rose to present a Petition, which he brought forward very unwillingly, as it contained very serious Charges against a Person high in rank in the Established Church of this country, and who, as he understood, was, and had been for a long time, suffering under pecuniary and family distress. At the same time he felt that the duty which he owed to his constituents, rendered it imperative on his part to submit to the House those complaints which they made, and, he thought, justly made, of the conduct of their pastor—conduct that furnished them with an instance of the necessity which existed for a real and substantial Reform of the Church, such as he trusted his Majesty's Ministers would effect. The gentleman to whom he alluded, was, he believed, one well known to the House, to which he had formerly officiated as chaplain, Dr. Webber, Prebendary of Westminster, Dean of Ripon, and Rector of Kirkham, in Lancashire, of whom the petitioners, the inhabitants of that palish, complained. When the House looked at the condition of the parish, it would be seen from the great extent of it, (and similar instances of parishes, he was sorry to say, frequently occurred in the North of England,) that it was certainly impossible for any one clergyman to discharge the spiritual duties connected with it, beneficially and with effect. The petitioners stated that, in addition to the town of Kirkham, there were 12,000 inhabitants distributed over an agricultural district, included in the parish eight miles in breadth, and two in length; that the parish, taken altogether, comprised an extent of 130 square miles; that it was divided into seventeen townships; that so long ago as 1650, an inquisition of the parish took place, and that the Commissioners reported that it was extremely desirable, considering the extent of the parish, that it should be divided into several smaller ones. It further appeared, from the statement of the petitioners, that of the seventeen townships into which the parish was divided, there was Church accommodation afforded by the parish Church, sufficient for the inhabitants of two townships; that five others had separate chapels of ease for their accommodation; that there was one chapel the gift of the vicar, and endowed by him; that the endowments of those separate chapels averaged 190l. per annum; and that there were eight townships in the parish without the means of religious instruction at all. In one instance—and could there be a stronger one?—the distance of the parishioners from the parish church was twelve miles, and there was no place of worship in the intervening extent. The great tithes of this parish were impropriate, and the property of Christchurch College, Oxford. It appeared from the statement of the petitioners, that in the year 1814, Dr. Webber was inducted into the parish, he receiving the small tithes of eight townships, while Christchurch received the great tithes of all, and the small tithes of nine townships. The small tithes appropriated to the rector, amounted, at the period of Dr. Webber's induction, to 250l. a-year; on that occasion there was an arrangement made with the parishioners, in consequence of which the rectorial small tithes were increased from 250l. to 1,000l. a-year. When that arrangement was made, Dr. Webber expressed himself, in letters which he had in his possession, deeply grateful for the liberality of his parishioners, and he volunteered a statement to his parishioners, to the effect that no alteration should be made during his incumbency in the amount of those tithes, and that nothing should induce him to become non-resident, or to absent himself from the discharge of his parochial duties. This was the consideration which he promised them in return for their liberality to him on that occasion. From 1814 to 1829, Dr. Webber resided amongst his parishioners; but in the latter year he was presented with a prebendal stall in Westminster. About the same period, unfortunately for his parishioners, he was inducted into the Deanery of Ripon, and from that time to the present, with the exception of one single occasion, he had never set foot in the parish, though, the petitioners observed, he had at the time the small tithes were raised, made residence one of the conditions under which he voluntarily placed himself. The petitioners did not object to the fair and equitable emoluments of their pastor, but they were anxious to see a larger amount of them appropriated to the providing sufficient religious instruction for the parishioners. In the present instance, it appeared that of the two curates employed by the rector, one was the master of the grammar school at Kirkham, one of the fundamental rules of which was, that the master of it should attend to no other business but that of the school. The appointment, moreover, was protested against by four of the visitors of the school. However, Dr. Webber, notwithstanding this protest, appointed this gentleman to the discharge of parochial duties, which the petitioners alleged, were inconsistent with the discharge of his duties at the school. The petitioners further complained, or rather they made an appeal to the liberality and justice of Christchurch College, with regard to the impropriate tithes of the parish. It appeared that many years ago those impropriate tithes were valued at 3,500l. a-year. Now, the petitioners conceived that Christchurch, looking at the enormous extent of this parish, and seeing that the rectorial tithes were not sufficient to provide adequately for the religious instruction of the parishioners, should, with a view to fulfil the purpose for which those tithes had been granted, allow a portion of the great tithes received by it, for that object. It appeared that so long ago as the year 1650, the great tithes of this parish were let to a person, specified in the lease as a delinquent Papist—a person of the name of Clifton, of a most respectable family in Lancashire, whose descendants, curious enough, being all Catholics, continued to hold those tithes under lease from Christchurch College. The present lineal descendant of that gentleman, was High Sheriff of Lancashire, and had only lately become a Protestant. The petitioners complained that of these great tithes, amounting to 3,500l. a-year, the College of Christchurch, and their intermediate lessee, enjoyed all the benefits, while none of them went to the supporting of the parochial minister, or the endowment of the parish. The College of Christchurch must surely be anxious to see the objects for which those tithes were granted, fulfilled. The petitioners stated, that if Christchurch would adopt a different mode of leasing those tithes, for which he (Lord Stanley) understood that they had, on one occasion, received 10,000l. as a renewal fine for seven years—that if a different system were acted upon, adequate means would be supplied for the maintenance of clergymen for the discharge of the parochial duties, while a sum, as large as the present, would still go into the pockets of Christchurch. It appeared from the statement of the petitioners, that in the year 1832, Dr. Webber returned to the parish, but under circumstances not of a very conciliatory nature. He returned, notwithstanding the arrangement which he had made in 1814, feeling it his duty, and he (Lord Stanley) believed that he did feel it his duty to his successor to do so, to set aside those moduses, with which he had formerly expressed himself so thoroughly satisfied, and to raise those tithes, which had been already so greatly increased. The parishioners naturally resisted this attempt on his part. He then made a proposition to the effect, that he would abstain from all legal proceedings, provided the parishioners would defray all the expense which he had already incurred by those proceedings, that they would pay a certain sum for the improvement of the rectory-house, and that they would raise the tithes from 1,000l. to 1,600l. a-year. He added to them, that upon these terms Christchurch would be willing to enter into terms to divide the parish, but upon no other. The parishioners felt deeply aggrieved that Christchurch should thus be found to act contrary to the spirit that had dictated the original grant, and that it would not make an appropriation out of this 3,500l. of great tithes, so as to enable the parish to be divided, in conformity with the Report of the Commissioners in 1650. The petitioners prayed the interference of the House for two specific purposes; the first was—and he trusted that his Majesty's Ministers would, without loss of time, introduce a measure with that view—more especially where clergymen were adequately provided for—that residence should be strictly enforced. The next was (and he was afraid that practically this prayer of the petition would be more difficult to accede to,) that the Bishop of the diocese, or some other competent authority, should make it imperative on impropriate rectors and vicars to make endowments, in conformity with the 4th of William 4th, for chapels of ease in the parishes belonging to them, where they were necessary. There were certainly great difficulties about this matter, and he was, therefore, the more anxious that Christchurch should take up the case; and seeing his hon. Friend, the Representative for the University of Oxford, in his place, he wished to urge the request upon his hon. Friend—a request that to him seemed a very reasonable one, and for which he would quote to his hon. Friend an authority which he thought his hon. Friend would admit to be a valid one—it was the authority of the Protestant King, James 1st of England. The passage which he was about to quote, and which was extremely applicable to the present time, was to be found in a letter dated in 1603, addressed by James 1st to the University of Oxford. In that letter, James states, that knowing there was no greater obstruction to the furtherance of religion, than the want of competent livings for the support of learned men, it appeared to him that this evil could be remedied, by restoring the impropriate tithes to the purposes for which they were originally granted; that he had commenced with so applying the impropriate tithes that were in the King's hands, that he now applied to them in the first instance, as it was fitting, in such a good work, the Universities should be forward in setting such an example, and that he, therefore, recommended the Chancellor, and the heads of houses, and other discreet and learned men of their body, to assemble, and to appropriate a portion of the impropriate tithes belonging to the different Colleges, to the providing proper ministers in the parishes whence those tithes were derived, yet so as to leave those Colleges sufficient things necessary for their maintenance. He recommended this royal recommendation to the attention of the hon. Baronet opposite, and of the College of Christchurch in particular; and he earnestly hoped that, after the case he had stated, this matter would be taken up by the House, examined, and inquired into seriously and effectually, so as to reform those great abuses and evils that at present darkened the Church of England. He would not offer any further observations, but would beg leave to bring up the petition.

said, that even if his noble Friend had not appealed to him so directly, sitting there as he did, the Representative for the University which was so much interested in the subject of this petition, the House would expect him to say something on the subject. His noble Friend had stated the amount of tithes re- ceived from this parish, but he begged leave to say, that the amount of tithes in a given parish, or their reasonableness, or whether the parishioners paid more than they ought for the spiritual benefit they received, or whether the vicar should receive 1,000l. a-year, or Christchurch, Oxford, 3,500l. a-year, was not the Question before the House; the Question was, whether, as the law was at present, the parties entitled to those tithes called for, or received, a single shilling more than they had a right to. Some might say, that 1,000l. a-year was too much for a vicar, and others might think that 3,500l. a-year was too much to be raised as tithes, and granted to a college, but that was not the question now before the House. He would repeat that the Question simply and solely was—did those parties demand or receive more tithes than they were strictly entitled to? His noble Friend had said that it was only reasonable to request the college of Christchurch to make over those tithes, or a portion of them, to the purposes for which they were originally destined. Now, he (Sir R. Inglis) was perfectly willing to rest the case of the vicarage of Kirkham on those grounds only, provided that his noble Friend on his part would engage to endeavour to make the property of every other proprietor of Church property convertible to the same purposes. He did not see the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department in his place. He hardly knew, indeed, whether at present that noble Lord would find any place to return him to Parliament. If, however, that noble Lord was in his place, and if his noble Friend, the member for North Lancashire, should make a motion to the following effect, he was sure his noble Friend would find a ready seconder for such a motion in the noble Lord of the Secretary for the Home Department—namely, that all who held church property under grants of Henry 8th were bound to provide the spiritual benefit of the parishes from for which such property was derived. He was extremely sorry that on the present occasion the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, was not in his place. At the fitting time he should be ready to meet that noble Lord on this Question. The question in the present instance was not whether the amount paid was too much or too little, but whether the Petitioners were made to pay more than they were legally bound to pay. With regard to what had been said by his noble Friend as to the compact entered into by the rector of Kirkham, with his parishioners, he apprehended that the character of that agreement was this,—that if they, the parishioners of Kirkham, should give him, the vicar, 1,000l. a-year to be paid without litigation, he promised on his part for himself not to ask for an increase of it. Now that condition had not been bonâ fide adhered to by the parishioners of Kirkham, and he believed that the vicar had been obliged to issue summonses, in many instances to enforce the payment of his tithes. His noble Friend had stated the difficulty of providing spiritual instruction in this parish, owing to its great extent. He felt that difficulty as much as his noble Friend. He was as desirous as his noble Friend that there should be a resident minister in every parish in the kingdom, but this he would say, that increasing as the population of England was, it was not more pressed for spiritual than it was for material subsistence. He would venture to say that there was no parish in the north of England that, in proportion to the amount of its population, was better supplied with spiritual instruction than the parish of Kirkham. The population a-mounted to 11,000; there were three churches, four chapels of ease, and the actual vicar had fitted up one at his own expense in another township for public worship. It had been stated by his noble Friend that the actual vicar was a nonresident, and the petition stated that he was non-resident without cure of souls. Now, in point of fact, from the time that he had become Dean of Ripon he had duty to perform in the church of Ripon, which was the parish church of the town. He had, in fact, to discharge the duty of rector of Ripon. Dr. Webber discharged at present all the duties of a parish minister in Ripon. It could not be said, therefore, that he was non-resident in the strict sense of the word, for he had the cure of souls. The Petition went on to allege as a grievance that the curate had been appointed master of the Kirkham school. [Lord Stanley: No, but that the master of Kirkham school had been appointed curate of the parish.] He apprehended that the curate never heard that this had been considered a grievance until he read the complaint in this petition. The noble Lord said that four visitors of the school had protested against this appointment. He believed that the election of visitors to this school was made annually, and that if the visitors should in one instance disapprove of the appointment, other visitors might have approved of it. In point of fact, so far from the master of the school being separated by law or custom from the church of Kirkham, there was actually a decree of the Court of Chancery under which he was compelled to preach at least once a-month in that church. That decree bore date 1763. That was not only so, but the report of the charity commissioners, who had investigated all the affairs of this school, stated, that the curate did so perform the duty. He thought he had now liberated the curate from the effect of this charge, and that it might also be said he had liberated the vicar from the charge of having appointed an improper person to the care of this parish. His noble Friend would see the duty of the curate specified in the very terms he had mentioned in the 11th report of the charity commissioners. His noble Friend had said that the vicar never came to the parish from 1829 till 1832, and that he came then under peculiar circumstances not tending to his credit. The fact was, that Lord Tenderden's bill came into operation that year, and the vicar came to Kirkham, not with a view to his own benefit and advantage, but, as he distinctly and emphatically stated, for the benefit of his successor, and to prevent the rights of that successor from being compromised by any agreement as to moduses which the vicar might have made with the parishioners. Unless the house was prepared to adopt the doctrine that the right of property was to be compromised and sacrificed because a party had spiritual duties to perform, but that the right of property was to be maintained where there were no spiritual duties to discharge at all—unless, he said, the house was prepared to go that length, neither his noble Friend nor the House could blame the vicar of Kirkham for protecting the rights of his successor. He understood from a letter which he had in his hand, and which he had received from the curate of Kirkham, that he had never heard of this complaint of his being also the master of the school until he had seen it stated in this petition. With respect to the conduct of the vicar, tins gentleman stated in his letter what the vicar had done towards providing adequate means for spiritual instruction for the people of Kirkham, and that he had done it at his own expense. He would repeat that this was not the case of a vicar deserting his duty without taking cure of souls elsewhere. Neither was it the case of a vicar neglecting the spiritual instruction of his flock, for the vicar of Kirkham had provided two curates for the parish, besides other curates for the four chapelries; and lastly, it was not the case of a man who had sought emolument for himself, though in law he had a right to it, but the case of a man who, seeing the rights of his successor placed in jeopardy, stepped forward to protect and preserve them. On a former occasion, when Lord Tenterden's act was under discussion in that House, the then and present Attorney-General congratulated him on having found a zealous and powerful advocate for the Church in the person of the hon. and learned member for Southwark. With regard to that hon. and Learned member, he really believed that he was as Friendly to the Church as the hon. and Learned Attorney-General, and therefore he did not slight his aid on that or any similar occasion. He hoped to have it now, when the right of property in the Church was so violently attacked: when the rights of property were attacked, as they were at present in the case of the Church, should that attack prove successful, the rights of private property would be next invaded. His noble Friend, the member for North Lancashire, would allow him to say, that he was the last person in that House whom he would accuse of being willing to sacrifice the rights of the Church. His noble Friend and he had differed, two years ago, in respect to a proposition regarding the Irish Church; but his noble Friend had since made a stand upon the subject, and he was sure that upon principle his noble Friend would always defend the united Church of the two countries. His noble Friend would, however, excuse him for saying that when he brought forward a petition of this kind he should have guarded himself more than he did on this occasion in his statements. The question, he repeated, here was not whether 1,000l. a-year was too much to pay the vicar, or 3,500l. a-year too much to pay Christchurch College? The question was, had they a right to it? He could not help thinking, that whenever they should come to take the question of the plus or minus of Church property into their hands, the security for all property would be endangered. The vicar of Kirkham neither neglected his duties nor was he avaricious in the amount of tithes that he sought. He was willing to repeat the statement he had made in the outset, that if all the holders of Church property in the empire were bound by one and the same rule, the University of Oxford, which had a direct and visible interest in the maintenance of the Church of England, would be ready to act upon the new rule which his noble Friend would apply to the Church-property in the possession of Christchurch College. But his noble Friend was wrong in supposing that the rule he stated was a new one. One college in Oxford that held 2,000l. a-year impropriate tithes had surrendered the leases so as to increase the value of the livings in the various parishes from 5,000l., which they were in the aggregate, to 8,000l. per annum. He was aware that legal difficulties might operate in other cases, but he stated this fact to show that the principle advocated by his noble Friend had already been adopted and recognized in Oxford. The University of Oxford, therefore, had not to learn that lesson even from his noble Friend whose able stand in behalf of the Church the College could never cease to respect.

said, that the subject was indeed a most important one, and he was very glad it had come before the House from such a quarter; had it proceeded from the humble individual addressing them, there would have been an instant cry of spoliation, robbery, and utter destruction. He had on a former occasion ventured to broach the subject in a speculative way, not for want of practical illustrations, however, but because if he had brought ever so many proofs to bear on the point, he should have been met with the same kind of vituperation as a wisher for the spoliation and destruction of the interests of the country, &c. and be reproached with taking invidious means for accomplishing his ends, without daring to grapple with the great principle. If the House had not adjourned over the day on which his Motion on the subject of Queen Anne's bounty was to have come on, he should have shown, beyond a cavil, that the present was not, as pro- bably the noble Lord and many others in the House thought, by any means a solitary instance of clerical rapacity; but that, on the contrary, something of the sort might be found in almost every parish throughout the country; and that, moreover, there were a great many more cases than one in which even lay impropriators, not content with their enormous receipts from the tithes, had dipped their hands pretty deeply into Queen Anne's Bounty, and the million of money which, in the course of the last twenty years, had been given by the State in aid of small livings. The impropriators of Kirkwall, as likely as not, would be found among the number. King James's Letter would do for a great many lay impropriators, as well as for the colleges. He did not mean to say that the tenure of individual lay impropriators was the same with that on which the colleges enjoyed impropriate tithes. In the latter case the property had been transferred to the colleges, at the time of the Reformation, simply in trust for the Church, and they held it on that simple tenure. In the former case not only was the annual grant in many cases of quite a different character, but the property, although in some instances perpetuated in the same families, had in numerous cases changed hands from one to another, in regular course of purchase and sale; and here, of course, would be found a great difficulty, though not, looking to the omnipotence of Parliament, an insuperable one. He had been just described by the hon. Baronet—he supposed in all good faith—as a friend to the Church; he could assure the hon. Baronet that he was such, and therefore most anxious to remove from it its manifold abuses. For this reason he trusted that the noble Lord would not content himself with laying the petition on the Table, but that he would bring it forward in a more substantial manner; if not, he at least, should have an opportunity of laying the whole matter before the House at some time during the Session, by means of his Motion respecting Queen Anne's Bounty, in introducing which he should show that not a few of the largest impropriators of tithes—many of them to the extent of 1,000l. a-year,had had the gross meanness to claim and receive sums of money out of the sums voted by Parliament for increasing small stipends.

said, he would not have said a word upon the subject, but that the parish in question adjoined the one in which his own property was situated, and that he was one of the visitors to the school of which the curate alluded to was master. He would only say, that when the tithes were so much as 25s. an acre for potatoes, they could not be raised much more; and the visitors of the school were now debating whether they should not stop the money for the mastership, until the duties of the office were better performed, they not having it in their power actually to remove the individual holding it. The statements contained in the petition were to his own knowledge perfectly correct, and he trusted that such grievances would without delay be put an end to.

said, he knew a parish in Hampshire which brought not less than 750l. per annum into the pocket of its lay impropriator, Lord Guildford, while the poor parson had but a miserable 15l. a year out of it, increased out of Queen Anne's Bounty and other taxes to about 70l. The Church abounded with such abuses, and they were its friends who brought them to light. It was by letting it alone that it would fall. If it was overturned it would be overturned by itself; it would be its dignitaries who kicked it down. Many of the archdeacons and deans had the sole appropriation of tithes, and of twenty things else out of parishes; the Archdeacon of Surrey had the tithes of five parishes all nearly joining each other, while the parsons of them had only a miserable pittance. An application was made to Parliament to tax the people to enable these parsons to live—he hoped the noble Lord who talked of reformation on this subject would come forward with a real reformation, something tangible. With such a reformation the Church might be saved; without it the Church would fall, and that right speedily.

presented a Petition from the Presbyterians of the county of Down, signed by 800 persons praying for the Abolition of Tithe, not only in substance but in name, and altogether denying the truth of the statement made by the noble Member for Down (Lord Castlereagh), that the Presbyterians of that county were willing to pay tithe. He was proud of the Presbyterians of Ulster, and proud that they had made him their organ. Another subject touched upon in the petition was the Regium Donum, on which the House was aware Other petitions had not long since been presented. He would venture to say, that it was the universal feeling of the Presbyterian body of Ireland that if they were relieved from the payment of tithes, no increase of the Regium Donum would be necessary. The petitioners were highly respectable landholders in the most Protestant part of Ireland, and Protestants in every sense of the word. The House would perhaps recollect the assertion of the noble Member for Down that he could raise the "No Popery" cry there, but this petition was a most effectual answer to the threat. The same noble Lord had said that a petition formerly presented subscribed with between 4,000 and 5,000 names, had been hawked about in order to obtain signatures. He asserted, on the contrary, that not one name had been so obtained, and that this petition represented fairly the sentiments of the whole body of Presbyterians. He challenged the other side to dispute the statement, that the feeling of many Protestants, even of the Established Church in Ireland, was favourable to the extinction of tithes.

wished only to say a few words, and expressed his obligation to the hon. Member for Dundalk for contradicting the statement he (Lord Castlereagh) had made on a former day, that the Presbyterians of the county of Down were anxious to maintain the tithe system. The petition would carry with it whatever weight it deserved, and it certainly came from a body to the sentiments of which he was decidedly and constitution ally opposed. He was glad that they had found so able an advocate as the hon. Member for Dundalk. The petition went at once to the establishment of the voluntary principle; and upon that, and upon the Question of the Regium Donum, he could not agree with them. The hon. Member had mentioned that the two parishes from which it came contained fifteen thousand Presbyterians; if so, it was very odd that it was signed by only eight hundred names. As to its representing the sentiments of the whole Presbyterian body of the county of Down, it was hard to say that a representation coming from only two parishes spoke the sentiments of a whole county. He was inclined to doubt the deduction, although the hon. Member might, perhaps, hereafter be able to prove that his statement was correct. The petitioners complained of the tithe system: he had hoped that the Bill introduced by the late Government would have had some effect in removing the prejudices existing on the subject; but now that the hon. Member for Dundalk had gone over to the other side of the House, no doubt he would be able to support the intended Tithe Bill of the present Ministers, retaining, of course, the appropriation clause; and when once it was carried, the petitioners would, of course, no longer object to the payment of tithes.

said, that his only reason for obtruding himself upon the attention of the House at that moment was, that the petitioners had done him the honour to request him to support the prayer of their petition. If the noble Lord thought that the agitation of the Tithe Question was likely to raise a "No Popery" cry, he was totally mistaken. The selection of him (Mr. O'Connell) for one of their advocates was some evidence that the petitioners were not likely to fall into that error. Though the petition was signed by only eight hundred out of fifteen thousand Presbyterians, the eight hundred names were those of landholders. Hearing that 123 signatures of persons who were not landholders had been affixed, they had been struck out. They claimed from the House the benefit of the Christian principle, that no man should be compelled to pay any clergyman but his own.

rose to move as an amendment, that the issue of the writ be suspended. He must begin by apologising to the House for having taken up the subject, because when the disfranchisement of this borough was brought under the notice of Parliament in the last Session, it was in much abler hands than his. His right hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir T. Fremantle) was the chairman of the Committee appointed in 1833 to inquire into the merits of the Stafford election. That Committee, after hearing the evidence which was produced before it, came to the unanimous resolution that bribery and corruption had prevailed to such an extent at the election for that Borough, that it was incumbent it should be visited with the utmost severity consistent with the practice of the constitution. In conformity with that opinion, the Committee came to two resolutions, of which the first was, that "the evidence taken before them established a case of such open, general, and systematic bribery and corruption, that it was expedient that the Borough of Stafford should cease to return Members to Parliament." That resolution was followed up by another, directing the Chairman "to move for leave to bring in a Bill to disfranchise the Borough of Stafford." The circumstances which produced those two resolutions were so notorious at the time, that if he had been addressing the last Parliament, he should not have deemed it necessary to enter into any further detail of them. But as this was a different Parliament, and as there might be some Members in it who were unacquainted with those circumstances, he would state a few of the facts on which those resolutions were grounded. From the evidence submitted to the Committee, it appeared that a systematic plan of bribery and corruption had long existed in that town. It appeared that it was incumbent upon every candidate for its representation to commence with giving, as a preliminary to other operations, a fee of 5s. or 6s. to all persons who thought fit to attend to receive it. If one candidate did it, it was necessary for every other candidate to do the same. At the election in 1832, when it was known that a fee of 10s. had been given by one of the candidates, the friends of the other two deemed it necessary to distribute among the electors a second fee of 5s., although they had previously given one fee of 5s. to every voter who attended to receive it. At all elections a regular market was opened for votes; the price of a plumper was understood to be fixed at 5l. and of a split vote at 2l. 10s. At the election in 1832 the price gradually rose to 7l. and in some instances as much as 10l. and 11l. was given. Such was the eagerness with which this traffic in votes was pursued, that, according to the statement of one of the witnesses, on the morning of the second day of the election of 1832, finding from the person who had been paying on behalf of one of the candidates, that his finances were exhausted, he proceeded to the bank and drew on his own account 500l., which sum he gave openly in the market-place to the paymaster in a roll of bank-notes. Out of 1,049 electors who polled at that election, there polled on the first day 804 who were paid, and 141 who were not paid for their votes; and on the second day 48 who were paid, and 56 who were not paid; thus making 945 who were polled on the first, and 104 who were polled on the second day. It might, perhaps, be said that this practice existed in the borough before the Reform Bill, and that that Bill had put an end to all such gross venality and corruption. He would, however, remind the House, that the election of 1832 was the first general election after the passing of the Reform Bill. Now, at that election, not only did the old burgesses act corruptly, but also the newly-created electors; the 10l. householders. More than one-half of the householders who then voted as such received money for their votes, the numbers being 85 paid and 82 unpaid. It likewise appeared that 166 of the burgesses of Stafford, who voted under the old franchise, also occupied tenements of the value of 10l. and upwards. Of this number 109 were paid, and 42 not paid, making 151 who polled: the remaining fifteen did not vote. So confirmed was this practice of corruption and bribery in the borough of Stafford, that arrangements were made by the candidates previously to the election that the bribery oath should not be administered to any elector. Indeed, it was admitted that to have insisted on the administering of that oath would have been fatal to the interest of the candidate so insisting. Having thus stated the reasons why, in his opinion, the borough of Stafford was no longer fit to be intrusted with the duty of returning Members to Parliament, he would now proceed to state the reasons why he moved that the writ should not be issued now. He understood that some gentlemen were inclined to argue, that though it might have been proper to have moved the disfranchisement of the borough in the Parliament which had discovered its misconduct, it was not incumbent upon the House to renew that Motion in a Parliament assembled after the dissolution of the former one. But the admission of such a principle would be destructive of all purity of election, for hon. Gentlemen knew by what had occurred in that House and elsewhere, that it was possible to obstruct by legal chicanery any bill of disfranchisement, so as to render it impracticable to get it through any single Parliament; and if so, it was impossible to disfranchise any borough in which it was rendered necessary to prove corruption against every voter. There was a valuable precedent in favour of the course which he recommended in the proceedings taken by the House in the case of the borough of Liverpool. In that case it was proposed to suspend the writ, although the bribery which formed the ground for suspending it had taken place at an election for a burgess to serve in the preceding Parliament. On that occasion, the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire expressed himself to the following effect in support of the Motion for suspending the writ:—"I shall merely consider," said he, "the right of the House to suspend the issuing of a writ in a case in which since the suspension, there has been a dissolution of Parliament. On the question generally, I say that the House is not limited by any rule but that of its own discretion, and what in its opinion may best tend to promote the purity of election." After several discussions, the writ was issued to Liverpool, because a great measure was then pending for the improvement of the? representation, which would add the 10l. householders of Liverpool to the freemen as electors, and because it was thought, from the vast commercial importance of Liverpool, it was requisite that it should have two Members to represent it. That argument, however, would not apply to Stafford, for there was little business done in that town.—["Hear," from Captain Chetwynd.]—The gallant Officer cheered him, as if he intended to say that much business was done there. In the last Parliament, with the exception of the two hon. Representatives for Stafford, who were in duty bound to do their best for their constituents, and of the hon. Members for Staffordshire, who hovered over the town like its guardian angels, not a single Member rose to say a word against the disfranchisement of the borough of Stafford. Another precedent in favour of the measure which he now recommended was to be found in the case of Grampound, and in the debates on that occasion, he again found the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire an advocate for the course which he was now calling upon the House to pursue. Referring the House to the opinion then given by Mr. C. Wynn, he must observe, that he had now stated the grounds on which he intended to move the suspension of this writ. He made the Motion in no party spirit; he felt it to be essentially necessary to support the character of that House, and to maintain the purity of election: for when a case was discovered in which four-fifths of the electors were proved to be bribed, it behoved the House to make a serious example of it, as a warning to all the electors in the United Kingdom. He should hold this language in any case; but he felt it still more necessary to hold it in the case of a county town, where the inhabitants were likely to be intelligent and respectable. From what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet opposite, in a recent speech, in which he declared his intention not to defend but to remedy all proved abuses, he trusted that he should have his support to the Amendment with which he was about to conclude, and that was, that the issuing of a new Writ for the borough of Stafford be suspended until Monday, the 22nd of June.

said, that he had listened with attention and surprise to the arguments which had been advanced in support of his Amendment by the hon. member for Exeter. He had listened with attention, because he wished to know what were the overwhelming facts, proofs, and arguments, by which he intended to justify his Motion for suspending the issuing of this writ. He had listened with surprise, because up to that moment he had always looked upon the hon. Member as a friend of liberal principles, who was anxious to give the people every opportunity to exercise their elective franchise. To him it appeared that the greater part of the arguments which the hon. Member had used to induce the House not to issue this writ, were valid arguments to prove the propriety of issuing it. If the borough of Stafford were now to be put upon its trial—if accusations were again to be brought against it (as no doubt they would be, as the hon. Member had given notice of a Motion for one day this week), it became peculiarly necessary that it should have every advantage, and that every indulgence should be shown to it, that it might be in a situation to defend itself. Its character was assailed, its best interests attacked, and it was entitled, in mere justice, to the services of both its Representatives, and not to be obliged to rely upon the advocacy of the humble individual now addressing the House. Ought it to be said, that the House of Commons, taking advantage of the absence of one of the Members for Stafford, and of the inability of the other, had passed a Bill to deprive the borough of its franchise? What would the hon. Member himself say, if he had a suit at law, and the judge, arbitrarily deprived him of the assistance, of his leading counsel. Would not petitions from all parts of the country be presented to that House on the subject? Would not complaints reach them from every part of the kingdom. He maintained that the peculiar circumstances under which the borough of Stafford was then placed, rendered it more than ordinarily necessary that it should have the advantage of being represented by two Members in that House. He further maintained, that when the subject was under the consideration of the House in the last Session of Parliament, he completely refuted by argument, and expressed his readiness, if necessary, to refute on oath, the whole of the charges of bribery and corruption which were alleged against the borough, and upon which the measure of disfranchisement then under the consideration of Parliament was founded. The hon. Gentleman by whom the present Motion was brought forward stated that his object was to reform the borough of Stafford, and to introduce purity and morality into its elections. If that were really the case, why not give to the electors a fair trial? Why not afford them every assistance they could require in meeting the allegations referred against them in a fair, just and constitutional manner? Why, above all, when such grave and serious charges were hanging over their heads, should the hon. Gentleman seek to deprive them of one of their Representatives? The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Exeter, said he was aware that a general election had taken place since the allegations were preferred upon which the measures of last year were founded. Upon what ground, then, did the hon. Gentleman rest the present Motion? Of the 466 electors and burgesses who did him (Captain Chetwynd) the honour of voting for him at the last election, he would undertake to say, that not one had been influenced, directly or indirectly, by the reception or anticipation of the slightest reward, gift, remuneration, compensation, or advantage of any kind whatever. He was ready to prove that upon oath. He would go further, and state that, calculating upon the chance or probability of there being another election for the borough, many of the highest and most influential persons resident in it had formed themselves into a Committee to support any candidate who should come forward upon liberal, just, and constitutional principles, and to prevent anything like bribery or corruption. So great, already, had been the power acquired by that Committee, in consequence of its reasoning and good sense, that he was quite confident, if the writ were allowed to issue, whoever had the good fortune to be returned for Stafford, would be returned as purely, as honestly, and as constitutionally, as any Member in the House. As reformation had commenced, and as reformation was going on, he asked the House what more it could require? If at previous elections unconstitutional practices had existed, what more could the House require than that they should be abandoned? If the borough had been corrupt, what more could be required than that it should become pure? He repeated that no unconstitutional means were resorted to at the last election, nor would any be resorted to at the next, if the writ which had now been moved were allowed to issue. As to what the hon. Member for Exeter had said about the 5s. and 10s. tickets, he (Captain Chetwynd) thought, as he remembered hearing the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire state upon a somewhat similar subject some time ago, that after an assertion had once been fairly refuted, it ought not to be brought forward again. When this subject was last under the consideration of the House, he had distinctly shown that there was no foundation for the allegation about the tickets. The hon. Member for Exeter, therefore, was not justified in the observations he had made upon that point. With regard to the case of Liverpool, to which the hon. Member had referred, he confessed he could not see any analogy between it and the case of Stafford. There was no petition against the return for Stafford—no application to suspend the writ—no allegation of any unconstitutional proceeding; on the contrary, he was prepared to prove on oath that the greatest reformation had taken place in the borough, and that every illegal and unconstitutional practice had been completely eradicated from it. There was no analogy, therefore, between the cases of Liverpool and Stafford. At the present moment he was not prepared to go at any greater length into the subject; but should the Bill of which the hon. Member had given notice, for the disfranchisement of the borough, go to a second reading, he should then feel it his duty to enter into the whole of the circumstances of the case. On the present occasion he would only add, that he trusted, in fairness and justice, the House would allow the writ to issue, and thus extend to him the advantage of a colleague in the representation of the borough, to advise and assist in a case of so much difficulty.

said, that if, as the hon. Gentleman had asserted, there really was no bribery at the last election for the borough, he (Mr. Cobbett) should be very ready to overlook the abominations of the past, and to expect better things for the future; but it was universally believed in Stafford and in all that part of the county that, with the exception of the thirty-three men who voted for Sir Charles Wolsely at the last election, all the electors were bribed. He was afraid that the borough was not quite so pure as the hon. Gentleman had been led to suppose; nay, he was afraid that the great body of the electors—of course without the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman—were most shamefully bribed at the last election.

having in the last Session of Parliament brought in a Bill to disfranchise the borough of Stafford, begged to state why it happened that, not having changed his opinion upon the subject, he was not the person to introduce a similar measure in the present Session. Being at the commencement of the year connected with the Administration, he thought it was not fair or proper towards the borough that a Bill of that nature—a Bill of a judicial nature—a Bill in fact of pains and penalties—should be brought in with any of the influence of Government supposed to be attached to it. Under the influence of that feeling, he declined to bring it forward again, and communicated to the hon. Member for Exeter who took a great interest in the Question, that such would be his course. In consequence, the hon. Member for Newport took the matter up: and as that hon. Gentleman had now transferred it to the hon. Member for Exeter, he presumed that he had done so on precisely the same grounds as those which had influenced him (Sir Thomas Fremantle), the hon. Member for Newport, being now connected with the Government. He hoped the House would believe that his sentiments upon the subject remained wholly unchanged; and unless the defenders of Stafford could bring forward in the present Session some stronger evidence than they had ever produced before, he should certainly give his support to the Bill, which, but for the circumstance he had stated, he should himself have been the party to bring forward. He would next, beg leave to say a word or two upon the Question before the House for the suspension of the writ. If any vacancy had occurred in the last Session of Parliament, he should certainly have felt it to be his duty to move for the suspension of the writ. The only question to his mind therefore was, whether the fact of the intervening dissolution of Parliament had so changed the circumstances of the case, as to make it proper that the writ should issue. He confessed it was a point which weighed very considerably upon his mind; and if there were no precedents in which boroughs had been so dealt with after a dissolution of Parliament, he was ready to admit that he should feel himself placed in a situation of very considerable difficulty. But when he had so obvious a case before him as the borough of Grampound, which was disfranchised while it had two Members sitting in the House, without any petition having been presented against their return, and when the House also undertook proceedings against Liverpool in the last Session of Parliament under similar circumstances, he confessed that all difficulty was removed from his mind, and no doubt left as to the course most proper to be pursued. In what position did they stand with respect to the borough of Stafford? Were they on one and the same day ready to vote for the disfranchising measure of which the hon. Member for Exeter had now the management, and at the same time to vote in favour of the issuing of a new writ? In similar cases he thought the House had uniformly refused to issue the writ; and indeed when it was known to be the in- tention of the House to proceed with a Bill of such a description as that introduced in the last Session of Parliament, he thought it would be very strange and very inconsistent, if the Writ were not suspended. One word in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Stafford—that hon. Gentleman had told the House, that when the subject was last year under the consideration of Parliament, he had completely refuted all the charges alleged against the borough. He did not think that the hon. Gentleman went quite that length. He confessed, however, that he had derived great satisfaction from the statement, that the hon. Gentleman had made that evening, namely, that at the last election, the greatest purity had prevailed. He was glad to hear that; for, although it had falsified his own prediction—that Stafford never would and never could be pure—still he was glad to find he was mistaken, and he was also glad of it, because he knew it must have spared the hon. Gentleman a great deal of money. But when he found that the hon. Gentleman's imagination ran away with him so far as to lead him to tell the House, that he had completely refuted the whole of the charges alleged against the Borough last year, he must be excused for saying that he was afraid it must also have run away with him when he spoke of the purity of the last election. The hon. Baronet concluded by stating that he should support the Motion for the Suspension of the Writ.

maintained that the whole of the evidence given in the case of the borough of Stafford ought to be looked at with the greatest caution. In his opinion, the House was not in possession of sufficient information to justify the suspension of the writ. He would undertake to say, that no bribery or corruption had been committed on the part of the two sitting Members.

took the same view as the hon. Member who had just spoken, and thought it would be an uncalled-for stretch of power to suspend the writ. He would agree to an address directing the Attorney General to proceed against any person who should be proved to have been guilty of bribery; but he was not prepared to go the length of disfranchising the borough.

observed, that he had voted on a former occasion in favour of a resolution which declared that notorious corruption existed in Stafford. He had also voted in a majority, he thought, of 88 to 11 in favour of the disfranchisement. He had voted also in favour of a resolution, declaring that notorious and general corruption had been proved. The House of Commons, in the course of the last Session, passed a Bill to disfranchise the borough, and sent it up to the House of Lords. Supposing no dissolution had taken place, he apprehended there would have been no doubt but that the House would in the present Session have originated a measure similar to that negatived in the House of Lords last year. The question was this. Did the recurrence of an election make such a difference as that the House ought not to adopt any further proceedings? He confessed he could see nothing in the circumstance of a general election having since transpired that should prevent the House from interposing in the case of this borough in the manner proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Divett), who moved the Amendment. He thought it would be perfectly competent to the House to proceed in the manner that had been suggested to it, more especially as the suspension of the writ would not at all conclude the question of disfranchisement. It would be perfectly open to the House, if it thought fit, to appoint a Committee for the purpose of considering, whether or not at the last election the practice had been so pure, or whether there was such evidence of reformation in the borough as to insure purity of election for the future—that course would be open to the House, and would be perfectly consistent with the refusal of the writ. Indeed the refusal of the writ would enable the House to consider the matter much more fully, than if a writ were to issue, and besides it must be remembered that the issuing of a new writ would give a new vested interest; and after all that had taken place upon the subject, he thought it would not be right to give a new vested interest. Neither did he think it would be at all consistent with the opinion the House had expressed with respect to the disfranchisement of the borough, that it should now be intrusted with the power of returning another Member. He had naturally a strong desire that the capital of the county in which he resided should establish its claim to be intrusted with that power; but still, under all the circumstances, reserving to himself the right of voting as he should deem fit upon the question of disfranchisement when it should again come before the House, he should on the present occasion vote with the hon. Member for Exeter, for the Suspension of the writ.

after referring to the proposed plan for amalgamating the civil and military departments of the Ordnance, begged to ask the right. hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) whether he was prepared either to agree to the appointment of a Committee of that House to inquire into the subject, or to renew the former Commission, or to appoint a new one, with the view of ascertaining how far the object he had in view could be accomplished? He (Mr. Hume) should not be satisfied to go on with the Ordnance Estimates, unless he received some assurance that measures would be taken to prosecute the inquiries which had already been commenced upon the subject.

replied that it was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers, without delay, to renew the Commission appointed under the Government of Lord Grey.

begged again to revert to a subject to which he had alluded a few nights ago. A short time before the recess he saw a statement, that a considerable sum of money, upwards of thirty thousand pounds, had been advanced in part payment of a sum of 270,000l. agreed to be advanced by the Government to the Thames Tunnel Company, and it was said at the time that the Government were entitled by Act of Parliament to make that advance. Now, considering the 270,000l. so agreed to be advanced, to be in some jeopardy, the question he wished to put was this, whether the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had any objection to lay before the House all the information which Government had received encouraging it to make the advance, and also what security was proposed to be given for the repayment of it.

replied, that the advance had been made upon the strength of certain representations which were last year laid before the Board of Works. All who had read the Act of Parliament, were aware that the money was advanced on security of the whole of the property of the Company. There would be no objection or difficulty to produce the documents to which the hon. Gentleman had referred.

was afraid that the security was no other than that of a losing concern.

did not mean to detain the House by entering into any details with respect to the vote which he meant to propose. Such a course, under existing circumstances was wholly unnecessary, and, as a Select Committee had been appointed and were now sitting, for the purpose of inquiring into every matter connected with the expense of keeping up the British Museum, that was an additional reason why he should not detain them by unnecessary statements on the present occasion. The House, however, would hear with satisfaction, he had no doubt, that the public advantage derived from this institution was on the increase, and this would be apparent from a comparison of the two last years. In 1833, the number of visitors was 210,000, and in 1834, 237,000. The readers were in the former year 58,800, and in the latter 70,266, while the students in sculpture, during the interval he had mentioned, had increased from 4,490 to 5,645. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving that a sum not less than 17,796l. be granted to his Majesty for defraying the expense of the British Museum.

did not mean to object to the vote, but he thought the public institutions of this country should be more accessible to visitors than they were. In this respect this country was behind the nations of the Continent, and for his part he would not only extend the days, but the hours, during which the British Museum was kept open for the reception of the public.

could not consistently with justice to his constituents, who derived no benefit from this institution, concur in this vote.

assured the House that it was impossible to estimate the progress which had been made by the industry of foreign nations, in consequence of the manner in which works of art were exhibited. He could not look without satisfaction upon those cheap works of art which were now made accessible to the people, so that copies of some of the most exquisite busts of Canova, and other foreign artists, could now be obtained for a few pence. He augured much good from an attention to that matter, and earnestly trusted that means would be found to make everything connected with the art belonging to the nation accessible to the public, and that everything would be done which was likely to refine the public taste, or augment the knowledge of the lower classes. He must confess that he regretted the hours at which the British Museum was open were precisely those in which many workmen could not attend. He should rejoice if means could be found (and he hoped they would be found) of inducing hundreds and thousands to study those works of art, from which he was convinced great improvement would follow to the manufactures of the country. He could have said more, but his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool intended to call the attention of the House to that subject particularly; he (Dr. Bowring) watched with great interest the cause of science in this country, because, though great industry and activity, and mechanical perfection, had given great Britain a superiority over other nations, yet other nations had their superiorities too, which were principally to be traced to the great attention that had been paid in them to the accessibleness of works of art, and to the fact that if there were anything beautiful or good it could be visited without the payment of a fee; while in this country a very great proportion of the works of art, though they belonged to the nation could not be reached by the people in consequence of the sum demanded as a fee; the facilities which had been given in the British Museum had done much, and he (Dr. Bowring) hoped those facilities would be greatly increased.

said, that in rising to bring forward the Ordnance Estimates it was not his intention to trespass at any length on the attention of the House. These Estimates had, as they all knew, been drawn out under peculiar circumstances. They had been prepared by the late Government, and it had been his duty since his accession to office to investigate them thoroughly. He had carefully gone through the various items contained in them, and the conclusion to which he had come was, that they had been drawn up with equal regard to the safety of the country and to the principles of economy. He was perfectly satisfied that in the preparation of these Estimates both these important considerations had been duly attended to, and in his opinion, therefore, the Estimates were such as the House ought to agree to. Since last year no material alteration had taken place in the Estimates connected with this department of the public service, and, consequently, no very great saving in the amount formerly voted had been effected in the present Estimates. The sum saved appeared small, but, under all the circumstances, and leaving out of the question a number of considerations—leaving out of the question, as they must do, the military establishment of the Ordnance—he must say that the expenditure had been reduced as much as possible, as much as, under existing circumstances, it could be with propriety and a due regard to the safety of the country. During the period Sir James Kemp was at the head of the Ordnance, from 1830 to 1834, upwards of six hundred offices connected with the civil department were abolished, and by that means a saving of 46,642l. 2s. 7d. was effected to the public. In the course of the same interval a reduction of 8,402l. was made in the salaries of officers, and, besides these, other savings were effected which, in the whole, amounted to as much as 59,000l. The business of the dépôt in Tooley-street had been transferred to the Tower and Pall Mall, and the vote which he meant to propose for defraying the expenses of the establishments at the Tower, Pall Mall, and Dublin, was only 72,193l. Besides the transfer of the dépôt in Tooley-street, other changes had taken place in the Ordnance department. In June last the Commissariat had been transferred to it by the Treasury, and of course the business of the Commissariat was now performed by the Ordnance. The Commissariat Estimate for the present year was 161,083l.; but to this a large sum was to be added for bread and meat for the Government barracks. It might be thought perhaps, that by these changes great additional ex- pense would be incurred in providing for the management of this extensive department; but that was not the case. The additional expense did not exceed 964l, so that, in fact, the management was effected at the rate of about 7s. 10d. per cent. This, he was sure, could be considered extravagant by no one; for since last year a new arrangement had taken place respecting the establishment in the Australian colonies, which had previously been under the management of the Commissariat. Of course this arrangement was a cause of increasing the expense.—Since the last Estimates were brought before the House a statute had passed for regulating the affairs of the East-India Company. In consequence of that Act the Government of the Island of St. Helena had been transferred from the East-India Company to the Crown; and an Ordnance establishment had, of course, been sent out there. This last circumstance occasioned a further alteration in the estimates of the present year as compared with those of the past; but the removal of the great dépôt in Tooley-street would perhaps more than compensate for any seeming difference between the Estimates of the two years. The House would at once see that the saving was not present but prospective; and that, although the expenditure at the present time swelled the Estimate, a diminution must ultimately result to the public from the arrangements which had been made. In the course of six weeks or two months the whole of the establishment in Tooley-street would be removed to the Tower, and that would occasion a reduction in the expenditure. With regard to the barrack regulations which it would be his duty to bring under the consideration of the House, he must say that everything that was proper had been done to keep up those establishments in Great Britain, Ireland, and the Colonies, with as little expense as possible. But he must, at the same time, state that the Government had it in contemplation, before the next Session, to effect some alteration in those regulations, with a view to still further reducing the cost of the management of barrack establishments.—He trusted that this would be done before the Estimates of the next year were brought forward, and that an additional saving would be thereby effected. On the Estimates of this year, as compared to those of the last year, there was a diminu- tion of 4,640l.; but the real difference between them must be considered with reference to the transfer of the Commissariat to the Ordnance. Last year no sum was taken in the Ordnance Estimates for the Commissariat, but the sum then voted for that service amounted to 134,785l. The sum intended to be taken now was 161,083l. The difference, however, (26,298l.) was occasioned by the expense of forage; but, in considering the two Estimates, these items really should not be taken into account. The charge for forage was 26,298l., and to this was to be added 1,656l., the day saved by the leap year, and the salary of the Treasury of the Ordnance, which would give a further reduction of 1,000l. and these deductions, therefore, would, taken together, make an actual difference between the present and the last estimates of 32,594l. It was necessary that he should state, previous to moving the first vote, that an alteration had taken place with regard to the establishments in Tooley-street and the Tower. It had been the intention of the Government of Earl Grey to abolish the office of Treasurer of the Ordnance. That office had been considered unnecessary, and Lord Grey's Government had determined to do away with it. The late Government, however, had filled it up, and included the salary in their estimates; but his Majesty's present Ministers on coming into office, made up their minds to carry the intention of Lord Grey's Government into effect. The situation was therefore held for the present by his right hon. Friend, the Member for Dundee, without salary, until it could be placed on a different footing, and therefore the first vote which he would have the honour to propose would be 1,000l. less than the sum in the printed estimate. The hon. and gallant Officer concluded by moving that a sum not less than 7,193l. be granted to his Majesty for defraying the expense of the Master General of the Ordnance, and the officers and clerks employed at the Tower, Pall-mall, and Dublin for the ensuing year.

said, it would greatly facilitate business if the pay-offices of the army, the navy, and the Ordnance were consolidated, and expressed his hope that a Bill to that effect would be brought in during the present Session.

observed, that these sums were necessary to keep the system going; to grease, as it were, the wheels of the system, by giving money to idlers; and to effect this properly it was necessary, that they should go from one estimate to another, to confuse accounts already sufficiently difficult.

said, that from the manner in which the Estimates were made out, it was very difficult to ascertain the cost of any particular Government.

said, that when he was in office it had been found that the expense incurred by removing the stores, had been larger than estimated by a sum approaching 4,000l. and as the Treasury could not take sums appropriated by Parliament to other purposes, it was determined to bring the required sum, before the House in the Estimates for the current year.

said, that in a department like the Ordnance, among the multiplicity of stores, it was found that it would be impossible to obtain some of them so cheap and good as those already on hand. When the House, however, had intimated a desire that the superfluous stores should be removed and sold off as fast as possible, consistently with the interests of the public, that desire had been followed up by the Board, though he was sorry to say, a large quantity still remained.

called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to that department. If they took a walk to Hyde Park, they would see there a Magazine, kept up at an expence of 254l. for the salary of the superintendents. A guard of twenty-four men, was kept to take care of a few barrels of gunpowder. He wished to see the hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer go over the items of this Estimate, amounting in all to 14,881l. He must say, he saw no reason to continue many of the expenses of this department; it was a very different thing when the country was in danger of an invasion; but now God knew the country had no apprehension of that kind, and the only invasion it had to fear was of the pocket. Other nations had enough to do to take care of themselves without troubling England. All those establishments which had been raised in war, ought now to be put down.

said with regard to some of those departments he agreed with the hon. Member. To show that the Board had every inclination to reduce, whenever it could be done consistently with the public interests; he would mention that since the estimates were prepared, the storekeeper at Fort William having died, the office was immediately abolished, it being thought that the duties could be performed as well by the Barrack master. The Establishment too at Pendennis was thought unnecessary, and had been abolished by which a saving of 460l. was effected every year. He merely stated these facts to show the inclination that existed on the part of Government to keep up no establishment which was not absolutely necessary.

said, he saw no "must" in the case, he saw no reason why the country should keep up servants when it did not want them, any more than private gentlemen. There was the Superannuation List. Now, the noble Lord (Lord Howick) had observed last night, that he (Mr. Cobbett) looked upon the New Poor Law Bill as a "favourite subject of declamation." Well, if he must say so; it was a favourite subject of declamation, sure enough. It was tyranny; it was oppression; it was injustice. But it was impossible to think of the Superannuation List without thinking of the New Poor-law Bill. Why, when it was passed, they were told that to make "a provision for the aged and infirm poor," would teach them to be improvident in their youth; to be economical in their better days, there ought to be no provision for them, and then they would save up, and be independent in their old age. Now, why could they not apply that doctrine to the Gentlemen of the Ordnance? There was this difference, he confessed between them, the poor could not save any thing but health to labour, and often they had not a sufficiency of that; but those Gentlemen of the Ordnance had from 1,000l. to 1,500l. per annum, and why was there provision for them, then? But the Reformed Parliament first voted that the poorer classes ought to be compelled to "save" for their old age, and then, in the next breath, voted what was called "superannuation allowances" to those persons who had in the public service, been able to save, and had not saved. It might call itself a "Reformed Parliament," but the people would call it what he (Mr. Cobbett) would not take the liberty of calling it.

said, that was the most extraordinary vote in the whole estimate: he saw fortifications erected in Halifax, Prince Edward's Island, Canada, &c, now, what were all these for? There was a citadel in Lower Canada: what was that for? They would lose those countries in time, and lose their money with them. They were forcing the people of England to pay for expenses which were absolutely useless. They were not going to war, he hoped, and they should not incur all those enormous expenses by preparations for war. It was nothing more than to afford a pretence for sending out persons who might enjoy large salaries as superintendents,—an exceedingly convenient mode of getting rid of idle people! He hoped the Member for Middlesex would find means to restrain those expenses.

said, the Duke of Wellington had sent a commission to Canada for the purpose of ascertaining the practicability of erecting the forts; and all which had since been done by the present Ministry, for the purpose of finishing those forts which had been begun.

believed all these expenses sprung from a desire to squander away the public money; and he believed that the people of Canada and the people of England would stand it no longer. It seemed when an expense was begun, it must go on—Parliament had sanctioned it. Why, Parliament had never sanctioned this outlay, he never had, at least. The sanction of Parliament at one time was no warrant for continuing a wrong.

said, upwards of two millions had been thrown away in that way in the wilds of America. The fortifications would cost 220,000l. more, 50,000l. had been expended already, and the remaining expenditure of 170,000l. he was sure, might be altogether prevented.

admitted that that was a very difficult question. He could say that no works, not necessary, would be erected. He did not express an opinion upon the subject; he was informed on it, that only such works had been begun as military men of competent acquirements had recommended. It must be a question with respect to some of the works which they recommended, whether there was an absolute necessity for them; but the House must rely on the judgment of the military men who had been consulted.

said, that if the works were continued, they would be perfectly useless; the way to preserve Upper Canada was to govern it well, and if they governed them by their hearts, their hands would be quite strong enough to keep off the Americans. There was something very suspicious in that system of fortifying; he was not quite sure that they would not, one day, be turned against the inhabitants themselves.

said, it was the opinion of an eminent military gentleman, that the forts would materially strengthen the country.

said, that was not the question; the question was, whether the country was strong enough without them; and he hoped that in the liberal spirit of the Government, they would have a much stronger fortification than could be made of bricks and stone, and brass and iron.