presented a petition from Lieutenant Parrott, of the royal navy, complaining of great cruelly and oppression practised towards him by the Board of Admiralty. He had taken pains for the last two years to make himself fully acquainted with the case of the petitioner, and the more he had inquired into it the more he felt convinced of the hardship and injustice with which this offence had been treated. When this case was brought before the House in the last Session of Parliament, the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham), who was then at the head of the Admiralty, offered to give Lieutenant Parrott 700l., the arrears of pension due to him to the year 1825, provided he would relinquish all claim to be restored to his rank in the navy; but this brave man, who had served in twenty three naval engagements, who lost an arm in the service of his country, and who has at this moment two bullets lodged in his body, indignantly refused any compromise that would stigmatise him as a dishonoured man, and, although he was in a state of the deepest distress at the time, declined accepting of a sum that under his circumstances must have been to him a fortune, because the offer was attended with a demand to relinquish his claim to rank as a British Officer. A gallant Admiral (Admiral Adam) had on a former occasion, when the case of this Officer was before the House, called it a trumpery case. [Admiral Adam never used the word "trumpery" on that occasion.] He was bound to admit the denial of the gallant Admiral, and that his own memory must have failed him. But at all events the gallant Admiral had said, that it was not a case worthy of attention. Now, if the case of an honourable man, an Officer of the navy, against whom no guilt had been proved, and who had been deprived of his rank and pay for no crime, was not worthy of attention, he did not know what case was. The fact was, that Lieutenant Parrott felt that he was the victim of a prejudice entertained against him by certain persons at the Admiralty; but he was of opinion that the Admiralty had enough of odium to sustain without the additional burthen of doing an injustice to a gallant and meritorious-Officer. All that he now asked on the part of Lieutenant Parrott was, that the 700l. arrears of pension, which the late First Lord of the Admiralty offered, should be given to this Officer without the accompanying condition that he should relinquish all claim to be reinstated in his rank in the navy. He hoped the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty, whom he saw in his place, would accede to this proposal; but if he should not be disposed to do so, he (Mr. Thomas Attwood) would consider what further step he should take—to move for a Committee, or by some other mode to procure redress for an injured man. It had been said, that Lieutenant Parrott was removed from the service for some crime of which he had been convicted; but the falsehood of the charge was afterwards made manifest, and the Judges quashed the conviction, and was it not, therefore, cruel to punish a man for a crime of which, properly speaking, he had been acquitted? The hon. Member brought up the petition, and moved that it be printed.

said, that the hon. Member had not, in the statement he had made to the House, added one single new fact to those which he had stated when he brought the same case before the House in the last Session, or anything that could shake in the slightest degree what was said on that occasion by the right hon. Baronet who was then at the head of the Admiralty. He was not disposed to go into all the particulars of the case, as he did not think that the presentation of a petition was the most fitting occasion to discuss such a subject. He would, however, say that there was not the least ground for the charge of prejudice which the petitioner had made against certain Gentlemen, by name connected with the Admiralty, or of his case having at all suffered through their means, and it was perfectly unwarrantable to make such an assertion. With respect to the offer which the hon. Member represented to have been made by the late First Lord of the Admiralty, of 700l. to the petitioner, he (Mr. Labouchere) knew nothing whatever of it; but this he knew, that the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington), who took an interest at that time in the case, said afterwards, that from the statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, he was convinced that Mr. Parrott was an unworthy and undeserving person. He should like, therefore, very much to hear from that hon. and learned Gentleman what he knew of this offer of 700l. The facts of this case must surely be now perfectly understood after the many discussions it had undergone. This individual had been tried by Court-martial, and dismissed the service for disgraceful conduct, but he was afterwards restored as an act of favour by the Board of Admiralty, but when he was again guilty of the scandalous conduct of extorting money from poor seamen, under the pretence that he could give them a protection against impressment, the Admiralty justly considered him as no longer worthy to belong to the navy. He had also obtained his pension originally under false pretences, and if dealt with as he deserved, he would have it taken from him, but there was a reluctance to deprive him of it, as he was in great distress. He obtained the pension by a representation that he had lost his arm in the King's service while practising with one of the great guns on board his ship at Portsmouth harbour, when the fact was, that he lost it by the bursting of a fowling-piece while he was amusing himself by firing at sea gulls. Even this falsehood would have been enough to warrant his dismissal, if there had been nothing else.

said, that what he had stated on the former discussion of this case in the last Session was, that he hoped the Admiralty would not disgrace itself by entertaining a case like this, and he hoped so still. The Board of Admiralty had the right to strike out of the list of the navy any Officer who disgraced himself, which he considered the petitioner had done.

protested against the power of the Board of Admiralty to scratch any man's name out of the Navy List without some inquiry, by Court-martial or otherwise, into his conduct. No other class of his Majesty's subjects were liable to such arbitrary treatment. He knew nothing of the present case, but he knew several cases of great hardship, and had a number of petitions to present on the subject from suffering individuals, which he should bring forward when he moved for the papers of which he had given notice. In one instance a man had been dismissed the service for an offence alleged to be committed by him eleven years before, without the slightest investigation, and he had been that very day told of an old officer, seventy years of age, now on his death-bed, and in a state of starvation, who declared that to this hour he did not know what he was dismissed for.

said, that it was many years ago since he first became acquainted with the case of Lieutenant Parrott. He had been convicted of extorting 10l. from a seaman, under the pretence of giving him a protection against impressment, and although the conviction was afterwards set aside, there was not the slightest moral doubt of his guilt. The gallant Admiral who spoke last was mistaken in supposing that any officer was dismissed without inquiry. He could assure the gallant Admiral that the most strict investigation took place into every case, and every opportunity was given to the accused party to explain or justify his conduct, and it was not until he had been clearly proved to have acted disgracefully as an Officer and man of honour that he was dismissed. The power of dismissal by the Board of Admiralty was absolutely necessary for the good of the service, but, at the same time, if any improper dismissals took place, he should not be opposed to an inquiry into such cases. No case, however, had undergone more frequent and full investigation than that of Lieutenant Parrott, and none had ever been more impartially considered; and he had, therefore, hoped that it never would have been heard of more. In fact he had been treated with great lenity. The pension which he held originally was given to him by Greenwich Hospital while a midshipman, but on his promotion to the rank of Lieutenant, he of course, according to rule, lost the pension. When he was struck off the list of Lieutenants for extortion, he had no pension; but in the year 1825, as an act of indulgence, the Admiralty applied to the King in Council to continue, the pension, which he had since enjoyed. He (Sir George Clerk) could not, therefore, possibly see what arrears could be due to the petitioner.

said, that he it was who brought forward the case of the petitioner in 1825, and he was free to admit that Lieutenant Parrott had been removed from the service in consequence of the verdict had against him at Maidstone, on a charge of extortion. But soon after the conviction one of the prosecuting parties died, and the other admitted that the charge had been fabricated, and, upon this, the Judges quashed the whole proceedings. After this, he contended that Lieutenant Parrott ought to have been restored to his rank in the service. It was on that occasion that the Government offered him the pension he now enjoys of 2s. 6d. a-day; and he (Mr. Hume) advised him to accept it as an instalment of his claims. He was disposed, therefore, to support any course of inquiry that would lead to justice in this case.

said, he did not think it possible that any man would have had the hardihood to bring this case forward again, after the facts that had been proved against the petitioner, by the documents brought forward by the late First Lord of the Admiralty. He considered the conduct of the petitioner to have been as bad as any that had ever come under the consideration of the House; and perhaps in the end, the friends of Mr. Parrott might do him more injury than service by bringing his case forward; for he now only held his pension as a matter of the most lenient indulgence.

moved that Mr. Dean being privileged by his attendance upon the House, be now discharged out of the custody of the Sheriff.

said, that Mr. Dean was clearly privileged, and as it also appeared that the officer had acted with perfect bona fides in the transaction, he thought the ends of justice and the rules and privileges of the House would be answered by consenting to the Motion.

addressing him said, that it was the opinion of the House that Mr. Alexander Dean was entitled to his privilege, and that he must therefore be discharged.

moved, in pursuance of notice, "That for the rest of the Session Orders of the Day should precede Notices." Last Session this Resolution had been adopted on the 9th of July; and at this time of the year it seemed necessary, as a number of public measures were upon the books, which ought not to be discussed and considered in so thin an attendance as was likely to take place after the notices of the night had been disposed of.

I quite agree with the noble Lord that it is desirable that some arrangement of the kind should be made; but I wish to ask what prospect the noble Lord can afford us of the termination of the Session. Suppose, as is alleged, that the Bill now before the other House should be rejected, it would be my business to submit to this House the propriety of a call of the House, in order to determine what measure should be adopted in such an event. It is certainly expedient to get the Bills through, and that the attendance should not be thinner than can be avoided, but this House is the Great Council of the nation, and ought to be ready to meet the emergency I have contemplated. I do not, therefore, agree to the proposal of the noble Lord, because I think the Session near its end.

As to the call of the House under such extraordinary circumstances, I apprehend that should they occur, the Resolution I wish the House now to adopt, could be set aside for the purpose.

I suggest that at this late period it would be as well for the House to adjourn for a month or six weeks, while the farce in another place is going on.

I am sure the hon. Member will feel in a moment the unfitness of such an observation.

Certainly, after what you, Mr. Speaker, have said, I feel that it would have been better not to have made the observation; but I should not have discovered its impropriety—I hope I may be permitted to finish my sentence—I should not have discovered its impropriety seeing what has been allowed to be said in another place regarding this House.

Perhaps I may be allowed to say with reference to the observation of the hon. Member for Bath, that it is my own opinion—my most decided opinion—whatever Gentlemen may hear or see in the public prints of what passes in another place, that the best way to preserve the dignity of this House of Parliament, and parliamentary proceedings, is not to take any notice of anything that may be said, offensive or derogatory. Of course we cannot know what takes place elsewhere; but as far as this House is concerned, I hope we shall take care not to expose ourselves to any censure.

moved the appointment of the Committee on the conduct of General Darling, and read the names of the Members whom he wished to serve upon it.

Sir, I now rise to make the Motion of which I have given notice; viz. "That it be an instruction to the Committee appointed to inquire into the conduct of General Darling, that they do not extend their inquiries into the proceedings and finding of the Court-martial who sat on Captain Robison" which I shall do without entering at all into the merits of the general question, lately decided. Sir I think that there should be very grave circumstances in the case, to induce this House to take cognizance of the proceedings of such a tribunal; and I do not think, that were it convinced of the existence of such circumstances in this case, it would proceed in the manner proposed by the hon. Member, viz. the appointment of a Select Committee; but that it would rather proceed by asking for the Minutes of a Court-martial, and then addressing his Majesty to take such steps as might be necessary in case of injustice, partiality, or illegality of sentence. Sir, there can be no doubt that under that kind of superintendence, and supervision, which this House ought to exercise, there might arise cases which would require such a proceeding as I have hinted at; but I can hardly believe it possible, that any case whatever should induce this House to say, "We think the proceedings before this Court-martial were not justifiable, that the conduct of the officers composing it, were not according to Military law, and therefore, we will appoint a Committee of our own number to whom these proceedings shall be referred, and before whom this case shall be tried over again." Sir, I think, that were we to adopt such a course as that, there is no proceeding before a Jury between man and man, that there is no decision of any tribunal in this country, which might not on the same principle be referred to a Select Committee, and be made the subject of appeal, thus forcing the parties implicated to a fresh hearing, and a new trial. But Sir, with respect to the Question itself,—supposing the House should think it right to have a revision in certain cases of a trial before a Court-martial—I will ask whether this be such a case. I think almost the only cases,—there may be others,—but I think the only cases in which this House should call for the proceedings of a Court-martial, are those of gross corruption, or of some very gross violation of the law. Sir, with regard to any gross corruption or any undue motives in the members of this Court-martial, I must beg the attention of the House to the appeal of Captain Robison, himself, addressed to a Member of this House. He says, "I believe the Court was far from unanimous in their finding against me, but still I do not offer a word to the prejudice of the majo- rity that convicted me, I acquit them of all dishonourable motives, I impute to them only that human infirmity common to all men in similar circumstances." I submit, therefore, that there is no evidence of any dishonourable motives, or criminal conduct which would require the interference of a Committee of this House or of the House itself. On the contrary, if there were wrong at all it is, as Captain Robinson himself says, a question of "mere human infirmity," and there is no tribunal so immaculate that its decisions are not at times erroneous; but it would be a dangerous doctrine, to say, that because this House finds the decision of a Jury somewhat erroneous, that therefore the cause is to be tried over again at its Bar? Well then, Sir, I next ask, was this tribunal so utterly ignorant of law, or so misled by those who had to instruct it, that its verdict should be altogether set aside? With respect to this question, it must be recollected that this case has undergone investigation before. When an account of the proceedings were first brought home, it received, of course, that examination which the proceedings of all Court-martials do, by the Judge-Advocate-General, and by the Commander-in-Chief, and in consequence of their advice, it received that approbation from his Majesty which all Court-martials must have, to be confirmed. But in the next place it was brought regularly before this House, and at that time the question was most elaborately and ably argued by my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, (Dr. Lushington) and the then Advocate-General, Sir Robert Grant, now Governor of Bombay. He had paid the very greatest attention to the case, and examined into all the grounds on which the Court martial proceeded. He said, that the charges of Captain Robison against the Court-Martial, though numerous, might be resolved into three heads, first objections to the Constitution of the Court; next to the proceedings; and, lastly, to the decision and the sentence. Now if I can prove, Sir, that the constitution of the Court was legal; that its proceedings were legal; that its proceedings were right—the conclusions to which it came must be assented to by the House; if not, then the Court-martial must and ought to, receive its censure. Now, Sir, the conclusion to which Sir Robert Grant came, after his examination and his arguments (which I should only injure if I attempted to improve or even to repeat them to the House)—the conclusions to which he came were, that the constitution of the Court was legal, that its proceedings were regular; that, consequently, its decision was right; and, I think, after such an opinion ably delivered and argued in this House by such an advocate as Sir Robert Grant, we cannot say, that there was any gross ignorance on the part of the Court-martial which should induce this House to go into such an extraordinary proceeding. Upon the arguments of Sir Robert Grant, then, Sir, and of the other hon. Gentlemen, who then spoke, the House came to the decision not to ask for the Minutes of the Court-martial, and by a considerable majority. Upon this Captain Robison took the course of writing a letter which he addressed to Lord Althorp, requesting him to look over the statement he had made, and see whether, in his opinion, he had not overturned the arguments and the statements of Sir Robert Grant and whether he had not come to an erroneous decision on it. Now, Sir, the answer of Lord Althorp (who it must be recollected must have been a totally disinterested judge, on the question, was contained in a letter, dated 25th of September 1833, which I will read to the House, addressed to Captain Robison. It was to the following effect, "When I heard the debate on the subject of your dismissal, the impression on my mind was, that it was a case of clearly established abuse. In reading the printed Report of the debate the impression on my mind remained the same. I then turned to your letter and gave it all my consideration; you say your object was, to answer Sir Robert Grant's speech? I have carefully considered it, and examined whether you have succeeded in effecting your object, I am sorry to be obliged to tell you that in my opinion, you have totally failed." Here then was the opinion of a person of great learning and experience upon these subjects, Sir Robert Grant, and this was the opinion of this question formed by Lord Althorp, who certainly had no interest on the subject, and would not be misled by any technical arguments from doing what, according to his own sound and substantial judgment, he would consider to be justice. But Captain Robison went before the Court of King's Bench; a publication which was considered libellous being brought there for trial, there the Judges had the opportunity of considering the whole of the proceedings of this Court-martial, and the Judge, who pronounced the judgment of the Court on Captain Robison, who went into all the proceedings and circumstances of the Court-martial—after referring to those circumstances, stated the judgment of the Court upon them especially finding Captain Robison guilty of his offence, and that Judge stated that he did not consider the constitution of the Court illegal; and he then stated, with regard to a certain circumstance on which a great argument of Captain Robison was always based, viz., the letter of Captain Sturt to Lieutenant Sweeney—"We do not think that any person of correct feelings, but would coincide with the opinion expressed by the Court-martial, viz. that there was great impropriety in referring to such a letter, and from such a quarter." Thus the opinion of the Court of King's Bench, (generally speaking agrees with the proceedings of the Court-martial). And I think, Sir,—after such an opinion, after the opinions I have stated, of Sir Robert Grant, of Lord Althorp, and of Mr. Justice Littledale, it can hardly be affirmed that this Court-martial departed from the general principles either of law, or of substantial justice in their proceedings. With regard to the fact of the letter itself; the propriety or the impropriety of writing such a letter is not the question involved in my Motion; it is certainly liable to another construction than that which is the most charitable; viz. that it was written to Lieutenant Sweeney to deter him from giving any opinion on the Court-martial against General Darling. But at all events that is not now the question which we have to consider. I think, Sir, that, with these opinions, stated in the House of Commons, and in the Court of King's Bench, upon this Court-martial, this House will be of opinion with me, that this is not a case in which they ought to take such extraordinary proceedings as to allow a Committee of this House to make themselves judges of the proceedings, the finding and the sentence—regular proceedings, a regular finding, and a regular sentence, of a regular tribunal. I do not know that I need trouble the House any further; I will not enter, as I before said, into the general case either of General Darling or of Captain Robison. What I wish to guard the House against is assuming an authority which is properly given to Court-martials of this country, without extraordinary necessity, and without any sufficient reason, so that any person who may be hereafter led into improper conduct which may expose him to a Court-martial, may be told that he may have the whole question re-opened before this House, by whom there will be a different finding, and a different sentence, not acknowledged by the tribunal which had formerly tried and condemned him. Sir, I think that to establish such a precedent would be to shake the discipline of the army, and not only to relax obedience but to make all officers on Court-martials afraid to do their duty, in certain cases, under the apprehension of their being re-tried before a Committee of this House. I now move Sir, "that it be an instruction to the Committee appointed to inquire into the conduct of General Darling, not to include in their inquiries nor to take cognizance of the proceedings, finding, or sentence of the Court-martial which sat on Captain Robison in the year 1828.

confessed that he was in an embarrassing situation, in consequence of the course adopted by the noble Lord that evening—a course which would preclude him from going into a mass of evidence most essential to the justification of a much-injured man, if it were adopted by the House. He thought that the Committee, if permitted to enter into that branch of evidence, would find that a case of a most terrific nature would be made out against General Darling, for his treatment of the two soldiers Sudds and Thompson. The noble Lord had asserted that this House ought not to be made a Court of Appeal from the decisions of Courts-Martial. Now, on the contrary, he would assert that, in the legitimate exercise of its functions, the House of Commons was a Court of Appeal from the decisions of such courts; and in making that assertion he was confirmed by the opinions which both the late and the present Speaker had delivered in that House in the year 1813. He had likewise consulted the Journals upon the subject, and he found that in the year 1744 the minutes of a dozen Courts-Martial had been laid on the Table; and that on revising them, the House had come to a decision, that in the case of Captain Norris the proceedings were unjust, arbitrary, cruel, and illegal. He had endeavoured to get at the proceedings of those Courts-Martial, but he found that they had been destroyed in the fire which recently consumed the House of Commons. The Court-Martial upon Captain Robison came within the category of gross ignorance or wilful misconduct, to which the noble Lord had adverted as a sufficient cause for the revision of the proceedings of a Court-Martial. The Members of that Court-Martial were deplorably ignorant of law, and they had been sadly misled by Captain Forbes, who acted as Deputy Judge-Advocate, and was a friend of Captain Sturt. He charged that Court-Martial with refusing to put to the witnesses certain legal questions which Captain Robison wished to ask them, and with violating the law in refusing to insert upon the minutes of the proceedings, the questions which they prevented that officer from putting to the witnesses. All the entry which they had made upon their minutes was, that the prisoner had put several questions to the witnesses, which the Court decided to be irrelevant, and had therefore refused to insert on the minutes. The prisoner was also entitled to know, at the commencement of the proceedings, who his prosecutor was. He asked that question. The Court refused to give him the information, and it was not till the close of the transaction that he learned that important fact from the evidence. The minutes of the Court-Martial were also taken every night by the Judge-Advocate to General Darling, who was enabled to shape his course accordingly for the proceedings of the next day. The Court-Martial too, instead of being continued from day to day, had been adjourned for several days. All this was a fit subject for inquiry in the Committee; for there must either have been gross ignorance or wilful misconduct on the part of the Court, and the existence of either one or the other was, according to the noble Lord, a fit cause for inquiring into its proceedings. The hon. Member went at great length into the examination of the evidence given by the different witnesses on that Court-Martial. He thought that this was a case in which the House was bound to inquire into the condition and character of the different witnesses examined on that occasion, but not into the proceedings of the Court-Martial itself. He ought to be allowed to prove that Captain Robison was a much-injured man, and that improper evidence, and also suborned evidence, was produced against him; and if upon the testimony given before the Committee on these points, the Committee should be induced to declare that there was nothing in the conduct of Captain Robison unbecoming an officer and gentleman, that would be a balm to that individual's wounded feelings, and would not interfere with the proceedings of the Court-Martial held upon him. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that after the word "inquiry" in the original motion, the words "or take cognizance of the proceedings" be left out, so that the amended motion would be to this effect—"that it be an instruction to the select Committee appointed to inquire into the conduct of General Darling, that they do not include in their inquiry the finding or sentence of the Court-Martial held on Captain Robison, at Sydney Barracks, in the year 1828."

said, it was perfectly ludicrous to exclude the finding and sentence of the Court-Martial, and to extend the inquiry to their proceedings, for they were the most material part of them. He felt bound to oppose the motion of his hon. and learned Friend, which was perfectly and wholly unprecedented, and he was prepared to show that the Court-Martial had committed no injustice in any one of the cases to which he had adverted. The reason why certain portions of the minutes of the Court-Martial were not produced was, that Captain Robison had put questions concerning parties not in Court. The questions had no relevance to the subject matter of inquiry, but referred entirely to third parties. The right hon. Gentleman then went through the proceedings of the Court-Martial, and defended Captain Sturt and Sweeny from the charges brought against them by Captain Robison. The subject had come before the Court of King's Bench, and it had declared there was no ground to impugn the verdict; he, therefore, contended that an inquiry should not be granted.

trusted that the House, by sanctioning the motion on this subject on a former evening, would not establish a dangerous precedent. He was not acquainted with General Darling until after the debate he had alluded to. In consequence of the part he (Mr. Twiss) had then taken, the gallant Officer had called upon him, and asked him to consent to serve on the Committee, should he be appointed a member of it. He took that opportunity of asking General Darling a question relative to a point stated in the former debate by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. And here he might be permitted to observe that he had made up his mind not to interfere farther in the matter, if the circumstances of the case had turned out to be as they were described by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He asked General Darling whether he had any cognizance of the letter sent to Lieutenant Sweeny. The gallant General denied, in the most solemn manner, that he had the slightest knowledge of such a letter having been sent, or even of the existence of it, until Captain Robison made his statement. He offered to make affidavit of this before a magistrate, and had one drawn up stating clearly the facts of the case, and took it to a magistrate, who refused to swear him to the truth of its contents in consequence of its being a voluntary affidavit. General Darling, however, had written a letter to him containing, as he thought, a complete answer to any allegation made against the gallant General on this point, and which was as satisfactory as any affidavit could be. In this letter he stated, that the letter of Captain Sturt to Lieutenant Sweeny was not only written without his authority or request, but that it was written and sent without his knowledge or privity, and that he was not aware, nor had he reason to suspect, that any such letter had been written until he had been informed of it by Captain Robison. Immediately he heard of this, he had written to Lieutenant Sweeny for an explanation, the nature of which the House was already acquainted with. If there should appear to be anything equivocal in his conduct in this or any other point, General Darling was not only willing but anxious to be examined before a Committee or any other tribunal, when he would give what he felt assured would be a satisfactory explanation and vindication of his conduct. He agreed in the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member, that they ought not to go into any investigation connected with the Court-Martial, unless they were to enter upon a full examination of the whole case.

thought that it would not be satisfactory either to the House or the country, if they did not enter upon an inquiry into the whole subject. It would even be a great injustice to General Darling if they did not do so after the vote the House had come to on a former occasion, and after the serious charges that had been brought against that gallant General. The Motion which his noble Friend the Secretary for the Home Department had that night proposed, went to rescind the vote which the House had come to the other night. He could not help saying that it required a degree of assurance on the part of any Minister, to come down with such a proposition. Why did not his noble Friend come down with his friends and supporters on the former night this subject was discussed, and oppose inquiry? It appeared that he had neglected to do so, and yet he came down now and asked the House to rescind the resolution they had come to on the subject. He (Lord Dudley Stuart) had not been present when his right hon. Friend the Judge Advocate addressed the House. His noble Friend the Secretary at War cheered him when he said that he had not heard the whole of the speech of the Judge Advocate; but he would tell his noble Friend that he had neglected his duty in not being present on the former occasion, when a question concerning the department over which he presided was under discussion. He contended that there were many instances where the House had instituted inquiry into the proceedings before Courts-Martial.

objected to opening the proceedings before the Court-Martial on Captain Robison, because it would tend to make the House a Court of Appeal from the decision of judicial tribunals. There might arise cases of an extraordinary nature, in which inquiry might be necessary; but this certainly was not such a case. He was satisfied that his hon. and learned Friend had not made out a case to justify the interference of the House in the proceedings of the Court-Martial.

said, that during the discussion sufficient credit had not been given to the character of General Darling. An hon. Member opposite said that a terrific case had been made out against General Darling; he therefore thought that officer should be allowed every testimony and every means of defending his own character. In 1829 that House had negatived a motion for copies of the minutes of the Court-Martial. It was not fair now to say that a case had been made out against General Darling, when the Court of King's Bench had decided so long ago that no case at all had been made out against him. The question of the Court-Martial had been brought before the King's Bench. They had the opinions of two Judge-Advocates, and of several Administrations, and of the highest tribunal in the country, as to the nature of General Darling's offence, and it was too bad that Captain Robison should urge it forward again. Upon those grounds alone he opposed the motion, although he knew that General Darling was most anxious that every part of his administration of the colony of New South Wales should be inquired into—that the whole of his conduct should be investigated, though he had testimonials from Government approving of his conduct, and sufficient to prove that he was totally incapable of being guilty of the charges brought against him.

said, it was difficult to know whether the hon. Member who last spoke would vote for the Motion or the Amendment. The question now was, whether the proceedings of the Court-Martial should be put out of the inquiry, or whether it should be limited, and only go to a certain extent, exclusive of the sentence. It appeared that the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Twiss) was of opinion, that the original Motion would shutout General Darling from an opportunity of vindicating himself; he therefore thought that they were entitled to the hon. and learned Member's vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Tralee. The blank affidavit that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport spoke of ought to have been made before the Court of King's-bench. He thought that the letter from Captain Sturt to Lieutenant Sweeney, was one of the worst features of General Darling's conduct. He hoped that the inquiry would not be limited, and that an opportunity would be given both to General Darling and Captain Sturt to vindicate their conduct before the Committee. He put it to the noble Lord whether he ought not to allow the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tralee to be carried, especially when it was seen that the friends of General Dar- ling were so anxious that that officer should have an opportunity of vindicating himself? It was only by a full inquiry that the question could be set at rest, and he hoped, for the sake of General Darling and Captain Robison, that the Amendment would be allowed to pass.

, in explanation, said, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had not fully understood him. What he (Mr. Maclean) said was that he knew General Darling to be exceedingly anxious for inquiry into his conduct; but at the same time he (Mr. Maclean) said that after what had fallen from hon. Members opposite, and after the repeated decisions on the subject, the granting of the inquiry would be an unconstitutional proceeding.

objected to the inquiry upon principle. No doubt that House might, in extreme cases, revise the proceedings of a Court-Martial, confining itself to the matter which had been before the Court-Martial; but to re-hear the case, and open it to new evidence, was without precedent, and would lead to infinite inconvenience. So far as the feelings of General Darling were concerned, he would be ill-treated, now that the inquiry was granted, if it were not allowed to be complete. He thought the Government would act a much more manly part if they moved to rescind the whole resolution, as they had first opposed it. It was hard upon an old and distinguished officer, who had administered the difficult government of a convict settlement, having retired many years, to be now dragged before the public under accusations which had been already the subject of frequent trials and inquiries, that had all terminated in his exculpation. As regarded the letter of Captain Sturt, it might have been improper in Captain Sturt to write it to Lieutenant Sweeny, but it was clearly more unjustifiable of Captain Robison to read it, and for neither was General Darling responsible, for it was proved that the letter was written wholly without his knowledge. He was surprised at the special pleading of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) on the deposition of General Darling's, which had just been read to the House. Surely no Gentleman in the House could hesitate to believe it as implicitly as if it had been sworn in a court of justice. He was quite a stranger to General Darling—had never seen him but once, and knowing many friends and con- nexions of Captain Robison's, he was really anxious, if possible, to serve him; but still he must act consistently with justice and principle.

could not think it consistent on the part of that House, to agree to a Resolution one day, and the next to rescind it. On this ground he should vote against Ministers on the present occasion.

moved the Order of the Day for the bringing up of the Report of the Irish Church Bill.

had several Amendments to move, but having discussed the principle of them before, and knowing that the Government would resist them, he would not trouble the House to divide upon any of them at the present stage of the measure. He was, however, anxious to record his own opinion against that portion of the Bill which was in violation of all sound principle, and as regarded the other part of it, to repudiate the notion that the friends of the Church were averse to the just and reasonable settlement of the question of Tithe property. To the appropriation and sequestration clauses of the Bill, his amendment would be simple and sweeping. It was to omit them altogether, for their principle was such that no modification would induce him to consent to them. With regard to the Tithe branch of the question, he would move to alter that part of the Bill which rendered the clergy stipendiaries on the Crown, to omit the clauses for opening the compositions, which he considered an act of great injustice, and he would also propose an alteration in the Clause which referred to the average price of corn, so as to limit its operation to the future, and not to let it affect existing contracts. He had some Amendments, the effect of which would be to relieve the clergy from further reductions in their incomes, and his principal Amendment on this part of the case would be the introduction of those clauses which were to be found in the Bill of the present government of last year for the redemption of the rent charges, and the investment in land of the money to arise from such redemption. He feared it would be giving the Speaker too much trouble to put these various Amendments from the chair, and therefore he (Mr. Shaw) would move, that in point of form the Bill be recommitted.

proposed that a Clause should be inserted, with a view to the repayment of the million proposed by the Bill to be remitted to the Irish landlords. The sanctioning such a principle as that upon which those who had offered effectual resistance to the law, were relieved from all the consequences, was extremely likely to lead to consequences under the new arrangement which the framers of this measure did not at all anticipate. He would move a clause to the effect "that in every case where the arrears of any Tithe composition, or any assignment for the years 1831, 1832, 1833, and 1834, shall remain due at the passing of this Act, out of lands chargeable with a sum equal to the rent-charge of 7–10ths provided by this Bill there shall be payable an additional charge of 2½ per cent., to be recoverable out of and levied on the land in the same way as the former rent-charge, and subject to all the regulations and provisions hereinafter to be made for levying and receiving the same. That the proceeds of this additional rent-charge be paid over to the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of reimbursing it for the advances which have already been made, or those which it may be necessary to make." In order to guard against any injustice being done to the Irish landlords by this clause, he should hereafter move, that where the same tenants did not reside on the lands, the sums which might be due by them should be remitted.

observed, that the effects of the Clause which was proposed by the hon. Member for Middlesex had been discussed fully on the night when the hon. Member for Southwark brought forward his Motion. He did not, therefore, think it necessary to enter on any further discussion with respect to this Clause.

did not see how it would improve the settlement of the Tithe question by the intended arrangement, if a certain additional sum such as that proposed were to be levied every year. He was very much afraid, if this sum were wholly remitted, that it would only hold out an encouragement to the violation of the law under the proposed rent-charge.

was of opinion that the Clause would be altogether impracticable. The landlords would find it quite difficult enough to collect the seventy per cent. without imposing on them any additional charge.

thought a higher bonus should be allowed to those who had obeyed the law, than those who violated it.

If the payment of a million were to secure permanent peace to Ireland, so far from objecting to that sum, there was no advance that he would not be willing to make in order to secure that object. But as he was persuaded that the new arrangement as proposed by this Bill, would not, and ought not to reconcile the payment of Tithes to the Irish people, he was unwilling that the whole of the million should be allowed to go into the pockets of the Irish landlords. By the Act commonly called Stanley's Act, the landlord was primarily liable for the Tithes of his tenants, notwithstanding any engagement to the contrary; and the repayment of that portion of the million which had been advanced ought to be secured to the revenue of the country. He would much rather give the money in the way of charity to the people of Ireland, than heap it into the pockets of the landlords and the richer part of the community, the greater part of whom were not proposing to do any good to their country. In the whole course of this discussion nothing had been spoken of for the benefit of the people of Ireland—no measure of poor-laws had been advocated for their relief—all that had been thought of was, to give as large a portion as possible of the Tithes of Ireland to the landlords. The most eager advocates of the Church, who had so loudly denounced the spoliation of its property, had breathed not one syllable of the appropriation of thirty per cent. of the Tithes of Ireland, in order to place them in the hands of the secular landlords of that country. The time would come when the English landlords would put in their claim to a similar remission in their favour. It was an essential sacrifice to take from the Church the property which belonged to the Church, or if it did not belong to the Church, belonged to the people, in order to put it into the pockets of those to whom it certainly did not belong. Not one sixpence of the money which had been advanced was to be recovered, and he much feared that none of it would ever find its way into the public exchequer. Indeed he had very little doubt that hereafter it would be proposed that the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain should be directly available for the support of the Irish Protestant clergy. An opportunity had been afforded to hon. Members the other night, when he had brought forward his motion, to prevent this abandonment of the public funds: how far they had made use of it was evidenced by the smallness of the minority which supported him upon that occasion. He could readily conceive the answer which some of them would return when their constituents spoke to them on the subject, and said, "We did not see your name in that minority, when it was proposed that a million should not be squeezed out of the pockets of the people of England." "See my name in it!" would be the reply; "no, and that was the fault of the hon. Member for Southwark, who proposed to send the clergy of Ireland in search of the million—how could we support such a Motion!" But that was not the case; he had opposed the Clause in question, not for the purpose of throwing the payment upon the clergy, but in order to cause the Government to take some steps for securing it. If there were difficulty in getting back the 650,000l. which had been advanced, there could be none in retaining possession of the remaining 350,000l. which the Government still had in hand. However desirable it might be to advance money to aid the Irish clergy, the interests of the people of England were certainly entitled to some consideration. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth had said, that if he had remained in office, he should have proposed to extend an equality of beneficence to the three countries; as churchcess had been remitted to Ireland, he contemplated the remission of Church-rates in England, and a grant of money to Scotland. He proposed moreover to give up the million, advanced on account of arrears, in the case of Ireland. In the spirit of that impartial justice which guided him, some proposition must have been afterwards made for extending a similar remission of arrears to England, and consequently for advancing another grant out of the public purse. For Scotland also funds were to be provided out of the funds of England. To use the expression of an hon. Member now in the Government, he would not consent that the English people should be a milch cow, although it appeared that she was to be so. Both countries—Ireland and Scotland, were making their applications to her; and how it was that she sustained the constant draughts upon her resources was to him a matter of marvel.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down commenced his speech by declaring that it was extremely painful to him to enter upon a second discussion of this subject, having so very recently addressed the House upon the same question. Notwithstanding this announcement the hon. Gentleman had entered at considerable length upon the subject, and at a considerable sacrifice of his private feelings, and, labouring under great personal suffering and pain, had addressed the House for nearly half an hour. Whether this suffering were real, or whether the hon. Member's description of it might be taken as a specimen of that "rhetorical candour" he had spoken of in the latter part of his speech, he certainly might be allowed to have his doubts. With respect to the topics alluded to by the hon. Member, he (Sir R. Peel) had certainly intended to have proposed, what the noble Lord opposite had since inti- mated his intention of carrying into effect, namely, the remission of church cess in England. This would relieve the people of England from a payment amounting to about half a million, a substitute being provided to the amount of about 200,000l. out of the general public funds. This proposition, however, did not originate either in himself or in the present Government, but in the noble Lord, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. In that intention of the noble Lord he certainly concurred. The hon. Member for Middlesex need not shake his head. He was not going to enter upon a discussion of the principle of Church cess at present. Whilst, therefore, this relief was extended to Ireland, it should be recollected that when the Church cess was remitted in England, Ireland should have to meet her share of the public burthen imposed in its stead. The hon. Gentleman said, that the Church cess of Ireland had been remitted two years ago. Very true; but then the people of England were not called upon to make any payment, or take part in any payment, in its stead. England was not taxed for the Irish Church cess; the English cow was not milked; but the cow resorted to on this occasion was the Church of Ireland, the established Church which made all the sacrifices. The substitute for the Irish Church cess was entirely paid out of the Ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland. The hon. Member thought it would be unfair to allow the landlords a premium of 30 per cent. out of the tithes. Thirty per cent. might certainly appear a large bonus; his proposition was, to give 25 per cent. It was only a question of amount, for he thought there could be no difference of opinion as to the propriety of allowing some consideration to the landlords for the new burthen which was about to be imposed upon them without their consent. He did not think the House could, with any fairness, call upon the landlords to pay the whole amount of the tithes payable on their land, a burthen which was not due from them, and then tell the landlords to remunerate themselves by getting the tithes from the occupiers as they could. Some remuneration, he thought, the House was bound to give the landlord, and whatever it might be it was only a question of degree. The hon. Member for Southwark asked how hon. Members could go back to their constituents, and justify their conduct in having opposed the motion which that hon. Member had brought forward the other night on this subject. He (Sir R. Peel) thought they could go to their constituents with the best grace possible for having so done. The fact was, the hon. Member had so blundered his motion that it would have been impossible for the hon. Member himself to have carried it into effect if he had been allowed. The hon. Member said, he would not trouble himself to propose any substitute for this clause, but that he would leave it out altogether. What would be the effect of that? Why, that the Treasury would have been obliged to call upon the clergymen in Ireland for repayment of the sums advanced. The clergy would then be obliged to apply to the occupying tenants for payment of the arrears of tithe lawfully due to them, and, in default of succeeding, would be entitled to call upon Government for assistance to recover those arrears; so that, after all, the Treasury would have to make good the payment. How would the difficulty be aggravated also in cases where the occupying tenant, under whom the arrears fell due, was since dead. Considering all these difficulties, he for one, as an English Member, was content to remit this million, in the hope of restoring peace to Ireland.

had scrupulously abstained from offering his sentiments to the House upon the whole measure until the last moment, when he could do so without being guilty of what might be called obtrusiveness, in so young a member of the Legislature. Upon this measure, which must ever be essentially the most exciting subject upon which any inhabitant of the beautiful yet unhappy land he loved and lived in could possibly descant, unless, indeed, he is not susceptible of the ordinary sensibilities of human nature, and of strong sentiments, as far as he is himself concerned, and of sympathy for the poorer classes of his own creed. He felt that in offering the very few observations which he deemed it his duty, as a resident Irish gentleman, to offer to a thin house, and at so late a period of the Session, he was justified in taking the opportunity of the Appropriation Clause coming under the consideration of the House, because he deemed that that Clause, in its provisions and its objects, was an epitome of the whole Bill; for what did the Bill provide? Regulation of Ecclesiastical revenues, by what? Not so much the process of exhaustion, of which we learned so much the other night, but of the simpler principle of abstraction and appropriation; and its object was—instruction. Before he alluded further to the principle, he would show the House how the practice of sacrilege, which term the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, disliked so much, had begun to work. Perhaps the House was not prepared for so early an application of that principle as he should have to recite. The following was a letter from a gentleman whom he should not further designate, than by saying that he was and is a clergyman, holding a living near Drogheda, and also the owner of considerable private property, and one of the best of men. The hon. Member read the letter, which stated that the churches of Slane, Termonfeckan, Dunany, Clane, and Moyleary, near Drogheda, had been broken open, the vestments and hangings stolen or defaced, as well as books and Bibles torn and injured, and many things carried away; and the writer further says, that he knows this sacrilege has not been confined to these churches, but does not choose to add aught but what fell under his own knowledge. The noble Lord opposite would hardly tell him as he did the other night, that he doubted, for he had no great objection to show the noble Lord the letter. Well, the object of the appropriation was instruction. It might surprise hon. Members, that when the Irish peasantry were starving, and calling out for food, that you gave them literature instead of loaves, and paper instead of potatoes. But how was the country to escape from the dilemma in which the conduct of the Government had placed it. He would turn to the Arcadian simplicity of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin for the solution. The hon. and learned Member told him the other night, when very angry, at his calling certain friars, Franciscans, that they were educational monks, and that he was happy to say, that there were more than 4,000 of these educational monks in Ireland. Could it be wondered, then, that only (by the Report of the Government Commissioners of Education), 140 clergymen of the Established Church, had applied for schools under the new Board, while upwards of 1,300 priests had done so? The thing was evident, and these monks were to get hold of all these funds—to get hold of the instruction of the youth of the kingdom. It was not for him to allude to the splendid orations of those gifted Englishmen, who, from those benches, advocated the cause of the suffering pastors of the persecuted faith in Ireland. He wished, certainly, that the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, were present, as it struck him that in the various details which were so ably handled by so many Members on that side of the House, that he glanced at a topic, which he would wish to impress upon the minds of some hon. Members, because he thought it would be productive of some striking results, both as showing the iniquity of the proposed measure, and the causes why the Reformation should not have made more progress in Ireland—he meant with regard to the extent of ground over which the duties of Protestant pastors had been hitherto extended—without taking more than the most cursory review. The area of Ireland was upwards of 27,000 square miles; therefore the beneficed clergy of Ireland had an area, on the average, of more than twenty square miles, over which to extend their pastoral cares. But in Connaught there were much more than 7,000 square miles, whence the 103 clergymen there (if there were half the number) had sixty-eight square miles, on the average, to attend to. He would appeal to any hon. Member who, like himself, had canvassed a large county, what he thought of traversing fifty-six square miles, even in a britchska? In justice to the eloquent oration of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, he must say, that he went with him heart and soul when he said, in his exordium, that had he felt, as did the right hon. baronet, the Member for Tamworth, what would be the evil results of that measure, rather than allow it to pass the second reading, he would have died sooner. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman that there were some within, and many without these walls, who, rather than admit a principle destructive of the muniments placed around the ministration of that holy religion in which their infancy was baptized—their manhood confirmed—the dearest ties that bind mortals here below were knit, and which, they trust, when life, not too dear or delightful to the Protestant of Erin, was over, will give their mortal remains to a Christian grave, would have died sooner. That could not, however, affect the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, who had already admitted the principle. He concluded by protesting, however late, against passing a measure having sacrilege for its means, and of which the object was to apply the funds of our Church for, to say the least of it, a very dubious purpose.

then rose and said, that he had an amendment to propose in the Appropriation Clause, the object of which was, in his opinion, so just and liberal, that he could not anticipate any objection to it. He proposed the introduction of the following words in the Clause to which he had referred—"That out of the reserved fund the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should allow an annual stipend, not exceeding the sum of 40l. in any one case, to such meritorious ministers of the Established Church as shall have officiated as curates, and who, possessing no preferment whatever, and being destitute of all other means of support, shall, by reason of age or infirmity, have become incapable of exercising their clerical functions; with a like provision in favour of the widows of such curates." Viscount Morpeth opposed the Amendment, which was negatived, and the Clause was then agreed to.

said, that the difference between the Clause about to be proposed by him, and the 89th Clause of this Bill, for which he wished to have it substituted, was merely striking out the definite period of ten years, in which the tenants are obliged to pay off the mortgage, and allowing them to discharge it at their own convenience. The object in offering a loan on a reduced rate of interest was, to induce the tenants to come forward generally to purchase, which, at the rates now demanded by the Commissioners, was considerably more than could well be expected. It would scarcely be believed that the increase on the yearly fine of the tenant, arising from interest on the purchase money at five per cent., amounted in all the dioceses, except Armagh, to about fifty-five per cent. That was supposing the tenant to have paid for his property a yearly fine of 1,000l. to the bishop, on payment of which sum, or less, for the last 200 years, his lease had been renewed. He would, if he should purchase, be immediately and permanently subject, fine and interest together, to 1,550l. a-year. In Armagh, the amount demanded was still more extravagant; the increase on the fine was there 150 per cent., so that if the yearly fine be supposed 1,000l., as above, after purchase, the tenant would be immediately and permanently subject to 2,500l. a-year, where before he paid but 1,000l. Could it be wondered at, that the tenants should hesitate to subject themselves to such charges, and if any could be induced to come forward and purchase, by an offer of a permanent loan, at a reduced rate of interest, not subjecting the Government to any loss, why should it be resisted? In fact, if a loan at three per cent. would bring about purchases, it was the obvious policy of the Government to offer it, since the interest of Exchequer bills, in which, by the forty-fourth section of this Act, the money procured for the perpetuities must be invested, was only about two and a quarter per cent., and the tenants, after all, would be very heavily mulcted. The rates would be nearly—

		Fine and Interest of Purchase Money together.
	Yearly Fine.	5 per cent.	3½ per cent.	3 per cent.
In all dioceses but Armagh	1000	1550	1365	1330
In Armagh	1000	2500	2050	1900

If the loan at three and half per cent. were confined to ten years, it would form no sufficient inducement to any tenants to come forward to purchase. The present value of a reduction from five per cent. to three and half per cent., amounting to a bonus of one and half per cent. for ten years only, was worth, at five per cent., about seven and half years' purchase, or little more than one-third of the value of the perpetuity of twenty years, which a permanent reduction of one and half per cent. would be worth. The real bonus per cent. would, therefore, be equivalent to little more than one-third of one and a-half per cent., or one-half per cent yearly for ever, and the increase of charge, instead of being 1,550l., as at five per cent., would still be equivalent to nearly 1,490l., instead of being reduced to 1,365l., as it would be if the loan were permanent. It was clear, then, that if the Government meant to induce the tenants to purchase, the loan must be offered permanently at three and a-half, or three per cent., and that neither would be any loss to the public, nor any unreasonable boon to the tenant, still leaving him subject to a very heavy charge. Some measure of this kind was necessary to render the fund productive; in fact, Government, by the introduction of a clause offering money to purchase the perpetuities at a reduced rate of interest, had confessed that the Commissioners were demanding an imaginary value for these fee-farms. They acknowledged that something must be done to induce the tenants to purchase; but they offered a reduction of one-half per cent, when the difference between the tenants and Commissioners amounted to one year, and a sixth of the beneficial interest. The provision of the Temporalities' Act had been shamefully violated—a most unjustifiable exercise of the veto of the Lord-Lieutenant had taken place. He alluded to the case of Sir James Strong, in which arbitrators were appointed under the provisions of the Temporalities' Bill. Several thousand pounds were by them deducted from the sum demanded by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who were condemned to bear the entire cost of the proceedings. The Lord-Lieutenant interfered in a manner never contemplated by the Act, which gave him the power but in cases of fraud, and put a stop to the proceedings. Sir James Strong lost the benefit of the arbitration, and the Commissioners were still persevering in their unjustifiable demands. Under these circumstances, and considering the Clause as a compromise between the tenant and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he thought he was fully justified in calling on the House to support him.

thought that the principle of the Amendment was highly objectionable, and he was decidedly opposed to its adoption, He should, for the purpose of exemplification, put a case. Suppose any hon. Member of that House wanted to sell an estate—a fair rent is given for it—the parties agree upon the price. But what would that hon. Member think if, instead of the money, it were proposed to give him in payment a rent charge of 3½ per cent. Yet this was precisely what was proposed to be done by his hon. Friend, the Member for Roscommon. The proposition of the hon. Member was, to give a rent-charge of 3½ per cent, instead of paying down the money, and to this proposition he (Mr. Perrin) was decidedly opposed.

thought the hon. Attorney-General was mistaken in the view he took of the proposition submitted to the House by the hon. Member for Roscommon. The hon. Member proposed to do nothing more than was done by the Government itself, who, when they borrowed money from the public, gae a rent-charge of 3½ per cent. on the country in payment. This was precisely analogous to the proposition of the hon. Member, and he could see no sufficient reason why it should not be adopted.

expressed his approval of the proposition of the hon. Member for Roscommon. Surely there was no injustice in substituting a rent-charge of 3½ per cent. for the payment of the money, if it were inconvenient to pay it—to be, however, returned in the same way as the quit-rent, giving, in fact, the tenants aright to redeem under the provision of the hon. Member's proposition. The adoption of the proposition would tend to facilitate the augmentation of the Perpetuity Purchase Fund.

was apprehensive, if he acceded to the proposition of his hon. Friend (Mr. French), that he would be justly amenable to a charge made against himon a former night, of burdening the Perpetuity Fund with more than it was able to bear. The funds placed at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were very low at present, and the proposition of his hon. Friend, if agreed to, would tend still farther to curtail them.

thought, that if the terms of sale were too high, they ought to be altered; while he confessed that the present Amendment was a complicated mode of effecting that object, and it was difficult to imagine how principal, but at three and a-half per cent., was ever likely to be repaid. He felt, however, that some further inducement to purchase on the part of the tenant was wanting, and that it would be beneficial to the Perpetuity Purchase Fund itself.

rose to move certain Clauses which he should beg to bring up at this stage of the Bill. In doing so, he stated that he opposed the Bill, not because he was enamoured of existing abuses or of sinecures—none of which he wished to continue; but because the Government would not allow them to reform the Irish Church without paying a dear price for it: and not only so, but would not allow them to recover those national funds which were gradually and surely diminishing by the efforts of lawless violence. What was the price which the Government required to allow them to reform the Irish Church? It was not the 58,000l. "surplus." No! They no more looked at that than did Napoleon at the immense revenues of which he was possessed, which he regarded merely as the means of obtaining some future and grander station, some loftier elevation. His objection to this measure was again, that it was not a final measure. It was very true, his noble Friend opposite (Lord Morpeth) said it was a final measure; but he was afraid that on that head his noble Friend's word could not be relied upon. It would be only "final" till it was necessary to introduce a new principle to carry it further. The Church of Ireland was left by this measure in almost as bad a condition as it was at present. The distribution of Church revenues, and the proportion of persons to revenue, were left in almost the same anomalous state as at present. The revenues of the Irish Church were lately calculated as being the revenues of a rich Church. Whereas they had now become, by gradual extortions those of a poor Church. In the first place, came the Church Temporalities' Bill, with its commutations, and reductions and averages: Secondly, there was the disproportion in which its revenues were distributed; and the revenue of the Church arising out of the tithe population, he thought that some new modification of the benefices in Ireland was necessary to remedy many anomalies which arose out of the present system. There was a third cause, and that was, that the Irish Church was the Church of the minority and not of the majority, of the people. To all these anomalies, the Bill afforded but a slight remedy. It only sequestered those parishes in which the population had been reduced to fifty; but there were others above that number which might in a very short time be reduced below it. And if the Bill continued in its present state, he was of opinion it afforded a very strong inducement to the Catholic population to diminish by violence the Protestant population to the minimum fixed by this Bill. They would have every petty Agitator going in his progress through Ireland, and speaking to the assembled multitudes, "Come, we have succeeded in diminishing the Protestants, so as to exclude them from such and such places, to the number, (suppose) of ten; let us endeavour to succeed in doing so, in fifty this year," and so on. Again they would have the hon. and learned Member for Dublin annually coming down to this House with his Report, stating that in such and such parishes, by the grace of God, Catholicism had increased, or Protestantism diminished, the effect of which had been to bring them within the operation of the Bill; and calling upon the House for its application of the principle again and again. And he was afraid lest the hon. and learned Member should propose (not satisfied with his success under this Bill), that he should propose to abolish Churches where the number of Protestants now fixed at fifty, did not exceed sixty, eighty, or even 100. So that they should have a succession of struggles year after year. That surely could not be the object or the intention of Government, and therefore he was quite sure they would agree in the plan proposed by him (Mr. Bingham Baring) in the Clauses which he should shortly move for leave to bring up. Of those Clauses, one vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners all the revenues of the unsequestered parishes. And he should deal only with the unsequestered parishes. Clause the second gave to these same Ecclesiastical Commissioners—(he had chosen them because they were fixed upon by the Bill of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley)—it was indifferent to himself who they were; but he thought it fit to place the funds in some such hands because they would have the opportunity and the power of removing abuses, &c., and thus prevent the necessity of a frequent recurrence to Parliament. The second Clause then enacted, that these Commissioners should have the power of altering the limits of benefices; and the third gave them the power of endowing benefices not sequestered. These were the principal Clauses he proposed, the rest were matters of detail. He would merely state further that whereas this Bill would reduce to a certain amount the revenues of the Irish Church, he (Mr. Baring) was convinced that at a certain future time Protestants would require a larger, or at least as large a sum of money as they now possess, for the endowment of their Church. The noble Lord (Lord Morpeth) had stated from certain tables that Protestantism had decayed in Ireland; but he believed that Protestants had greatly increased; for in 1733, they were 600,000; according to the Bishop of Dromore; and now by the Report of the Commissioners they were 1,600,000. During the same period the population of England had increased from 5, to 8,000,000; and if that population which was a manufacturing as well as an agricultural country, (whereas Ireland was completely agricultural) if that population had increased at the same rate as that of Ireland, it would have been now 12, instead of 8,000,000. Under those circumstances, he thought he was justified in affirming what he had just stated, with regard to the Irish Protestants. There were, he believed, about 1,100 benefices; and allowing only 300l. per annum to each (which was excluding all allowances for curates which in many instances were actually necessary), the present revenue was scarcely sufficient. In short, he could not see on what principle Gentlemen opposite could refuse to support his Clauses. Whatever might be the intentions of others, it was, he was sure, that of the Government, to make this a final measure; and, following that intention up, which they had so often expressed, and for which for one, he (Mr. Baring) gave them full credit: he called on them to vote with him.

I am glad to be able to say that my objections to the Clauses of the hon. Member, if any, will be those of detail merely; the principle which they involve being one to which I not only assent, but which (so far, at least, as I recollect it in those Clauses), I am determined to assert. I rejoice, too, at any proposition, coming from the quarter to which the hon. Member now belongs (the Opposition Benches) which seems to rest on true liberality, and I am inclined to believe, that my noble and right hon. Friends would have been almost inclined to follow the principle of any hon. Friend opposite in the introduction of some such Clauses, had it not been from the apprehension that the extent of change, and coldness and indifference to existing "landmarks" which those Clauses introduce, might have provoked a still further opposition, and tempted a still more obstinate resistance than, hitherto, it has been our good fortune to meet. As I heard the Clauses, they do not interfere either with the principle, or the working of the Bill which I have had the honour to introduce, so far as relates to the sequestered benefices which are beyond our reach. Certainly they might go far to remedy the effect of those great disproportions and irregularities in the extent of the Ecclesiastical territory, which, confessedly, would still remain where our spirit of innovation did not carry us far enough in attempting to remove them; but I feel, after this Bill has gone so far with no supplementary provisions, I cannot feel myself authorized in unconditionally giving my consent to these Clauses, unless I find them urged on me by a very general expression of feeling in this House.

thought, that the effect of the Clauses would be to vest too great a power in an irresponsible body; at all events, the proposition required more consideration than it would then be possible for the House to extend to it; on that account he trusted the Government would not consent to entertain it.

thought that the principle involved in the Clauses was most valuable, and hoped the House would not be induced lightly or negligently to suffer it to pass by. He for one was ready to adopt the Clauses at once. No one felt more strongly than he did, that it was the duty of Parliament to make the surplus fund conducive to the purposes of Protestant education; and he thought that the hon. Gentleman was entitled to the gratitude of the Protestants of Ireland for having brought forward his proposition.

said, it was most gratifying to him to find a proposition, which he had brought forward fifteen years ago, and for which he was nearly torn in pieces, suggested by an hon. Gentleman belonging to that political party to which the hon. Member for Winchester was attached? The hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct when he said, that the present measure would not be a final one unless it contained some such provision as that which he proposed. Nothing could be more consistent with justice, or with the interests of the Protestants in Ireland, than that the funds should be applied in the manner that the hon. Gentleman suggested.

thought, that the valuable part of the discussion was the admission of the right hon. Gentleman the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to admit, that he was ready to assent to the principle of Clauses which would appropriate the revenue of every parish in Ireland, except the 860 particularly described in the Bill, to purposes connected with the Established Church. The right hon. Gentleman distinctly acknowledged that principle, because he talked of the fund to which the Clauses referred as an unappropriated fund. He (Sir Robert Peel) apprehended that the people of England would make no objection to the principle of providing a fund for the education of the people of Ireland. There were some difficulties no doubt; but the principle being agreed upon, he did not believe that any objection would be made to a grant for the purposes of education. The proposition now made was, that they should provide a sum of 40,000l. for education purposes—that an increase of the grant was required. The noble Lord (Morpeth) in dealing with this subject, talked first of a reserve fund; but finding that he could create no such fund, he then came down, and asked for 50,000l. to realize the expectation he had held out. He hoped his hon. Friend would not precipitate a vote on the question, which certainly required a more mature consideration than it would then be in the power of the House to bestow upon it. To any distribution of Ireland into districts, he should decidedly object. At the same time, he should be sorry to give a direct negative to the proposition before the House.

thought, that the right hon. Baronet had not exactly understood his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said that, with the exception of the 860 parishes, the revenue would be appropriated exclusively to the purposes of the Protestant Church. All that his right hon. Friend admitted was, that the endowments of the Church might be better distributed than they were at present. That was the principle which he (Lord John Russell) understood to be involved in the Clauses brought forward by the hon. Member for Winchester; and he thought it to be an extremely proper one. In the general proposition contained in the Clauses, therefore, he was fully disposed to assent; but in some respects, he thought they would require a more mature consideration. He was glad that the suggestion had been made, but thought it would not be advisable to press it to a division.

rose to oppose the Motion. He did so because the Bill had been introduced at a late hour, and at a late period of the Session; it was founded on no justice, no necessity, no economy, no advantage to the public. It had been politically surreptitiously brought in. It was a Bill, a project, a measure which was unconstitutional, uncalled for, unrequired, and unnecessary. The noble Lord might say, it was founded on a point of economy. The noble Lord might be a very entertaining man—an uncommonly entertaining man in private circles; he might be a very clever man at the Home Department; but he (Colonel Sibthorp) would tell that noble Lord that neither he nor his noble Friend the late Secretary at War, in the event of their entering the Militia, would ever get much further than the awkward squad. The Militia was a constitutional body; it had infused a feeling of security and satisfaction into the hearts of our citizens at home—it had struck terror to the hearts of our hardiest foes abroad; and yet the noble Lord proposed to alter the constitution of this constitutional body, and to reduce its numbers in the proportion of one-third of two thirds. The noble Lord, having no ear for music, proposed, in the first instance, by one sweeping, and he would say, revolutionary measure to do away with all the drum-majors. Now, were the people of this country to be told in the nineteenth century, that drum-majors were to be treated in this way? Was it to be borne, or could it be supposed that drum-majors would respect the institutions of their country, if the laws afforded drum-majors no protection. The noble Lord was not aware probably—never having been a drum-major himself—that the office was one of the most difficult to fill up at a moment's warning, and that the course of training for a drum-majorship, was both difficult and expensive. The introduction of this measure was neither more nor less than a consequence of that democratic spirit which was floating about, and which was to be found from beginning to end in all the proceedings of that noble Lord. The noble Lord began his democratic career by destroying what he was pleased to call the rotten boroughs; he then endeavoured to subvert the Corporations—though here he rather expected the noble Lord might be caught; and then looking round for more prey it suddenly struck him—"The Militia—another great constitutional body—I'll have a touch at that." The present Bill was the result—this attack on that great body of men—that efficient force. It was an act of legislative, economical injustice. He would ask the noble Lord, who pretended to feel for the people—but who did not care, as he believed, twopence for the people—whether he sincerely thought this measure would be beneficial to the public. Why did the noble Lord adopt "the eleventh hour," to bring forward an iniquitous measure of such consequence. He protested against this Bill, and also against any measure emanating from the Government; and he should, on a future occasion, take care to tell the noble Lord that the Bill was unbecoming the Treasury Bench, or any persons pretending to act for the benefit of the country.

felt bound, as a militia officer, also to protest against the measure, even on the grounds of expediency, still more so on those of injustice. The militia staff had done essential service to the British nation during the war, and had been forbidden from volunteering into the active service, by which they might have attained promotion, and they had remained satisfied under the promise that their appointments were permanent. Now, with two months' notice (for it was now the 8th of August, and the Bill was to take effect on the 10th of October), the very men who had thus sacrificed their chances of promotion and served well their country were to be sent to the right about, at an age when it was impossible for them to turn themselves to any new employment, by which to earn their means of subsistence. The measure was fraught with cruelty and injustice.

protested against a Bill of this importance being discussed at the late hour which had now arrived (half past one o'clock.) He did not wish to stand in the way of the Government by now moving the Adjournment, but he must express a hope, that after this Bill was disposed of, the other Orders of the Day would be read with a view to their postponement.

defended the Bill, and denied that it was contemplated by he Government to inflict any injustice upon the Militia Staff of the country. The Bill merely went on the principle of that brought in for the reduction of the militia corporals by Sir Henry Hardinge, by a reduction now of the non-efficient serjeants, and would be followed, before the Session ended, by another measure to provide for the pensions of those reduced from the present staff. The Government could therefore not be charged either with cruelty or inhumanity.

denied the advantage which was supposed to arise from reducing the present Militia Staff so low as to make it wholly inefficient. By the proposed reduction of the drummers, that useful body, not so soon trained, would be wholly unavailing should any emergency arise. He had not heard the Bill defended either on principle, on grounds of economy, or of expediency. He should be glad to know what would be the amount of saving after the Bill for regulating the pensions of the reduced staff had passed. He thought, rather than this measure, it would be better to abolish the Militia Staff altogether.

Sir, the noble Lord has said, that this Bill is exceedingly inconsistent:—that we should have done one of two things either got rid of it altogether, or not to have reduced it at all: that if we proposed the present reduction on the ground that the Staff is inefficient, it is the grossest possible absurdity to render the Staff still more inefficient by diminishing it to such an extent that it will be utterly impossible to keep it up at all. Now, Sir, if this measure was intended to be final I admit there would be some force in the argument of the noble Lord. But I think it is impossible for any man to look at the Returns upon the Table from the Inspecting Officers, and not see it is the most absurd waste of money that ever was made by any country, to carry on the existing system at all. The expense for what is called the actual service (exclusive of the "dead weight") of the Militia, is no less than 96,000l. per annum. This amount is much swelled by the Dead Weight; and the whole amount, from keeping up the Staff, &c, is no less than 243,000l. a-year. The total amount lavished on this service, since the peace, (without, I may venture to say, producing the slightest return, or doing any actual service in any shape whatever)—the total amount lavished on this service, since the peace, and since the disembodying of the Militia is no less than 6,084,000l. This amount was proved in Committee on the Militia Estimates; and it was agreed by that Committee that the Inspecting Officers of the regular Army should be required to ascertain the state of the Militia, and the state of the Body was such that they advised a total change in the system. When the present Government came into office, and came to examine the Reports of those Officers, it was quite impossible for us to say that the system should be kept up in the present situation of the country: it was perfectly obvious that some important change must be introduced. But while we saw the necessity of a change we had no wish altogether to do away with some Establishment for providing the means to discipline a Militia, should it hereafter be necessary to be called into exercise. At the period of the year at which the present Government came into office with numerous important questions pressed on our attention, it was impossible on such an important subject to select and carry out a definite measure for establishing a reduced but an efficient establishment for providing the means of disciplining the Militia whenever it was called for. Then the course we took was this, Sir—that we should at once pension off those included in this Bill at the sums they would probably come upon the country for at some future time, but without filling up their places; and avoid pensioning off those who are yet efficient for any good purpose. In the next Session, these men being still in the receipt of their pay, it will be for the House to determine whether arrangements may not be made by which a small but sufficient Staff may be established. Such Sir, are the grounds on which this measure is proposed. My reasons for doing away with the drummers are very obvious, for, first the opinions of Militia Officers themselves are very contradictory as to the facility of obtaining them in cases of emergency: some saying that they are easily obtained: others the contrary. I think it is clear that you may have a good Militia with very inefficient drummers. I would also beg hon. Members to look at the Reports of the Inspecting officers, and they will see that they Report that many of the present drummers have never been regularly instructed. Such, Sir, are the grounds on which this Measure is proposed, I trust it is one which will receive the support of the House.