulting and unfounded.

was not aware, that he had charged the Catholics with being arrayed against all lawful authority; neither had he imputed to the Catholics a wish to exterminate the Protestants. All that he said was, that they must desire to exterminate the Protestant faith.