had a Petition to present from certain Freeholders of Marylebone, complaining of improper interference on the part of the Select Vestry in the registration for the county of Middlesex. The petitioners complained, that forty-two names had been surreptitiously inserted in the list of voters in that borough for the county of Middlesex; they stated that those forty-two names appeared in the printed lists affixed to the church-door, and though they had never been inserted in the list made out by the overseer, the Marylebone beadle afterwards paid 42s. to the overseer on the account of those names; no claim had ever been made to the overseer by any of the parties whose names thus appeared on the list to have them inserted there; one of those names was that of the hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir Samuel Whalley); and the said forty-two persons claimed the right to vote from a certain burial-ground and a yard belonging to the parish. The petitioners prayed the House to adopt some measure to prevent such a surreptitious mode of proceeding, and such a gross infraction of the provisions of the Reform Bill. The noble Marquess observed, that such was the statement made by the petitioners. He trusted that the hon. Member for Marylebone would be enabled to give such an explanation of this matter as would lead the House to believe, that those names had not been improperly inserted in the list of voters. He was bound, however, to state that he had it upon the most respectable authority—authority that he had no reason to doubt—that those names had been improperly inserted in the list by the Select Vestry, after the overseer had made out and sent in that list. If that were the case, and if such a course of proceeding were to be tolerated, there could be no faith placed in the list of any overseer in any part of the kingdom.

said, that with every wish to afford every facility to the right of petition, he must say, that he thought the House should not receive this petition. With regard to the first allegation in the petition as to an alleged improper interference on the part of the Vestry with the list of voters, he begged to state, that by the law in Marylebone the custody of the ratebooks was placed in the hands of the Select Vestry; by the law there, the overseer had no access to them, and it was not in his power to complete the lists of voters without first submitting them to the Select Vestry. By the law, therefore, under the Reform Bill, the Vestry was obliged to act, and it did act, in making out the list of voters. It did so in its own Court. It had acted so for the last three years in assisting the overseer in making out the lists, and during all that time there had not been a suspicion that a single name had been inserted or omitted in the lists improperly. That was all that the Vestry had done in this instance. He was authorized to give the most positive and unequivocal denial to the allegation in the petition, that the Vestry, as a Vestry, had otherwise interfered. It was true, that individual Members of the Vestry, acting not as the Vestry, but in their individual capacity—it was true, that such individuals, to the number of forty-two, had claimed to be inserted in the register for a property of 3,000l. a-year and upwards, belonging to the parish, and from which they, as Members of the Vestry, thought they derived a right of voting. He conceived that the noble Lord should be the last man to object to a registration of votes from bonâ fide property. That claim was still to be decided before the Revising Barrister. He would not, therefore, prejudice it by entering into any statements with regard to the manner in which it was to be made. The noble Marquess should know that all the matters connected with this claim to which this petition referred were still to come before the Revising Barrister for his decision, and surely the noble Marquess, with that high sense of justice which he possessed, would not de- sire to do anything that might prejudice claims that had still to be adjudicated before a legal tribunal. The noble Marquess, who was remarkable for keeping his pledge when pledges were so recklessly and disgracefully broken by Members on his side of the House, would surely not be a party to such an unjust proceeding. The House of Commons was not the tribunal to decide the matter; it should in common justice be left to the Revising Barrister. He would tell the noble Marquess most unequivocally, that with the exception of the first thing stated in the petition, which he had explained as originating in the peculiarity of the law in Marylebone, the Vestry, as a body, had not done a single act attributed to them by the petitioners. Whether the parties were right or wrong in making the claim they did to be put upon the list, he would not say, contenting himself with repeating that that must be determined by the Revising Barrister.

said, that there was not an allegation in the petition against the Vestry with the exception of that which the hon. Member himself admitted—namely, that they had appointed a Committee of Registration. The petition stated that a gross fraud had been practised by the insertion of those forty-two names. Now the very fact which the hon. Member admitted as to the Vestry fully justified the petitioners in making that charge. If the Vestry were to act with the overseers in the preparation of the list, and if the overseers could not act without the aid of the Vestry, then the Vestry became responsible for the transaction, and was one of the parties chargeable for it. The charge in the petition was this—that after the overseer had closed the lists, and sent them to be printed, the Vestry took possession of the list, and that at a time when no more claims could be sent into the overseer, forty-two claimants were put upon the list, whether with or without the cognizance of the said claimants, he (Mr. Charles Ross) could not say. He did not want to argue the merit of those claims. He would maintain, however, that the petitioners had a perfect right to make the complaint they did. That complaint was, that long subsequent to the time prescribed by the Act of Parliament for the officers receiving notices of claims, those names were inserted in the list.

said, that the law prescribed a regular tribunal for deciding this matter, and that before the adjudication of that tri- bunal took place, the House had no more right to interfere in the matter than it would have with a trial coming on in the King's Bench. He must protest against the House taking up this question now, or entering at all into its merits. What passed in that House should not affect the future decision of the Revising Barrister in this matter; but it might do so, and they should therefore take care not to create a prejudice one way or the other as regarded the question. If the Revising Barrister should make a decision open to objection, an appeal lay against it to that House, but the House had no right to take the matter into its own hands in the first instance. He thought the petition should not be received.

as an inhabitant of Marylebone, must state that this transaction had given great dissatisfaction there. He was astonished to hear the hon. Member opposite assert, that when petitioners felt themselves aggrieved, they should not complain. These forty-two names were foisted on the list while all the other Members of the Vestry were ignorant of the claim. Thus, a positive injury, supposing the claim a well-founded one, was done to the other Members of the Vestry. In proof that the thing had been improperly done, he would just ask the hon. Member for Mary-le-bone, whose name formed one of the forty-two, if he had been previously consulted before his name was put there? Let the hon. Member answer that question.

must protest against such a question being put. The hon. Member had no right to put the question. The House had no right to entertain the subject. They were a Court of Appeal from the Revising Barrister, and had therefore no right to entertain a question which had still to be decided before his tribunal.

would not shut out any petition, unless a substantial objection was raised to it. The petitioners complained that forty-two names had been illegally placed on the register. That was for the Revising Barrister in the first instance, and not for that House to decide. An appeal from that decision afterwards lay to that House. He submitted that this question should not be entertained by the House before the matter was adjudicated by the Revising Barrister.

said, that there were two distinct questions at present before the House. One of them was, whether the parties placed on the register had any qualification—and if that had been the only question at issue, it might be left for the decision of the Revising Barrister; but it was not the only question at issue. The petitioners did not complain that persons had been inserted in the list who were not voters, but they did complain, that after the list had been sent away by the overseers to be printed, the names of certain persons had been surreptitiously placed upon it. The other question therefore was, whether the conduct of those who had surreptitiously placed these names on the list after it was prepared and sent away by the overseers to be printed should be investigated, with a view of providing a remedy against such proceedings in future. It was said, that other parties might have had their names placed on the list, if they pleased. Certainly they might; but they had not got their names placed on it, for they could only have got that done surreptitiously, and they were not willing to stoop to such improper practices.

said, that it was quite clear that the prayer of this petition could not be granted. With all respect for the House, he had an opinion, that the House could not interfere in any case determinable by the regular tribunals of the country, even after sentence, unless there were strong proofs of corruption adduced against them. Still less could it interfere with any case before sentence; because then "lis est sub judice." If in this list any name had been improperly inserted, or erased, it might be remedied, on proof of the fact, by the Revising Barrister. The prayer of the petition was, that the House of Commons should examine whether the lists had been properly prepared, and punish. ["No!"] No? He said yes. The petitioners humbly prayed, "that the House should take the subject into consideration, with a view to such further legislative enactment, as would provide for the punishment of those who had been guilty of this offence." The point, then, into which the Committee for which the petitioners prayed would have to institute an inquiry was, whether any names had been surreptitiously inserted in the list, and if so, by whom. That was a matter into which he submitted it was not competent for the House to examine. He would not go so far as the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who said that this petition ought not to be received, but the prayer of the petition could not by any possibility be acceded to.

said, that the prayer of the petition was not so much for inquiry into what was past, as for the means of punishing those who might be guilty of similar misconduct in future.

said; even were the petition laid upon the Table, it was not likely that the House would adopt any ulterior proceeding, though he had heard no good reason why it should not.

was confident that there was no good reason why this petition should be rejected. It was couched in respectful language, and the prayer was, that the House would vindicate the law. There was a Clause in the Vestry Act of Mary-le-bone, which enabled the Vestry to interfere with the overseers in making out the list. According to the same Act, any rate-payer had not only a right to inspect the books, but to take a copy of them. According to the Reform Act, the overseers were bound to furnish a list of the claimants to vote, and to sign that list. Subsequently to the time when the list was completed and sent to the printer's, forty-two additional names were inserted, and two guineas were paid into the bank to the credit of the parish, but not through the hands of the overseers. Such a mode of proceeding was irregular, as it would deprive the overseers of a power which they had at present under the Reform Act—namely, that of writing "objected to," against the name of any voter in the list. The prayer of the petition could not be reasonably objected to. Here were forty-two claimants for votes out of one burying-ground to the parish of Mary-le-bone. The teeth of the Cadmean dragon were never so prolific, and they ought to be denominated the "spectre-voters."

said, the property was worth 3,000l a-year.

could see no sufficient reason for rejecting the petition on the general principle; what the House might do with it hereafter was another question.

said, as the law at present stood, the parties injured had no remedy; there had been an improper interference with the persons whose duty it was to prepare the lists, and it certainly appeared to him, that persons who had been guilty of so gross a breach of the law ought to be punished. This was a case not provided for in the Reform Act, and, therefore, a very proper subject for a petition.

being one of the Members for the Borough of Mary-le-bone, considered it his duty to state, that he knew nothing whatever of the facts; and he must do the noble Marquess the justice to say, that the petition could not have been laid upon the Table in a more temperate and proper manner. As to rejecting the petition, the question was, whether, after the statements made, the noble Marquess would not withdraw it? The House could not properly judge of that point until the matter had been brought before the Registering-Barristers, and they had adjudicated upon it.

was surprised that any hon. Member would think it extraordinary that fifteen claims should be registered out of one burying-ground, when, for one respectable Conservative building in the Strand, not less than eighty-five good respectable Conservative votes had been registered two years since, and fifty stood registered for it this year.

said, it was admitted that there was no other effectual means of investigation than by the House of Commons. An hon. Gentleman had said, that if the overseers had been guilty of inserting names improperly, they were liable to a penalty of 500l. But, in this case, there was no complaint against the overseers: the overseers had done their duty and obeyed the law. If any one of the forty-two gentlemen whose names were on the list would come forward and say, "I sent in my claim and desired to be registered," that would be perfectly satisfactory. But he understood that they one and all refused to do this, proving that their names were surreptitiously inserted.

rose to bring forward the Petition of which he had given notice, and the presentation of which had been already once postponed, respecting a Seizure made under the authority of the Stamp-office. The petition, to a certain extent, involved the character of the present Government; but, although he felt strongly the injustice and misconduct of which it complained, he would state as calmly as he could the circumstances of the case. Process had been issued against two persons of the names of Cleave and Hetherington, but some time was allowed to elapse before it was acted upon. On a sudden, however, Government displayed an activity it had not previously shown, and entering the premises of one of the parties he had named, seized the types, presses, and printing materials there found. It happened that those types, presses, and printing materials did not belong to the individuals against whom Government had proceeded, and the owner put in a legal claim to them, which he had been given to understand had been so far established, that it was not denied. He did not complain that in this transaction Government had put into execution a law that ought never to have been passed, or had chosen to vindicate the existing law regarding stamps, but that, wishing to punish one set of persons for one class of acts, it had seized the property of another set of persons in consequence of another class of acts. A law was passed at the instance of Mr. Pitt, in 1799, which at least one Member of the present Ministry had good cause to remember, for the suppression of Corresponding Societies; and among other provisions, it enacted, that if printing presses were not registered with a magistrate, or at some given office, upon information upon oath, the premises where they were kept might be entered, and the presses seized. It so happened that the party to whom the presses belonged had not registered them, according to the law of 1799, and Government, wishing to reach Cleave and Hetherington, through the owner of the printing presses, seized those presses on the ground that they were not registered. He had been given to understand, though he could not vouch for the fact, that a very large portion of the printing presses in London were in the same predicament; that the owners of them were not acquainted with the law requiring registration; that it had not been carried into execution; in other words, that it had slept until Government, wishing to punish persons who had violated the Stamp Act, availed themselves of a statute that had passed into oblivion, and seized the printing presses of persons who had committed no offence but the neglect of a forgotten law. He submitted, that such a proceeding could in no way be justified; he held, in accordance with the spirit of the whole jurisprudence of England, that no man ought to be punished until he had been tried und convicted; but this law, passed in an unfortunate time, by an unfortunate Minister, who had no regard for the liberties of his country, and who had done more than any of his predecessors to perpetuate his own disgrace—passed for the suppression of discussion, and for the establishment of despotism, which had slept in oblivion for thirty-six years, had been revived, and called into execution by the present Liberal Government. He repeated that the law was not in accordance with the spirit of the jurisprudence of England; it was, indeed, in accordance with the spirit of the jurisprudence of another country, in which, at this moment, was going forward a monster process disgraceful to humanity; but he should be the last man to compare the Attorney-General of England to the Procureur-General of France. The late proceeding, however, seemed to originate in a kindred spirit, which he hoped would never be followed by similar consequences. No man's person or property ought to be seized until, by conviction, it was shown that he had rendered himself liable to punishment. Here punishment had been inflicted before guilt was established. It was one of the difficulties, and one of the imperfections, of our law, that it incarcerated the person before trial; but the same rule by no means applied to property, which was left untouched. It did not at all follow, that because a man was arrested lest he should escape from the law, that his goods also should be seized. In the present case, the rule acted on made the punishment fall upon one man for the supposed offence of another, and on this ground he complained of the act of Government—on this ground he appealed to the House; for whatever might be the intention of the Attorney-General with respect to the Stamp Duties, he had here got himself into a difficulty, by straining the law to his purpose. But it would be said, that the Attorney-General was bound to vindicate the law. He believed, that the Attorney-General would own it to be a bad law; but bad as it was, he would argue that it must be vindicated; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman were consistent in his vindication, he would not complain. But the hon. and learned Gentleman was not consistent; he could point out a case immediately connected with the present, in which the law was never put into execution, and yet it was violated every day. There was a law which imposed a penalty on every man who lends a newspaper, and yet there were, perhaps, many Members of the House, and nearly every member of the inns of court, who daily offended against it. Why had that law been made? That the revenue might not be diminished; for, if newspapers were allowed to be lent, the number of stamps issued would be fewer. It so happened that thousands, regardless of the law, regardless of the money of which the Exchequer would be deprived, in defiance of the Attorney-General, and in despite of the Stamp-office, were in the constant habit of lending newspapers, and yet the right, hon. Gentleman did not attempt to vindicate the law. Why, then, did this zeal for the vindication of the law, in this instance, animate him so suddenly? He admitted that the law against lending newspapers was a bad law, but the law against seizing printing presses was also a bad law, and if the Attorney-General vindicated the one why did he not vindicate the other? What was the worth of his excuse founded on the vindication of the law, if he were not consistent? In the same Act was a Clause making every man liable to a penalty who attended an unlicensed debating club. He had been a member of three or four debating clubs, not one of them licensed, and only one held in a licensed house; yet he had never been prosecuted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or by the Attorney-General, and why, if one part of the law was to be called into new life, was not the other to be revived? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman, in the spirit of Mr. Pitt, put down all debating societies, as well as suppress all unstamped newspapers? The law of Mr. Pitt was not directed against unstamped publications, but against all publications; and he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not wish to shut out the people from instruction by means of cheap publications; and in this instance he might be benefiting the receipts of the Exchequer, but he was doing so at the expense of Ministers. They were men who were at this moment in possession of more power to do good to the people of England than any of their predecessors; for this reason, humble as his support might be, he gave it them, and whatever diminished their power of doing good gave him great pain from its consequences to the people at large. Therefore, he pressed upon them not to throw away the support of the people, upon whom they must lean in order to carry their measures into effect. They depended upon the people to resist the vast force brought against them—to stem the torrent which threatened their very existence. At a time when they most stood in need of popularity—when the people should be up and awake in their favour, they cast sway the support and denied the people the boon of cheap knowledge for the sake of the Stamp Act. He was sure it was not the wish of Ministers to deny knowledge to the people; but he believed that they were cramped and crippled by the wants of the Exchequer: he was satisfied that their fears on this score were futile, and that if the Stamp Act were repealed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find his account in having given cheap knowledge to the people. Why were the people (he spoke of the poor) to be deprived of this valuable privilege? Say what they would they were not represented in this House; and the Corporation Bill, even if it one day became the law of the land, would not benefit them. One thing they hoped they should be allowed—the right of instructing themselves. At present they were deprived by poverty of the means of judging properly of public and legislative measures, and they did not expect that of all Governments the present would stand forward to perpetuate their ignorance. Did Ministers think that proceedings of this kind would multiply their friends? Did they not diminish their power of doing good? Their power of doing good depended upon their being able to face their adversaries; they were supported solely by popular opinion; their enemies were gathered round the Throne, and those enemies were active, powerful, and persevering, pressing them at every step, and aided and abetted by influence of property; yet, by these acts they severed themselves from their best, their true, their only allies, and for this reason, if for no other, he intreated Ministers to pause and to reflect before they ventured to take another step in the same direction as their last. Insignificant as the parties before the House might be, the existence of the Ministers depended upon the question involved in the Petition. The Petition was brought up and read. It appeared to be from a person of the name of William Lovett, complaining of having had his printing presses unlawfully seized by the Stamp Office.

had nothing to complain of in the manner in which the hon. Member had introduced the petition. He had spoken with calmness and temper, and while he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) explained the facts, and his view of them to the House, earnestly and effectually, he would endeavour to follow the example of the hon. Member. He was not disposed to misrepresent or misstate the smallest part of the petition; but he wished to distinguish the point before the House from the general question of the policy or impolicy of the stamp-laws as applicable to newspapers. That tax might be politic or impolitic, but it was not now brought under the consideration of the House, which was, therefore, not required to approve or to censure it. The point to be discussed was, whether Government had acted rightly or wrongly in the course adopted in the particular case; and it was not only unnecessary but injurious, as regarded a cool and just decision, to introduce into the debate extrinsic circumstances. He should not say a word as to the character of unstamped publications, but would assume that they were not of a nature to make them the object of vindictive proceedings: he wished to deal justly and dispassionately, and for this purpose he would first look at the state of the law with respect to finance. He had dealt with the whole subject as a matter of finance, and the law applicable to it was not a new one, but as old as the reign of Queen Anne, when the first stamp-duty upon newspapers was imposed. As a matter of revenue, it was his duty to see that this law, like any other of the same kind, was not evaded in any way that he could prevent. He was bound to do so, not only with a view to the interests of the revenue, but in justice to those who obeyed the law, and paid the stamp-duty, and who would be exposed to unfair competition, if such as did not pay the duty were permitted to contend with them. The fair trader had a right to claim and obtain from the Government the best protection which the law could give. He had then a double duty to perform in respect to this matter; first, as regarded the public, in taking care that no fraud was permitted upon the revenue; and secondly, on the point of principle and justice, in as far as he was bound to see that the individuals who obeyed the laws should not be undersold, and thereby defrauded by persons who broke the law. He had this double duty to perform. The hon. Gentleman had said that the Government had recently and suddenly taken upon itself a species of activity which it certainly had not practised before. The hon. Gentleman might, perhaps, mean that expression as complimentary to the Government, but if he did so, he must take the liberty of disputing the accuracy of the fact upon which the complimentary expression was founded. In this case no new course had, been taken. During the four years he had been connected with the Treasury, it had been his constant object—he would not say to vindicate the law, for the phrase was now in bad odour—but to enforce the payment of the ordinary duty which was owing to the Crown, and which it was his duty to receive from the publishers of newspapers. There was another point of the hon. Member's argument to which he must now also allude. The hon. Member had alluded to a certain Act, passed, as he said, in bad times, by a bad minister, and under political circumstances very foreign from those of the present day. Now he could not admit either the force or the propriety of such distinctions. How could the officers of the executive Government go back on every occasion to the origin of laws? How could they, when they found a law passed in bad times, venture to give it a different interpretation from its original interpretation, merely because they had the good fortune of living in different times? It was enough for him to know that it was the law. It might be matter of discussion at another time, whether that law continued proper and applicable to the present times; but so long as it remained law, a more fatal doctrine could not be laid down than that which left to the Government the power of applying it in any other manner than that which was defined in the statutebook. With respect to the particular facts of the present case, he would observe that, for some years back, there had been a continual endeavour, at some times more or less prevalent and more or less successful, on the part of certain individuals, to publish newspapers and advertisements free from duty. Whenever these proceedings had been under the notice of Government, it had been the object of Government to enforce the law against such offences, and in so enforcing it, Government was not making any attack on the liberty of the Press. On the contrary, it was making an effort to save the Press from pecuniary injury, by preventing smuggling practices in the getting up of newspapers. At present, he had only before him an account of the proceedings of the Stamp-office from the year 1831 to the present time. From the account of those proceedings it appeared, that the two individuals whose cases had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Bath, had been repeatedly prosecuted by the Stamp-office for smuggling practices of this nature. In various cases, in consequence of the different modi- fications given to their publications, the proceedings taken against them had not been effectual. In some cases, however, they had been convicted and imprisoned. Here let it be remarked that the parties did not err from ignorance. They declared in one of their publications—"This paper is published, and will continue to be published, in despite and defiance of the law." Nay, in one of their papers they went still further—"We tell the Government," said they, "what will be the result of any prosecution which they may institute against us. On the first day that the Government takes proceedings against us we shall appear—we shall then carry over the matter till the next term." They then go on describing the different evasions which they will practise till judgment is gained and execution is issued against them, and then, say they, "the defendants will decamp." Such was the nature of the opposition against which the Government had to struggle. He would now proceed a little more into details. A prosecution took place in May, 1834, against these parties for selling unstamped publications. The parties were tried, and the Government obtained the verdict of a Jury against them. Execution was issued against them, and costs were taxed. For some time there was great difficulty in levying execution upon any of their goods and chattels. At length, information was obtained that at the place where the papers were published property belonging to these parties would be found. In the ordinary course of things, writs were placed in the hands of the Sheriff, and he was ordered to levy for the amount endorsed on their backs. The officers went to Mr. Cleave's. Now, mind, this was an execution to get at the property of Mr. Cleave. It was, therefore, an execution quite as much against his goods and chattels, his chairs and tables, as against his printing presses and his printing materials. The enforcement of the penalty obtained against him was the object of Government in issuing the execution. In the case of Cleave, there were printing presses found, and above 40,000 unstamped newspapers, half-printed, in this manner [the right hon. Gentleman held up a newspaper printed on one side], and the other half to be printed next day. This was on the Thursday; the day of publication was on the Saturday following. To get rid of our seizure a man of the name of Chappel claimed the goods as his own. On the point of property, he had evidence of the most conclusive nature to prove that it belonged to Cleave, for shortly afterwards Cleave came forward and paid the amount of penalty for which these goods were seized, and it was hardly fair to suppose that Cleave would have paid such a sum had the property not been his. He also wished the House to attend to the manner in which Cleave had paid it. He had paid it in golden money; 200l. he had paid in sovereigns; and why? To prevent the ascertaining, by tracing notes, who were the parties who upheld and supported him in his repeated violations and infractions of the law. Having paid the penalty, Cleave became entitled to receive back the property seized. The half-printed papers were taken away, and on the Saturday following the other half of the papers was printed; and he then held in his hand a copy of one of them, printed in defiance of the law and in fraud of the revenue. It, therefore, became necessary to consider whether the place in which it was printed belonged to him or not. To discover whether these presses belonged to Cleave and Hetherington, the Government availed itself of an enactment of the law, which provides that every printing press should be registered by its owner with the Clerk of the Peace. Inquiry was made, and it was discovered that these presses were unregistered. They were, therefore, by law, subject to seizure. Government knew that they were at work for an unlawful purpose—namely, to defraud the revenue and the fair trader; "and we should have been unworthy of our places, and unworthy of public confidence," said Mr. Rice, "if we had suffered such a bold and scandalous evasion of the law to take place undisturbed." Under these circumstances the second seizure took place. The hon. Gentleman said, that Government had called into exercise a law made in bad times, and that those parties were taken by surprise; but so far was this from being the case, and so far were they from believing the Act of Parliament in question to be obsolete, that, while engaged in publishing, they had for a long time registered their presses, thus admitting their knowledge of the law and recognizing its efficacy. They acted thus till it became important for them to endeavour to evade the penalty of the law which they had violated, and then the supposed change of property was resorted to for the purpose of defeating the claims of the Crown, and practically annulling the verdict of a Jury. The case of Hethering- ton differed from that of Cleave in one respect—Cleave had paid the penalty, but Hetherington had not. Now, with a knowledge that those persons had attempted to evade the law, and rendered their goods liable to seizure, he should like to know how he could have defended himself if he had shrunk from his duty and omitted to sanction the conduct that had been pursued throughout every step of the progress of this transaction. The hon. Gentleman had said, that, in the present state of parties and of public opinion, it especially behoved the Government not to cast away public opinion by their acts, or take a course likely to deprive them of popularity. He was as sensible of the importance of public opinion, and as desirous of securing a sound popularity by a due discharge of his public functions, as the hon. Gentleman could be; but the question arose to what species of public opinion or popularity did the hon. Gentleman refer? To court either the one or the other, beyond the strict line of his duty he never would go. Indeed, if he knew what real popularity was, or had any just idea of sound public opinion, he did not think either of them was to be conciliated by conniving at open and undisguised violations of the law, which were not only prejudicial to the public interest in a financial point of view, but were in the highest degree oppressive and injurious to a class of persons who, paying the duty and complying with the law, had the strongest claim on the protection of the Government. He would not now enter into the general question of the stamp-duties—this was not an occasion for doing so, but he thought it necessary to declare his intention to do his duty by the fair trader, and enforce the penalties of the law against the smuggler. It would be extremely unfair if he should be held up to the public either within or outside of those walls, as one who wished to trench upon the rights or infringe the liberty of the subject, because he was resolved to do his duty by the country, and to protect the fair dealer. Injustice to the hon. Gentleman, however, it must be allowed that he made no charge against the Government, but admitted the strict legality of the proceedings. His only object was, to do justice and enforce the law, without respect to persons or opinions. Assuming that the whole stamped Press was against the Government, and that the unstamped papers were favourable to it, nevertheless, so long as the proprietors of the former performed the obligations which the law imposed on them, if other parties attempted to injure them by committing a fraud on the revenue they were entitled to protection, and it would be unjust in the Government to decline affording it. On this occasion he felt anxious to explain the grounds on which he had proceeded, and had therefore urged the presentation of the petition; he trusted he had offered satisfactory reasons for the course he had taken, and hoped that, in reference to that course, the House and the public would come to a fair, just, and favourable conclusion.

said, that the frequent and unsuccessful attempts to put down the unstamped press fully showed that the public opinion was unfavourable to a stamped press, and that means ought, therefore, to be taken to alter the law in that respect. Four hundred or 500 persons had been imprisoned within the last five years for breaches of the Stamp Laws; and when they thought of the lavish waste both of money and liberty which that circumstance showed, he hoped the House would agree with him as to the propriety of altering those laws. The law had been even a little strained to make it meet the present case. He held documents in his hand which clearly showed that the presses belonged to other parties in consequence of an agreement made so long ago as 1828, and he therefore contended that the seizure was not only impolitic, but unjust, which mulcted parties other than the real offenders.

said, after what had been said by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had but one or two remarks to make. The hon. Member for Marylebone said that he hoped the prayer of the petition would be listened to; now what was the petition? The petitioner stated that he had lent the printing presses to Cleave, and that they were seized. He, however, had no commiseration for Lovett; for that individual must have known that the presses were lent for the purpose of violating the law, and enabling Cleave to commit a fraud. The offence of Cleave was as much a fraud as if he had committed any other species of smuggling. The hon. Member for Bath admitted the legality of the seizure, and he (the Attorney-General) contended that it was not alone legal, but justifiable. The hon. Member was mistaken in saying that the law was dormant. So far was that from being the case, that there was hardly a printing press within the bills of mortality which was not registered. He had not been aware of the proceedings till after they had taken place, but he felt bound to say that they had his entire approbation, and that he was quite ready to take his share of the responsibility.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would name a day upon which the discussion upon the Stamp Duties could be taken? [The Chancellor of the Exchequer was understood to say he could not.] The hon. Member then stated that he would endeavour to bring the subject forward on Friday; and that he could state, that any plan which would leave a duty of a penny upon newspapers would be taken only as a present compromise, and that nothing short of the complete and entire abolition of the duty would satisfy the country.

said, that this was not a question of revenue, but a question of policy, whether they should go on with a system under which 500 persons had already been imprisoned. He hoped that the hon. Member for Lincoln would bring the subject forward before the Budget was produced. He thought that the reduction of the duties would be no relief to the stamped press, and that no satisfaction would be given to the people unless the whole duty on newspapers was removed.

had abstained from taking any part in the discussion upon the repeal of the Stamp Duty on Newspapers, often as it had been before the House, from an apprehension that his motives might be misapprehended; he had therefore hitherto contented himself with giving a silent vote for the repeal of the duty; he might now, however, be allowed to say, on the petition before the House, that the petitioner could be no more surprised at his printing-presses and types being seized when they were engaged in printing newspapers without stamps in defiance of the law, than a shipowner could be surprised who, having lent his vessel to carry on smuggling, found that the revenue officers had seized her. In both cases the trade was contraband, and the consequences might be expected to be alike ruinous. The hon. Member for Middlesex had stated, that nothing short of the removal of the whole duty on newspapers would be satisfactory either to the press or to the people. He (Mr. Baines) was sure that this was not the general sentiment. If Ministers were not in a situation to take off the whole tax, he hoped that they would not, on that account, be induced by any representations to the contrary, not to diminish its amount as much as was compatible with the state of the revenue. He put it to his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex, whether he would not rather pay five-pence every morning for his newspaper than seven-pence, or six guineas a-year rather than eight; and if that would be congenial to his feelings, so would it to the feelings of the people of England. What was the situation in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was placed? With a surplus revenue of not more than 250,000l. he was called upon to repeal the duty on newspapers, amounting to 450,000l.; and not only that, but he was also told by Hon. Members, that, in addition to the 450,000l. they would insist upon the repeal of the duty on paper, which amounted to 650,000l. more: so that, with a surplus of 250,000l. he was expected to repeal duties to the amount of 1,100,000l. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would repeal as much of the duty on stamps as his duty to the public and to the public creditor would allow, but no more. He was afraid that there were other claimants upon the surplus revenue as well as the press. The agriculturists would expect their share of the reduction of taxes, and the manufacturers would require that the duties on the raw materials used in their trades should be favourably considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

admitted, that there was a necessity to enforce the law, but the law itself was bad and ought to be repealed. But as the right hon. Gentleman was determined to enforce the law, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would do so equally in all cases, and as the law had been enforced against the Dorchester labourers for forming secret societies, he hoped the Orange Lodges would not escape. If those lodges were punished, he might give the right hon. Member credit for his zeal; if otherwise, he should think that the right hon. Gentleman looked more to individuals than to the laws. In the particular case before the House he re-asserted that one man was punished by having his presses taken for the faults of another.

presented a petition from William Prentice, now a prisoner in Newgate, having been guilty of a breach of privilege of the House, in having refused to answer certain questions put to him by the Yar- mouth Election Committee. The petitioner prayed that he might be allowed to appear before the Committee, to be examined in all matters not criminating himself. He intended to move, "That the Speaker do issue his warrant to have William Prentice, now in Newgate, brought before the Yarmouth Committee tomorrow." If this person gave satisfactory answers to the questions put to him, he trusted that the House would consent to his discharge.

understood from his noble Friend, the Chairman of the Committee, that this individual was not unwilling to be examined; but he only withheld his evidence in consequence of the threats that had been thrown out, that legal proceedings would be instituted against him in consequence of the part he had taken in the Yarmouth election; and he feared that the evidence he might be called upon to give would be made to tell against him.

moved "That the Speaker do issue his warrant to have William Prentice brought up from Newgate to be examined tomorrow before the Yarmouth Committee."

wished to ask a question of the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, of considerable importance. He had heard that a large number of soldiers had deserted from the garrison of Portsmouth, and had entered the service of the Queen of Spain. They had been tempted to do so in consequence of the expectation of great advantages to be obtained by those who entered the Spanish service. When attempts were made by the authorities of Portsmouth to recover these deserters, great impediments were thrown in their way by those who were intrusted with the management of the recruiting for the Queen of Spain. In some instances it could be proved that false information had been given to enable the deserters to escape. The commander of one of the vessels in the service of the Queen of Spain was asked whether certain deserters who were named to him were in his ship? and he replied that they had been on board, but that they had gone on shore. After this they were seen in the vessel, and were enabled to make their escape in consequence of the false statement made. These persons were known subsequently to have joined the expedition. He wished to know whether his Majesty's Government had appointed a ship at Portsmouth to receive the recruits for the service of the Queen of Spain? He wished also to know whether those persons who had secreted deserters from the garrison, would not be brought to justice for such a serious offence. He would not enter further into the question, but wished to know whether the Government was aware of these proceedings? and whether any steps had been taken on the subject? The conduct of those men who deserted was not nearly so blameable as that of those who encouraged them to do so, and protected them from the pursuit of justice.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had asked whether his Majesty's Government had sanctioned the appropriation of one of his Majesty's ships for the reception of troops who had entered the service of the Queen of Spain. The facts of the case were shortly these:—the Spanish Ambassador had applied to the Government to allow dépôts to be formed at the outports for the reception of recruits for the Spanish service until they could be embarked for the Peninsula. The Government thought that it would be better, both for the recruits and for the inhabitants of the places from whence they were to embark, that they should not be allowed to wander about or to assemble in large numbers on shore, but that they should be kept on shipboard until their final embarkation. On these grounds it was, that the hulk had been allotted for the temporary use of those parties who managed the enlistment for the service of the Queen of Spain.—These persons not only allowed a constant search of the vessel for deserters, but they manifested great anxiety that no vessel should be allowed to depart from Portsmouth, or any other port, with Spanish troops on board, until it had been strictly searched by the proper authorities.

observed, that he was in a situation to give an unqualified contradiction to the statement of the Noble Lord, that the commanders of vessels in the Spanish service afforded any facilities for the search of their ships. On one occasion, when some deserters from the garrison were on board a vessel, the officer in command said that it was true that such men had been on board, but that they had left it: they were afterwards put on shore, and subsequently went out to the Peninsula.

stated that he had been informed last week, that matters were in a very different state to what they were described to be by the right hon. Gentleman. What was the date of the transaction alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman?

replied the 18th of July.

admitted that some subordinate persons employed in enlisting troops for the Queen of Spain, had induced some of the soldiers of the garrison of Portsmouth to desert, and enter the Spanish service; but this was done, not only contrary to the desire of the officer in command of the Spanish auxiliary force, but against his express orders. Lord Hill had issued an order for the trial of the individuals who had deserted, and proceedings had been instituted against those who had encouraged them to desert. If the parties guilty of this conduct were not in the British army, they would be proceeded against for the penalties. It was but justice to state, that the officers in the Spanish service had done every thing in their power to prevent the enlistment of deserters, and had afforded every facility for the discovery of them, on search being made by the officers of the garrison. Orders had also been issued that no recruiting should be allowed in Portsmouth or its neighbourhood.

wished to ask the Noble Lord a question respecting a vessel which had been taken into Gibraltar on the 15th July last. This ship had 153 Spanish subjects on board, and had been seized by those persons, who mastered the crew and carried it into Gibraltar. The name of this brig was the Lancero, fitted out at Barcelona, nominally for conveying 153 persons to the Havannah. These men were merely suspected of Carlism, and had been seized in different towns in Catalonia, Arragon, Valentia, and Murcia. He said, that the ship was nominally consigned to the Havannah, for he had received information which left little doubt on his mind that those 153 unhappy persons were to be disposed of in a different manner. When those persons became conscious of what was likely to be their fate, they rose on the crew and mastered it, and carried the vessel into Gibraltar. He understood that the restoration of this ship and the persons on board of it, had been demanded by the Spanish Government. He wished to know whether this vessel had really been demanded by the Spanish authorities, and whether the persons who had so taken refuge in Gibraltar were to be given up by the British Government to the tender mercies of the person who now adminstered the affairs of Spain. These unhappy men had taken refuge in a place which had formerly been an asylum to many members of the present Spanish Goment, who were now so anxious to persecute those who differed from them. The other question he wished to ask was, whether any information had been received from the British Consul at Tangiers, as to some dead bodies that had been washed on shore, near that fort, which were linked together with iron chains, two and two. These persons were Europeans. This occurred shortly before the vessel he had alluded to had been carried into Gibraltar. Was this the way persons were to be treated who did not choose to be governed by liberals guilty of such conduct? He would not trouble the House further, but wished to hear from the noble Lord whether it was intended to give up these 153 Spaniards, who had not been convicted of any crime, to the tender mercies of the Christinos?

in reply to the first question, said, that his Majesty's Government had received a communication from the authorities of Gibraltar on the subject. He (Lord Palmerston) had likewise received, that morning, a letter from the British Minister at the Court of Madrid, detailing the facts of the case. The vessel that was taken into Gibraltar had on board 153 persons, destined to be conveyed to the Havannah, and a crew of fifteen or sixteen sailors, which certainly was too small, considering what was the object of the voyage. These persons were not taken up on mere surmise, as was supposed by the hon. Gentleman, but had been tried and convicted by due process of law. The proper authorities in Madrid had informed the British Minister that those men had been fairly tried and convicted of the most serious offences against the Government, and had been sentenced to transportation to the colonies. It appeared that the Spanish authorities did not apportion a sufficient number of guards to the number of persons who were to be conveyed to the Havannah; they, therefore, rose on the crew, and four or five of the latter were wounded. They then carried the ship into Gibraltar, and were landed there. The Spanish Consul claimed them as subjects of the Queen of Spain, who had been tried and convicted of certain offences; this claim, however, was refused. He then demanded that they should be detained on the charge of seizing by violence, a vessel belonging to the Queen of Spain. The English authorities at Gibraltar feared that these persons might be liable to some charge of piracy for seizing the ship; they had, therefore, sent home to this country for instructions. His noble Friend, the Secretary for the colonies, had consulted the legal advisers of the Crown on the subject, and they had declared that these men could not be put on their trial on a charge of piracy, and instructions had been sent out to release them. With regard to the question as to whether these men were to be given up to the Spanish Government, he would only say that he did not believe that any man, either in or out of the House, could entertain the slightest doubt that such would not be the case. It had never been the practice of the British Government to give up to other Governments persons who had taken refuge in the English territories from prosecutions for political offences. To borrow an expression of the hon. Member, when Ferdinand was the person who administered the affairs of Spain, this country constantly persisted in refusing to give up the Spanish Liberals to the Government of that country, and it was also the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to refuse to give up to the Queen of Spain, as he (Lord Palmerston) persisted in calling her, notwithstanding the objections of the hon. Member—those persons who were now in the garrison of Gibraltar. With regard to the other matter, it was also true that his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, had received a statement from the Consul at Tangiers, in which he observed that it was reported in that place that some bodies of Europeans had been washed on the sea-shore some miles from Tangiers, and it was his intention to send a person to make inquiry as to the real facts of the case. He would not condescend to answer the insinuations which the hon. Gentleman had thrown out, which had not the slightest shadow of anything like fact to support them. He could not help feeling that the privileges of the House were abused, and the character of Parliament lowered, by pursuing such a course.

contended that they had arrived at the period when they should get rid of the office of Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. The Irish Court had produced great mischief, as it had always been the focus of party feelings and animosities.

observed that before they took away the Lord-lieutenant from Ireland they should first do justice to the country—full, ample, and complete justice. They should treat Ireland as Scotland had been treated—they should not give to his country a stingy proportion of benefits. Let them for instance compare the Reform Bill for England with that of Ireland. Were they aware of the decision of the Carlow Committee, that no man should have a vote under 25l. a-year? There was a jealousy—a fear of admitting the people of Ireland to an equality. It was said, it would be an increase of the popular power in Ireland; and why should there not be an increase of that power? Why should the people of Ireland be placed below the people of England? Corporation reform had been got in Scotland. Why were not the people of Ireland treated in the same way? Reform in the English Corporations was now lingering in another place. Did they think that that would have occurred if the Irish Corporation Bill was not to follow it? In this case, as in many others, the words of Spencer were verified, that "Ireland was reserved as a special curse to England." He hoped that the Government would persevere with the Irish Corporation Bill. If that Bill should be mutilated in another place, yet they would take what they could get as an instalment, and the next year they would, with the same Government, look for the remainder. He was bound to say that they never had in Ireland a Government, until the present, who heartily and entirely concurred with them, or were inclined to go the full length of the desires of the Irish people for equalisation. It was said by the hon. Member for Middlesex, that the office of Lord-lieutenant had been a focus for party—it might also be the focus for liberality, and such he believed was the case with the present Lord-lieutenant, who was received with enthusiasm in every part of the country that he visited. As to the Reform Bill, he would say more of it, if the noble Lord who had been Secretary for Ireland at the time was present; but at the time that that Bill passed, there was an evil genius over the destinies of Ireland. But now, for the first time there was a disposition to do justice. The King's representative was received cordially, and the Assizes proved the country to be more free from agrarian and political offences than it had been for thirty-five years. It was the grievances of that country that had produced agitation. Let them do entire justice to the people in the country, and the power of the agitator would be taken from him.

wished to call the attention of his Majesty's Ministers to some gross frauds which were practised Under this grant. For instance, money was drawn, purporting to be for three congregations in Dublin, whilst only one of them had been in existence for the last twenty-years. And in a parish in the county of Antrim a salary had been drawn in the name of the rev. Mr. Rice, although that Gentleman had separated himself from the congregation in that parish for more than twenty years. He rose merely to make these statements, and not for the purpose of offering any opposition to the grant.

said, that very recently his attention had been called to these special cases, principally, he believed, through the instrumentality of the hon. Gentleman. If the statements that had reached him were true, they were undoubtedly abuses which required correction. At all events, he would undertake to ascertain the facts of these cases.

objected to the grant altogether. He thought it inconsistent in Protestant Dissenters to benefit by a principle of the injustice of which they complained. In his opinion no religion ought to be paid for by the State. The Presbyterians of Ireland ought to set the example of letting each religion support its own Ministers. Many of them indeed had, and some of the clergy had refused to be pastors over flocks which consented to receive the Regium Donum.

bore testimony to the excellent character of the Presbyterians and the Protestant Dissenters in Ireland. He should not have objected to the grant had it been for twice the amount. By the way, the Protestant Dissenters amounted to about 620,000, and the grant to them was 25,000l. The members of the Established Church numbered only 851,000, but the income allowed to them was 550,000l; and the House was told that after a suit- able provision for them, it was impossible there could be a surplus. If for the cure of the souls of 620,000, 25,000l. was sufficient, he would ask what, according to Cocker, ought to be the allowance for 851,000. Let this question be solved, and they would soon see whether there was not a surplus.

was opposed to the grant. The hon. and learned Gentleman had compared the Protestant Dissenters to the members of the Establishment; but he would compare the Roman Catholics to the Dissenters, and say, that as the former did without any grant, none ought to be allowed to the latter.

opposed the Motion.

said, it was not candid in the hon. and learned Member for Dublin to omit to state that the Established religion was not supported by grants from the House but by endowments.

said, that made no difference, it was national property.

supposed that he must join with other hon. Members in not opposing this grant. He begged to state, however, that such grants as these prevented the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer from taking the tax off newspapers. He gave notice that next Session he would divide the House on every similar Motion, unless the Newspaper-tax were taken off.

could not allow a vote of this description to pass over without observation. He would call the attention of the hon. Member for Middlesex to the paltry vote of 702l. here proposed for the improvement of the Shannon, and the maintenance of its works. They had heard that hon. Member, with some surprise, this evening, in the simplicity of his ignorance, taunting Ministers with extravagant expenditure in Ireland when in reality, reduction had been carried to an extent producing considerable inconvenience to the mercantile interests of that country. He really could hardly look over the items of this vote with common patience; 710l. for the improvement of the Upper Shannon, when the Report of the Committee on this river, which sat last Session, recommended an outlay of something about 100,000l. the Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated across the Table, no specific sum had been mentioned.) His right hon. Friend was right that no specific sum was stated in figures, but it was distinctly stated in words. On referring to the Report he found the Committee thus expressing themselves:—That it appeared to them a large portion of this river in the hands of the Government (the very part of it which the vote now before the House related to) was in a very unsatisfactory condition, and that they recommended the Government should be called upon to put this part of it into an efficient state for the purposes of trade, and to fulfil any obligations to which they might be equitably liable. Now, by the able Report of Mr. Rhodes, the engineer, by whom, under the direction of Government the improvements on this river were projected, a report which only required to be generally known to be generally appreciated he found the improvements on the Upper Shannon, which the Government were called on by the Committee to undertake, amounted to something near two-thirds of the sum requisite for the entire river, viz., 154,000l. The House might, probably, or indeed, from this estimate might be naturally led to imagine that the term Upper Shannon embraced but a small and inconsiderable portion of the river, and that the works on that portion of it were in perfect order. Those who were unacquainted with this magnificent river, unequalled as it was in the British dominions—and he found that, even amongst those then present, there were many—would learn with astonishment that it embraced the river from Athlone to its source, about 100 miles; in it were the lakes Lough Ree, Lough Forbes, Lough Boffin, Lough Bordernig, Lough na Honge, and Lough Allen; and this was the part of the river declared by Mr. Williams to be deficient to an extent scarcely credible. In all the incidents of navigation, for nearly 100 miles of its length, not a sail, not a boat was to he met on its waters; no appearance, no indications of capital or utility; it flows unheeded and unproductive. Was this paltry, contemptible 710l., a fit sum to appear in the estimates for so great, so important an object as giving to the united kingdom the benefits of the navigation of this great river? was it to be suffered still to remain to the public a sealed book? Nothing but the notice which stood on the book that night in the name of his right hon. Friend of his intention to introduce a Bill for the improvement of the Shannon prevented him from entering fully into the subject, determined as he was to avail himself of every opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to the neglected state, and at the same time to explain to them the magnitude and capacities of this river. He would wait for the introduction of that Bill, and then should he find it necessary he would trespass on them at some length. At present he would content himself with expressing a hope that the Bill about to be introduced by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be comprehensive and liberal; that gold would no longer be placed in the scale against the peace, prosperity, and welfare of Ireland; that a system of legislation would be adopted founded on a knowledge of the condition of the country; that neither narrow views, nor mistaken economy would tempt the right hon. Gentleman to refuse that assistance which was necessary to prepare the way for the profitable application of capital. Let him fear not the liberality of this House for the attainment of an object which would equally promote the manufacturing prosperity of England and the agricultural welfare of Ireland. They would falsify the almost unanimous declaration of the late Parliament of their determination to assist Ireland. They would willingly assent to a measure which would give security to England and tranquillity to Ireland, and render the political agitation of which they so loudly complained of, comparative insignificance.

said, he should move for a return of the compensation given to all the new-fangled Commissioners, including the Municipal Commissioners, than whom he could not conceive a more worthless or mischievous body. This would give him an opportunity of showing up the exparte statements of the Commissioners—the dishonest and unfair statements of the Commissioners—and the inducements held out to them to make these one-sided statements. This would furnish him with an opportunity of exhibiting the expense, and the mischief, of what he always called, and would call to the death, the workings of the infernal Reform Bill—that vile engine of robbery and oppression. Yes, he should have an opportunity of exhibiting to the community how far the expenses of that rascally measure were commensurate with the expectations entertained of its suc- cess by the people. It was said it would be a great benefit to the people, but the people had not yet shown that they experienced any great benefit from it. They only suffered a fleecing on its account, in the way of taxation to pay Whig-Radical Commissioners. But it was all fair for Government; they were only struggling to keep their places, and they would, of course, support their own Commissioners.

observed, that this Commission had been appointed for the purpose of ascertaining the mode in which the ordinary Commissioners conducted their business, and certainly the least suitable persons to be appointed for such a purpose would have been those Commissioners themselves. It had, therefore, been considered necessary to appoint extra Commissioners, and their labours had unquestionably fully remunerated the charge which the country had to meet for them.

considered it discreditable to the Government to enter into a kind of partnership with the counties for defraying expenses which ought all to be borne by the Government. He was of opinion, that the whole sum should be remitted to the agriculturists who were suffering great distress.

said, if the proposition were a discreditable one (which however he utterly denied) it had originated with the Committee, and not with his Majesty's Government. If the hon. Gentlemen opposite were so anxious for the agricultural interest, how was it that they had not put a vote on the subject into their own miscellaneous estimates, and thereby have shown their attachment by deeds instead of by words? This proposition of the expense of prosecutions of criminals had been adopted, by the Irish Government with the very best effect. Indeed, how could it be otherwise; the local interest must be identified in such cases with the general interest. The Government did not talk as loudly as other parties on the subject of their anxiety to succour the distress of the agricultural interest, but it had been, and would be found to be, as anxious as any hon. Member on the Opposition benches to afford to that great interest any just measure of relief to which it was entitled.

observed, that the Committee had recommended the defraying of burthens which fell upon the agricultural interest by the public.

said, that he was far from thinking the local Magistrates co-operated as they ought to do in endeavouring to keep down the county-rates. He thought the best results would follow from sending down a special officer to enforce the general observance of a uniform rule as to these expenses, and that a very important saving would be effected in the local Government.

contended, that no boon should, or ought to be given to the agriculturists so long as they were suffered to possess the odious monopoly in food granted them by the existing Corn-laws. These ought, injustice to this great manufacturing community to be forthwith repealed. He agreed that a public functionary sent down, as recommended by the hon. Baronet, would effect much good, by introducing a general rule and a strict scale of expense in these cases of prosecution. He wished the House to remark, that the Committee which sanctioned this change from the old law and practice were all of them agricultural Members. He protested against this vote, as one altogether uncalled for by the circumstances of the times. Government would not be justified in making any concession in favour of the agricultural interest, unless they were prepared, in the first instance, to yield up the unjust monopoly they now possessed in supplying this kingdom with the staff of life.

remarked, that within his own time, the prosecutor used almost always to defray the expenses of the prosecution. He felt that in this grant of 110,000l., 80,000l. of which was to defray one-half of the expenses of prosecutions at Assizes and at Quarter Sessions, the Government had redeemed the assurance it had given, that it was anxious to relieve any burthens which pressed peculiarly upon the agricultural and rural districts. He had, however, yet to learn, that these parties were more interested than any other of his Majesty's subjects in bringing criminals to justice. This, it was clear, was an object which must be of equal interest and of as deep anxiety to persons possessed of funded property, and more particularly to those possessed of personal property and effects, to secure, as any other members of society.

thought, that upon the I whole the Government plan was a good one: but expressed his hope, that every means would be adopted for diminishing the expenditure in future.

said, that the agricultural interest could not have worse friends, or rather more bitter enemies, than his Majesty's present Ministers. The Poor-law Bill, for instance, was one of the greatest hardships that had ever been inflicted on the people. As a Magistrate, he had refused, and would continue to refuse, to enforce the Act in certain cases, for he could not see why any individual, male or female, who had lived in a state of respectability, should be compelled to go to the workhouse, instead of receiving some assistance from the parish. His Majesty's Ministers had not done a single beneficial act for agriculture. If they had, he would sit on their side of the House, disclaiming all party feeling.

adverting to the Poor-law Amendment Act said, that at a general meeting, before the passing of the Act, in the county which he had the honour to represent, there were but three hands held up against it; and that it was now generally acknowledged that it operated uniformly well.

regretted to see the enemies of the agricultural interests seize on so trifling an occasion as the present to inveigh against that interest. How was it possible that they could now say, that the high price of corn affected the manufacturing interest? Nevertheless, and in spite of facts, the hon. Member for Middlesex persisted in his attempt to run down the agricultural interest. The present was the first time at which any boon, however trifling, had been proposed for the land, and he hailed it with great pleasure. There could be no doubt, however, that the whole expense of the poor ought to be borne equally by persons possessing property generally, and not by the landholders alone. The Legislature had refused to give the agricultural interest a paper currency, which would have been a great benefit to them: let them provide that the Poor-rate should be levied on the general fund of the country, a proposition which he hoped he should soon see carried into effect. That would be a substantial benefit to agriculture.

thought the observation of the hon. Member for Wilts had no reference to the question before the Committee. This was not a period to waste time in irrelevant discussions.

thought that the vote was one which ought not to be pressed at such a moment as the present. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow some further time for its consideration. It was not usual for such a proposition to be brought forward in the estimates.

thought that the expense of prosecutions should be made a general charge upon the country at large, and should not be discharged out of the county rates.

opposed the vote, on the ground that the parties to whom the money was proposed to be given ought, in common prudence, to have insured their property, and failing in that point of prudence had no claim for compensation from the country.

defended the vote, and maintained that the parties had a bonâ fide claim according to law. A judicial decision had been given upon the subject, and could not be contravened.

opposed the grant, and contended that the Act of Parliament, under which the question was tried, did not apply to the case of fire.

said, that the question was tried before Mr. Justice Crampton, who laid it down, that if the jury were satisfied the fire was the result of wilful misconduct on the part of the Custom-house officer, then the case came within the meaning of the Act. The jury did decide that the fire was the result of wilful misconduct; this grant, therefore, was only in accordance with the law.

was not disposed to resist the claim after what had been stated to be the law, as he did not think it would be right to impugn the decision of the jury.

said, that as the case had been adjudicated on by a court of law, he thought it would be hard that the merchants should be deprived of the advantage of the verdict they had obtained.

did not think this was a case in which the public were bound to make good the loss sustained. The Act had expired before the action was brought, and he considered the Government to have gone beyond their duty by allowing the merchants to have the benefit of the Act, as if it had not expired. It was a favour conferred on merchants to allow them to bond their goods without paying duty, therefore the public ought not to be liable for any loss that might occur by accident.

would not object to the vote, though he could not but express his anxiety and alarm at the awful responsibility which this vote was about to impose upon the public.

said the public would not be rendered liable unless proof could be afforded that the property was destroyed by wilful misconduct on the part of the officer. He admitted, however, that until the decision in this case was given, he was not aware that such a construction could be put upon the Act of Parliament, and he was glad to find that the general opinion of the House was, that a necessity existed for introducing a measure to protect the country from being subject to the charge arising from fire in bonded warehouses. At the same time no one could justly object to the present vote.

considered that the Government had improperly given advantage to the parties claiming compensation. The Act under which they claimed had expired; the Government allowed the merchants of Dublin the benefit of the Act as if it had not expired, but they deprived the public of the benefit of the same Act of Parliament which subjected the officer, by whose negligence the fire was occasioned, to prosecution. The jury consequently, were relieved from all check on account of the liability to which they would have exposed the officer, and were open to the unrestrained influence of sympathy for the merchants who were sufferers by the calamity. But he would contend that the Act in question did not contemplate the occurrence of an accidental fire arising from the negligence of the officer; it only applied to a distinct and positive act of wilful injury on the part of the officer. He believed that the Government had been over-persuaded by those who advocated the cause of the merchants in this transaction. This grant would establish a very dangerous precedent; and he, therefore, agreed that it was necessary some Bill should be introduced upon the subject.

denied that his noble Friend (Lord Althorp) was either inveigled or outwitted on this occasion; he did only what was just in allowing the question to go to a jury in the manner it had done.

said, that so far from its being a favour to the prosecutors to be allowed to bring the case before the jury in the manner in which it was brought forward, every effort, on their part, was made to try it as a criminal question against the officer; but they were not allowed to do so.

said, that a better opinion had been pronounced with reference to the construction of the Act than that of the Law Officer of the Crown. It was the opinion of the learned Judge who tried the cause. If, however, the authority of the humble individual who was then addressing the House were any confirmation of that decision, he should say, that he entirely concurred in it. The public entered into an implied contract with the owners of the goods in question to preserve them. They were placed in the warehouse of the public; they were destroyed by the negligence of a servant of the public, and the public were bound to remunerate the owners.

feared that the opinion which had just been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman would have the effect of spreading dismay and alarm among the proprietors of warehouses and the holders of Dock shares. If the principle were laid down that any warehouse-keeper was responsible for goods in his possession destroyed by fire, they would be subject to a liability they had never knowingly incurred, and which had never attached to them before.

rose apparently with the intention of moving the adjournment (it was half-past twelve o'clock); but on the Speaker proceeding to read the other Orders of the Day, resumed his seat.

moved that this Bill be now read a second time.

was again called for, and again rose to move the adjournment. After a little hesitation the hon. Member for London consented to postpone the second reading until a future day.

hoped the House would not object to the Corporation Reform Bill being now read a second time. In that hope he would make the Motion.

rose and said, he should move the immediate adjournment of the House if the Motion were persevered in.

trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would see the perfect impossibility of proceeding with so important a measure at that hour of the night.

had hoped that the House would have no objection to the Bill being read a second time that night if the discussion were taken in another stage of the measure. He was sure, however, that his hon. and learned Friend, consulting the convenience of the House, would postpone the second reading, on condition that an arrangement were made for the Bill being read a second time on the next occasion of its standing on the Orders without further delay.

was persuaded that it would be quite impossible to proceed with the Bill this Session. He would, therefore, oppose any postponement of the second reading, if it were done as a compromise, and on the understanding that some future arrangement should be made. He was quite convinced, that if the Bill were passed this Session, it must be forced through the House by the main strength of a majority, and without any opportunity for a fair discussion of its provisions. He should, therefore ask no favour, and accept no compromise. If the Motion were passed, he should shortly state the grounds on which he entered his protest against it: but he should certainly ask for no accommodation at the hands of his Majesty's Ministers.

said, that unless the hon. Member for Salford persevered in moving the adjournment of the House, he would move it himself.

after what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Shaw), hoped that the House would support his hon. and learned Friend in moving the second reading of the Bill.

I only ask whether it is decent to proceed at this hour of the night to read a Bill of such importance a second time.

I only ask the House to consider how the case stands. I put it to the House, whether anything could be fairer than the proposition I made to it. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who was the only hon. Member who had spoken on that side, asked for postponement; I said, "If you ask for it merely on account of the lateness of the hour, I am the last person to refuse;" but you either ask for postponement or you do not. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in reply to me, stands up and says, that he does not wish for postponement—but that he asks for something else. Why, really, when we are ready to do what he asks, it is rather too much that the hon. and learned Gentleman should turn round and accuse us of acting with indecent haste.

repeated, that he did not mean to ask for the postponement of the Bill on the ground that it would be improper to take the discussion upon it in Committee, but because it was most unfair to the parties whose interests were affected to bring on the measure at such a period of the Session. The city of Dublin comprised one-third of the whole of the Irish Corporations, as stated by the Attorney-General for Ireland, and he had that day received an application from the Corporation of Dublin, stating that they were wholly ignorant of the evidence on which the Bill was founded, they never having received a copy of the Report of the Commissioners, and indeed it was impossible they should, for the first part of that Report (the other not being yet published) had only been put into the hands of Members the middle of that day. Was the Legislature to deprive the citizens of Dublin of Charters, privileges, and property, which they had enjoyed for more than six centuries, not only without hearing either evidence or statement on their behalf—but without even letting them see a copy of the charge made against them? It was inconsistent with every principle of sound legislation and justice. He was no advocate of abuses—he had no objection to true Reform, and on the proper occasion would be ready dispassionately to enter upon the entire Question as regarded the Corporations in Ireland—but at that period of the Session, when most of the leading Members unconnected with office had left town, and above all, before the local Reports were published, he earnestly protested against the measure being forced through the House by the mere numerical strength of a Ministerial majority. The Ministers knew the Bill could not be discussed this Session; but such might be their object. They knew it was impossible the measure could become a law during the present Session, but it might serve a party purpose to have it thrown out elsewhere. All he could say was, that if the Ministry did force on the Bill in that House; he would take no part in the dis- cussion of it, but simply enter his strongest protest against a proceeding so unprecedented and so unjust.

said, that such an observation came well from the learned Recorder, who supported the Corporation of Dublin in all their gross peculations and abuses, and was their legal adviser in the opposition which they gave to this Bill ["Order, and Chair."]

said, that the hon. Member for Dublin had been guilty of the most disorderly language in imputing to him a desire to support peculations and abuses. He was desirous to vindicate himself from such a gross and unfounded attack, and he called upon the hon. Member to retract the expressions he had used.

said, that the hon. Member for Dublin had undoubtedly used very strong expressions to a Member of the House, but he was quite sure that he would be willing to retract them.

said, that the words he had used were not directed to a Member of the House, but to an official person out of the House—he meant the Recorder of Dublin.

said, that if the expressions used were objectionable and offensive, it did not signify whether they were applied to a Member of the House, or to a person out of the House. It was equally the duty of the hon. Member to retract them, particularly as he had been called upon to do so by the Chair.

observed, that the Corporation of Dublin was a many-headed monster—the hydra of corruption and misrule, and then referring to certain persons who had mixed themselves up with shameful conduct—

was determined not to submit to such language as had been used by the hon. Member for Dublin, unless the Speaker ruled that it was orderly.

said, what he meant to state was this, that the House could not proceed to pass this Bill without encountering the opposition of persons who were anxious to perpetuate the abuses which it sought to remedy.

rose to order. The hon. Member for Dublin had applied expressions of an offensive nature to the right hon. Gentleman, and he was bound to retract them.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Recorder of Dublin, had called for an explanation of the expres- sions used by the hon. Gentleman. The demand of such an explanation was quite reasonable, and it therefore behoved the hon. Gentleman to explain or retract the words he had used.

said, it was very curious that everything bad which was said at that side of the House must be taken to apply to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) was mistaken, however, if he supposed that he could be whitewashed by calling for any explanation from him.

must appeal to the House to support him in maintaining the order and decorum of their proceedings. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Dublin, had used expressions which the House could not sanction, and he once more put it to the good feeling of the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the words he had used.

in obedience to the wish expressed by the Chair, begged to say, that he retracted any words that might have given offence to any hon. Member of the House.

said, that there was no Question before the House. An hon. Member had moved the second reading of the Irish Municipal Reform Bill, and the Question upon that Motion had not as yet been put.

moved, that the further consideration of the Question before the House be adjourned to Wednesday next.

wished to call the attention of the House to a speech made some time ago by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Recorder of Dublin, on the subject of Corporation Reform, in which he was reported to have said, that his Majesty's Government knew that they could not carry forward to its completion the proposed measure of Reform in the course of the present Session of Parliament, and he that night said, that they were now only urging it forward for party purposes.

begged to state, that what he had said was, that they might now use it for party purposes.

resumed—He would read the language of which the right hon. Gentleman made use from his own paper—from the organ of his own party—Saunders's News-Letter. He was there reported to have said, that he felt perfectly confident and assured, that the proposed Bill would not pass into a law during the present Session, for he had heard a Member of the Government say, that they did not contemplate the passing of more than two Bills in the present Session of Parliament namely, the English Corporation Reform Bill, and the Irish Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had thought proper to say, that it had been brought in for party purposes, but he would take leave to affirm, that there was not a man in England of impartial mind, who thought anything of the sort, and if the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth were in power, instead of the present Ministers, the Recorder of Dublin would not have dared to insinuate anything of the sort. The hon. Member was proceeding to read from the reported speech of the right hon. Gentleman some passages which he described as reflecting in very undeserved terms upon the measure of Corporation Reform, and upon the conduct of his Majesty's Government, and was putting a hypothetical case in reference to the learned Recorder of Dublin, assuming him to have been possibly the individual from whom those speeches proceeded, and described them as infamous libels, when

interposed, and called the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the breach of order he was about to commit.

said, he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman had not used those words, and if they did not relate to the Corporation Question.

said, that the hon. Gentleman might put his question to the right hon. and learned Recorder of Dublin, provided he did so without any comment tending to convey offence.

said, that one part of a speech made by him in Dublin had been alluded to by the hon. Member for Middlesex, in which he was reported to have said, that "those who differed from him were Infidels in religion, and Revolutionists in politics." What he did say, was, "those who opposed the institutions of the country, would be joined by all who were Infidel in religion, and Revolutionary in politics." As to the rest of the report, it was substantially correct.

said, it did not appear to him that there would be any use in continuing a discussion of that nature, and he hoped that when they came formally to the consideration of the Question which gave rise to the present conversation, they would approach it with calmness and with moderation. He trusted that was scarcely necessary for him to assure the House, that his Majesty's Government brought forward the Question of Irish Corporation Reform as an act of public duty, and not from any party or personal views. They proposed to themselves no other object than the direct and single aim of advancing the public good. Having introduced and carried through that House an important, and he hoped he might be allowed to say, a valuable measure, of Corporate Reform for England, they now hoped to be able to hold out to Ireland an equal measure of justice.

said, he thought it fair to state that taking into consideration the late period of the Session, and that it would be impossible for the Bill to be properly discussed, he should content himself on Wednesday with entering his Protest against it; he would be no party to the discussion of a measure under such circumstances. If he had said any thing in connexion with this subject that had wounded the feelings of hon. Gentlemen he was sorry for it: all he intended was, to point out the difficulties in the way of giving, at this period of the Session, to a Bill of so much importance, the attention which it ought to receive.

moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the Orange Lodges in Great Britain and the Colonies. He said that he had the authority of the hon. Gentleman who was Chairman of the late Committee (Mr. Patten) to put his name down amongst those whom the House might appoint as the Committee on the present occasion.

said, this was a subject which required debate, but it being impossible that they could enter into the question at so late an hour, he should move if the Motion were persisted in, that the House should adjourn.

thought it quite out of the question that at this late period of the Session they could go into such an inquiry, or consent at that late hour of the night to any such Motion.

thought that the proposition to extend the inquiry to England was one which the House could not but accede to. He was of opinion that there could have been no objection to an instruction to the former Committee, if it had been sitting, to extend its inquiries, and all that was now proposed was to ap- point another Committee, the Members of the former Committee having been discharged, and some of them being out of town.

said, that disclosures had taken place within the last two or three days which rendered it impossible not to go on. That being the case, he contended the subject ought to be probed to the bottom. Were they to be told, with such facts before them, that any further inquiry was to be postponed for six months, and that in the interval the Orange Lodges were to go on extending their influence in the British Army. If there was any individual particularly interested in the question, it was an illustrious personage whose name he would not mention, and not to pursue this inquiry into all the circumstances would be a great injustice to him.

said, this was a question not affecting England only. It had been shown that the Governor of Edinburgh Castle was an Orangeman. He would contend that there ought to be the strictest investigation into this plot—for such he would call it. They did not know to what extent it went, they did not know that it was not meant to subvert the succession to the Throne. He would assert in his place in Parliament, that it was meant to do so. On the 12th of July, for the first time, riots had broken out in Scotland, and all the circumstances ought to be closely examined into. The Orange Lodge system affected the three kingdoms; and he was so impressed with the belief that the illustrious personage to whom reference had been made, was deeply implicated in it, that nothing could satisfy him to the contrary, short of a most searching investigation.

said, he could at once show grounds for the present Motion. The hon. Gentleman then stated that he held in his hand a paper, from which it appeared that at a meeting over which the Duke of Cumberland presided, warrant 254 was granted to a private of the 6th battalion of Royal Artillery, and warrant 260 to private Wilson, of the 17th. He put it to the hon. Gentleman whether, after that statement, he would persevere in his opposition.

said, the graver the charge made, the more necessary was it that such a motion should not be disposed of at a time of the night when it could not receive the consideration which was due to it. He thought that the question ought at least to be postponed till to morrow-night.

put it to the hon. Gentle- men opposite, whether, if they were in the minority, they would not complain of the tyranny of a majority which would force a measure forward at a time when it was impossible that it could be properly debated?

said, the noble Lord had talked of the tyranny of a majority, but to him it appeared that the unyielding opposition of a minority to an important measure, without any valid reasons for such opposition being assigned, was a species of tyranny quite as objectionable as any other. It was admitted that the statement of the hon. Member for Middlesex rendered it necessary that there should be an inquiry, and yet it was proposed to postpone that inquiry. The ground taken for the postponement was, that the statement made affected an illustrious person. Now, he would ask, what better mode of vindicating the illustrious individual could be adopted, than the inquiry which the hon. Member for Middlesex moved for? One hon. Gentleman recommended the postponement of the inquiry till next year. Would not this be most improper, to deprive the illustrious individual of the opportunity of showing that the charge made was not maintainable. He trusted that a better reason would be shown for vexatiously obstructing public business by repeated motions for adjournment, or that they would be abandoned.

could state, on authority, that the illustrious Duke had not the slightest knowledge of the existence of Orange Lodges in the army. He thought the proposed course calculated to prejudice the case.

said, if this were the first time the Question had been before the House, he admitted they would have no right, at this late hour, to call on the hon. Gentlemen opposite to accede to the Motion; but the Question was conceded by the late Government; it was carried without a division; and the Motion was seconded by an hon. Gentleman who was himself connected with the Orange Lodges. His Royal Highness's connexion with the society was not the object of the inquiry, but part of it; and the inconvenience was what he had exposed himself to by the high office which he had consented to fill.

said, that if he had been so charged he should have begged that the Committee might sit from day to day: and he should have exclaimed, "Heaven defend me from such friends as the hon. Gentlemen opposite!" who urged delay.

contended that the effect of this Motion would be directly to interfere with the discipline of the army, and therefore he was opposed to it. He had heard that by Reform the House of Commons would become too strong for the King's Government, and this, he thought, verified that statement to the fullest extent. If such an inquiry were granted all he could say was, that if they did not exempt the army from it, they would be setting the prerogative of the Crown at defiance.

objected to the urging on of so important a Question at that hour (past two o'clock) in the morning, particularly in the absence of so many Members, who would, if present, be disposed to take part in the discussion. He was quite sure that this was a course which the House, according to its general practice, would not allow to be taken with a common Turnpikeroad Bill, if it were objected to. He was not in any way connected, politically or otherwise, with the illustrious individual whose name had been mentioned; on the contrary, he had differed from him on many important Questions, but he thought it exceedingly unfair that charges of the kind that had been brought should be made without a full opportunity of discussing them. He had no wish to embarrass the Government, but he felt it his duty to propose that the Debate be adjourned.

had great pleasure in seconding the Motion. He thought that the course proposed by hon. Gentlemen was most unfair—a course which he believed few of them would be disposed to pursue with respect to political unions.

moved that the House do adjourn.

said, that the refusal of the hon. Member for Middlesex to postpone his Motion, in order to give an opportunity for its full discussion, had placed him (Mr. Shaw) and the Gentlemen at his side in the disagreeable position of objecting to the further progress of the public business. It was clear they had a power of preventing further business from going on, and he put it to the candour of the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, whether it was fair to urge a Motion of the kind under such circumstances.

said the appointment of the Committee would not compromise anybody. It was a following up the inquiry already agreed upon. The facts which had come out in the course of this discussion, instead of being a reason for postponing the inquiry, were, in his opinion, good grounds for urging it forward.

asked, if a charge of the kind had been made against the noble Lord, would he think his accuser had acted fairly towards him if he urged on an inquiry connected with that charge at half-past two o'clock in the morning? Charges of this kind would go before the public, and it might be weeks or months before their refutation would ooze out in the report of a Committee. One hon. Member had said that he could state reasons why the Committee ought not to be appointed, if he had time; and another complained of great fatigue; and all that was asked was a delay of twelve hours, in order to afford full time for the discussion of the question, yet a majority of that House refused that reasonable request. He did not speak about the case itself, or about the individuals connected with it; he spoke for the honour and character of the House, both of which, he contended, would be compromised if a question of this kind was forced on at that late hour.

said, that he would most willingly listen to the appeal of his noble Friend, if it were founded in reason and justice. His noble Friend put it on the ground of a postponement till tomorrow, but other hon. Members were desirous to postpone the Question altogether. Now, let them understand each other. If the delay sought was merely a delay until tomorrow, and that no objection would then be made to the revival of the Committee, he would not object to the postponement till then; but if the object was to defeat the inquiry tomorrow, he should persist in his opposition to the Motion.

said, that his object was not to oppose the Motion generally; he had not even made up his mind which way he should vote. What he understood was, that the postponement was sought till tomorrow, that a better opportunity might be afforded for discussing the question.

felt that the Motion could not be discussed with fairness tonight. He did not rise to offer any defence for the Duke of Cumberland in any way, but he objected in the commencement on grounds that were known to him, as a member of the Committee, to the Motion generally. All he sought, however, at present was, that the debate should be put off till tomorrow, in order that the subject should have a fair discussion. But he did not say that he tomorrow would not oppose the Motion.

if the objection were raised on the merits of the Motion, would vote with the hon. Member for Middlesex; but if it were merely for a delay in order to secure a full discussion, he would support the Motion for an adjournment.

contended, that the state of business tomorrow would absolutely preclude any better chance of bringing the Question forward than there was at the present moment. The hon. and learned Member (Dr. Nicholl) objected to the discussion in the absence of the Chairman of the late Committee, yet it appeared that the hon. Chairman had authorized the hon. Member for Middlesex to put down his name as a member of the new Committee. If the hon. Member had any peculiar reasons to urge against the formation of this Committee, he could have stated them in one-tenth of the time consumed in the divisions which had already taken place on the subject. It was said on all sides, that there was no objection to putting a stop to a system which might disorganize our army, but when it came to an inquiry every objection that could be raised was urged against it. He rejoiced in the divisions which had taken place, because they demonstrated a readiness to shrink when they came to the point. When they came to probe the system to the bottom, then they were met by every miserable contrivance which sophisms could supply, and which the repeated Question of adjournment would practically support. These attempts at delay were subterfuges to which an enlightened public would lend no countenance.

was not conscious that he had deserved the severe terms in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had adverted to his conduct.

disavowed any intention of saying a word that could have wounded the feelings of the hon. and learned Gentleman, or of any Member of that House. He appealed to the whole of his conduct since he became a Member of that House, and he could safely assert he never intentionally used a harsh expression towards any Member in it. Certainly he had never entertained any feeling towards the hon. and learned Gentleman which could tempt him to the use of any such language.

did not wish to shrink from any inquiry which proceeded on a fair principle.