had to present a Petition, the allegations in which represented grievances, the magnitude of which, as the petitioners truly stated, were so excessive and monstrous, that the very excess of them deprived the petitioners of the ordinary remedies. The petition proceeded from the freeholders of the county of Kerry, and detailed a series of the most flagrant and persevering intimidaiion exercised upon them. The intimidation, they stated, consisted not only in the use of open force and violence, and in the influence of the ministers of religion over their flocks in their clerical or in their lay capacity, but in the most iniquitous perversion of the religious, or, he might rather, perhaps, describe them as the superstitious feelings of the people, to political purposes. All the allegations in the petition could be proved by the most direct and positive evidence. Part, indeed, of them, had already been proved before the Intimidation Committee. The petitioners stated, that the return of the right hon. Maurice Fitzgerald (the Knight of Kerry) was secured beyond all question, if the county had been allowed to remain tranquil; but so far was this from being permitted, a system of the most violent and iniquitous intimidation and exercise of undue influence had been resorted to for the purpose of returning Messrs. Mullins and Morgan John O'Connell, as Members for the county. The first outbreak of these illegal proceedings consisted in a speech delivered by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, at a meeting of the Association in Dublin; at which the hon. and learned Member, after stating that he was the day after going down to the county of Kerry to oppose the Knight of Kerry, fulminated a sentence of condemnation against every man who should dare to vote for the right hon. Gentleman, that "a death's head and cross bones should be chalked on his door, to shew the people how great a miscreant dwelt there." The petitioners added, that in Ireland there were multitudes of deluded men, ready to

*Col. Fairman kept out of the way till the Session was brought to a close, and no further steps were taken with regard to him.

carry into execution every and any threat that the said hon. and learned Member might think proper to give utterance to, and that any one who, after this declaration of his, should venture to vote for the Knight of Kerry, stood in danger of being murdered. The result was, that a great many persons were deterred from voting for the right hon. Gentleman, who lost his election in consequence; but subsequently, at a meeting held at Tralee, the hon. and learned Member renewed the threats just mentioned, and in addition declared that no man guided by his opinion, would deal with any tradesman who should venture to vote for the Knight of Kerry. Simultaneously with this the electors were addressed by the Roman Catholic Bishop of the diocese, in favour of Messrs. Mullins and Mr. J. O'Connell, and the Roman Catholic Priests of the county resorted to the most unjust and illegal measures to induce the electors to vote for these hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Member detailed several cases, exemplifying the manner in which the priests had been guilty of the conduct he complained of. In a great many cases the priest said "he would not prepare ajiy of his flock for death, baptize children, or perform any of the sacred rites for them. And that, in short, they should be excommunicated, unless they voted for Mr. Mullins and Mr. Morgan John O'Connell." For gross violations of the freedom of election such as these, the petitioners prayed the House to pass some special remedy. The hon. Member also read to the House a manifesto issued at the same period, and with the same object as the proceedings he had described. The document was headed "The Patriot's Curse," and it denounced the anathema of every lover of freedom and of his country upon every one who should vote for the Knight of Kerry. "Upon the loathsome object who should so forget his duty," thundered the denunciation, shall the slow and unmoving finger of scorn be for ever fixed." The petition was signed by nearly every Protestant freeholder in the county, and by several respectable Roman Catholics. Among the subscribers to it were several Magistrates. The petitioners stated that the whole of their allegations could be proved by the most satisfactory evidence, and that a portion of them had been fully proved before the Intimidation Committee by two witnesses, who had, in particular, completely substantiated the statements in reference to the hon. Member for Dublin's share in the proceeding. He hoped that the subject would be carefully inquired into on the part of the House, either this or next Session.

, as Chairman of the Intimidation Committee, would trouble the House with a few observations in reply to the petition last presented, and to the statements made by the hon. Member, in both of which son ething of the nature of complaint was made against that Committee. He could assure the hon. Member that at any rate, so far as related to this case, there was no foundation for any such complaint. He might refer him in the first place to the Report of that Committee, now on the Table of the House, in which the Committee had endeavoured to show the House the character of the inquiry which they had conducted; and disclaimed on their parts any attempts which might have been made to make that Committee a receptacle for individual charges against particular persons concerned in electioneering matters; their exertions had been directed to the sifting the cases brought before them in such a manner as to make each charge stand upon absolute proof or disproof. It had been the object of the Committee to obtain evidence which might direct the House to some practical remedy (if such could be suggested), by ascertaining the nature of the system through individual Acts; by arriving, when it could, at general facts which were undisputed, and by leaving aside those which being disputed might involve the Committee, in the course of investigating them, in such a loss of time as was wholly inconsistent with the limits of the period prescribed for the inquiry, and which would, in fact, have been a deviation from the object for which the Committee was appointed. With this view, in reference to the subject of bribery, the Committee had laid aside all charges against particular individuals, and all charges which,being matters of dispute, might have involved a lengthened inquiry into them. The attention of the Committee had been directed to those towns and boroughs where the existence of bribery had been proved; and they had examined witnesses as to the mode and manner in which that bribery had been carried on. In particular, they had selected those places where such practices had been carried on by both sides, and where the wit- nesses of one party, while criminating the other side, were under the necessity of admitting that similar practices had prevailed on their own. One circumstance he was bound to state, in reference to the limitation of witnesses in the Kerry case—namely, that it was utterly impossible for the Committee, consistently with the rules they had laid down, and which he was sure would meet with the sanction of the House—it was quite impossible for them to go into the case of the Kerry election so long as the subject of the election itself was pending before a Committee of the House. Indeed, almost all the Irish cases were postponed by the Committee as coming under the same category. In reference to the charge which had been made against the Roman Catholic priests, a witness had been examined, named Brownrigg, who had been an agent of the stipendiary magistrates, and was now an inspector of police. This person had been commisioned by Government to make inquiries as to the intimidation by which it was alleged the priests had obtained for their candidates the votes which tenants had previously promised to give their landlords. The evidence given by this person, although it referred to the whole county of Kerry, had not been sufficient to make out the charge against the priests. The hon. Member then repeated the reasons which had induced the Committee to limit the evidence in this case, adding, that the refusal to go into it had been impartially made to both parties. This refusal had been in accordance with the unanimous opinion of the Committee, among whom was the right hon. Member for Launceston. But he must protest against what had been said by the hon. Member, that the charges contained in this Petition had been fully proved before the Committee. With regard to the allegations of the Petition, he was bound to admit that a great deal of influence, which he must characterize as undue influence, had been exercised by a class of persons which both in England and Ireland, he should like to see removed from the scene of politics—he meant the ministers of religion. Some matters were stated in the petition as facts, which tended to throw discredit on the other real or supposed grounds of complaint. For instance, the hon. Member had read with great impression and emphasis what was called "The Patriot's Curse," which had been clearly shown not to be a genuine document; its origin had been traced to some ingenious persons, who had palmed it upon The Times newspaper, which was generally extremely careful in the assertions it made as to matters of fact. If, on the other hand, the House was of opinion that this petition contained sufficient to induce it to institute an inquiry— not, as the petitioners prayed, to pass a law without investigation—he should have the greatest pleasure in lending his assistance, with a view of doing justice to all parties. As one statement, however, of the petitioners was utterly and entirely disproved, it was doubtful whether any number of witnesses, if they were called, could substantiate the remainder. It seemed a little incongruous that the petitioners should now be prepared to prove intimidation by witnesses who had been intimidated, when they had avowed that they would not proceed under the Grenville Act, because the witnesses could not venture to acknowledge the influence under which they had voted. If their apprehensions were now removed, the chance was, that they would be able to make out a case for inquiry hereafter. As he was convinced that Gentlemen on both sides would be anxious to speak upon this Question, he would move "That the farther Debate upon the Petition should be adjourned until Monday."

presented a Petition from bankers, merchants, and citizens of Dublin, signed by twenty thousand names, principally directed against the right hon. Recorder of Dublin, whom he saw in his place. The immediate occasion of the petition was an alleged speech by the Recorder, but that was only a minor topic of the petition. He considered it important because it was intimately connected with the administration of justice, which ought to be free from all party feeling, and he could not discharge his duty by the petitioners without bringing the principal parts of their complaint before the House. The petition was agreed to at a numerous and respectable meeting of the inhabitants of Dublin; he would not advert to the interruption which took place, but would leave that to others if they thought proper to notice it, but he hoped that the petition, and the charges it contained, which the petitioners were ready, if permitted, to prove at the Bar, would receive all the attention which its magnitude deserved. The petitioners first stated themselves to be anxious friends of every constitutional Reform in Church and State, and added an expression of their regret that others thought the institutions of the country sufficiently pure. They went on to assert, that the Recorder of Dublin in a late speech, recorded in all the newspapers of the day, used certain expressions of which no contradiction had been given until the subject was noticed in Parliament. He cared little what was said by individuals at meetings, and did not in general think such speeches fit subjects of observation in the House of Commons; but in this instance they were the words of a judge, and indicated a disposition to deprive men of that equal justice to which they were entitled. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that "the question of the Irish Church was one of life and death, and that the supporters of the ministers in their attacks on that church, were men restless in conduct, revolutionary in politics, and infidels in religion." He was instructed by the petitioners to say, that if the House complied with the prayer of the petition, and instituted an inquiry into the manner in which the right hon. Recorder had discharged his judicial functions, they could prove all that they advanced against him; and, among other things, that he had used the words attributed to him in the Report. On a former day the right hon. Member had designated his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) and himself (Mr. Hume) as well-known infidels; but he had thought it beneath him to take notice of it. The petitioners, however adverted to it, because they felt, that if such opinions were entertained and acted upon by a judge, the consequences might be most disastrous. The petitioners maintained that the first duty of a judge was to be impartial—that he ought to belong to no political party—that it was repugnant to the due execution of his high functions, and that a political judge was an evil, whether an Orangeman or a Radical. He entirely concurred with the petitioners that such language as the Recorder had used showed a strong bias on his mind, which could not fail to influence his decisions, and therefore must excite distrust and alarm in all who were brought before him. The petitioners were house- holders and others who might be called upon to serve upon juries, and felt themselves especially aggrieved by the expressions of the Recorder, which had a tendency to impeach their fitness: if they were designated by the judge as infidels, and deserved the designation, of course they were disqualified for the duty the law imposed upon them. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman himself—if he could for a moment suppose himself not a judge but a juror—what he would think and say of a judge who spoke of him as an infidel? As such conduct was wholly incompatible with the well-being of the community, the petitioners, anxious for the fair and pure administration of justice, prayed the House to institute an inquiry, and to place them in a situation where they, who were ready to devote their lives to the service of the State, might obtain equal justice. It would be for the Government to say, whether such a judge should longer continue to preside in any court. It was not his fault that the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of this House, for, wiihout meaning anything personal, he had endeavoured to introduce an Act to prevent all judges from sitting in Parliament. The House did not entertain the same opinion as himself, and he had yielded to the majority. He was right, and the majority was wrong, as had been the case upon other occasions. The learned Sergeant (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) smiled. The hon. and learned Gentleman was but a young Member; but, if he examined the proceedings of the House for the last two or three years, the hon. Member would find that there was much truth in what he had accidentally mentioned. The next point in the petition required serious attention, and he hoped that the noble Secretary for Ireland would attend to it. The petitioners were deeply aggrieved by the irregular and unsatisfactory manner in which the Recorder of Dublin performed his duties of judge, owing principally to his attendance in Parliament, where he acted as a poitical partizan. As long as the Recorder was allowed to sit in the House, the course of justice would be impeded in Ireland, and his Majesty's subjects would be deprived of that to which they were entiiled, namely, a speedy administration of justice. He contended that his Majesty's Ministers were to blame for allowing such a state of things to continue. The petition might fairly be considered as against them, for suffering the system to remain unaltered, although it nominally complained of the conduct of the right hon. and learned Recorder. The petition stated, that the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman sat every week; but since he had become Recorder the system had been completely altered. Whether this was so or not, was comparatively unimportant; the question was, whether a gentleman acting as a judge, should be at liberty to absent himself from his judicial business for such long periods of time as the learned Recorder was known to do, for the purpose of attending in Parliament? This occasioned delays in the administration of justice, which were most unjustly and cruelly oppressive on innocent persons, while poor persons, who were not guilty, might be committed for trial, and have their morals vitiated by the contaminating associations to be met with in a gaol. If the right hon. Gentleman could divest himself of the feelings which must be engendered by the situation in which he was placed, and if he would consider the subject dispassionately, he (Mr. Hume) was satisfied, that the learned Recorder would entertain the same opinion as himself. The petition stated, that prisoners were remanded, unheard, from month to month, and civil business was constantly being postponed, in order that the Recorder might attend to his Parliamentary duties. It was the duty of the Government to see that no inconvenience arose from a judicial functionary having a seat in Parliament; and if any did occur, it was their bounden duty to apply a remedy. The petitioners also stated, that the learned Recorder was regarded as a political partisan, and that in consequence of this all confidence of the people in thy administration of justice was lost. They proceeded to observe, that all the Judges in Ireland, the Masters in Chancery, as well as other persons engaged in the administration of justice, including the Recorders of most of the corporate towns in Ireland, were excluded from Parliament. He would therefore ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, whether a strong case had been made out to justify the exception of the Recorder of Dublin from the general rule? If the appointment of this officer rested with his Majesty's Ministers, he should say, that there was no excuse for their conduct; but it rested with the Corporation of Dublin—and such a Corporation! He recollected the character given of that Corporation by his hon. Friend, the Member for Dublin, as well as the description of it contained in the Report of the Municipal Commissioners, and he could not help feeling, that the members of such a body were most improper persons to have the selection of a Judge. The petitioners went on to say, that such a mode of election as existed with regard to this office, held out a strong temptation to men of reckless ambition to pander to party, and to promote the objects of their own personal aggrandizement. He did not mean to say, that that was the case with the Recorder. The right hon. Gentleman was a religious man, and he could not help reminding him of a passage in the Lord's Prayer, which the learned Recorder should bear in mind. It was, "Lead me not into temptation." ["Oh, oh!"] Did the learned Doctor deny the propriety of it? [Dr. Nicholl:—"Yes."] Persons had different tastes and were ready to make ample allowance for themselves, which they denied to others. It was the duty of his Majesty's Ministers to listen to the prayer of the petition, and to take some steps to remedy the evils complained of. The petition concluded with praying, that an Act might be passed to prevent any Recorder or other Judge from sitting in any future Parliament, and they suggested, that a Clause might be introduced into the Irish Municipal Corporations' Bill to this effect. He considered it to be his duty to present this petition, and he did so with great pleasure, as he fully concurred in the prayer of it. He agreed with the petitioners, that a Judge should not be placed in such a situation, that he must almost necessarily, have some political bias, and where such inducements existed as might almost unconsciously lead him away from the proper discharge of his duty. He was surprised how any Judge could take the oath which he had to take on his appointment, and afterwards follow a course of conduct which led him to the commission of acts which gave him no right to claim either the attention or respect of those to whom he had to administer justice. He trusted that the House would agree in the prayer of the petition, and allow the petitioners the opportunity of proving all the allegations contained in it.

said, that considering his name had been used as a mere pretext for a political movement in Dublin, out of which the present petition had arisen, and making due allowance for the party motives which had actuated it, he had not much to complain of in the petition itself, but he did feel, and he thought the House would consider, that he had reason to complain of the manner in which the hon. Member had brought it forward. He had never been afforded the opportunity of even reading the petition. The hon. Member had withheld from him the usual courtesy of a private communication that he had received it, with an offer that he might see it, a courtesy which he had never known omitted between Members of that House under similar circumstances. He (Mr. Shaw) had not even heard the name of one of the petitioners who had signed it. No doubt the hon. Member had with great pomp and parade made a public announcement in that House of his intention to present a petition making charges against the Recorder of Dublin for certain acts of his, and that of course had taken its round of all the public papers. The same announcement was repeated last night, and the petition ostentatiously postponed, and he supposed that the admirers of the hon. Gentleman, who had been reading every morning for the last fortnight of the hon. Member's achievements in sending persons to Newgate, were fully anticipating as the news of to-morrow morning's breakfast table, that the hon. Member was to try his hand on him that night, particularly as he was guilty of the high crime and misdemeanor of belonging to that minority which differed in opinion with the mild, the merciful, and exceeding just majority which, for the last few weeks, had been administering the judicial functions of that House. The petition was described as that of "the bankers, merchants, and 20,000 citizens of Dublin." As he had already said, he had neither seen the petition nor the signatures, but he was informed, that it was signed by no banker, by few persons deserving the name of merchants, and that the numbers were made up in the following manner:—Copies of the petition were sent round for the last few Saturday nights to the pay-tables of the workmen and mechanics in most of the public-houses in Dublin, where those poor people were required to sign them, and that on the following Sunday they were placed on tables at all the chapel doors, where those same persons attended, and no person was allowed to enter who did not either sign or allow somebody else for him to sign the petition. This reminded him of a case he had mentioned to the House not long since, in which a petition had been presented from pretty nearly the same parties in Dublin by the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell), in reference to the Dublin Commission, and where it appeared by an affidavit sent him on the subject, that the mode of signing the petition, which had been displayed at some of the chapel-doors, was, that ten or twelve boys, varying from thirteen to sixteen years of age, signed with the same pen, commencing with the first and going down to the last, and then beginning with the first again—what boys at school called "one down and the other come on," as fast as they could, for about an hour's time—an easy means certainly, of multiplying signatures. But, after all, what was the mighty charge—the sum and substance of this long-promised petition? Why, that he had made a speech, all that was objectionable in which he had already denied—and that he was both Recorder of Dublin and a Member of that House. It amounted to little more; but even to some minor points of the petition he would presently advert; first, with respect to his speech, he thought it not very courteous in the hon. Member to have read again, as having been spoken by him, words which he had before declared in that House, he had never used. All rules of evidence had recently been discarded by the House, but the only species of proof they refused to receive was that which he believed had never been questioned when the House was differently constituted—he meant the word of a Gentleman. He had, immediately after the speech was questioned, referred to several Gentlemen who had been present, and they all concurred in his recollection of it; indeed, it was possible, it was absurd, to suppose that he could have said, "that all who differed from him were Infidels in religion and Revolutionists in politics;" what he did say was, "that those, who as a party were opposed to settled Government, and the existing institutions of the country, would at all times be joined by whatever was Infidel in religion and Revolutionary in politics." [Mr. Hume: "It is just the same thing."] Just the same thing said the hon. Member? Now, really he could not help the hon. Gentleman's obtuseness, if he thought so. It was strange logic, that it was the same thing to say, that all that party who were opposed to you in politics were Infidels in religion, and that all who were Infidels in religion would join that party; but to help the hon. Gentleman's reasoning faculties, he would put an example: the hon. Gentleman, perhaps, thought there was no such thing as an Infidel in religion; well, he would not say there was; but he would say, that if such a thing did exist in this country as an Infidel in religion, that person, he had no doubt, would be found on the same side in politics with the hon. Member for Middlesex. In the sentiment in question, that all that were desperate in fortune and character—Infidel in their religion, and Revolutionists in their politics—would naturally throw themselves into the scale of the Movement party; he did not claim the merit of originality; it was spoken and written a thousand times before he was born, he had often uttered it before, he entertained it still, and, with all due deference to the hon. Member for Middlesex, he begged to assure the hon. Member, that notwithstanding he had the fear of the hon. Member and his majority before his eyes, he would, whenever the occasion suggested it as proper, express the same sentiment again. He (Mr. Shaw) would not enter upon or argue the abstract principle of whether judicial and political functions should be united, he would content himself on that point by stating, that if the principle was once decided generally against such union in any case, whether the judicial officers were subordinate or superior, and was applied retrospectively as well as prospectively, he could claim no peculiar exemption from its operation. On the other hand, he did not deny that his constituents might have just cause to complain of his frequent necessary absence from that House. He had, however, given them full notice, that he should at all times consider his judicial duties paramount to all others; that they should never be made in the slightest degree subservient to Parliamentary convenience, or influenced by any other consideration, than how they could be performed most to the public advantage; and he defied any human being to bring the colour of a proof, that he had not faithfully and strictly redeemed that pledge. Indeed, he did not collect that the petitioners even charged him with the slightest corruption, partiality, or political leaning, in the discharge of his judicial functions, and there were not twelve of his fellow-citizens of Dublin—even including the petitioners, if they were but one week separated from agitators and trades' unions—to whom he would not willingly submit that question, and abide by their decision. The petitioners, however showed their great ignorance of the business of his court when they accused him of irregularity, for he must say, that while he deserved no credit for being regular, of all other charges he was the least liable to that of irregularity; as by reference to the almanack it would be found that twelve of his sittings were there appointed at fixed periods. Any one acquainted with the practice of his Court could, by reference to them, know when the moveable ones occurred, and all he could say was, that from the moment he was in Parliament to the present, he had never varied one of those sittings for a day or an hour, and not in one single instance had he acted by deputy. It was then complained that there was a delay of justice by the sittings not being more frequent. He was sorry to detain the House by a detail of matters as to his own Court, and personal to himself, but he trusted they would allow for the jealousy which he felt of the slightest imputation on that head—and he would state his facts from the Report of the late Corporation Commissioners. When he was appointed to the office of Recorder of Dublin, in the year 1828, he found the sittings had been at intervals of about a fortnight for certain stated days, when the Court was in the habit of adjourning without ever entirely clearing off its business, and that a very large arrear had accumulated. He believed that his esteemed predecessor was disposing of it as fast as he could, and meant to adopt the same principle as had been since established, but he did not live to accomplish it. He was occupied for two years in working down, with great labour, the business he found in arrear, and from that time the present practice had been in operation, a period of more than five years, during which there had not been one case, criminal or civil, in what could be called arrear for a single hour—and now if the House would bear with him—he would shortly state to them what was the new system he had adopted, after conference with many judicial persons, all the Officers of the Court—the very Magistracy who were alleged in the petition to have disapproved of it, having given it their full approbation. He opened his Court each quarter day, as fixed by Charter, occurring in January, and the three corresponding quarter months, April, July, and October, and on each of these occasions he sat consecutively from day to day, till every case, criminal and civil was disposed of. This occupied him each quarter for nearly a month uninterruptedly, at the beginning and end of which he tried prisoners, and made gaol delivery. He then at the end of that month, having about two months between that and the next quarter, divided that intermediate period, and fixed in the centre of it an adjourned sitting for the trial of prisoners, making three gaol deliveries each quarter, or twelve in the year, at as nearly as possible equal intervals; besides this, two of the superior Judges sat in the same Court and jurisdiction six times in the year for trial of prisoners, giving in the whole eighteen gaol deliveries—considerably more, he believed, than any other Criminal Court in the United Kingdom. Some persons might possibly think more frequent sittings preferable. He (Mr. Shaw), upon the best consideration, thought otherwise as regarded the general convenience of Jurors, witnesses, and all parties concerned. Some line must be drawn. The hon. Member talked of weekly sittings; it would be better at once to give Juries in the Magisterial offices, and let them try and finally dispose of the prisoners as they were apprehended; but he thought more frequent than monthly sittings not consistent with any tribunal in the nature of a superior Court. By the present system a month was the maximum, a fortnight the average period of imprisonment before trial, and he considered that a shorter period would be incompatible with regularity, and the due dispatch of business. He would put that question fairly to the consideration of any learned Gentleman in the House, whatever were his politics; if his opinion were wrong, he was willing to reconsider it; but whatever it might be on the best reflection, he felt bound to act upon it. He would trouble the House no further than to say, that so long as he held a judicial office, he trusted that he should enjoy the consciousness he heretofore had, that not an hour as to his sitting, a shade in his opinion, or a syllable in his judgment, had he ever been directed or influenced by a political consideration; and he could assure the hon. Member (Mr. Hume), that while his practice had been to abstain from every political society, and even to absent himself from any meeting that could, independently of those connected with his own elections, be properly termed political, yet that he could no longer continue in a political capacity as a Member of that House, than he could deliver his political sentiments on political topics, as he ever had done, with plainess,manliness, and independence. He made no objection to the reception of the petition; considering the party excitement under which it had been got up, he only wondered it was not more violent against him personally, and considering the means resorted to toprocuresignatures, his only surprise was that they were not more numerous.

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman had impugned the respectability of the persons who had signed the petition which had been presented by the hon. Member for Middlesex, he had looked at the signatures attached to it, and could undertake to say, that they were those of most respectable persons of all religious persuasions, most of whom—he had looked over four or five sheets—had given their places of residence. Amongst, the names were those of three persons, one a Protestant and two Roman Catholics, who came under the description of bankers, for they were Directors of the Dublin Bank. He was instructed to say, that if the House should institute an inquiry, the petitioners were prepared to verify the facts stated in the petition. Any measure which had for its object the exclusion of all judicial persons from Parliament should receive his support, but he would object to any partial application of the principle.

was decidedly opposed to the combination of the judicial and legislative functions. The man who acted political partisan in the Senate could not be capable of soberly, calmly, and dispassionately discharging judicial functions. The right hon. Recorder of Dublin had a voice in the making of laws which he was to administer afterwards.

was sorry that the House was not in possession of the history of the getting up of this petition, which he believed was of a somewhat curious nature. The hon. Member for Middlesex had let fall some words which showed that the parties to the petition had something else in view besides the legitimate object of bringing a supposed grievance under the notice of the House. The hon. Member Stated that the petition had been published in all the newspapers in Dublin. Was that a decorous proceeding—was it respectful even to the House of Commons, to publish in that manner a petition which had not been presented? Such a proceeding could have been adopted only for the purpose of injuring the character of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which, however, thank God, stood too high in public estimation both in Ireland and this country, to be seriously affected by the charges which evil-minded men might fabricate against him. The getting up of the petition was a discreditable proceeding—it was a disgraceful attempt to prejudice a political opponent. There was reason to suppose that the meeting at which the petition was agreed to was got up at the instigation of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. If the Report contained in the paper which he held in his hand was true, Mr. Murphy, one of the hon. and learned Member's agents, stated at the meeting that he had received a letter from the hon. and learned Member, representing that the citizens of Dublin would be unworthy of protection if they did not hold a meeting on the subject of the Recorder of Dublin's conduct. The ground of the meeting was a speech alleged to have been made by the right hon. Gentleman, which he had over and over again disclaimed having uttered. What were the circumstances attending that meeting? He held in his hand a petition from a multitude of the citizens of Dublin, which he had been instructed to present to the House, and which stated that a number of respectable persons, who went to attend the meeting which was convened by public advertisement, were assaulted and cruelly wounded by a gang of coal porters, armed with bludgeons and daggers, who were hired for the purpose of driving away all persons who were supposed to be hostile to the objects of the meeting. He had also received communications from surgeons in Dublin, certi- fying that many of the person's who were attacked by the coal-porters were seriously wounded in various parts of their bodies. It was a petition thus got up and patronized by the very scum of society, which was represented to be the petition of the merchants, bankers, and respectable inhabitants of the city. It was said that there were respectable signatures attached to the petition; upon that point he could say nothing, because he had not seen the document; but he would venture to say, without fear of contradiction, that if free admission were allowed to any public meeting convened in Dublin to consider the right hon. Gentleman's conduct, the result would be totally different from that at which the meeting in question arrived. The right hon. Gentleman's conduct as a Judge was the theme of praise with everybody who had an opportunity of observing it. By unremitting industry he had cleared off all the arrears in his court, many of which had existed for thirteen years previously. He had practised in the right hon. Gentleman's court, and could, bear testimony to his impartiality, and such was the estimation in which his judicial conduct was held in Ireland, that he was sure it would be unanimously approved of by any twelve men selected from the class of persons capable of serving as jurors. A cry had been attempted to be raised against the right hon. Gentleman, on the ground that he delayed the trial of prisoners; but no person dared to come forward and found a specific charge upon that allegation. What did the petitioners state? That "they were informed" prisoners were unnecessarily detained in gaol before trial. Who informed them so? The fact was notoriously otherwise. It appeared to him that the whole proceeding was an unjust and ungenerous mode of injuring a Parliamentary opponent.

said, that in justice to the hon. and learned Gentleman, it must be admitted that he conducted the business of the civil and criminal courts in Dublin in such a manner as to leave it to be wished that in the civil department, at least, his example was imitated. The evil complained of was in the system. All these inquiries tended to show that it was essential the two characters, the judicial and the political, should not be blended. He should attach no importance to the petition not being signed by the mer- chants and bankers of Dublin; but if 20,000 of the coaNporters and scum of the earth, alluded to by the hon, and learned Sergeant, had signed it, he should say that they were the very persons who had a right to complain, inasmuch as it was of great importance to them who presided over the criminal courts of justice. It was not your merchants who were arraigned at the criminal bar, nor your bankers; it was those men whose miseries engendered crime. He did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman was charged with delaying justice; but it was said that his attendance in the Court, and the discharge of his Parliamentary duties were incompatible. The right hon. Gentleman must feel, during his absence from the opposite benches, that one vote might have the greatest effect; then his station gave him importance in the Houses—he was a right hon. Member, and one of a powerful party. Conscious of all this, it was impossible to leave the House without feeling the greatest anxiety to return. Therefore, having taken his departure to attend to his judicial business in Ireland—having possessed himself of a place in the mail, and thrown himself into a steam-packet, and arrived in Dublin as hot as the steam itself, it might be imagined that he called for the calendar, not a little anxious to discover its length and see what could be deferred, frowned at the jury for their delay, and at last begged all the parties, for God's sake, to expedite the business, to allow him to return to London, and vote in the division which was to take place the day after to-morrow, otherwise he might lose the place of a Judge, or the benefit of making a speech. He hoped the rule would be applied generally of not allowing Recorders seats in Parliament. And if they were not to have Recorders in the House of Commons, he thought they ought not to have Law Judges in the House of Lords. Did not they find this, that all who had been, or who were now Judges, were the most troublesome of the politicians in the other House? He would in the same manner deal with the Bishops: let them be called on for their opinions only on matters connected with the Church. At a time when they might be required to consider in what mode they could most conveniently reform the House of Lords—one way being to increase the numbers, and swamp the majority by a liberal accession, and the other way being to decrease the numbers—it might be well worth their while to inquire whether the latter would not be a most effectual and a more convenient measure. His belief was, that if they got rid of all the Bishops and all the Law Lords, the gain to the popular party would be great numerically, and equal to what was necessary.

always considered it to be admitted among all shades of parties, whether Catholic or Protestant, Whig, Tory, or Radical, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University transacted the business of his Courts in such a manner as to be a model for every Judge in the country. He should regret that the principle of excluding Judges from Parliament were adopted, because it would deprive them of the advantage of the talents of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington), who, on great questions of foreign policy, was universally admitted to be an eminent authority.

wished to observe, understanding that it had been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that he wrote to Dublin to induce the people to get up this petition, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was totally misinformed; he never wrote to Dublin on that subject. A meeting was in the first instance fixed to take place at the Corn-Exchange; that meeting was interrupted by a person of the name of John M'Crea, and a band of Orangemen, who obtained possession of the room two hours before the time when the meeting was appointed to be held. The consequence was, that the meeting could not be held on that occasion. He then certainly did write to a gentleman in Dublin to say, that he considered the party would be for ever disgraced if they allowed such ruffians to prevent them from holding their meeting.

said, that the first Order of the Day was the Consolidated Fund Bill, which stood for committal. The hon. Member for Lincoln, (Mr. E. L. Bulwer) had given notice of a motion for this evening, on the first Order of the Day being moved. He rose, however, to postpone the first Order till Friday next, therefore the hon. Gentleman would make his motion on the second Order being moved. His motive, however, for postponing the Order of the Day was, that the Militia Estimates were not voted, and he could not add the appropriation clause.

expressed his satisfaction that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had felt it necessary to postpone moving the appropriation clause. He thought it desirable that the adoption of that clause should be postponed until it should be known what course of proceeding was likely to be followed elsewhere.

said, that while the three great and most important questions were pending in another place, he thought it would be highly improper in the House to pass any more money clauses. He did not wish to deny to another place the free exercise of its powers, but some discretion was required on the part of that House. He repeated, that the Members of the House of Commons, acting on behalf of the people of the country, were called on at the present crisis not to agree to any more votes of money, nor for the appropriation of that already granted. They might at last find themselves placed in a situation such as their constituents had scarcely looked for. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would postpone his motion not till Friday next only, but for any further period that might be necessary to enable them, before they came to its consideration, to see how the public business had got on elsewhere.

said, that undoubtedly the control of the public funds was a constitutional power belonging to the Commons of England. If it was found that the amelioration of the abuses existing in our institutions, and the advancement of the necessary reforms, were to be impeded, the Commons would exercise their constitutional control over the public exchequer, and would place it in the hands of those who had the confidence of the people, so as to render any perseverance in a systematic opposition to the improvements required by the people impossible. The people of England would be slaves if they submitted to such dictation. The Monarch on the throne was irresponsible, because he had his servants, and they were responsible to the people for the acts of the Government. Would it be submitted to, that 200 or 300 individuals, in no way responsible for what they did, should wield the power of obstructing this correction of abuses, and the redress of wrongs? That would be a miserable period for this country; and he only alluded to it for the purpose of expressing his opinion that the people would be successful in this struggle.

did not object to the postponement of the Order of the Day, neither did he question the power of the House to exercise its high privileges for other and ulterior objects than the mere acceleration, or suspension, of a particular part of a Bill. But he rose to say that although the House had the power of carrying into execution the threat of suspending the granting of public money for the general emergencies of the State, yet he felt in honour and conscience bound to state that there could be nothing more indiscreet—nothing more indecent—he would retract the word indecent, and say nothing more indelicate, than for a Minister of the Crown to ground his postponement of a financial Bill on the presumption of the course of conduct that another branch of the Legislature might pursue respecting certain legislative measures that were submitted to their consideration in their independent capacity; and that other branch of the Legislature was as independent as this branch of the Legislature, and as capable of exercising a sound and useful judgment. He deplored the spirit that seemed to guide the Government, and he could not sufficiently reprobate the mind that ruled the actions of these sections of various parties that whirled the Government round wthin the eddies of an all absorbing agitation. It was because the hon. Members opposite threatened to overawe the Monarchy, and the other branch of the Legislature, which was the original barrier between the usurpations of the Crown and the licentiousness of the people—it was because that it was useful, and wise, and just that both branches should harmonize and attune with each other, that he could not before really have imagined that a Minister of the Crown would act on such motives as the speeches of the hon. Member for Middlesex and the hon. Member for Dublin would seem to show influenced the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, that he knew not what might be the notions of decency or delicacy which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down might entertain for his own government, but those which he himself entertained of both the one and the other would command him to do justice to the conduct of a political opponent, and not without good ground bring against him a charge of proceeding upon unconstitutional doctrines. He thought that he had sufficiently guarded himself, except indeed to a mind that would willingly misapprehend, against such interpretation of the course which he proposed as that adopted by the hon. Gentleman. He had stated that the delay which that hon. Gentleman had ventured to characterise as indecent and indelicate, had been produced not at all by his right hon. Friends, or by that House, but, in point of fact, by the delay which had been given to the Militia Bill by the House of Lords itself. If the hon. Gentleman had been a little more conversant with the forms of Parliament, or if he had paid a little attention to the statement made, he could not have resorted to the personal attack which he had ventured to make; he must then have known, that for the Minister of the Crown to propose the appropriation clause without having had the Militia Estimates voted, would be equivalent to leaving the militia unpaid for the next twelve months, and thus to deprive his Majesty of the service of that part of his forces. He did not impute any blame to the House of Lords for the delay to which they had subjected that measure, but still it was obvious that before it was passed into a law it would be impracticable for the Government to take that step—the postponement of which was now characterised as an offence against the constitution. He had been actually obliged to resort to that postponement. The hon. Gentleman might say—why extend it till Friday—why not confine it to Monday? For this reason: the Committee up stairs for the estimate could not be moved till that measure was passed into a law; and then the report of that Committee must be made to the House; the vote of the estimate could not be made until a supply night, and it could only be after the report of the Committee of Supply that the appropriation clause could be proceeded with. Supposing then that the Militia Bill should at once be passed, the earliest day for inserting that clause in the Consolidated Fund Bill would be that which he had named. On what ground could the hon. Gentleman venture to refer to his Majesty's Government as forgetful of their duty to the Crown, or of that respect which he, for one, should always entertain for a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature? Observations might have been made, indeed, tending to connect the delay with other causes; but what had he to do with them? Had he not sufficiently guarded himself, by distinctly declaring the impossibility of proceeding more rapidly, or taking any further step until the Militia Bill should be passed? The hon. Gentleman seemed to proceed upon the supposition of a distinction between the interests of the people and the interests of the Crown; that was the true Tory doctrine, and it might well become the hon. Gentleman to advance it. The hon. Gentleman might consider that such a distinction was to be made; for his part, he could only say, that in his eyes none could exist or be recognized.

said, he was misunderstood by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not mean to draw the distinction which he referred to; neither did he now mean to enter into the ample field of disquisition relative to the duties of Ministers to the Crown and to the people on which the right hon. Gentleman dwelt with so much emphasis and so much studied energy. He begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman, however, for the ground on which he put the postponement of the Clause. He was perfectly satisfied with the explanation, and, having his assurance for its truth, he could not doubt it. If he applied unpalatable language to the right hon. Gentleman, supposing that his postponement of the Clause had reference to discussions pending in another place, and which a threatened vote of this House would be supposed to overawe, he begged, after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, to say that he was entirely content. It was his pleasure, as well as it was his duty, to retract that language as regarded the right hon. Gentleman. However, he did not retract the language as referring to the sentiments that he heard uttered on the other side of the House, and now he would transfer it from the right hon. Gentleman to the two hon. Members opposite (Mr. Hume and Mr. O'Connell), for they had advanced atrocious and dangerous doctrines, tending to upset all freedom and independence of action in the other branch of the Legislature, which had as sound a constitutional right of judgment as that House.

accepted the transfer, and returned it with much contempt for the hon. Member's argument. It was a doctrine slavish in the extreme which bad dictated such remarks as those of the hon. Gentleman.

said, he would not accept the transfer—because the opinions of the hon. Gentleman showed his ignorance. He spoke as if Ministers had only one duty to perform. Well, he thought so. He might think one party only, the Crown, was to be considered. But there was another party, the people, who could not be overlooked, for they would not suffer themselves to be overlooked. The two parties, the King and the people, had each separate privileges, though they had only united interests, and it was the duty of the Government and the House to guard both. Both Houses of Parliament were free to act as they pleased, each in its own sphere; but the people of England would take care that each should act according to the rules of justice and the calls of public interest, and that one should not check the good intentions of the other. The other House must not mar the measures of the Commons, else they might rue it. The measures which he and his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would advocate, might not be very palateable to the hon. Gentleman and his friends, for they only wanted to get the public money, and a pretty use they made of it when they got it. He was sorry the Parliament was so short, else he would take care to check the abuses of public patronage. If Ministers would take the advice of their friends in Parliament. They would not be in haste to make grants of public money till they saw how the measures on which the people had set their hearts were to be disposed of by the other and irresponsible branch of the Legislature. Were the millions of England to be led by a few individuals? Let the people of England but speak out, and then the other House might take what course they pleased.

would venture to state that the inhabitants of the British Empire would be more satisfied with the conversation of that night than they would have been with a long debate upon any other subject; they would be highly satisfied with the constitutional tone and language of his Majesty's Ministers. If such a course of events were to be brought about as that supposed to be intended on the part of the other House of Parliament, it would be indeed a matter of regret to hon. Members that they had been only occupied in imposing new burdens on the people, and not at all in redressing their grievances.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given his explanation in a tone which he, during the short time he had been in Parliament, had never heard that right hon. Gentleman assume before. That right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Tory doctrines of Members on his (Mr. Plunkett's) side of the House. Now, it was one of their Tory doctrines that each branch of the Legislature was independent, to judge and decide as it might think proper on every question brought before it, unbiassed by the opinion of other parties; but, at all events, bowing only to the majesty of the people—to the deliberate opinion of the free people of this empire, one of whose chief rights it was to have the opportunity, when accused, of defending themselves. Such was the opinion entertained by Gentlemen on this side of the House, and he felt convinced that none of them, who had lately held office with so much honour, would ever induced to accept office for the mere purpose of holding the public purse, or any of those petty gains which power might enable them to get, but for obtaining which in an improper way they would be punished by the eternal pangs of conscience. There did appear at first something extraordinary in the postponement of the appropriation clause, and because a young Member like himself got up to notice the circumstance, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not justified in censuring him in the manner he had done. He was ready to admit, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had given satisfactory reasons for the postponement of the appropriation clause.

sympathised in the warmth which his right hon. Friend had displayed in defending himself from the imputations which had been cast upon his motives. His right hon. Friend had stated a ground for the delay in question; another ground had been put forward by the hon. Member for Middlesex, and the hon. Gentleman opposite at once proceeded to "transfer"—to use his own expression—the latter ground to the account of his right hon. Friend. As an old Member of Parliament compared to the two young Members who had spoken, he would make one recommendation to the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Newark—namely, before he made a violent attack on a political adversary, he should carefully attend to what that adversary said. As to the transfer of the charge to the hon. Member for Middlesex and others—he himself must come in for a share of it; for he did think that if ever there was an occasion on which the House was called upon to exercise with due deliberation the power which their ancestors had placed in their hands—of deciding whether they would place the public money in the possession of improper persons, and to protect the rights of the people from those by whom they were insolently invaded, it was the present. He repeated that they were called upon to consider well, before they granted money out of the public purse, whether they would place it in the hands of those who would spurn the prayers and wishes of the people. The hon. Gentleman opposite, with that tender Tory conscience of which he seemed to boast, wished to have it thought that he despised the possession of the public purse. The true representatives of the people would not despise it, because they knew it to he the safeguard of the people's liberties; and that House would be the traitors to those liberties if they allowed it unadvisedly to leave their hands.

said, that judging from the petitions presented to the House, the people of England must also come in for a share of the "transfer" spoken of. The House was now called upon to use the means which had been placed at their disposal for the protection of the people; and in exercising it, they would show themselves the real friends and steady advocates of the prerogative of the Crown. It was their first duty to advise the King and the other branch of the Legislature, of what were the real feelings of the people; the moment they ceased to do so, they abandoned their duty to the people and the Crown.

said, that the important conversation which had now taken place, was the most satisfactory answer that could be given to a petition which he had presented in the early part of the evening; it spoke volumes, in a language not to be misunderstood, and showed that that House, in the undoubted exercise of its privileges, would not bestow the public funds, over which it was the guardian, until those objects had been obtained which the interests of the country loudly called for. He, for one, should withhold his assent to the appropriation of the Supplies until the wishes of the people on the subject of Municipal Reform had been satisfied.

, as a Representative of Scotland, wished it to be understood that the people of that country, so far as he was acquainted with their opinions, would not willingly see the money of the people in. trusted to hands in which they had no confidence.

thought, it most important that the House of Lords should not be deceived as to the opinions and determinations of the people of England, and should fully understand that they could not trample upon that people. He had but recently come from a meeting in the country, which had been attended by 10,000 individuals. He felt sure that it would not be safe for that House to oppose their feelings and opinions. It had even been observed at that meeting, that under the present march of education and diffusion of knowledge, the time would soon approach when the country would need neither House of Lords nor a King, and the shout with which that sentiment had been received by those 10,000 men, had almost brought the roof under which they were assembled, about his ears.

had hoped, that after the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the debate would be brought to a close. But when he heard the speeches of the Members opposite, especially the speeches of the Members for Middlesex and Birmingham, he was not sorry that it was protracted, because he was anxious to see to what extent the speculations of the innovators on our settled form of Government—on the institutions of the country— those institutions that had existed for ages and ministered to the renown and happiness of England in peace and war—would be carried in that House. He wished an extension of the debate in order to elicit a development of the scheme—not of Revolution, for that word might call forth a check and a contradiction, and he wished to avoid the jars of controversy—but of the principle of innovation and overthrow that was wafted over the nation on the wings of Ministerial influence. ["Hear, hear."] The speech of the Member for Birmingham was no doubt a fair index—and the echoing cheers of the Ministerial benches showed that it was—of the sort of theories and practice of those who propped up this fragile and limping Administration—those who paraded sinewy power for moral force, and by numbers meant to bear down rank, and talent, and virtue, and loyalty. If Ministers, having listened to the statement of the hon. Member for Birmingham, and to his approval of the facts he mentioned, deigned to uphold themselves in office by instruments and means of such a nature —he would not venture to characterise them—then it was high time the nation should be put upon its guard, and that the loyalty of the people should he summoned to resist principles that were dangerous, and doctrines that were misguiding. ["Oh, oh," from the Ministerial benches.] Did hon. Gentlemen opposite intend to put him down hy faction and clamour? They could not. He stood there backed only by seven, and the opposite side possessed a powerful majority. To show the sort of league the Government entered into with the hon. Member for Birmingham, and the results that would flow from it, he would quote a passage from a speech of his in that House, and in doing this he would judge of the character of the present Government who consorted with him. It was a good old maxim—"I judge of you by your fellows." The hon. Member said, "The Government had better take care how they proceed. They had arrayed against them the aristocracy, the clergy, the gentry, and the great fundholders?—their only support must be in the virtuous people." Now, what virtue could there be in the remainder of the population, after the abstraction of the aristocracy, the gentry, the clergy, and the great fundholders? It had been boasted, that the people required the enactment of this and that measure, and desired to control the functions of one branch of the Legislature. He was the advocate of the people in this case. He was sure there was too right-minded and fine-spirited a sense of nobleness and justice among them to be cajoled by the mischievous and dishonest devices of these volunteer demagogues. He was sure they would awake from the narcotic effects of the draughts of political poison, that selfish speculators, both in a high and low station, administered to them. Dangerous theorists, in propounding every wild innovation, boasted that the people were with them; but the people had stood to the institutions of the country before; and the old loyal British spirit reviving, they would stand to them again.

said, it is certainly not my intention to answer the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, because I consider his speech as little else than a second attempt to enter on that debate which the hon. Member near him (Mr. Plunkett) so indiscreetly and unwisely endeavoured to provoke. The simple question, which my right hon. Friend stated in terms as plain and distinct as those in which any proposition could be submitted, was that the House, having only just received the Amendments made by the Lords, in the Bill for the Militia, it was necessary to bring forward the Militia Estimates; and until these Estimates were agreed to, it would be impossible that the appropriation of the Supplies of the year (the Act for voting which was placed on the Notice-book for this evening) could be determined. On that simple statement the hon. Member for Newark thought fit to raise up an accusation against the Ministers of the Crown, and to charge them with conduct which was indecent and indelicate—to charge them with not doing their duty to their Sovereign, and putting off a Bill which ought to be now immediately considered. It is quite true that these expressions of opinions have been withdrawn; but I am not surprised that when accusations of this kind are made, and when they are followed up by what I think was not withdrawn, a dictation to this House with regard to the Question of Supplies—namely, to tell this House, that it was not for them to decide whether they ought to be voted, but that the hon. Gentleman opposite had a right to lay down the certain times and periods at which the Supplies should be made complete—I say, when speeches of this kind are made, comprehending in the first place an accusation which was proved to be totally unfounded against the Ministers of the Crown, and which a single minute's attention would have prevented, and when they contain, in the second place, what was very like a rebuke to the House, by declaring when and how the House of Commons should vote the Supplies—I repeat, when language of such a description is used, I am not astonished that it should excite not a little of angry discussion. For my own part, I can only say, if there is any course which I have advised this House to take, I have recommended them to do so consistently both with our duty to the Crown, and with our duty to the people. We are the servants of the Crown; we are at the same time the Representatives of the people. I think that these interests can be combined, and with that conviction impressed on my mind, I will not listen to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Twiss) whose sentiments respecting the middle classes may be still in the recollection of some who hear me, when he delivers a lecture on the subject of what the people really are, what are the opinions of the people, and as to who are those who misrepresent the sentiments of the people. I hold no other doctrine than this—that I think we are here to represent the people, and to consult the people's interest. I do not impute it as a fault to the other branch of the Legislature, that when legislative measures come before them, they propose such alterations in those measures as they consider proper and consistent with their duty; but I do say, with respect to these legislative measures, and with respect to the voting the Supplies of money to the Crown, that this House is in full possession of all the powers which any House of Commons ever had. It is not for them (and I should be very sorry to find them doing so) to enter into any debates or discussions in which the independent rights, either of the Crown or the House of Lords should be impugned; but on the other hand I am not ready (and I will not submit to do so from any imputation which may be thrown out on the other side) to give up one single iota of the powers which are considered the undoubted and indefeasible rights of the House of Commons—to provide such laws as they think are necessary for the redress of grievances, and to vote such Supplies as they may think in their consciences are best calculated to maintain the honour of the Crown, and to preserve the great interests of the country. I state my opinions on this subject openly; these opinions are not changed from what they have been. I have been favourable to measures of Reform; I am still favourable to measures of Reform; but I am not responsible undoubtedly for the opinions of those with whom I may be found in a division. In some of those opinions they may differ from me; but I must say, that believing them to be anxious to act in such a way as they think to be their duty to their constituents, I am persuaded that the support which they have given to his Majesty's Ministers is as independent and honest as any that was ever given to any Ministry. I am not disposed, I repeat, to hold myself answerable for every opinion which may be expressed by those hon. Members in this House, or elsewhere; but, on the other hand, I do not hesitate to accept their support as tendered upon honest and conscientious grounds—a support which could not be bought by any corrupt means; and I feel convinced that if they do not withhold that support from us for the future, it will only be because they believe that we are endeavouring to do our best, to serve the interests of the people.

said, that he had not interrupted the noble Lord, though he should have been justified in doing so on the ground of misrepresentation. The mistake into which the noble Lord had now fallen was the same as that which was committed by Lord Althorp during the discussion on the Reform Bill. The opinions which he expressed upon that occasion with respect to the middle classes, were misconceived by the noble Lord (Lord Althorp), as he (Mr. Twiss) had proved. He was surprised therefore to hear this misrepresentation repeated.

was extremely sorry to have misrepresented the hon. Gentleman; but his impression of what had occurred on the occasion alluded to was such as he had stated.

begged to return his Majesty's Ministers thanks for the expression of constitutional doctrines which they had that night given. It was because he was an ardent admirer of our present form of Government, that he was desirous that the just expectations of the people should be granted, and he was quite sure that if they were not, serious consequences would result to that Constitution.

took that opportunity of saying, that a petition, agreed to at a most numerous and respectable meeting in the city of Cork, had been presented to the House of Lords, praying that they would pass the Municipal Reform Bill as it was sent up from the Commons, without any alteration in its main principles. It was well known that Cork was the second city in point of wealth and independence in Ireland, and he had mentioned the fact of such a petition having been agreed to in that city, to show that the strongest interest was felt in the fate of this measure amongst the people of Ireland as well as those of England. He conceived that the sentiments of the hon. Member for Birmingham had been grossly misrepresented on the other side, for he understood his argument to be, that the people were not inclined to sweep away any branch of the Legislature until they found that its preservation was wholly incompatible with the maintenance of their rights and liberties. He, for one, had no hesitation in declaring, that he would not consent to the Appropriation Act being passed, or the Supplies being voted to his Majesty's Ministers, until he saw strong grounds for believing that the grievances of the people would be effectually redressed. What was the state of things now before him? A Government was in power in whom the people had confidence—a Ministry which had established a further claim to the gratitude of the country by the constitutional doctrines which they had that night propounded. They were opposed by a faction by whom they might, as they were heretoiore, be defeated; but whilst he would not then say, where the manifestation of the opinions of that faction were most clearly exhibited, or where their strong-hold existed, he could not help expressing his unwillingness to vote those Supplies which might be diverted from their legitimate objects, and turned to the advantage of that band by whom the people had been plundered and oppressed. It was his fixed resolution to remain there to contend for the liberty of the people; and whilst that was in danger, he should never consent to vote the Supplies.

rose to submit a Motion to the House for the repeal of the Stamp-duties on Newspapers. The hon. Member said:—Sir, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, that I am exceedingly glad of the delay that has taken place in the bringing forward of this Motion. I am exceedingly rejoiced at the conversation which has just taken place, and which, I am satisfied, will be hailed with the greatest pleasure by the country. I am also glad that my Motion has been delayed, until so many and so respectably-signed petitions have been presented in favour of it. The present Motion is not a novel one, as on two former occasions a similar one has been brought forward, and therefore I can assure the House, that I will not occupy its time for more than a few moments. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) will acquit me of the least desire to embarrass the Government. I have supported the Ministers out of power, humbly, zealously, but disinterestedly; but I support them with still greater pleasure now that they are in power, because hitherto they have nobly justified the grounds on which I desired their restoration to office, and never, I believe, more than by their speeches of this evening. That considerable excitement prevails upon this subject throughout the country, it is in vain to deny. I will appeal to the Member of any manufacturing town, and ask him if the Repeal of the Taxes on Knowledge is not one of the most popular demands among his constituents? I have looked at the Report of the Select Committee on Public Petitions, and I find that the number of petitions presented upon this subject, during the present Session, greatly exceed the number in favour of Municipal Reform, and are double the number praying for the abolition of tithes. More, in fact, have been presented praying for the repeal of this, than have been presented for the repeal of any other tax. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day with great propriety and great eloquence, that he would not consent to purchase popularity upon false and unreal grounds; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman one question—What has made the real, lasting, and merited popularity of the present Government? Has it not arisen from their consistent advocaey of liberty of opinion? In Catholic Emancipation—the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, in Parliamentary and Municipal Reform Bills? This has been the main principle of their policy, and it has had its reward. Is it, therefore, on unreal grounds that I ask of my right hon. Friend to repeal this tax. The Ministers have given voice to opinion, and that voice has supported the power which created it. All I ask of my right hon. Friend is, to give the same liberty of opinion to writing, which he and those associated with him have obtained their influence and reputation by giving to speech and action. The whole expression of public opinion, in a periodical shape, is at present confined to the narrowest oligarchy that ever disgraced a free country. No man can publish a newspaper—that is, no man can write periodically upon the news of the day, or the debates in Parliament, or any domestic or foreign affairs—without paying four-pence upon every sheet in the shape of a tax. The result is, that the legal market is altogether confined to great capitalists, and exclusive monopolists, while a large and cheap market is opened to smugglers. I am aware that if you take away the whole duty, papers such as the Times will still require an immense capital, but still a number of payers, upon a thousand subjects interesting to the great bulk of the population, will be published, which will not require so much capital. It is perfectly absurd to see only five or six morning papers for the active, thoughtful, and stirring population of this country. This is not the case in America, where a single district supports as many morning and evening papers as the whole of England. But I need only refer to England itself to show the operation of this tax. In 1792 there were thirteen morning and twenty evening papers published in London—although at that time the population numerically must have been much less, and the reading population not one half what it is at present. It is absurd to talk about the liberty of the Press in England so long as the taxes on knowledge continue as at present—it is in vain to make holyday speeches about it saying, "it is the very air we breathe, and if we have it not, we perish," when the Press is the only means of expressing the opinions of which the condition is a large capital and the result a severe monopoly. It has been urged that if the newspaper Press is rendered cheap, it will become bad and worthless, and that if the market is widened, the commodity will be deteriorated. Why, if this argument were used as to any other article of trade a man would be set down as an idiot. If a dozen persons only were allowed to sell spectacles, and a proposition was made to allow every person to sell them, would not the statesman who told you that in that case spectacles would be good for nothing, deserve to be laughed at? The analogy holds good with every thing—the greater the competition the greater the chance of excellence, and the wider the market, the better the commodity. But this truth obtains more with respect to literature than any thing else. Does the history of literature tell you that a man writes well in proportion as he is wealthy, and that the extent of his knowledge or genius is in proportion to his stock in the three per cents? I am afraid you will find that the reverse is the fact. If a tax of 200 per cent, which is that now imposed upon newspapers, were placed upon any other species of literature, it would long since have put an extinguisher upon all the best literature in the country. What extinguished the Spectator?—was it not the tax of one penny?—The eloquence of Addison and the wit of Steele, could not make head against a penny tax. How many Spectators in politics equally talented may you not have extinguished by a tax of four times the amount? I will ask my right hon. Friend what difference is there between political periodical writing and any other writing? Are they not subject to the same laws—created by the same intellect—influenced by the same competition, and improved by the same causes. There is only this difference between them, that political, and particularly periodical political writing, is much more generally useful and important than any other description. If I was a poor man, and that I had not read the Rambler, or the Spectator, or Shakespeare, or Milton, I do not well see how I should stand a greater chance of being imprisoned, or transported, or hanged. But were I a poor man and did not read the newspapers—if I did not know what new laws were passed surrounding me with punishments—if I did not know what was legal and what was illegal—I should be liable to suffer through ignorance, and thus tins tax of fourpence which keepsnumbers of persons from obtaining the more useful knowledge, subjects them to crime, and exposes them to the gallows. I can compare the system to nothing but the monstrous tyranny of shutting men up in a dark room, and declaring that they shall be severely punished if they stumble against the numerous obstacles by which they are surrounded. I confess I do not share in the feelings entertained by some hon. Members against the present newspaper Press. Where a great power exists it is sometimes abused, but the wonder appears to me to be that its powers have been so seldom abused. I hope I have shown that I am above the meanness of flattering or fawning upon this formidable engine of praise or censure, by having been the first person to bring forward a substantive Motion for the Repeal of the existing monopoly; and, therefore, it is, that I think I may be allowed to bear witness to the talent, respectability, character, and accomplished education of the great mass of the gentlemen connected with the periodical Press. I use this, not as a compliment, but as an argument, in favour of my Motion. It is precisely because the Press is thus able and excellent that we ought to extend its advantages as widely as possible. Can any one suppose that these gentlemen will write worse when they have a larger community to address? But it is said, "if they write for the multitude they must pander to their base passions." Whoever makes that assertion knows very little about the multitude. Look at the papers which please the great mass of the people, and you will find articles on science, trade, education, the steam-engine, and matters which would appear tedious to us. They do not desire their bad passions to be aroused—they SPck to have their minds enlightened. They live by labour and seek to know how that labour may be best directed. I am afraid it is we—the idle rich—"the lords of luxury and ease, "who require a false and meretricious excitement—who alone support the disgraces of the Press—who encourage the slander and scandal, the venom and frivolity, which were first wrought into sundry libels, not by a radical journal, not by a heartless demagogue print, but by a paper professing a hatred of democratic principles and dignifying by its support the Tory cause. It pretends to furnish the gossip of the Court, and the tittle tattle of the aristocracy. If you look at the large Newspapers which circulate among the great mass of the people, you will find in them the most varied information, the most argumentative writing, and a great freedom from private calumny, vulgar slander, and personal abuse. But it may be said—If you make the Press free, many dangerous and revolutionary political doctrines may be published. Doubtless, there will be, as now, doctrines of all sorts—the good and the bad? But who is to decide what is good and what bad? Some hon. Members on the other side of the House tell us that the doctrines of the present Government are revolutionary and dangerous; whereas, from what I have heard this very night, if I were asked what doctrines were most likely to weaken the just influence of the Crown, separate the different classes, incense the people, and produce and hasten the course of revolution?—I should say that it was the doctrine of the Conservatives. Who then shall decide the question as to what is good and what is bad—what is useful, and what is revolutionary? None can do so: scarcely timem itself can decide it. In the words of an able writer—"Truth requires no inscription to distinguish it from darkness; and all that Truth wants is the liberty of expression." Has not the terror of the propagation of dangerous doctrines been used against the progress of enlightenment? Is it not for this that censors have been placed upon books, and inquisitors upon opinions? What effect have these prosecutions produced? The French Court prohibited the works of Voltaire, and Voltaire became at once endowed with the power to shake old opinion to its centre. Geneva burnt the Social Contract of Rousseau, and out of its ashes arose the phoenix of its influence. Tom Paine had not sold ten copies of his notorious work, when the English Government thought fit to prosecute him, and within a week from that period there were sold 30,000 copies. Go- vernment never has prevented, and never can prevent, the propagation of dangerous doctrines by prohibitions, either in the shape of a tax or a law—the only effect of persecution is to render the doctrines more dangerous and the people more eager to learn it. If I want a new proof of the truth of this argument, do I not find it in the very tax I ask you to repeal? For how many years have you been endeavouring to put down the unstamped Press, whose doctrines are alleged to be dangerous, and for how many years has it enjoyed impunity, and deluged every manufacturing town? The market has been literally overstocked with its productions. If you were to repeal the whole tax to-morrow, there would not be a single new publication of these dangerous inflammatory doctrines, for during the last seven or eight years every one who wished to publish them has done so with impunity. By the imposition of the tax upon the more respectable class, you have prevented any reply to these dangerous publications. You have given up the field to those who have sown it with noxious weeds, and prevented the good husbandman from labouring in it. You are now at last embarked in an obstinate war with the unstamped Press—a war in which I am sure you will not succeed. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, does he think for a moment that he can succeed so long as the tax is 200 per cent upon the article smuggled? My right hon. Friend is aware, better than myself, that the only way to diminish smuggling, where it has risen to an enormous height, is to reduce the tax, and that is what I now urge upon my right hon. Friend. I do not ask a total repeal, but only a reduction to one penny. By this reduction, I think, a very great advantage will be gained. We shall materially extend the advantages of knowledge, without in the least diminishing the amount of revenue. The Stamp duty at present produces (after allowing for the discount) three pence and a fraction upon each paper; and if it were reduced to one penny, we should require only three times the present number of papers to be sold to replace the loss suffered by the revenue. Does not every man acquainted with the habits of the working classes know—does not every man who is aware of their extraordinary desire for knowledge, scientific and political, feel that we should then have three times as many papers published as at present? Besides, my right hon. Friend having made this concession, would then be justified in coming down to this House, and demanding new and more efficient laws for the suppression of smuggling—the result of which would hring all, or nearly all the slippery fish that at present creep out of the meshes, into my right hon. Friend's net. In addition to the increased circulation, there would he the increased advertisement duty, and the increased paper duty; so that without being at all sanguine, I say that the revenue would not, by any means, be a loser. Suppose the Stamp Duty reduced, as I have proposed, to one penny, such papers as the Times and Chronicle and the Herald, which require a large capital, would not be able to sell for less than fourpence. But new papers not requiring so large a capital would he called into existence—papers partly literary, and containing the news of the day—half scientific and half commercial, which would thus attract many readers. Above all, many religious publications would be called into existence, supported by different religious societies, and coming forth two or three times a week. Thus a new class of periodicals would be called into existence, and all productive to the revenue in three ways—by the Stamp Duty, the Advertisement Duty, and the Paper Duty. It was stated in a periodical, a short time since, that if the whole duty were taken off, ten times as many papers would be published as at present; and, therefore, with only a tax of a penny, I have a right to assume that three times as many would be published. The amount of a penny tax upon three times the present number of sheets, would be 400,000l. I greatly underrate the Paper Duty if I take the increase at 30,000l., and the increased Advertisement Duty at 20,000l., making a total of 450,000l., which equals the sum produced by the present fourpenny tax. The increased Paper Duty I have greatly underrated, as a high duty diminishes the profit and the sale to a very considerable extent. In a calculation made respecting the Penny Magazine, it has been shown that if a tax of one penny was imposed, the sale would be decreased one-tenth, and comparing the increased duty on the stamp with the loss of revenue on the paper, it has been clearly ascertained that the Exchequer would lose, on that paper alone, 400l. a-year. Apply this argument generally, and you will see how much the revenue loses by the present high rate of duty. The system has robbed the revenue on the one hand of more than it has paid into it on the other. I shall not detain the House much longer; but, before I conclude, I must say, that the pre- sent Government owes something to the provincial Press; and, with few exceptions, the Provincial Press has petitioned for some relief. The provincial Press has supported the Government nobly, and without its assistance I doubt much if any liberal Government could have made head against the determined and vehement attacks of three morning papers of great circulation and influence. Yet the provincial papers are cramped in their exertions, and limited in their power, by the audience they address being narrowed and limited by the Stamp Duty. You owe something also to those who, adopting opinions more (I should say) determined and dreaded than your own, have yet supported you frankly and generously. The panegyric which my right hon. Friend has to-night pronounced upon that class who, professing these opinion' have yet compromised them to a certain extent, and given to the Government the independent and undivided support, is an-other argument in favour of my Motion; for there is no concession which will be looked upon as a gracier on, nor none which will be repaid more largely and generously by the party who, whether in praise or blame, are called the Radical party, than a concession upon this point. If any body of men have ever acted from the purest public motives, patriotically and disinterestedly, I believe it is that party, and, therefore, I do say that my right hon. Friend owes them some concession. The last argument I shall use is, that the Government owe it to themselves and to their own consistency, to make some concession to the Press. They will not in such a case be sacrificing their own opinions to please a great body of the public, and of their supporters—they will be merely following up those sentiments which they have expressed on former occasions. There are few now on the Treasury Bench who have not, on some former occasion, expressed themselves favourable to the measure. The right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and even his Majesty's present Attorney-General have given dignity to the question by their acknowledged affection to its principle. I have the greatest confidence, therefore, in the present Government, and I hope upon this question, as upon all others, I shall live to see them faithful to the great principle of Reform, which proportions power to intelligence, and which, while it renders the Constitution more popular pre- vents the danger by rendering the people more enlightened. So strong is my reliance upon the objects and intentions of the present Government, that I am satisfied the more widely their sentiments are diffused and known, the more generally will they be approved. I regret to see them shut themselves out from half the national enthusiasm, and half tbe popular support which would be theirs, were the laws they enact, and the principles they advocate, brought cheaply, easily, and familiarly before that great class of the community for whose benefit they have laboured, and in whose cause they have won their most imperishable renown. It is with this hope that I now move that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider the question that, for the more general diffusion of knowledge, it is expedient that the Stamp Duty on Newspapers be reduced to one penny.

I rise, Sir, to second the Motion of the hon. Member with very great pleasure. My opinions upon this subject are so well known to the House and the country generally, that it is scarcely necessary for me to repeat them, and there is little danger of their being misunderstood. I shall merely observe that the arguments of my hon. Friend appear to me so convincing, that I cannot but hope they will have due weight with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If his Majesty's Government, after the declaration of this night, believe that we have given them our sincere and honest support, I ask of them to grant us but this one boon; I do not ask it for their own sakes, or for their own advantage, but as a boon to the country that has so magnanimously supported them; and even if they differ a little from us upon this question, let them, as we have done, sacrifice a little of their opinions, to reward those who have stood by them in the struggle. I do not recollect the exact number of petitions which have been presented upon this subject; but I believe there is scarce a large town in England that has not appeared by petition at the Bar of the House, and given expression to its wishes for the repeal of this tax. Why, Sir, all the parties who had supported his Majesty's Government, from 1830 up to the present moment, and enabled them to carry through the important reforms projected by them, are deeply interested in this question. The people are asking in every quarter, who are the persons who have imposed these taxes that have kept us in darkness? Who are those who have shackled the press, and what objects have they had in view in so doing? Sir, the people are able to see pretty well what these objects are. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government are relieving the people of Ireland from the pressure of taxation; and surely the time has come when something ought to be done for the millions of this country: let the Government, then, give them this cheap knowledge, and they will confer upon the country one of the greatest boons possible. I say, therefore, to my hon. Friends who are below me, I speak to them as one most anxious to keep them in the situation they are now in, I call upon them not to throw away the millions of people who are anxious to give them every support. Let them do this, reduce the stamp duties, and they may laugh to scorn the opposition of those who are now on the other side. Ministers were carried into office on the shoulders of the people, because they were thought to be anxious for the welfare of the people. Then, let them give this boon to the people, and their support will not only be continued, but so much increased as to enable them to put aside the opposition going on, either in this House or in any other place. Let the right hon. Gentlemen at once then abrogate those laws which they should remember were imposed by their opponents and the enemies of the people. It cannot surely afford these Gentlemen any satisfaction to know that 511 persons have been imprisoned by them.—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer: "Not by the Government."]—I do not care, Sir, whether the law is put in force by the Government or by common informers, but the fact is, as I have stated, that from the time they came into office up to March, 1834, no less than 511 persons have suffered imprisonment for a breach of these laws. Let the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, make a trial of this plan. I must say that the recommendation now before the House does not go to the full extent of my wishes. I would have these laws entirely done away with, and the Press entirely free. But, Sir, I am willing, if any compromise could be made, to take any part of the good which I can get. I, however, would prefer to see newspapers without any stamp, and a small postage charged upon their transmission into the country. I give this advice most sincerely; and if, upon a late occasion, I expressed myself too warmly, in speaking of my hon. Friends below me, it was merely because I was most anxious to drive them forward in that course which I considered would be for their good. I speak strongly, because I know that I am speaking on behalf of the millions of my fellow-countrymen.

said—Undoubtedly, Sir, I do not rise for the purpose of complaining of the Motion of my hon. Friend, or of the speeches in which the question has been brought forward, but for the purpose of returning thanks to my hon. Friends for the observations they have made so favourable to us, and for the calm and temperate mode in which they have approached the subject. I do not complain of the Motion itself, although I will take the liberty of praying the House not at the present moment to agree to it. I do not complain of the subject having been brought forward; it is fitting that it should be discussed, and that upon the principle which was opened by my hon. Friend (Mr. Bulwer). It is gratifying to me also that it has now been brought forward, because upon this subject I have been much misrepresented. On the one hand, it has been said that I have broken pledges which I have given for the total repeal of these duties, while, on the other hand, I have been represented as being a stickler for them, and totally opposed to their repeal. I will not now stop to justify myself, but I will say before this House, that the one accusation is as false as the other. Passing on to the Motion, Sir, I shall deal with it fully, fairly, and with all the respect that is due to the spirit in which it has been brought forward. I consider it one of the greatest mistakes that can be entertained, both in point of reason and in fact, to assume that the cause of sound political information and the character of the Press are to be kept up by a tax. I think that neither one nor the other requires it. It is not by the means of a stamp-duty that either can be maintained. The character of a press depends upon the character of the people, and he who supposes that a moral press is to be procured, if I may so speak, by the instrumentality of a stamp-duty, commits an egregious error in point of principle. I do not defend the tax. I repudiate it as to any protection it may be supposed to afford to the diffusion of political information and of sound knowledge. When I come to show the evils which arise from high duties on the Press, I bring to my aid evidence which is not open to suspicion upon the subject, I lay before the House the character given to the unstamped press by Lord Brougham, in his evidence before the Committee on the Law of Libel. He therein characterises it as slandering the public authorities from the King downwards, circulating personal slander as well as political, as containing of blasphemy and obscenity a considerable store—as entering into vulgar competition with others in the publication of ribaldry of every description—as underselling the respectable press—as maintaining the lawfulness of rebellion, and even the propriety of assassination. I have laid down the principle broadly, that upon the grounds whether of policy, of morals, or of the protection of sound political doctrine, the present high rate of stamp-duty is not to be defended or maintained; but I have stated, and now repeat, the grounds which I think are sufficient to justify me in the course I must pursue. I say distinctly, that if we look at this measure as a question of finance, I believe that ultimately, though at some risk, I might obtain an equivalent to a considerable extent, by the imposition of other duties, if we were in a condition to try such experiment, which we are not. If I had a surplus which would allow me to entertain it, the question is one which would occupy my most serious attention; but with a revenue borne down by the peculiar demands of the present year—which I have already explained to the House at a length that has been imputed to me elsewhere as a fault, but which, if I attained by it my object, namely, that of making the House understand the subject before them, I cannot regret, because such is the end of every Parliamentary exposition,—I then explained that under no circumstances can I this year have a surplus, such as any prudent Minister would wish to have at his command; and I now say that with it, such as it is, I am not in a condition to try this experiment. And I ask the House to stand by me in my determination not to impair the sources of the revenue by any premature reductions, especially as I have, within a short time, contracted a loan which I am pledged to make good, and which promise I think the House will not wish me to violate for the sake of making a financial experiment. I therefore urge upon my hon. Friend to consider the inexpediency of pressing this question to a division. I must confess, the question has been brought forward and discussed in the most fair and reasonable manner; but I am not at present prepared to entertain the proposition, nor do I see that any contingency is likely to arise which will enable me to propose to Parliament the remission of the entire amount of the duty. A proposition to remit 450,000l. altogether, is one which the House cannot entertain. I go further, and say I feel that it is one which I feel I should not be justified in entertaining; because there are other claims on the country, which are entitled to receive at least as much attention. Therefore, I think my hon. Friend has done wisely in saying, "I do not ask you for the entire remission of the duty, but simply for a reduction, such as will secure the better diffusion of sound knowledge and information." A means of providing an equivalent has been suggested, which I think to be of a very questionable nature; but as the plan seems to have taken considerable hold of the public mind, I deem it necessary to offer a few remarks upon it: I mean the plan of subjecting newspapers to a postage duty, a proposition which is insupportable by argument, and utterly impracticable. In the first place, it would cause great injustice to be done as between town and country; it is the country part of the empire which stands in need of knowledge not only political, but moral, literary, and scientific. Congregated together in a mass, the people in a city have naturally the greater means of obtaining information and knowledge than in other places. This was proved by the course of events during the discussion of the Catholic Relief Bill. From whence was the support of that Bill derived? It was from cities and large towns. It was found the most difficult thing imaginable to obtain such support for it in the more remote parts of the empire, in consequence of the comparative want of a diffusion of this sort of knowledge among the people of those parts. Now by a postage duty, however the means of information might be increased in large towns, those districts would still not be benefited. Another proof that the circulation of the papers would neither be expedited nor increased by this scheme is found in the fact, that although the papers are now freed from postage, yet, for the sake of earlier delivery, the proprietors frequently prefer sending them by other paid conveyances; it is a delusion, therefore, to imagine that a postage duty will bring up the loss of revenue arising from the reduction of the stamp-duty. It has been said, that because this plan answers in America, it must answer here; but there may be a cause for its success in America, which does not exist here. In the wild and distant parts of that country the mail may be the best, and, perhaps, the only mode of conveyance for them; but the best proof to the contrary here, is that the parties who might command a free transmission by that source, prefer sending their papers by another, notwithstanding the cost of carriage. Then this plan would be subject to another and great inconvenience; for in order to preserve the revenue, it must be penal, as in the case of letters, to send by any other conveyance, and you must have an inquisitorial power to search all the Red Lions and Saracen's Heads in the country, or you would be foiled in your postage duties altogether. Then, as to the question of reduction, I say if the measure is to be remunerative, it must be a bold measure of reduction; as to the amount of it, it is not necessary to express any opinion at present. I have stated the general principle, I hope in a manner satisfactory to the House, of my inability to concur in the Motion; but if even I could venture upon the step, there is another reason why I should not take it at the present moment. Much must be done to protect the press itself, before it is done; it may be difficult to devise it, but something in the shape of a principle of copyright is necessary to be established. Let us suppose one of the largest newspaper establishments in the country at much expense for foreign correspondence, for their system of reporting, and for the means of securing publication at the earliest hour in the day. Now, if there be not some such protection devised, perhaps through the means of the press or of lithography, some person may cause a duplicate to be made, possessing themselves thereby, and making a profit, of all the information collected at so much expense, without having expended a single farthing to procure it. I know that this is an extremely difficult part of the subject; but I say it is one which should by no means be overlooked. I have now answered the statement of my hon. Friend. I repeat it, that in the present state of the finances of the country, I cannot, by any possibility, run the risk of making the experiment. I am not afraid of the result of it upon political grounds; I do not consider that the constitution of the country is likely to be injured by the greatest possible circulation of the productions of the daily press: on the contrary, I am convinced that the more our institutions are brought within the reach of the people, the more they are led to consider them, the more accurately they are taught to weigh the proceedings of Parliament, the more closely they are led to examine the principles upon which our laws are framed, and the obligations by which they become liable to them, the more certain are we of contentment if the laws be right, and of reform if they are wrong. I do not consider it quite an accurate statement that this is a tax upon knowledge; yet I believe i that politically much depends upon it. As there are persons at present degraded enough to diffuse poison for the people, I should wish to provide the means of furnishing an antidote to that poison. I rejoice in the statement made by my hon. Friend, that if the measure should pass, it must be accompanied by one of protection for the collection of the revenue. If I should hereafter make a proposition which the Parliament thinks proper to sanction, for a remission of part of this duty, let it be remitted honestly and in earnest; let what will still remain of that duty, like every other, be protected. I ask for no protection against the press itself, but I ask you for a law to enable me to collect the revenue, and to protect the honest trader, who contributes his fair share to the State, from the encroachments of the man who does not. I now thank the House for their attention, and my hon. Friend for the manner in which he has discussed the question: there is no difference between us on principle, although it is inexpedient at present to enter practically into the discussion of it; first, because I cannot afford the proposed remission of this duty; and next, because even if I could, there is now no time to discuss the measures by which it ought to be accompanied. Having given a pledge as to the future adoption of the principle of the measure, I must reserve to myself the right of taking full time to lay the comparative claims of one class of the community against the other, that I may not expose myself to the imputation of inconsistency or absurdity, merely for the sake of financial experiment.

I am sure if the right hon. Gentleman should obtain any unpopularity, it will not be for the manner in which he has treated this question, though I am sorry that he does not go further. If, at any other time, he has made any unpopular observations, he has now shown himself decided on the justness of the principle, and he has thrown aside all the odious arguments by which these taxes have been supported in past times. He has admitted them to be bad, and he has only asked for time and due consideration to be enabled to remit them. But I am not convinced that he might not safely have repealed them this year. It is said they produce between 400,000l., and 500,000l., and that if they were taken off, the revenue would be deprived of 350,000l. because there is a surplus of only 200,000l. But if he had reduced the stamp duty to twopence, probably there might be a deficiency of 100,000l., which, if it were the case, I am sure could easily be made up by a duty on salmon, for example, or any other luxury. It has been shown that these taxes do not cause an increase of publication. This may be seen in the circulation of The Penny Magazine and other cheap publications. I am acquainted with the circumstances of another part of the public Press, the circulation of which is very large, I mean the Sunday papers. The weekly papers generally sell for sevenpence, but they are published only once in six days, so that in fact the consumers of these papers only pay sevenpence in six days, while those who purchase the other papers pay six times 7d. in six days. It appears that the weekly papers circulate twenty millions per annum, and that the circulation of the daily Press is but fifteen millions a-year. There is, however, reason to believe that the readers of the weekly papers are eight times as many as those of the daily papers. I say too, that if you will go into these calculations you will find it will give a large majority of readers to each weekly paper, and this ought to satisfy the Chancellor of, the Exchequer that the revenue would not suffer by such a reduction, because each of these weekly readers would become daily purchasers, and there would be a considerable increase of the old daily readers. The only question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer is,—is not a large portion of the public Press injured by the great extent of smuggling? If we could get a fair account of the number of unstamped newspapers, we should find that they exceed by thousands the stamped newspapers, and we should see that the revenue is actually suffering, and that the morals of the community are suffering too, by the retention of this tax under the present system. Some of the better kind of the weekly papers have suffered to a great extent. I shall perhaps get no great popularity for this, but I think a good and rational law of libel ought to be established, which would secure its freedom as well as its purity from slander, and if we take off the duty, we should not think of doing so without putting this check over it. This, too, must either do harm or good, and if it does not do good it must do excessive harm, for it deprives men of the means of knowing the laws, which they are called on to obey, and under which they may be convicted of unconscious crimes. With these laws the people cannot be acquainted while we prevent the use of the only means of affording them this very necessary information. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the people are deprived of political knowledge, and the truth is, that that knowledge is not only the most useful, but indispensable, and we see this by the success of publications which gives them this knowledge, though imperfectly, and sometimes of a very bad kind. I congratulate the House on the support of this Question, for it is now proved that this House has no desire to prevent the spread of political knowledge, and that it is not opposed to this great moral force if rightly and correctly used; and that the Ministers and the men who achieved the glorious Reform Act, only wait the fair opportunity to give a fresh impetus to the diffusion of political knowledge and salutary information.

I can assure the House that it is my intention to trespass only for a very short time; but I think after the speech of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which I have listened with much pleasure, I think I may be allowed to say it evinced a much more enlightened and generous spirit than has been known to be displayed by any Member of any Executive Government before. But I must also say, that after having heard pointed out in the most clear manner, and so much more forcibly than I can do, the mischievous consequences of retaining these taxes, a much stronger reason than that founded on mere financial considerations is necessary to justify their continuance. I think the right hon. Gentleman seemed to admit in his financial statement, that there was strong probability that the reduction of this tax from 4d. to 1d. would be attended with no loss to the revenue; in my opinion there would be such an increase of circulation as would by the paper duty alone make up for any loss the revenue might suffer by reducing the duty. That is my firm conviction. Now, Sir, I would take the liberty of submitting to the right hon. Gentleman's consideration, whether the liberal tone he has taken will not tend to increase the objections to this tax? I really would wish to impress upon him how he, of all others, can depend upon the continuation of this tax, of which he has so ably pointed out the mischiefs, unless it can be shown to be unquestionably necessary to our public credit. But the right hon. Gentleman has fallen very far short of that. Now, Sir, with reference to the additional protection to the fair trader, I must be allowed to remind the right hon. Gentleman that reductions, in my opinion, fair reductions, would be the greatest protection to the fair trader. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's idea as to copy-right, I fully approve of it; but it seems to me the matter is so simple that a few lines in an Act of Parliament would be quite sufficient for all practical purposes. I will refrain from troubling the House at greater length than by expressing the great interest I have and feel in this important Question, and the strong feeling, the growing feeling there is upon this subject throughout all the great towns of this country. There is that, Sir, going on upon this subject of which the right hon.Gentleman does not seem sensible, or he would not decline to take off this tax. Although I should be sorry to put the Government to any inconvenience, yet in my opinion, if there are no other or better grounds for retaining this tax than those stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it ought to be taken off. I say, once more the right hon. Gentleman has not made out any ground for retaining this tax, and, therefore it is that I regret the resolution to which he has come.

This tax, in my opinion does not bear any proportion to the price of the article, and I would venture, therefore, to suggest, that if this tax were taken off newspapers, and one of a penny or less put on, it would so increase the circulation, that a greater revenue would be acquired by it. If also free transmission was given to newspapers to all parts of the country, the revenue, in my opinion, would be increased. I think, on the whole, there ought to he a graduated duty relative to newspapers.

Sir, if there was any time in which I should feel it my duty to oppose the Government it would be the present. After the declaration that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman on two most important subjects, first, the declaration with respect to the internal politics of the country; and secondly, the declaration that he has made with respect to the duties on newspapers, nothing can be more satisfactory than the declaration the right hon. Gentleman made, when he stated that the present high duty on newspapers could neither be defended on principle or practice. What greater condemnation of the existing system can be pronounced than such a declaration coining from such an authority, I cannot find out. The case of low duties may be compared to the state of things which existed before the invention of printing, and printing itself. All the arguments in the defence of high duties, all the arguments for the purpose of restricting the circulation of newspapers has been grappled with, and, therefore, it will be unnecessary for me to say anything further upon the question. Now, if I should decline, on account of the declarations of the Government, to go along with those who support this Motion, I must say on account of the situation in which we are placed after this declaration, and after what we know to be the state of the difficulty in collecting the revenue on newspapers, recollecting what that difficulty is, I must say there never was an occasion on which I felt more inclined than the present to dispute the grounds taken by the right hon. Gentleman. It is notorious that without a system of persecution and inquisition, which will no longer be borne, you cannot continue the tax. In my opinion, it will be utterly impossible to continue it six months longer after the condemnation that has been given to it by the right hon. Gentleman. If you continue this law for another six months, in what state will you leave the country, the people longing for a free communication, and the seizing of presses which print newspapers persevered in? Under such circumstances, is it possible, I ask, for the Government to carry on the duty much longer? The truth is, the course that has been adopted by Government has led the public to doubt the sincerity of their intentions, and their wishes and desires with respect to this tax. The declarations that have been made on this subject, were also made several years ago. My hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, knows that we waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer three or four years ago, and we had then the assurance that it was only on account of the then state of politics, the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared to us, that he did not bring in a Bill to repeal these duties. Now, we have been waiting for a liberal Government to carry these intentions into effect, from that time until the present mo- ment, and what have we got now? Why, the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they persevered in their former intention to keep on the duty on newspapers. It will probably be observed, that it is only with respect to the question of finance that the duty has been kept on. I think upon that question also, the decision which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come to, is not the right one. Look to the seizures that have taken place. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer compare the state of his receipts from this tax and the dissatisfaction that prevails, and I think he will find that he will have great difficulty in maintaining those receipts as long as that dissatisfaction prevails. I have no hesitation in saying he will not be able to maintain them. Now, Sir, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has talked of taking off the duty of one particular class; I hate the name of taking off the duty on particular classes. The object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in my opinion, ought to be to take off those taxes that will give relief to all classes, and I should like to know where that class is to be found that does not read newspapers? I fully agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that something ought to be done for the protection of copyright; but I do believe that an hour's conversation with the editors and proprietors of two or three newspapers by the Solicitor to the Treasury would enable him to draw such a Clause as would be abundantly sufficient to answer all the purposes required. I looked, Sir, with alarm, when the right hon. Gentleman talked of greater powers, for I cannot think that greater powers are necessary. And why do I say so? Because I am persuaded if a proper duty was placed on newspapers, much less power than the Government has at present would enforce their payment. Greater powers were not found necessary when the tax was moderate, and I firmly believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in what he has done, has very much miscalculated, and that he will find that out ere long. Sir, in conclusion I must say that I shall be inclined, whatever the hon. Mover may think right to do, to go along with him. If he divides, I shall divide with him, and if he thinks proper to defer the question I shall acquiesce in the propriety of the adoption of that course.

Sir, I must protest, in the first place, against the opinion given by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer as being correct with respect to the whole of the unstamped Press; for there are, I must say, many most meritorious exceptions. I have had many persons with me on the subject of the recent seizures that have taken place—they came to me very angry, but they left me very calm; for I told them that the present state of things could not long exist. After all that has been admitted upon the subject, the only point in my mind that should be really pressed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the reasonableness of trying the experiment. Let him look to the papers in Ireland, and see if they are not over-taxed. What is the whole amount of the Stamp-duty in that country, in which there are no less than eight millions of persons? It is only 8,000l. a-year. Why is it so small? Because the Stamp-duty is so heavy—and there are so few persons who purchase newspapers in consequence of it. The advertisement duty yields little or nothing, but it would be greatly enhanced if the Stamp-duty were so small as to increase the circulation. I think, therefore, you have given ground for pressing this experiment. I cannot help congratulating the House and the country upon the sentiments which have this night been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, that the fullest reliance may be placed on the principle that actuates the Government to put the Press on the best footing. What an admirable contrast does this form with the Government of a neighbouring country? There are in this country no infernal machines—and why are there not? Because no man will venture here to persecute the Press even in obedience to the law—such is the force of public opinion. One regrets to see the country, I allude to in the state in which it now is. How is it to be accounted for? Why, by stifling public discussions and putting down the freedom of thought. A traitor Ministry and a King forgetful of the principles that have placed him on his throne, caused all this. I have to submit to my hon. Friend, who has brought forward this Motion, whether the implied pledge that has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is not in effect a pledge for the ultimate reduction of the tax. Three or four months cannot elapse before we meet again, and I am sure my Friend, when he sees that Parliament cannot meet for a week, without having this Measure brought forward, will see the propriety of postponing his present Motion till the first Supply day in the next Session, when I have no hesitation in saying it will meet with no opposition.

I am sure that what has passed to night will give universal satisfaction to the country. I think, however, that every facility ought to be given to the circulation of newspapers through the means of the Post-office. A large addition to the revenue might be afforded by a better system of management at the Post-office, which would not only make any defalcation good, but also leave a large sinking fund to meet future expenses.

Sir, I feel anxious to make a few observations on this important subject. I entirely approve of the Motion made by my hon. Friend. I think with him, that there should be a reduction, not of the whole, but the greater part, of the tax. I am persuaded that if the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer will adopt this resolution, and I infer from his observations that he will ultimately adopt it, he need not apprehend that the revenue will suffer from its adoption. I am persuaded that there are means by which great advantages may be derived from the reduction. But there is one subject which has not been attended to, and which I feel is entitled to as much observation as the reduction of the duty upon newspapers, and that is the reduction of the duty upon the paper itself. By the reduction of the duty upon paper, you will give advantages to all classes of society; whereas, by the reduction of the duty upon newspapers, you give advantages to one class only. The readers, and I need not say that they are a great many, of books, will all receive advantages by the reduction of the duty on paper. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he takes this subject into consideration, will not lose sight of what, in my opinion, is of very great importance—the reduction of the duty upon paper. With respect to the observations that have been made upon the propriety of imposing a postage duty, I conceive that that would be an extremely prejudicial measure. It would in my opinion operate to withhold information from those persons who stand most in want of it. It is also objectionable in another way. Many faults would be found with the duty upon postage by those who now make no objection to paying the full expense of a newspaper. Many would object to pay postage who have no objection to pay a duty upon the article from, which they derive benefit, and for which they receive value. I do think that this view of the subject with respect to postage ought not to be lost sight of. If there shall be a duty of one penny upon postage, all those who now defraud the revenue by selling and purchasing unstamped papers will contrive to send and receive their papers by other means than through the Post Office; they will avail themselves of those opportunities to continue these frauds upon the revenue. It will operate very much in this way, also, that it will have the effect of continuing a practice of doing injustice to the revenue, and at the same time accustoming people to those habits which it was most desirable should never prevail. I feel perfectly convinced, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall ultimately determine upon the adoption of this measure, he will not find the revenue suffer. He certainly will not find it suffer to any great extent. I, myself, most anxiously desire, that the revenue should not suffer, but even under the circumstances in which we are placed, I do not feel any doubt but that the right hon. Gentleman would find himself in a situation of perfect security, although he should determine to make the reduction this year. I can conceive, that considerable difficulties may stand in the waj of making the reduction at the present moment; and among the rest the reduction in the duty ought to be made so as to give protection to the fair trader; and I apprehend that we could not find sufficient time during the present Session to enact such laws as would give that necessary protection. With respect to the conduct of the proprietors of Newspapers, though they have been called monopolists, and stigmatised in the course of this debate, their conduct I am persuaded when fairly seen, will be thought perfectly reasonable. They have gone to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and said to him, "We do not ask you whether you will augment or diminish the duty, all we ask is, that you will place us upon a footing of perfect equality with all other persons in the same trade; if other persons publish newspapers on unstamped paper, all we ask is to enjoy the same privileges; but if, on the contrary, we are placed under the necessity of publishing on stamped paper, we require that all other persons shall be liable to the same restriction. I consider that claim to be perfectly reasonable, and such as the publishers of newspapers have a right to make. The right hon. Gentleman has expressed his intention to give security to copy-right which I should consider a wise system of legislation, and such as I have no doubt, if adopted, will be found perfectly satisfactory to all those who are engaged in conducting the public Press, and will be found alike conducive to the interests and the wishes of the public at large; and will inspire them with a lively interest in the support of that Government of which the right hon. Gentleman forms a part.

I will not detain the House with more than a few observations upon this very important question. I believe, that every Gentleman who has spoken has decidedly advocated some alteration in the Stamp Duties. I can assure the House that there is a strong feeling upon this subject amongst my constituency, and the most respectable and influential portion of them decidedly advocate an alteration of the duties upon newspapers, and I have during the present Session presented petitions from them, praying for its repeal. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether; after the very strong expressions he has himself used this night upon this subject, his Majesty's Ministers can hope to maintain these duties in their present state? The question is in fact disposed of—and I am very glad to observe the general concurrence of opinion on the part of those who usually support the present Government. And I hope, that after the general expression of the feeling of all sides of the House, that the hon. Member for Lincoln will not press his resolution. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) has abandoned the tax upon principle, and I hope, therefore, the hon. Member will not press the House to a division. I merely rose to express my own opinion, and to ask this plain question—whether after the declared opinion, openly given in the face of the public, upon the principle of this tax, his Majesty's Government have determined upon the maintenance of this tax upon only one ground, that of finance—a ground which I consider to be wholly untenable? Can it be said, that in this great country—where we have a revenue of fifty millions—after the House of Commons with one opinion has pronounced this a most objectionable tax, that it is yet to be maintained upon the principle of revenue alone? I will not further occupy the time of the House. The only question is in what way this tax may be most advantageously altered. I will not enter into the subject whether or not a substitute should be adopted in lieu of the whole or of a portion of it; but I am most decidedly of opinion, that if his Majesty's Government will direct its at- tention during the recess to some alteration of this tax, they will be only acting in consonance with the public voice. I will only beg leave to add, on the part of the trading community, that if, in addition to some remission of the Stamp-duty, there was a reduction of the advertisement duty also, it would yield still more satisfaction. If the revenue sustained some loss by the change of taxation, the House of Commons I am sure, will never consent to see a Chancellor of the Exchequer placed in difficulties from the necessity of raising such a sum. In the present duties there must be some change.

Sir, it rests with the hon. Member who has made the motion, whether we shall any longer continue to have stamp duties or not. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has invited the House to vote. He has said that this is not a tax that can be defended upon principle, and he says also that it is inexpedient in practice; and what, I ask, could a Chancellor of the Exchequer say more? He has said, that this tax could not be recommended; that in every sense of the word it is injurious to the morals of the country; and after this declaration, I consider that this House, deserted as it is by the Conservatives,—[great laughter—the Opposition Benches were almost empty]—will not do its duty if it does not press this Motion. I am most anxious to give the present Ministry all the support it is in my power to give them, because I believe that they are sincerely desirous of benefitting the best interests of the country. But anxious as I am to support them, I have a much greater anxiety to see every clog removed from the vehicles that convey political information to the people. The people have petitioned in thousands and tens of thousands for the repeal of this tax. If the public only knew the benefit they would derive from that repeal, ten thousand more would petition for its repeal. I sent to Somerset-House to know exactly what was to be done before a man could publish a newspaper, and the information I received was to the following effect: If it is a weekly paper, there must be given in the names, residences, and occupations, of two responsible sureties to secure the payment of the duty, to the amount of 500l., and if a daily paper, to the amount of 1000l. Are not these clogs? Further, there must be names, residences, and occupations, of two more, as a security against the publication of blasphemous or seditious libels, to the amount of 300l. Thus the Press is clogged in every way. The public can only derive information in large towns. In small towns and rural villages, they are in a state of utter political darkness, and yet the art of printing has been in our possession for four hundred years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has refused to give any distinct pledge for the reduction of this tax next Session, and he has alluded to the reductions already made to the amount of forty millions; and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that the public will derive a benefit from the reduction of the Stamp-duties. How? Why is it that this discovery has never been made before? Because it was only lately they had applied to it the pressure in that House and out of it. I do not allude to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer; because I believe he was always persuaded of the evils of the existence of this tax, and anxious to relieve his mind from the disagreeable necessity of continuing it. It is admitted on all hands to be an odious tax, it presses upon the country, and renders the whole people subject to tyranny and despotism. If the right hon. Gentleman does not like this motion—if he will not be persuaded to reduce this tax—would he like to put the tax up to a public bidding? If the reduction takes place, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will put the tax up to a public auction, the subscription lists will be filled in less than four hours, and I am satisfied that the contractor will make a most excellent bargain who takes the tax at one penny. There is not a man in this House who does not believe that if the tax were reduced to one penny, the circulation will not be more than trebled. Is there any man here who entertains a contrary opinion? In many country towns at present the people have no newspapers. A newspaper goes down thither occasionally, but they have no such thing as a printing establishment where a newspaper is published. Only take off this tax, and we shall soon have established in all small towns a newspaper. There will not be a town with 3,000 inhabitants which will not have one or two newspapers, and the consequence will be a great increase of the revenue from the paper duty, which will in my opinion make up for any diminution that will arise from the reduction of the Stamp-duty. I, therefore, hope that my hon. Friend, the Member for Lincoln, will press his Motion, unless the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, gives a most distinct pledge that the tax shall come off in the next Session. The public, if we bring forward such Motions as this, and do not press them, will consider them as so many farces. They will say these Motions are brought forward to serve personal or individual purposes, and the public interests are entirely sacrificed. I hope that our conduct this night will satisfy the people that we have no such view on this occasion; and that we propose to look to the public interests, and not to our own. Sir, I am prepared to maintain this principle in this House; I have advocated it out of this House; and when I see any means of serving the public interests, I feel that I ought to make use of it. I know no way in which I can more effectually serve the public interests than by supporting the present Motion.

Sir, I am anxious to offer a few words in explanation. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has argued as if I had invited the House to take the course he has stated. Sir, I stated that I never would consent to take this course; that I would never be responsible for taking it, because I consider it inconsistent at the present moment with the financial state of the country. I must say, that it is not very generous in the hon. Gentleman to take advantage of my frank admissions.

I consider that the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) has in his speech pledged himself—I have a right to use that expression—to the repeal of the Stamp-duty. I consider that he has pledged himself in that speech as strongly as any man can pledge himself. I believe that this Duty cannot last. I believe that it will be repealed in the next Session. The only question remaining now is one of delay. If I press this Question to a division at this moment, I am not sure that I shall carry it; and if I do carry it, it will be with great moral disadvantages. In the first place, it will weaken the Government at a moment when it ought to have collected round it its whole strength. In the next place, it will expose us to divisions when we ought most to be united. And in the third place, we shall render ourselves liable to the accusation of acting against his Majesty's Government, at a time when I sincerely believe they are in possession of the national confidence. Under all these circumstances, I feel that, on this as on similar questions, our object will he best attained—the Government acknowledging the principle, and asking only time and opportunity to carry it into effect. With these views, and feeling that no personal motive can attach to myself, I feel that I should not stand well with the country if I pressed my Motion to a division.

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to consider that I have pledged myself against the principle of this Tax, which I never can support; but if he means to say that I have pledged myself, under all imaginable circumstances, to repeal this Tax next Session, I must say that I have given, and am prepared to give, no such pledge. I may have the same difficulties to contend with—the financial arrangements of the country may be exactly the same—and in that case, I shall be under the necessity of continuing this Tax. I have stated, as distinctly as I could do, what my opinions were upon this subject, and from those there shall be no departure or compromise.

I consider the right hon. Gentleman to pledge himself to the repeal of those Taxes, if the revenue can bear it.

Aye, supposing the revenue can bear it. But I must say, at the same time, that this is a different state of the Question to what it was at first.

I am of opinion, after what has been stated, that even if the finances of the country remain the same, the right hon. Gentleman is bound to find a substitute for this Tax. I consider that he is called upon, after the general expression of the opinion of the House, so to do. I will only add, that if I had had any idea that the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Lincoln, was pledged not to press the Motion to a division, I would never have seconded it.

My hon. Friend, the Member for Lincoln, never stated that he was pledged not to divide; he only stated that he did not think it adviseable, under the present circumstances, to divide the House. When the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has admitted the principle of the Motion, I do not see how my hon. Friend could divide the House.

detailed the circumstances of Mr. Buckingham's banishment from India for writing a newspaper article offensive to the Government of that country, the loss of his newspaper property that ensued upon that event, the proceedings of two Parliamentary Committees in reference to Mr. Buckingham's claim to compensation from the East-India Company, and the other circumstances of the case. The hon. Member moved, in conclusion, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the payment by the East-India Company of compensation to Mr. Buckingham for certain losses of property in India, founded on the evidence taken before a Select Committee, and their Report upon the same, presented to the House of Commons on the 4th of August, 1834.

said, it was disagreeable to him to appear connected with anything that might be thought, however mistakenly, to savour of oppression or an attempt to put down the liberty of the press, and it was doubly disagreeable to be obliged to speak of the case of an hon. Member of the House—the hon. Gentleman sitting opposite to him at the time and advocating his own claim, which, be it remembered, was for compensation in money for certain alleged losses. Since he had been in Parliament, he never before knew a Member of the House to come forward in support of a pecuniary claim of his own. He did not say that this was Mr. Buckingham's fault, perhaps it might be called the hon. Gentleman's misfortune; but then it was also his misfortune to be obliged to argue against Mr. Buckingham's demand in that Gentleman's presence, especially if he should be thought to say anything severe. He as well as other Members had received a paper containing a statement of Mr. Buckingham's case, and he must say this was the first time he had observed any thing like such a mode of application with respect to pecuniary claims of a Member of that House. He would state why it was, that he totally objected to this motion. In the first place, he disliked the delay that had taken place in prosecuting the claim. He asked how came it, after the Committee of 1828 had broken up without making any report on the subject, that Mr. Buckingham allowed his just claims (if just they were) to e dormant from that time till 1834? Those claims had been brought before the Court of Directors and Proprietors of the East-India Company by Mr. Buckingham's personal friends and ad- mirers, and the proprietors having no imaginable reason for dealing unjustly with the matter (whatever might be thought of the Directors), twice rejected the application. Neither the Court of Proprietors nor the Directors would lose a single farthing if the compensation demanded (40,000l.) were paid to-morrow, for their dividends were secured to them; but he could not consent that the territorial revenues of India should be mulcted on insufficient grounds. The banishment of Mr. Buckingham from India, and the subsequent proceedings against his newspaper, might be right or wrong, but, be that as it might, the hon. Gentleman entered upon his literary career as a speculation, of tne casualties attendant on which he must have been aware at the time, and he had no right to say that whatever he might have lost in the undertaking was a fair measure of the fine to be imposed on the natives of India. The Committee did not deny that the Government of India had power to act as it did, nor was if pretended that any law had been infringed in resorting to the extreme measure that was adopted in this case. What pretence existed for the interposition of Parliament under such circumstances, or why should it impose a fine on people who had nothing to do with the guilt (if guilt there were) of suppressing Mr. Buckingham's journal? If a fair claim to compensation existed, he would be the last man to oppose it; but he could see no grounds for the present demand, and was therefore obliged to resist it. Who was to fix the amount of the fine to be levied on the territorial revenues of India, and how was the extent of Mr. Buckingham's loss to be ascertained? He very much doubted whether he ought not to have objected to the introduction of a measure which partook of the nature of a Money-bill (claiming compensation as it did from the territorial revenue of India) without the consent of the Crown. He earnestly recommended the hon. Member not to press the Motion. As the loss was not proved, and it was not possible to make it out, he should give his strenuous opposition to it.

would wave that question.

was surprised at the course taken by the right hon. Baronet. Mr. Buckingham had suffered great injustice by the arbitrary conduct of the Governor-general of India. He was in India on a licence, and his newspaper was realizing him a profit of nearly 8,000l. a year, when he was banished, and his paper was suppressed. This was for publishing an article objecting to an official appointment which the East-India Company and the Government themselves sent out an order to cancel. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee, where some compromise might be effected. Peihaps they could not ascertain the value within 100l. or even 1,000l., but the Select Committee desired to make some approach to justice. Let them grant 30,000l. or 20,000l., or whatever was thought reasonable. In the Committee some compromise might be effected.

said, the obvious and only course for the hon. Gentleman to pursue, if he had been wronged, was that of suing the Governor-general for India. With reference to the account of the injury which had been suffered, he would observe that while the hon. Member for Middlesex had stated it to be the loss of 8,000l. a year, the income derived from his newspaper, Mr. Buckingham himself had variously stated it at 4,000l., 6,000l., and 8,000l. a year. The law under which that Gentleman had been removed was in full force at the time; and how could they entertain the question, whether they ought to compel the Company who had acted in the di cretion vested in them by that law, and thus, under the sanction of the Legislature, to make compensation for its effects?

thought the Bill should be brought in, leaving the details of it to the Committee. prima facie case had been established in the Report of the Select Committee upon the subject.