then presented a Petition from the Chamber of Commerce of Greenock, praying for a communication by Steam Packets to and from the Clyde. The hon. Member proceeded to detail the inconvenience and delay occasioned by the present mode of transmitting letters by the Post-office, and stated, that the feeling in favour of a communication by steam was very general throughout that part of Scotland. He understood that offence had been taken by the Secretary of the Post-office at some observations which he had felt it his duty to make in that House. He would take that oppor- tunity of stating, that he should be extremely sorry to say anything that would be offensive to the private feelings of any man; all he asked for was, that the Post-office would sanction the Returns he had moved for, and give him an opportunity of unsaying, or making the most ample reparation in his power. He would repeat, however, that he believed a great many of the statements he had made had more or less of justice in them. He had now to call the attention of the House to a breach of the privileges of that House in his person, the particulars of which he was not apprized of when he last addressed it. In fact, he was only that morning apprized of it by an hon. Member, who had given him permission to mention his name, should it be necessary. That hon. Member had shown him a large bundle of letters, amounting to about thirty, which had been delivered to him this morning free of postage, although all that came to him (Mr. Wallace) over the usual number, were charged. On remonstrating with Sir Francis Freeling, the answer he received was, that he thought the hon. Member should be excused, as many of the letters might have been posted in Dublin on Friday, to suit their arrival in London. He had submitted the case to his Majesty's Postmaster-General; and the reply was, that the law did not allow of the delivery of more than fifteen on any one day. He felt himself bound to bring this statement before the House; and he would again repeat, that in whatever way he had spoken of the persons connected with the office, he must say, that the business of that office was conducted with a degree of secrecy which had tended much to induce the feeling he had entertained upon the subject. In conclusion, he would in-treat the hon. member for Northampton, to impress upon his Majesty's Postmaster-General, the absolute necessity of abolishing the regulation by which the postage of letters going to any part of the Continent were directed to be paid here, and allowing them to be paid for on either side of the water. There was no security that the letter would be forwarded after the postage had been paid, and he feared that many persons could be found who would pocket a shilling, and throw a letter in the fire. He trusted the subject would be attended to by the Postmaster-General, as it was one which excited very general discontent throughout the coun- try, there being no assurance or security of any kind, that, after the postage had been paid, the letter would be forwarded, as was the case in France and Germany.

did not rise to enter generally into the subject of Post-office improvements; he merely wished to correct an error which the hon. member for Greenock had fallen into. That hon. Member, in his suggested alterations, had stated, that in England no security was given when the postage of a letter was paid for its safe delivery, either to go abroad, or for home circulation, but in France and Germany a guarantee was given. Now such was not the case. It was perfectly true that in France and Germany, by paying an additional sum to the postage of the letter by way of insurance, a guarantee of safe delivery was given, but without that insurance no greater security was granted than that in our own country. He thought the English Post-office infinitely better conducted than foreign Post-offices; delays, mistakes, and losses being notoriously greater abroad than at home. When the subject was brought next Session before the House, he would enter more fully into it; on the present occasion he had confined himself to correcting an error the hon. member for Greenock had unintentionally been led into, and he felt that the English public would not wish to incur the additional expense of insuring letters, when by following the present system every security was given to prevent accidents happening.

said, that with respect to the steam communication urged by the hon. member for Greenock, in many instances communication by land was more speedy. With respect to the alteration in the mail from Glasgow to Greenock, the alteration was advantageous, inasmuch as the letters now passed at the rate of eleven miles an hour, whereas formerly the coach travelled only at the rate of eight miles an hour. He regretted that the hon. Member, after bestowing so many compliments on the Post-office department, should charge them with giving an exclusive privilege to one of the Members of that House. If the charge were true, it must have arisen from accident. He was not one of those that wished to extend the power of franking; the public was desirous that it should be diminished. He did not think that the hon. Member had any just cause of complaint, and he hoped that the hon. Member would not press the Resolutions which stood on the Order-book.

said, he certainly had received more than fifteen letters on a Monday, and he believed that he was not charged for those above the number of fifteen, in consequence of an application which he had made to the Post-office department. Those letters were posted on Friday and Saturday, and arrived partly on Sunday and partly on Monday. When, therefore, the number of letters for each day did not exceed fifteen, it seemed fair that he should not be charged with them, as he would not be if the letters were delivered on Sunday.

said, that according to the Act of Parliament, Members ought to receive their letters every day in the week. This was the case everywhere out of London; but in London alone, where Members might have an opportunity of attending to them, letters were not received. He had frequently been compelled to pay for his letters on the Monday morning, but always did so under protest, and he considered that he was robbed every time he did so. Every Member ought to receive his letters every day in London, and out of it, and the neglect of the Post-office, in this respect, was a grievance which ought to be attended to.

could bear testimony to the excellent manner in which the Post-office was conducted. At the same time, there seemed to be a want of some regulations respecting the delivery of letters on Sundays and Mondays. The Post-office ought, in his opinion, to consider the number of letters received each day, and if they did not exceed the number of fifteen for each day, to deliver them on Monday free of postage.

in reply, said, that there ought to be a delivery of letters on Sunday to every man who chose to call for them; and if they were not delivered after this Session, he would make a demand for them. He did not want a delivery in the streets. With respect to the mail-coach from Glasgow to Greenock, that had been given up as a matter of economy, and at the suggestion of the contractors. He was aware that an immense sum was paid upon foreign letters, but he hoped such a system would never be introduced into this country.

presented a petition from the Council and Assembly of Barbadoes, complaining that, according to the proposed distribution of the Compensation Fund, they would not receive the full amount of their loss under the Slave Emancipation Act. The hon. Baronet recommended a revision of the Act of last Session, relative to the distribution of the Compensation Fund.

was ready to acknowledge, that all petitions emanating from the Representative Assemblies of the Colonies, were entitled to the serious attention of the Government and the House, but he regretted to say, that he entirely dissented from the prayer of the present petition. The principle it involved was, that the amount of compensation should be according to the value of the slaves. There was no Member of that House, he was convinced, who would not admit that compensation should bear an equal proportion to the value of the thing taken away, and this was the principle that had been proceeded upon. It was not what a thing cost, but what it would fetch, that should be the standard of compensation. But to show the injustice and bad policy of giving compensation per capita, he would only remark, that in one island a slave was worth 120l., while in another his value would be not more than 35l. or 40l. He was of opinion that nothing could be more impolitic than a re-opening of the question at the present period, and more particularly at so late a period of the session. One part of the petition he viewed with great pain—he alluded to the declaration made of the inadequacy of the amount of compensation, and thought, after the very large and liberal amount granted by the Legislature, they might rather have expected to have seen the subject approached by the Colonial Assemblies with feelings of gratitude than complaint.

regretted such a petition should have come from the Colonies at such a most important crisis, at the very time, when, in all probability, the momentous question of the emancipation of the slaves would be put to the test. He concurred in the opinion, that the question could not now be re-opened.

rose to present a petition from Quebec, in Lower Canada, in support of the resolutions of the Assembly of the province, which set forth ninety-two distinct grounds of complaint, with reference to the government of that colony, and was signed by 13,083 individuals. The hon. Member supported the prayer of the petition, and observed, that as the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies had given the delegates who had been sent over with the petition an assurance that the complaints of the petitioners should receive his most serious attention, he would not trouble the House further, than by assuring them, that so long as the present system of misrule was suffered to continue in the colonies, the inhabitants would continue to desire that the management of their affairs should be intrusted to their own hands.

said, it must be admitted, that much irritation and excitement had prevailed in certain parts of Lower Canada, and there was no question he had more sincerely at heart than to reconcile contending parties, and to remove any just ground of complaint. It was of the greatest importance that the mother country should entertain a good feeling toward the colonies, and equally important to the latter, to maintain a friendly understanding with Great Britain, and he considered that man the worst enemy to Canada who should promote a separation from the mother country, as the means of obtaining the redress of grievances, whether real or imaginary. Entertaining such opinions, he could not help feeling the deepest regret that the sentiments contained in a letter which had appeared in the public papers, purporting to have been written by the hon. member for Middlesex, should have emanated from any Member of the British Senate. In that letter, he found the following passage:—"A crisis is fast approaching in the affairs of the Canadas, which will terminate in independence and freedom from the baneful domination of the mother country, and the tyrannical conduct of a small and despicable faction in the colony." If an hon. member of the British Parliament took upon himself to address such language to an individual in the station that Mr. M'Kenzie held in the colony, and denounced the Government of Great Britain as a "baneful domination," so far from reconciling the party animosities, and allaying the discontent that might exist against the mother country, he was ministering to the angry passions of the malcontents, and made himself responsible for the consequences that might ensue. He was not prepared to say whether, if such language had been made use of by a subject of the colony, he would not be liable to a prosecution for high treason. He felt it to be his duty to deprecate the language which had been made use of by the hon. Member in the strongest terms; but he did so more in sorrow than in anger, and he should not have alluded to the subject at all, had not the letter appeared in the public papers.

said, it was necessary he should state to the House the nature of the letter, and its origin, as he was quite prepared to defend the sentiments it contained. Although he had been the subject of the vilest abuse of the Press; although all manner of lies had been circulated against him on this subject, and particularly by The Times newspaper, garbling the real facts of the case, and not giving one-half of the truth, still he was perfectly prepared to defend every sentence of the letter, it being his custom not to write a letter, public or private, that he was ashamed to avow. The fact was, that a gentleman by the name of Mr. Ryerson, being unable to obtain redress of a grievance arising out of the colonial government, applied to him for his assistance; that he immediately went with Mr. Ryerson to Lord Goderich, and obtained for him a fair hearing of his case and the redress he sought. That individual, however, turned round upon him most ungratefully, and did him all the injury in his power. With regard to that part of the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, it applied entirely to the measures of Mr. Stanley, and not to the dominion of Great Britain over the colonies. He said, (and he was still of the same opinion), that if the pernicious measures of Mr. Stanley were persevered in, it would be very likely to produce the same effect in the Canadas, as had been produced in the colonies that were now the United States of America, between 1772 and 1782. The liberal government of the colonies, under the direction of Lord Goderich, had insured for that nobleman the gratitude of both Canadas; but no sooner did Mr. Stanley come into office, than he began to undo all that had been so judiciously and beneficially begun by Lord Goderich. When he witnessed glaring instances of misrule, he must call it an arbitrary system that would drive men to desperation, and make them endeavour to take the government into their own hands. Why did he say, "a crisis is fast approaching in the affairs of the Canadas," but because meetings were taking place in every district of each province to reprobate the measures of Mr. Stanley? He did say, that the misrule of so many years was growing too oppressive to be supported, and that "the tyranny of a despicable faction," could not much longer be borne; and had he not reason to say so when the House had been informed, that a gentleman had been five times elected for one of the districts in Canada, by the almost unanimous will of the people, and had been five times rejected by the House of Assembly, through the influence of bribery and corruption. He thought when such circumstances as these came under his knowledge, he gave very wholesome advice to Mr. M'Kenzie, in the letter he had written. He would say to Canada, what he had said to Ireland, "If you cannot obtain the redress of great and acknowledged grievances, then resistance becomes a virtue, though the difficulty is where to draw the line." He was as much interested in the peace and welfare of the Canadas as any man in that House; but he could not sacrifice his principles, and his public character, on any private consideration.

observed, that a Member of Parliament enjoying his perfect security in Bryanston-square, was not in a fair situation to recommend the inhabitants of a distant colony to adopt measures of resistance of the description to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. Why did he not take the field and expose himself to the consequences, instead of playing the part of the trumpeter in safety at home Let the hon. Member, if he incited resistance contrary to law, meet the consequences, and he hoped the law would lay hold of him. The right hon. Gentleman read an address, numerously signed, from some of the most respectable inhabitants of Upper Canada, deprecating the sentiments contained in the petition, and expressing the most perfect satisfaction with the British Government.

read a letter from a similar body in one of the provinces, and said the resolution it contained had been come to by a majority of thirteen out of twenty-four, in opposition to the direct object for which the meeting was assembled. The meeting was held to pass a vote of censure on the sentiments of his letter, but an Amendment, adopting the very language, was agreed to by the majority. He declared again, that it was the "baneful domination" of Downing-street, and not the domination of this country, against which he so strongly protested. He was always ready to avow the sentiments he entertained, whatever might be the result. The right. hon. Gentleman had accused him of fearing to encounter the danger to which his advice might expose his person, but he had never shrunk, nor ever would shrink, from the performance of his duty. He would ask his right hon. friend who took the lead, at a time of some danger, when his right hon. friend, and his friends stood quietly by? He had taken the same part in the proceedings of May, 1832, and expressed the same opinions at that crisis that he spoke at this. Then his right hon. friend did not complain, because those proceedings were all in his favour, but now it suited his purpose to denounce them.

called the attention of the House to the extent and importance of the alterations introduced into this Bill, since it was first laid on the Table. He did not believe, that in the whole history of parliamentary legislation such sweeping changes had been effected in any great national measure; and it might especially be said, in reference to its passage through the Committee,

"Amphora cepit

Institui; currente rotâ, cur urceus exit?"

There were two peat principles in view, when this Bill was first brought forward. The first, and certainly a most salutary one, to transfer the burthen of tithes from the peasantry to the landlords, so as to avoid the occurrence of painful collisions between the clergy and the people, and thus promote the tranquillity of Ireland. The second, that, in return for this benefi- cial arrangement, which ensured the payment of its revenues on a more popular and permanent footing, the Church should make a considerable sacrifice, amounting, he believed, to two-fifths of its revenues. To these concurrent propositions he had given a ready and cordial assent. But what was the case now? The sacrifice was still required from the Church; but the security for the remaining proportions of its income was taken away by the removal of those clauses from the Bill which appropriated the three-fifths to ecclesiastical objects, by providing an investment in land for the benefit of the Church. This was the change of which he chiefly complained. This was what he considered as paying the way for an act of spoliation and injustice. Not that the Bill actually proclaimed the expediency of devoting the Church revenues to national and secular objects; but, by leaving the question open, it tended to facilitate such a result; and the time was probably not far distant when, partly by sapping and mining, and partly by open intimidation, and partly by measures gradually adopted in this clause, the whole property of the Protestant Church would be sacrificed at the shrine of clamour and encroachment.

denied, that any security was taken from the Protestant Church in Ireland; or that the act was one of spoliation and injustice. His hon. friend had not, he was afraid, read the Bill, for one-fifth, not two-fifths, was taken away and to balance that, tithe-owners would be spared the whole expense of collection.

said, he had never witnessed greater ingratitude than had been shown towards Government upon this question by several hon. Members. Much had been said about unfairness towards the Protestant clergy; but how stood the fact? They were now possessed, say of 100l. a year, which would only sell for twelve years' purchase, whereas by this Bill they would be possessed of 80l. a-year (he spoke, of course, in relative proportions), which would sell for thirty years' purchase. The fact, then, appeared to him that in certain quarters, in Ireland, little attention was paid to the tranquillization of that country; while, on the other hand, every disposition was manifested to set the Government at war with the Irish people. But this system had been too long and too cruelly pursued; and for God's sake let the efforts of quietness and conciliation be resorted to, if only by way of experiment. That this was the course contemplated by Government he hoped and believed, and he hoped that no attempt would be manifested in any quarter to thwart that disposition.

said, he was one who felt no jot of gratitude to Government for this measure, nor could the hon. and learned member for Dublin, for the measure was his own. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sinclair) was perfectly right when he said, that two-fifths would be taken from the clergy; and the hon. Member (Mr. Cutler Fergusson) was completely wrong when he asserted, that only one-fifth would be taken. Under the Bill of last Session one-fifth was taken, and that he had consented to in order to get a permanent settlement of the question; but, under the present Bill, two-fifths were sacrificed. Of course the hon. and learned member for Dublin advocated no measure, but to give peace and tranquillity to Ireland; but it was worse than mockery to talk of this Bill giving either peace or tranquillity. They were not arrived at this flagrant, gross injustice, and such was the character of this Bill. The Government had introduced a measure in February, founded upon three great principles; and from every one of those principles they had completely departed. Those principles were redemption of tithe, the restoration practically of the law with respect to tithes, and not permitting 1s. of the property to go into the pockets of the landlords. From each and all of those principles they had grossly departed. The Bill had nothing to do with redemption; the law had not been vindicated; and the Bill said to the landlord, "Let me do you an injustice at the present moment, and ultimately I will put double the amount in your pocket from the plunder of the Church." He repeated, that gratitude he felt none; nor did he for the million of last year. No, for that was merely a present sum to induce the Clergy to permit their ultimate spoliation.

observed, that experience did not induce him to place much reliance on the predictions of the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin. All he would say, in answer to the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin was, that, upon mature consideration, his Majesty's Government were per- suaded that the present measure was calculated to be highly satisfactory to the greater part of the Irish people. As to the clause which had been introduced the other evening into the Bill, on the motion of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, he (Mr. Littleton) must admit, that it was one of great importance, although it strictly belonged to the details of the measure, as it referred to the question whether or not the period of five years, or any other period, should be compulsory on the landlord. The details of the Bill it was the duty of the Committee to determine. If, however, instead of the overwhelming majority by which the proposition of the hon. and learned member for Dublin had been sanctioned, a much smaller number had asserted that proposition, his Majesty's Government would still have felt themselves bound to consider whether or not they ought to persevere in their original intention. As to the question of redemption, let it be considered what, in the original instance, was its object. That object was, to invest the Church-property in land. But, by the present arrangement, the clergyman's income being derived from the landlord, a similar security would be obtained. When it was declared that the Irish landlords were ready to take upon themselves the charge of paying the tithe to the clergy, surely it would have been egregious folly on the part of his Majesty's Government not to have acquiesced in the proposition. He was by no means dissatisfied with the Bill as it stood; for, in his opinion, it gave to the Protestant clergy of Ireland a security which they never before possessed.

contended, that a more wavering, imbecile course had never been pursued by any Ministry than that which had been adopted by his Majesty's Government with respect to the present measure. As he had already stated, its tendency was to saddle the people of Great Britain and Scotland with a burthen which ought not to be imposed upon them. So far was the present measure from being calculated to restore peace to Ireland, that its evident effect would be, to increase war in that country. What had been the declaration of the hon. and learned member for Tipperary? That the present measure would be quite unsatisfactory in Ireland, and that, in the next Session, there would be a loud clamour for additional sacrifices.

differed in toto from the gallant Member, and from the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin. To abate the payment of the Irish landlord by forty per cent was to give him too little rather than too much. The measure was founded in equity, and as such he would support it.

was at a loss to know why the Exchequer of England should be called upon to maintain the Church of Ireland. He did not think his Majesty's Government were warranted in their present proposition. Let those who wanted a Church Establishment in Ireland pay for it. If, however, he did not resist the proposition for a temporary recourse to the Consolidated Fund, it must be on the distinct understanding, that the advance from that fund would by-and-by be repaid. He trusted that his Majesty's Government, as vacancies occurred, would not appoint another individual on the establishment of the Church of Ireland; for it was clear that no more were wanted. Four-fifths of the patronage of the Established Church in Ireland was in the hands of the Government and of the Bishops.

Nine-tenths.

Whatever might be the amount, he trusted that, from the present day, no vacancy would be filled up by his Majesty's Government.

observed, in explanation, with reference to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant member for Worcester, that all that he had stated with reference to the present Bill was, that it was not perfect, but that more must be done hereafter.

was more than ever opposed to the measure. The clergymen of Ireland were not satisfied with the Bill as it stood, and they must be fools or madmen if they were so. Were there no other objections to it? The clause which had been introduced on the motion of the hon. and learned member for Dublin would be a sufficient one. It was clear, that the Church of Ireland was about to be robbed of two-fifths of its property. He begged also to know, what provision there was for the repair of the ecclesiastical edifices in Ireland? Unless some provision were made for that purpose, they would all go to ruin.

stated, that there were ample funds for all the necessary repairs of ecclesiastical edifices in Ireland.

observed, that it was very fashionable in that House to attack the agitators of Ireland; but it ought to be recollected, that there were two classes of those agitators; one, whose object it was to conciliate the people by the removal of their grievances; the other, who endeavoured, by the continuance of those grievances, to perpetuate national distraction.

said, that the effect of the clause would be to repeal that part of the Church Temporalities Bill of last Session which provided for the rebuilding of churches, and the decent performance of divine service.

expressed a hope, that Government would be prepared to follow up the Report of the Commissioners in the course of the next Session. He looked upon the subject to which the labours of the Commission had been directed as one of the most important which could engage the attention of the Legislature, next to that of Parliamentary Reform.

concurred with his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, in thinking that the subject was, next to the question of Parliamentary Reform, one of the most important which could engage the attention of Parliament; and he could assure the House, that it was the intention of Government to follow up the Report with some practical measures in the next Session.

thought, that this was an enormous sum for such an object. He hoped that some means would be taken to diminish this expenditure. He perceived that it was a constant practice to employ eight or nine counsel in one case. Surely that was an unnecessary expense.

held in his hand a return of the expenses of an English and an Irish prosecution. The English was the case of "the King v. Grant and Bell," conducted by the Attorney General, the expenses of which were 181l. 16s. 8d. The Irish case was that of "The King v. Barrett," the expenses of which were 702l. 9s. 4d. Why should such a difference of cost exist in the two cases?

said, that the expenses in the latter case were caused by the delays occasioned by the traverser himself. Had the trial been allowed to proceed in the first instance, the costs would not have amounted to anything like the sum stated in the Return. He could inform the Committee, with reference to the reduction of the expenses of law proceedings by the Crown in Ireland, that it was intended not to employ more than two counsel in any ordinary case, and not more than three in any case in Crown prosecutions. A reduction would, in other respects, be also made in the costs of such prosecutions.

wished to know, whether there were in the items of law expenses in England any other prosecutions included besides those of prosecutions carried on by the law officers of the Crown? He asked the question, because he had seen a statement in a public paper which mentioned, that a prosecution carried on by certain Magistrates against an individual was with the understanding, that the Law Officers of the Crown would not undertake the prosecution, but that the Magistrates should be borne harmless as to expense, if they carried it on. He thought such a system was an exceedingly bad one. The Government ought fairly to undertake the responsibility of any prosecution which was paid for out of the public money.

had not heard of any such prosecution as that to which the hon. Member had referred having been paid for out of the public money.

said, that perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury could be able to say something about it, as it would fall more immediately under his notice.

said, that he knew nothing of any such payment.

said, that he had held the office of Secretary to the Treasury for a longer time than his hon. friend, and he knew nothing of any such payment.

said, then he was to take it for granted, that the account to which he had referred was incorrect, though he must say, that it was most extraordinary that none of the members of the Government knew any thing on the subject.

wished to know what course was intended to be adopted by the Government on this subject?

said, that some time ago he had moved for a Committee on the subject of our communications with India; the Committee sat, and paid great attention to the matter, and its Report had been laid on the Table. There were two routes under consideration—the one communicating with Bombay by the Red Sea, the other by the Euphrates and Persian Gulf. The Report enforced the importance of a rapid communication with India, and expressed the opinion of the Committee in reference to both lines. With respect to the route by the Red Sea, they stated, that experiments made for five successive seasons had completely established the practicability of that line of communication during eight months in the year, but during the four months of the south-west monsoons it was not quite so clear that the communication could be effected. The Committee recommended that measures should be taken to establish the communication by the Red Sea, and they proposed that the expense should be divided between India and this country. As to the other route, by the Euphrates and the Persian Gulf, the Committee stated that sufficient experiments had not yet been made, but that there appeared no physical obstacle to the communication during eight months of the year. During the remaining four months when the river was low, it was not certain that the line was practicable. The Committee recommended, however, as the East-India Company had expended between 60,000l. and 70,000l. on the communication by the Red Sea, that the expense of ascertaining the practicability of the route by the Euphrates should be defrayed by the British Government. The estimated expense of that undertaking was 20,000l., which sum was recommended to be devoted to the experiment. It was clear that if the two lines should turn out to be equally practicable, an arrangement might be made to avail ourselves of the advantages of both. The passage by the Red Sea would not be available during the months of June, July, August, and September, and it was probable that the line of the Euphrates, would not be open in November, December, January, and February. An arrangement might be made by which during the whole year a steam communication could be maintained with India, by availing ourselves alternately of the two routes. The importance of a rapid communication with India was evident—it was of the utmost consequence by these means to bring India nearer to this country, and thereby to remove the obstacles that at present existed to a closer and more advantageous connexion between England and our Indian territories. It was most desirable to do away with the obstacles which now tended to perpetuate prejudices, and which stood in the way of a free and rapid communication of improvements of all kinds. Greater security would result to our Indian empire from the course proposed to be adopted, and in short, it was equally our interest, policy, duty, and glory, to bring India more and more intimately in contact with this country by every means in our power. It was our duty to confer on India every possible advantage, in consequence of its connexion with Great Britain; and he appealed to the House with confidence, and called upon it to lend its assistance to the accomplishment of this important object. It was equally the duty and the interest of England to watch all the modes of access to India, with a view to the political and commercial prosperity and the mutual advantage of both countries. He might add, that the communication by the line of the Euphrates was especially deserving of attention.

said, that to facilitate and expedite a mutual knowledge of what was passing in India, and England would be worth ten times the sum now proposed to be devoted to that purpose. The greatest moral, political, and mercantile advantages might be expected to result from a more rapid communication between the two countries, to which, as he could not see any serious impediment, so he did not anticipate the least objection to the vote.

was glad, that he had drawn from the right hon. President of the Board of Control so satisfactory an expression of his sentiments on the subject. He hoped that what the Committee had just heard was only a prelude to those advantages and that assistance which India had a right to expect at our hands. The state of the communication between England and India had long been a reproach to this country, and the interference of the Post Office in charging postage upon letters from India, notwithstanding there was no line of packets between the two countries, did not admit of excuse. With respect to the passage by the Euphrates, he was not himself very sanguine as to its practicability; but, no doubt, it behoved the Government to make the trial, particularly as he understood from the right hon. Gentleman that it was not to stop the progress by the Red Sea, but he hoped the experiments would be conducted in the manner most likely to lead to practical results for the benefit both of India and England.

Young expressed his regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to have turned his attention so much as appeared desirable to the question, as to the practicability of a passage by steam round the Cape of Good Hope. He was glad that the experiments proposed by the Government were to be made, although he could not say that he entertained very confident hopes of their success; whereas on the other hand, he was convinced that, under the encouragement of the Government, Calcutta might be reached by the Cape of Good Hope in seventy-Five days, at all periods of the year. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take this point into his consideration.

took that opportunity of asking the Secretary at War, whether any reduction was to be made in this branch of the service? He considered the whole Militia force a useless expense.

said, that according to the suggestion of the Committee which had sat upon the subject, orders had been given for an inspection of the whole Militia Staff of England. That inspection was not yet quite finished, and some time would be required to arrange the reports which would necessarily be very voluminous, so that they could not be laid before Parliament this Session, as would have been done if they had been ready in time. He could, however, state, that a considerable reduction had been made in the estimates this year below those of last year; and it was determined that the greatest possible care should be taken, under the discretion of the Secretary of State, that no useless appointments or promotions should be made, nor any vacancies unnecessarily filled up. There was no doubt that in another Session some proposition would be submitted, either for making the Militia Staff efficient for the public service, or for reducing; it altogether. He inclined to the opinion of the Committee, that it would be better to make it an efficient Staff, and that it might thus be rendered very beneficial for the purposes of the public peace; but the whole subject would meet with the careful consideration of the Government.

said, that he was not at all satisfied with the reasons which had been given for the reduction of the duty on spirits in Ireland exclusively. The noble Lord had stated, that the quantity of spirits produced in Ireland was twelve millions of gallons. He did not know by what gauge the noble Lord ascertained this amount, nor did he know why the noble Lord had not informed the House what proportion this bore to the production in the other parts of the United Kingdom, without which they could not form a satisfactory judgment. If the quantity of spirits produced in Scotland was as much above the quantity brought to charge, as it was in Ireland, surely there would be as much reason for reduction in the one place as in the other; and unless the noble Lord gave the data upon which he proceeded, it was impossible for the House to know, whether it was expedient to adopt the great change which the noble Lord proposed. He had a very strong objection to the measure, on the very ground which the noble Lord assigned as the justification of it. The noble Lord said, that illicit distillation or smuggling had not been carried on in Scotland; but that it had in Ireland to a great extent, and therefore he would reduce the duty in Ireland; and he said, that this was the measure of which he had given an intimation at the commencement of the Session, for the benefit of Ireland, and that the hon. and learned member for Dublin would now see that Ireland had not been forgotten. Now, taking these two arguments together, they showed that the country which violated the law was to receive a benefit, and that the people who did not transgress were to incur what the noble Lord must consider comparatively a penalty. The tendency of the measure would be this, that if the reduction of the duty was a benefit to Ireland, the noble Lord would soon have an opportunity of seeing, that there was sufficient ingenuity amongst the people of Scotland to acquire an equal claim upon him by the same means by which the people of Ireland had obtained the benefit. The noble Lord seemed to overlook the fact, that though the reduction of duty might prevent illicit distillation, yet it was calculated to give a great stimulus to smuggling across the Channel. It would also have the mischievous effect of deteriorating the morals of the people of Ireland—an effect rather to be deprecated than thus encouraged.

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman was inconsistent in his argument, for he had, when in office, raised the duty on spirits, which had caused the increase of illicit distillation.

If the noble Lord states a fact, he should state it correctly. I certainly increased the duty on spirits, but I did it in Scotland and Ireland at the same time. In Scotland there has been no increase of illicit distillation, and I have yet to learn upon what authority it is said to have increased in Ireland.

had alluded to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the increase of duty would increase the revenue, but it had, in fact, only increased illicit distillation, for the revenue fell off. The right hon. Gentleman wished to know the grounds upon which it was asserted, that illicit distillation had increased in Ireland. He begged to inform him, that there was a Commission of Inquiry at present sitting, and from the results of that inquiry, and the fact that the revenue had fallen off, it was ascertained that illicit distillation had increased, there being no reason to suppose, that the consumption of spirits had decreased. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that, as there had been no increase of illicit distillation in Scotland, the boon thus given to Ireland was nothing less than a reward to those who were breakers of the laws. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he really supposed that the illicit distillers would be rewarded by a reduction of the duty? On the contrary, it would be a severe punishment to them; but it was only intended to prevent an enormous evil. The right hon. Gentleman had made a speech, which it was very easy to make. He would admit at once, that to increase the consumption of spirits in Ireland was a great evil; but still illicit distillation was a far greater evil—indeed, so great was it considered, that, during the debates on the Catholic Question, the opponents of that measure contended, that removing illicit distillation would be more efficacious in removing the evils of Ireland than Catholic Emancipation. This had been strongly urged as an argument by the right hon. member for Tamworth. The prevention of illicit distillation, therefore, would be conferring a benefit on Ireland, without offering the slightest reward to the smuggler. With respect to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, as to the reduction being likely to lead to an increase of smuggling across the Channel, he would say, that the argument might be very good, if there was no illicit distillation at present going on in Ireland. If they were to apply themselves to the reduction of the duty on spirits in Scotland, they would be compelled also to apply to the drawback on malt, a subject upon the utility of which the Highlands and the Lowlands of Scotland were at variance. He did not expect that this reduction would have the effect of increasing smuggling across the Channel; and if it did, it would be the duty of Government to prevent it, while by taking off the duty they would prevent illicit distillation.

said, that, as the Bill, in consequence of the proviso moved by him, did not affect the present Speaker, his objections to it were so far diminished. Still he thought that there were no situations in the country, the duties of which were of so onerous and arduous a description as those of the Clerks at the Table. It should be recollected also, that those Gentlemen were cut off from all connexion with society. They were, in fact, unable to make any appointment of a convivial or social nature. One of the objects of this Bill was said to be to put an end to sinecures, among which the office of Clerk of Engrossments was reckoned. It was true, that the duties of that situation were not heavy, but it had always been considered as a retiring office for one of the Gentlemen who had very arduous duties to perform in that House, and who was not entitled to receive any retiring allowance. He considered the measure to be one of pitiful economy, and unworthy of a reformed House of Commons.

was surprised to hear the hon. Member characterize the Bill as a measure of pitiful economy. The hon. Member was wrong in supposing that the office of Clerk of Engrossments was reserved for the Gentlemen who transacted laborious duty in that House; for Sir E. Stracey, who held that situation and another sinecure office besides, had never performed any duty in that House. With respect to the salary of the Speaker, he did not think that that officer, who was only employed for six months, was entitled to receive a greater salary than the First Lord of the Treasury, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who were occupied during the whole year.

never heard a proposition which caused him so much surprise as that which had been made for the reduction of the Speaker's salary. So far from the duties of the Speaker having diminished since the year 1790, when the amount of the salary was fixed, they had, in fact been at least doubled; and it was matter of astonishment to him how the faculties of any man could bear the additional labour which had latterly been imposed on the individual filling the office of Speaker. The increase which had taken place in the value of money, in consequence of the return to a metallic currency, was often put forward as a reason for the reduction of the salaries of public functionaries; but that argument had no application in the present case, because, as he had before stated, the salary of the Speaker was fixed in 1790. For forty-four years the country had gone on paying the Speaker the present amount of salary, with the full conviction, that it was not more than a fair equivalent for the labour of his office; and as reference had been made to the office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he must say, that he never regarded the duties of that office as at all equal to those which were performed by the Speaker. Before 1790, the office of Speaker was much more valuable than at present, because it used to be the practice of the Crown to join other lucrative situations to it. Thus, Mr. Speaker Onslow was Treasurer of the Navy during the time he occupied the Chair, and Mr. Speaker Cornwall was in the receipt of an income from a sinecure. Indeed, before 1790, the emoluments of the Speaker seldom fell short of 10,000l. or 12,000l.; and when at that period Mr. Pitt proposed to fix the Speaker's salary at 5,000l., the House felt indignant at the proposition, and raised the amount to 6,000l. His objections to the measure were not removed by the introduction of the proviso, enacting that the present Speaker should not be affected by it; for the duties of the situation were not, in his opinion, over-paid; and the effect of that proviso would only be to place the present Speaker in an invidious position.

did not think the present allowance too much for the first commoner in England: compared to other officers of the realm, it was not more than it ought to be.

thought the sum now proposed to be given was sufficient to insure an adequate discharge of the duty of the office, and was, at the same time, adequate to maintain its dignity.

said, the House ought to consider the means of the people.

thought, if the people of England were not able to pay enough to support the dignity of that officer who maintained the majesty of the people, they must be poor indeed.

said, the question should be left to the decision of future Parliaments, especially as it had been agreed that the measure was entirely prospective, and could not affect the salary of the present Speaker.