presented a petition adopted at a public meeting, and most numerously and respectably signed by the merchants, traders, and inhabitants of the city of Worcester, which he had the honour to represent, praying that a full measure of corporate reform might be given to the people of Ireland. The meeting at which the petition had been adopted was held only two days ago, and he would venture to say, that among the great numbers assembled at it, there was not a dissentient voice on the necessity of granting to the people of Ireland a mea sure of corporate reform similar to that given to Scotland and England. He need scarcely say, that he fully concurred in the prayer of the petitioners. He was not aware what the intention of his Majesty's Ministers would be when this subject was brought before the House; but this he would say, that any departure from the salutary measure given to this country would be productive of discontent and end less dissatisfaction in Ireland; and he was confident that the people of that country would be supported in their efforts by every honest Reformer in the United Kingdom.

was, in unison with his colleague, intrusted with a petition from the Mayor and Town-council of Carlisle, praying and urging the House to persevere in enforcing the claim of right, which the people of Ireland had to the same purified municipal institutions which England and Scotland now enjoyed. These rights were possessed by Ireland before the Union, and, therefore, without even taking into consideration its claim to equal rights with themselves, they could not, in his opinion, be withheld without a positive breach of the conditions of that compact.

hoped he might be indulged while he made a few observations on a subject of considerable importance. When examined before the Committee on Corporal Punishments, he had stated in his evidence [the hon. Member read the extract] that a native of India had been tried by court-martial at Calcutta, and sentenced to 1,900 lashes for insolence and insubordination, 1,250 of which had been inflicted. Since that time, he had ascertained that there was a mistake committed on his part, and he had an application made at the Horse Guards, and had then in his hand the official report, from which it appeared that the first part of the statement was perfectly correct. The individual was sentenced on two charges, tried before the same court-martial, to 1,900 lashes, only 650 of which had been inflicted. Having satisfied himself that he was in error, he was desirous that it should be immediately corrected; and he trusted the House would excuse him. He thought it necessary to take the first opportunity of making the statement so publicly, as the evidence given before that Committee was read with deep interest.

was exceedingly glad of the explanation given by his hon. Friend, as the extract in the evidence which had been just read, tended seriously to reflect on the conduct of a brave and excellent officer.

, in rising to invite the House to concur in an address to the Throne, having for its object, to beseech his Majesty to use his good offices with his ally, the King of the French, for the liberation of Prince Polignac, and other imprisoned ministers of France, said that he was too well aware of the delicacy and the numerous difficulties that surrounded the question not to feel sensible how greatly he stood in need of the indulgence of the House while he stated as briefly as he was able the grounds upon which he thought England might offer her mediation with out offence, and France accept that mediation without compromising either her dignity or her independence. When the House looked back to the political career and the past lives of these misguided men, he hoped that, in advocating their release, he should stand acquitted of being actuated by any party motives, or biassed by any political prejudices in their favour. He stood there to recommend their release on higher grounds—he would ask for it in the name of even-handed justice and humanity, and in order that, if their sufferings were only to terminate with their lives, it might not be said hereafter that England, by her silence, acquiesced in their captivity, or that no attempt was ever made to relieve and mitigate their afflictions. He might be asked (admitting this view of the question to be correct) what right did we possess to interfere with the domestic policy or the internal arrangements of another country? Or what precedents there were that could be adduced in support of his proposition? These were the difficulties he knew he had to contend with—these were the obstacles that he should be expected to overcome. With regard to the right that we might have to interfere with the internal policy of another country, he must say that he thought such a question came rather too late. It was true non-intervention had been our precept; but how far it had been our practice he might safely leave Spain to answer, France to illustrate, or the house of Bourbon to acknowledge. It was now nearly six years since the British public first heard with admiration and de light of the glories of July, and the triumphs of the barricades—when the citizens of Paris rose almost as one man, and proclaimed that "the will of the people" was the only legitimate title to the throne. The successful struggle made by the French nation upon that occasion caused an excitement here which he thought those who witnessed it would not easily forget. They had then seen the tri-colour flag, not confined to the walls of Paris, but triumphantly waving in our own streets among the loud acclamations of the people; and while addresses of congratulation were sent over to the Citizen King, public subscriptions were entered into to console and assist the relatives and descend ants of those who had fallen in the struggle. In short, from that day, England seemed to feel that the liberties of France must thenceforth rest upon the same foundation as her own. But when this excitement began to subside, and the trial of the ministers to commence, Englishmen began seriously to reflect upon what description of constitution that was which could make the servants of a monarch deposed, of a power that had ceased to exist, responsible to those who were profiting by the change. They had then to learn in what new charter this double responsibility could be found, whereby a king could be superseded and his ministers impeached! Many then began to suspect that either the advantages of that eventful revolution had been exaggerated, or the punishment of its authors was ungenerous and unjust. However, the trial proceeded, and whether that trial had been a legal or an illegal one, whether the tribunal before which Prince Polignac was arraigned, had or had not been legally constituted, he would not pretend to decide; suffice it to say, that the ministers of Charles the Tenth had been condemned, and were then in the dungeons of Ham, suffering for having only attempted that which their more fortunate successors had been able to accomplish with a severity and a force which he should leave to other and warmer admirers of this Citizen King's reign to palliate and explain. It was notorious that, upon the first public occasion after Louis Philippe had ascended the throne, he declared that "he wished his conduct to be judged by France, Europe, and posterity." If in that declaration he was sincere, it afforded to England a favourable opportunity of communicating to him and to our gallant neighbours the feelings of sympathy and disappointment which pervade this country at the protracted incarceration of those now harmless individuals. For the credit of France, he wished most sincerely that she had listened to the counsel of a noble Lord upon this subject: he alluded to a speech of Lord Grey, made by him in the other House of Parliament, a short time previous to the trial. That noble Lord had said, "I am far from wishing, by any observations of mine, to interfere unbecomingly in the affairs of a neighbouring country, but I believe I may say that there is not a friend of liberty in Europe, who would not feel gratified if he could see mercy extended to criminals, who may be thought by some least to deserve it; and that the revolution so nobly accomplished might be freed from any proceedings which can have the appearance of being dictated by motives and feelings of vengeance." He would ask any man (let his politics be what they might) to point out, unless vengeance were the object, what was to be gained by this imprisonment? What were the dangers to be apprehended from an immediate and generous remission of the sentence? For, if he had been correctly informed, if liberty were restored to Polignac and his colleagues to-morrow, age, infirmity, and disease, generated by the pestilential climate of their prison, had brought them, so close to the brink of the grave, that all they could hope for, all they desired, was to be permitted to conclude in peace and charity, but in the enjoyment of liberty and of the society of friends, those few remaining days that belong to their ill fated existence. And here he would wish to take the opportunity of stating, that when he alluded to the subject on a former evening, he did so without any communication, direct or indirect, with the prisoners themselves; and the only communication that had since been made to him was by a letter which he received shortly afterwards from the Princess Polignac, expressive of the gratitude of the prisoners at the kind manner in which the mention of their misfortunes had been received by the enlightened assembly which he ad dressed. With the permission of the House, he would read the letter.

"Ham, March 4.

"Dear Sir—Those alone who have experienced severe affliction, can understand how more than consolatory, how gratifying it is to learn, that friends still remain who are not indifferent to our appalling misfortunes. It was under these impressions that I perused your generous speech in favour of the prisoners at Ham, and learnt the flattering attention with which it was listened, to by an enlight- ened assembly. Receive, Sir, on this occasion' my best acknowledgments; they will, however, be inefficient, when compared with the secret satisfaction your own conscience must afford you, for having made a courageous effort in behalf of those who linger in confinement. It is, doubtless, to the remembrance of having in days of prosperity contributed, on various occasions, to many philanthropic acts, both in behalf of his own countrymen and of foreigners, that Prince Polignac owes that serenity of mind which has contributed to support him in adversity, and with which he now waits the further decrees of Providence.

"Allow me to subscribe myself,

"Dear Sir, your's truly,

"LA PSSE. DE POLIGNAC."

"To T. Duncombe, Esq., M.P."

This letter was written by the Princess, Prince Polignac being sentenced to civil death has not been allowed to communicate by letter with any one. The House was, no doubt, well aware that the fortress of Ham was situated in the most un healthy part of France, in the midst of marshes and morasses; but to remain at large within the fortress seemed to have been thought too lenient a punishment; for within the fortress a small prison had been built, where these unfortunate men were confined almost in secret, without any means of exercise, excepting upon an elevated terrace, about thirty paces in length, and surrounded by stagnant water. At certain hours of the day a few persons are allowed to see them, but at five o'clock they are committed to their dungeons, where they dine alone, and after that hour, under no circumstances of domestic affliction or of sickness, is any friend or relation allowed to visit them to interrupt the cheerless solitude of their cells. He would ask if persecution like this could be necessary to the ends of national justice? Did it not savour rather of revenge? If so, surely the same right and the same feelings that prompted us to congratulate and address our ally in 1830, entitle us to plead for mercy in 1836, and to tell the French nation that we much fear that in the eyes of posterity the lustre of their far-famed revolution will be tarnished by such needless cruelty as this. Before he sat down, the hon. Member begged to observe that there were precedents for this motion. Similar addresses had been moved in that House in 1794 and 1796 by Mr. Fitzpatrick, for the liberation of General Lafayette, and other Frenchmen confined in the prisons of our ally the King of Prussia, He had adopted the form of that motion—a motion, too, which had been warmly supported by all the leading Whigs of that day (as he hoped his would be by those of the pre sent time); that motion had been sup ported by the present Earl Grey, by Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Sheridan, and Mr. Fox; and Mr. Fox, when speaking in support of it, said, "The customs of civilized nations presented no obstacle to our interposition. In the case of Sir Charles Asgill, application was made by this country to a court with which we were then at war. The good offices of the Queen of France were solicited, granted, and proved effectual, and America, the ally of France, yielded to an interposition in behalf of humanity. What, therefore, is to prevent his Majesty from using his good offices with his ally in the cause of humanity also?" True it was, that the motion of General Fitzpatrick was not carried; but why did it fail? It failed in consequence of the disturbed aspect that public affairs were then assuming throughout Europe. War was kindling in every quarter, and the principles of Lafayette were not then quite so popular as they are at the present day, and, therefore, an opportunity was gladly seized to control their influence by the detention of his person. Now peace pervaded the Continent, and were it not for the dungeons of Ham, little would be left to call to recollection the confusion that is past. His motion also might fail; but he trusted its failure would not, at ail events, take place on this side of the Channel, and that, let what might become of Polignac and his ill fated companions, England might never be reproached with having beheld with indifference a persecution which neither justice, enlightened policy, nor humanity, could approve. The hon. Gentleman, in conclusion, then moved the following Address:—"Humbly to submit to his Majesty the propriety of his Majesty using his good offices with his ally the King of the French, for the liberation of the Prince de Polignac and Messrs. de Peyronnet, Chantelauze, and Guernon de Ranville."

seconded the motion. He could not understand on what ground any person, possessed of the common feelings of humanity, could op pose the motion.

trusted, that the motion would receive the sympathy of men of all parties in that House. He was quite aware it was a very delicate question to interfere with anything which regarded the domestic policy of a foreign state, but he believed the French people had, on many occasions, received our mediation in good part, and believed that the liberation of these unfortunate prisoners from this gloomy fortress, in Picardy, would be as acceptable to their feeling, as it would reflect honour on their magnanimity.

thought, that if the motion of the hon. Gentleman was carried, it would not only be an interference with the internal affairs of another country, but would also interfere between great public offenders and the justice of a nation. He could not help feeling that the persons who were the object of the motion, had been guilty of crimes of the greatest magnitude. Prince Polignac had played a great game, which, if it had been successful, would have made him the chief minister of a sovereign who would be an absolute despot. They had been tried for their offence and found guilty, and sentenced to the punishment of death. The punishment they were now, and for a series of years had been undergoing, was a commutation of the original sentence on them. When, also, hon. Gentlemen recollected the great loss of life that had resulted from the attempt of those persons, he had no doubt they would hesitate before they sanctioned the proposition submitted to the House. For his own part, he did not think that it was carrying the punishment farther than was necessary, when an offence of such magnitude occurred. Hon. Gentlemen talked of the humanity and desirableness of mediation on the part of this country. No doubt intervention or mediation, for the purpose of preserving peace was most beneficial, and this could often be re sorted to, as this country was interested in preserving friendly relations between other nations; but how could we mediate or intervene for a mitigation of punishment for political offences with which this country had nothing to do? At any rate he felt satisfied that it was a question which should not lightly be dealt with in that House. What, he asked, would be the feelings of that House and of the country, if a foreign power chose to interfere with this nation for a mitigation of punishment for great political crimes. Although his feelings might prompt him to vote with the hon. Gentleman, he trusted that the motion would be with drawn, or that the House would, on a calm consideration of the subject, feel induced to reject it.

observed, that when the hon. Member for Finsbury first gave notice of a motion on this subject, he could not help feeling some degree of envy at the generous feelings which actuated the hon. Gentleman. He had, however, mentioned at the time, that he could not support an Address to the Crown on the subject, as it would be an interference with the internal affairs of another nation. He now repeated that opinion; but he was most anxious for the success of the object which the hon. Member had in view. Although the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, might not give such an answer to the hon. Gentle man as he might wish, yet he trusted that the noble Lord would use other means to attain the desired end. This he also thought could be more readily and easily obtained by the means he referred to than by a formal Address to the Sovereign to exercise his influence to further this object. He would not provoke a discussion as to whether or not these persons in the prison of Ham deserved the punishment which had been inflicted on them; and, above all, when he recollected that by doing so he might remove to a greater distance the chance of their release.

said, that from the speeches which had been made on both sides of the House, and from the manifestations of opinion with which those speeches had been received, two things Mere sufficiently clear—first, that the House sympathised with the hon. Member for Finsbury in those feelings of humanity and generosity which had impelled him to bring forward this Motion; and, secondly, that it was not the opinion of the House that the Motion for an application on the part of the British Government to the French Government should be pressed at the present moment. He was speaking for himself, and he believed for his colleagues, when he said, that nothing would give him more sincere pleasure than to hear that the Government of France had thought it expedient to ad vise the King of the French to exercise his prerogative of pardon towards Prince Polignac and his fellow sufferers. He was sure that such an act of mercy on the part of the French Government would meet with satisfaction and approbation, not only in this country, but also in every quarter of the civilised world. Speaking individually on this matter, he could not conceal from himself, that whatever the political of fences might have been of which Prince Polignac and his colleagues had been found guilty, the punishment inflicted upon them had been severe and long-continued. It would, therefore, be consistent with those generous and chivalrous feelings which distinguished the French nation to show, that when the continuance of punishment ceased to be necessary for the sake of example, anything like vengeance was deemed unnecessary, and that a generous oblivion should fall upon those offences which had been sufficiently marked to prevent their repetition. However becoming it might be in the hon. Member for Finsbury—who was well known to entertain opinions favourable to the liberty of the subject—to stand forward as the advocate of mercy towards those who had acted upon opinions quite the reverse, still he trusted that the House would not forget that it could take no step so inexpedient, and he might even add, so dangerous, as to ask the King of England by address to interfere in matters connected with the domestic concerns of another country. There was no precedent for any such interference on the part of the British House of Commons. The precedent to which the hon. Member for Fins bury had alluded was one totally different in all its fundamental principles. On that occasion General Lafayette, and other officers connected with him, having passed from the French army with the intention of retiring into Holland, fell in with the advanced post of the Austrians, and were held in consequence in confinement, as prisoners of war. The hon. Member had referred to the opinions of Fox, Sheridan, and Whitbread, in favour of the Motion of General Fitzpatrick; but he had forgotten to tell the House, that Mr. Fox expressly stated that he supported the Motion be cause General Lafayette was not a subject either of the King of Prussia or of the Emperor of Austria—because he had not violated any laws which he was bound to obey—because he was a mere prisoner of war—and because we, as allies in war to the power which had captured him, were entitled to intercede in his favour. This case, however, was totally different; for it was the case of subjects of another country tried for offences against the laws of their country, adjudged to punishment by the legal authorities of that country, and suffering at present under punishment deemed by those authorities appropriate to their offences. Now, if we were to set the ex ample of interference in such a case, it might be inconveniently retorted upon us, and if there was one principle which public men in this country had held more sacred than [another, it was this—that it should not be permitted to any foreign Government to interfere directly or indirectly in the internal affairs of England, and that neither with laws which we proposed to pass, nor with the execution of laws which we had already passed, should any foreign Government presume to meddle. Now, it would be impossible for us to maintain that principle as strictly as we ought to do if we interfered in the present case. Even for the sake of the object which the hon. Member for Finsbury wished to accomplish, it would be most politic for him not to press his motion to a division; for the French people, though chivalrous and generous, were sensible of the value of high character, and though they might be swayed by the expression of the opinions of a free assembly in a friendly country, yet if that assembly went further, and arrogated to itself a right of interference, it was much to be apprehended that their pride would be roused, and an effect produced the very reverse of that which the hon. Member intended. He, therefore, begged the hon. Member to content himself with having elicited sentiments from both sides of the House in concurrence with those which did him so much honour. He begged him to allow the matter to rest where it then was, and as the battle was now over, and as the constitutional monarchy of France was now established be yond any possibility of shaking it, and as the objects for which it was established were now in progress to their accomplishment, he implored the hon. Gentleman to share the confident hope which he himself entertained, that the same generous feelings which induced him to make this motion would spontaneously animate the French people at large, and that their own innate generosity would lead them of their own accord to the very same results which his hon. Friend wished to accomplish.

believed, that the severity of the sentence passed on the un fortunate prisoners at Ham had been carried into effect in consequence of the cruelty of that nation of which he did not think so highly as some hon. Gentlemen. The crime was not so much that of the Ministers as that of the monarch, and this was not the first case of this nature where individuals had been punished, or even suffered death, and the chief party had gone free in consequence of its being thought that a monarch was only responsible through his Ministers. There was a very remarkable case of this kind in the history of this country.

was satisfied that the adoption of the motion would not tend to promote the object which the hon. Gentleman and the majority of the House had in view. He wished, however, to observe that he could not agree in what had been observed by the hon. Member for St. Alban's (Mr. Ward) that the guilt of these persons had not been sufficiently punished. He, however, entirely concurred in the expressions of sympathy which had been uttered for those unfortunate persons, and he was sure that if they were allowed their liberty, that it would excite the sympathies of Europe in favour of the King of the French, and do much to establish his Government in the feelings of those persons who had previously been opposed to it.

did not say, that Prince Polignac and his colleagues had not been sufficiently punished, but that their crime was against the French nation, and they had been sentenced to death, and that their present punishment was a commutation of their former sentence.

, though he sympathised deeply with the individuals in question, and earnestly wished to be of service to them, he should have felt quite satisfied to let the House go to a vote on this motion, on the ground stated by his noble Friend, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. But his motive for rising at present was to make one or two observations, in addition to the statement of his strong conviction that it was impossible for us to interfere with propriety in the internal affairs of another nation. Before making those observations, however, he would say, that he trusted the Government of France would consider this question in the manner in which his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury desired, and in which the House appeared to coincide with him. Being contented with the statement of his noble Friend, he should not have risen to say a single word, had not the hon. Member for Drogheda thrown out certain reflec- tions against the French nation, which were used very inappropriately on this subject, and which he had some reasons for knowing were quite unfounded. "It happened to me," said the noble Lord, "to be in Paris soon after the Revolution of 1830, when the popular opinion was—and it was very natural that it should be so, after a revolution which had cost so much blood and so many lives—that the Ministers of Charles 10th would expiate their offences by forfeiting their lives on the scaffold. It happened to me to be asked by some persons very nearly connected with Prince Polignac and his family, to ascertain what was likely to be the issue of his trial. Certainly I could not pretend, certainly I did not pretend, to have any such influence with the per sons with whom I was then acquainted in Paris, as to hope to alter any opinion of theirs; but I had sufficient acquaintance with the Ministers and Court of Louis Philippe, and others who had influence in France, to ascertain from them the nature of their opinions. I did ascertain from them, for the satisfaction of Prince Polignac and his friends, that the enlighten ed sovereign who now reigns over the French nation, and the Ministers who were then his advisers, contemplated with horror the infliction of any capital punishment upon those Ministers, and that any influence which they could use would be directed to prevent the Chamber of Peers, and those engaged in the trial, from coming to a decision by which their lives would be placed in jeopardy. I took care to convey that information as soon as possible to those who were anxiously awaiting the result of any facts which had come to my knowledge. But it was stated to me, that even if the case were as I had been in formed, and even if the Ministers and the Chamber of Peers should decide that the lives of these unfortunate men should not be forfeited, and that they were not to undergo capital punishment, there might be a popular insurrection,—that the National Guards might be forced, or perhaps might allow themselves to be forced, and that in being conveyed to the Chamber of Peers, or in being taken from it, those individuals, who on their trial were declared free from all danger as to their lives, might be sacrificed to the vengeance and fury of a sanguinary mob. It was my fortune to be intimately acquainted, and I say it with pride and gratification, with General Lafayette, then in command of the National Guard of Paris. I wrote to him, and asked him for an interview on a subject of great importance. He did me the honour to come and visit me, in order to hear the questions on which I wished to ascertain his opinions, and I then told him of the dangers which were apprehended for the lives of the Ministers then upon their trial. He stated immediately his opinion—his decided opinion; and he asked me, as an Englishman, whether I did not think that the opinions of Englishmen in former times would have coincided with his own,—namely, whether the offence which those Ministers had committed was not an offence punishable with death? He went on, however, to state, that as a question of humanity, he never would promote, or be a party consenting to promote, the infliction of that punishment on those Ministers; and when I put to him this question—"Is there not danger lest the National Guard should be forced, and violence be committed on these prisoners?" he answered me, with great emotion, "No, that must not, that shall not be." That was the answer given me by General La fayette, a brave and honest man, a re publican, it may be, in opinion, but still a sincere and humane man; and I now ask the hon. Member for Drogheda, such having been the concurrent opinions of the Ministers of Louis Philippe, of his Court, of the Chamber of Peers, and of the Commander of the National Guard, all borne out by their subsequent conduct—I ask him, I say, whether, after the provocation to the Revolution of 1830, any imputation of cruelty can justly rest on the nation, of which the King who now reigns, and of which General Lafayette, who is now un fortunately no more, were the most distinguished ornaments? The noble Lord then proceeded to observe, that he had thought it right to say thus much on these facts, because they came within his own personal knowledge; and having said thus much, he would now repeat, that he could not agree with the motion for the reasons stated by his noble Friend. If he had thought it right to agree to motions of this kind, there were other occasions on which he should have supported them in behalf of persons who had been condemned to suffer, he would not say whether justly or unjustly, and had suffered most grievous punishments, not for being parties to the promulgation of ordinances injurious to liberty, but because they had been too sincere and ardent advocates of liberty. He alluded to the cases of Count Gonfalonieri and Silvio Pellico, with whose narrative all the House, he believed, were now acquainted. He, however, considered it to be the sacred duty of that House to abstain from interference in such cases, and he had, therefore, neither propounded nor supported such motions. He thought that foreign Governments were the best judges of what ought to be done in such cases. The Austrian Government had thought it necessary to take such and such measures for the protection of its dominions in Italy, and since that time it had deemed it necessary to extend mercy to the individuals whom it had formerly punished. He was sorry for the severity: he rejoiced in the mercy which had been displayed towards those individuals. Like his hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford, he should be sorry to interfere in the internal affairs of a foreign Government. He could not, therefore, support the motion for an address; and if he were compelled to vote against it, he hoped that the House would give him credit for a full participation in those generous sentiments which had led the hon. Member for Finsbury to bring it forward.

must also disapprove the imputation of cruelty cast upon the French nation by the hon. Member for Drogheda. He had been in Paris immediately after the revolution in 1830, and could confirm the statement of the noble Secretary for the Home Department.

observed, that this debate had been as creditable to the House as its warmest friends could wish, for it proved, that when a question of humanity was brought forward, there was no difference of opinion among Englishmen of all parties, but all were ready to support it. The House and the country owed a deep debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Finsbury for bringing this motion forward, and whatever might be the fate of it, the hon. Member ought and would feel happy in having brought it forward.

said, that although it would not be expedient to press this question to a division, and although it was not consistent with the policy of his Majesty's Government to accede to it, there could be no doubt its object, and the manner in which it had been brought forward, were equally creditable to the hon. Member for Finsbury, and he was not without a hope that the unanimous expression of opinion which had taken place on the subject would not be without the happiest effects in France.

differed from the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and from the hon. Members who had sided with him in opinion, as regarded the propriety of the interference of that House in a matter of this kind. It appeared to him that there were some circumstances of a peculiar nature in the present case which took it out of the operation of the rule which had been laid down. The fact was, that although there was a very general feeling throughout France, among all classes of the population, that the prisoners at Ham had already received a degree of punishment adequate to the satisfaction of public justice, yet that the Ministry of the day were so situated with respect to party and to public opinion, that they would not act on their conviction, because of their fear that their conduct would be construed into an approval of the course of proceeding for which the prisoners had been sentenced to the punishment. And when it was considered that there was no assembly on the face of the earth which stood so high in the estimation of the French people as the British House of Commons—above all, no assembly in which it was known there was a greater repugnance to, and dislike of, such principles as those which had actuated these unfortunate prisoners, those acts for which he (Mr. Poulter) was bound to say they had been justly condemned, he thought that, in these circumstances, there would be found grounds for interference, which in other cases, perhaps, might not exist. Even admitting all the primâ facie objections to that course which had been urged by preceding speakers, he (Mr. Poulter) thought these circumstances afforded sufficient and ostensible reasons for making some demonstration on behalf of these unhappy persons, especially when it was remembered, that if such a step were not taken by our Government no other government would take it, and Prince Polignac and his companions would most likely be confined for the remainder of their lives. He believed good effect would be produced by the friendly interposition of the Sovereign of this country, undertaken at the instigation of this House; he, therefore, hoped his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, would press his motion to a di- vision, and he should feel it his duty to support him.

did not intend to have spoken but for the speech of the hon. Member for Shaftesbury, from every part of which he entirely dissented. He was certainly of opinion that if there was one mode by which more surely than by another the object they had in view would be defeated, it was that proposed by the hon. Member. The interference of that House would be calculated especially to excite the jealousy of a nation like the French; it would be an unjustifiable interference with them on points which, according to the law of nations, belonged exclusively to the sovereign power to decide and determine. Were this motion acceded to, there would be no end to the occasions on which this House would be called upon to say to a foreign government, in respect of any political offenders, "We, the British nation, think you have punished these individuals long enough, and we, therefore, call upon you to exercise that clemency, which, if it is to be exercised at all, ought to be exercised from the sovereign power alone." He could not say that he thought the motion would be productive of any good, or that it would tend, in the slightest degree, to accelerate the release of these unfortunate persons; on the contrary, he thought this was of all others the very period when the French Government would be afraid to exercise their own discretion and free will, because of this interference on the part of the British nation. He could not help concurring in what fell from the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. What would be the feeling ex cited in that House by an attempt, on the part of a foreign government, to interfere in the administration of justice in this country? He (Dr. Lushington) for one would say, that such an interference should never for one moment influence his mind. Having said this, however, on the subject of the form of the motion, he felt it due to himself to say, that no person could feel more strongly than he did for the situation of the prisoners. He had throughout his life been attached to the principle of rendering punishment certain, but not severe, as the only sure mode of rendering it efficacious everywhere. He hoped the declaration he was about to make would not be considered inconsistent with this line of conduct. He would acknowledge that he was not prepared to create this precedent in favour of individuals who had fallen a sacrifice to their endeavours to introduce despotism into a foreign country, when that House had never made a similar at tempt in favour of the hundreds who had worn away their lives in captivity, and lingered out their days in miserable imprisonment, because they were too much attached to the cause of liberty, and too desirous to confer upon their native land the blessings which free countries enjoyed. He would tell the hon. Member for Drogheda that there never was a case in which the imputation of cruelty was more unfounded, than against the French nation in this instance: when, by the acts of these individuals, however conscientious, the whole country was in a state of fearful agitation; and the wives and children of the slain were crying for vengeance. He (Dr. Lushington) would confidently affirm, that there never was an instance of a nation similarly circumstanced, displaying such moderation. He would ask, what would have been the sentence of that House if Gentlemen sitting on that (the Ministerial) bench had so sought to overturn the constitution of Great Britain, as Prince Polignac and his associates had that of France? He need only refer the House to English history, and to the Acts of Attainder passed in the reign of William III., for a reply. He (Dr. Lushington) could expect no benefit from this motion: he hoped it would be productive of no evil. So far as his voice could reach, he prayed that this sentiment might reach France:—We trust in the honour and mercy of the French Government in our commiseration for the sufferings of these unfortunate individuals—we place trust in them. The British nation abjures, and never will attempt to interfere in the execution of their justice.

agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury in so much of his object as regarded the humanity mixed up in the question, but as regarded the form of the motion he felt himself bound to side with the hon. Member's opponents. He thought that a direct interference would be highly impolitic on the part of that House; but that, on the other hand, the universal and unanimous expression of feeling which the subject had called forth on this occasion would prove most beneficial to the prisoners.

said, that, not merely in deference to the opinions which had been given, but also from a regard to the interests of the individuals whose cause he had endeavoured to support, he should beg leave to withdraw his motion. He could not do so, however, without expressing his gratitude for the sympathy in the object of the motion which had been shown from all parts of the House. He sincerely hoped the sentiments which had been expressed by his Majesty's Ministers, and that House in general, would be received elsewhere in the spirit in which they were intended.

I wish to take this opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a matter connect ed with the progress of business. A debate is to take place to-morrow on the Irish Church Bill, which I understand, according to the general impression of the House, will last beyond one night. In that event, I shall not propose the consideration of the Municipal Corporation Act Amendment Bill on Thursday. I shall not be able to do so either on Friday or Monday next, and shall therefore beg to postpone it for a week. On Friday my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will, in pursuance of his notice, propose the question of the stamp-duties; and on Monday I mean to bring forward the question of the registration of marriages.

begged to put it to the noble Lord, whether it was consistent with a proper respect for the feelings of the people of Ireland, that so important a question as that to which he alluded should be postponed.

If there be any one question which deeply affects the British public, it is what shall be the fate of the measure for reforming the Irish corporations. I therefore conjure the noble Lord, so far from postponing it, to postpone, in preference, even the Stamp-duties Bill—any measure is inferior in importance to one which affects the whole of the Irish people. The question is really this, whether the House having to decide on a point of just ice to Ireland, shall postpone the consideration of such a subject for a week.

said, he felt deeply the necessity for some such Bill as the present. The Medical Charities in Ireland were in a most anomalous condition. The first business of the Legislature was to consoli- date them, by providing such machinery as would bring them all under some central control, and, at the same time, furnish a good system for their support by local taxation, united with local inspection. He (Mr. Wise) as the House was aware, had already advocated the establishment of a Central Board of Public Works, and one for Education, he therefore hailed with pleasure a scheme for the establishment of a Central Board of Charities. He should be happy to render any assistance in his power to the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Brien) in presenting this Bill to the House.

said, the Government would be happy to avail itself of any hints which might be contained in the Bill pro posed by his hon. Friend for the regulation of Medical Charities in Ireland. He should therefore offer no opposition to its being brought in; at the same time not pledging himself that he would not present to the House a rival measure, which he had for some time been contemplating. He could not sit down without saying, that whoever should have to investigate this subject would owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Freeman.

rose to move for a Return of the number of Ships' Reports that required amendment during the two years ending 5th January, 1836, the date of each ship's arrival, and the date at which the amended Report was completed; stating the nature of the error in each case. He felt it to be his duty, while representing a large commercial constituency, to direct the attention of the Government and the House to some great evils which the present Custom House system presented. He had had occasion to see a great deal of public offices; but there was not one which caused greater inconveniences to those who had to do with it, than the Custom House. In a country which drew 20,000,000l. from her imports, this could not but be productive of very great injury to her commerce; and unless a wiser system were pursued, that injury would become incalculable. The evil to which he now particularly adverted was this. "A ship comes into one of the out ports. A slight discrepancy is discovered between the cargo, the discharges, and the bill of lading in the Custom House. What takes place? A Report is sent to the Commissioners in London; the ship is de- tained, perhaps, for two or three days, and then an answer comes down, telling the Collector of the Customs at that port, that the discrepancy is immaterial, and that the ship may depart." It was easy to see what immense injury the commerce of the country must sustain from such a state of things. What he (Mr. Hutt) desired was, that the power of the Commissioners of Customs should be more localized, or that the Col lectors of the Customs should be enabled when satisfied that the discrepancy was the result of mere oversight, and not intended to defraud the revenue, to discharge the ship without subjecting her to this delay.

said, he should offer no opposition to the Return. At the same time he must observe, that while the law remained as it did, the Commissioners of Customs had a duty to perform for which they could not be blamed.

said, he could bear out what had been stated by his hon. Friend, the Member for Hull, that great evils arose from the want of localization in the power of the Commissioners of Customs; and he hoped some remedy would be applied.

observed, that what had fallen from the hon. Secretary (Mr. Baring) proved the necessity of an alteration in the existing system. At all events, he thought it was a fit subject for inquiry.

bore testimony to the general disposition on the part of all public officers connected with the collection of the revenue, to afford every convenience in. their power. At the same time he must say, he fully agreed in what had been stated by the hon. Member who made this motion, as to the great injury sustained by commerce from the delay occasioned by the most trifling amendment required in Ships' Reports. He imputed no blame to any one; he hoped, however, the subject would gain the attention of Government.

In accordance with the notice which I have given, I rise to call the attention of the House to the situation in which many officers of various ranks are now placed, belonging both to his Majesty's land and sea forces, whose length of service seems to entitle them to the consideration of Parliament and the country. Sir, it is not my intention to occupy the time of the House by bringing under its consideration the cases of individual hardship, which many most deserving officers in both ser- vices have to complain of. With the limited information which I possess, I should not be justified in adopting such a course on the present occasion; for I think I should fail in duty to a body of men who never failed in theirs, were I to notice such cases only as accidental circumstances have made me familiarly acquainted with, and pass by many others which, I have no doubt, are equally deserving of attention and consideration. Sir, the object which I have in view is promotion or some other equivalent to the older officers of various ranks in both services. I have no wish to disguise that object; but before I allude to the claims of those officers, I will allude for one moment to the notion which I find prevails among some hon. Gentlemen, that I bring forward this subject with the as sent of the Government. Sir, neither directly, nor indirectly have I held any communication on this subject with any Member of his Majesty's Government. The House, therefore, need not be surprised if I display not a little ignorance in handling a subject on which it has been supposed that I have been so much enlightened by his Majesty's Ministers. There is another topic I would also allude to for one moment. It has been said that this is a matter which no individual Member of Parliament ought to bring forward, it being the province of the Government, and interfering with the prerogative of the King. Sir, the Government is sometimes none the worse for an occasional hint from this House; and as to the prerogative of the King, I would be the last man to dream of interfering with it. But I imagine our Gracious Sovereign is also the last person in his dominions who would not be too happy to exercise that prerogative by noticing, in one way or another, the length of service of his oldest officers, who were ready at all times, when their country called on them, to en counter cannon and climate, heedless of the "battle or the breeze." Many of these men, worn out with age or infirmity, have already disappeared from the half-pay list. The survivors are left to dream of some prospect of promotion or mark of public approbation, for long service, being bestowed on them. It has hitherto proved but a dream; no prospect seems to open to that class of men, except that which opens to them beyond the grave. Sir, I trust that the discussion which will arise this evening on this question may be useful to them; for although I cannot submit any substantive proposition for the consideration of the House, which might have the semblance of infringing on the King's prerogative, I am sure the House will listen to me for a few minutes, and allow me to assume a very possible case, which may very probably take place, and in doing this I hope I can not give offence in any quarter. Well, Sir, in looking over the last navy-list I find there are many post captains of thirty five years standing; there are eighty of them of that rank of more than thirty years. I shall suppose that those officers choose to memorialise his Majesty. I shall suppose that he is graciously pleased to honour them with an interview, and to admit to the fullest extent their claims on his consideration. What follows? The King has recognised and admitted their claims, he will surely exercise his prerogative; to be sure he would. But, in the exercise of that prerogative, his Majesty would of course consult with his responsible advisers. I am only supposing a case; and I suppose that my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should be appealed to, and that his Majesty should condescend to feel the pulse of the right hon. Gentleman, and inquire the amount of the surplus revenue at his disposal, which is so keenly contended for by distressed agriculturists and others in this House. Why my right hon. Friend would naturally say, there is a document in the library of your Majesty's faithful Commons, in the shape of a Report from a Select Committee which sat some years ago; the Report concludes in the following terms:—"The Committee beg leave, in conclusion, to express their anxious hope that no addition to the number of flag officers in the navy, any more than to that of general officers in the army, will in future be made, except upon some very strong grounds of public necessity." Sir, with such a document staring any Ministers in the face, it is very easy to imagine the responsible advice that would be tendered. But, Sir, I call on the noble Lord who acted as chairman of that Committee, I appeal to others Members of that committee, and to my hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex—whose love of economy has never weighed in the scale with his love of justice—and I appeal to this House, whether strong grounds of public necessity do not now warrant some thing being done for these old officers. That expediency warrants it, I cannot entertain a doubt; and that the country will approve of it, I feel certain. Sir, it is a notorious fact that great dissatisfaction prevails in both services, for more reasons than one. I do not wonder at it. But I do not think it fair that that dissatisfaction should be laid at the door of this House of Commons. In the navy-list I find—for it is that branch of the service I will first allude to—that there were, as I said before, seventy-eight captains of up wards of thirty years standing in that rank, most of them between sixty and seventy years of age. Under the existing rules of the service, very few of them, I know, could be put on the effective list of flag officers. But surely an addition to their half-pay would be but an act of justice to those who have so long suffered from disappointment; and no mode more honourable to the individuals, or gratifying to the country, I think, can be suggested, than to grant them the rank they have so long and so anxiously sought for. Supposing they were all to be promoted, the amount, including the addition of pay to the seventy-eight who step into their shoes, and the seventy eight who follow them—making a positive pecuniary advantage to 234 captains—the advancement to all would be a temporary advance of 20,000l., and no permanent burden on the country. No, not for a couple of years; for in peace, as well as in war, death deals silent destruction in the navy and army. In the navy, for the last three years, it has removed forty-three admirals, vice-admirals, and rear-admirals, forty-two captains, forty-five commanders, and 184 lieutenants, comprehending half pay to the amount of 57,838l. 17s. 6d., or a yearly average of 19,279l. 12s. 6d.; so that the House will perceive a very paltry sum altogether is required to do a similar act of justice, for length of service, to the old officers in the various inferior ranks in the navy. I find there are among them a certain class of commanders denominated retired commanders, receiving certain pay under different acts of council by his Majesty, and a class of lieutenants receiving similar pay by the same authority. I am not aware in what circumstances these officers stand, or whether they are entitled to look for promotion. But the principle that I contend for, and the object I have in view, is reward for length of ser vice to the various ranks, and not what is called a patronage promotion. The House will observe that I have not noticed that distinguished class of individuals in the navy—the admirals. At the promotion which took place at the coronation in 1830, the amount to that branch of the service alone was 20,000l. I have reason to believe that 3,000l. or 4,000l. would now suffice to give satisfaction to those officers. But my gallant Friend, the Member for Kinross, understands this subject better than I do; and as he has now got his cocked hat under the Admiralty telegraph, I dare say I may safely consign the admirals to his care, and if his gallant brethren shall have anything to complain of, I hope they will make him responsible. I have now, as briefly as I could, but very imperfectly I am aware, brought the claims of the old naval officers under the consideration of this House. That great dissatisfaction exists in that service, there cannot be a doubt, and that similar dissatisfaction, on similar grounds, exists in the army, I shall endeavour to prove; and to that important branch of our service I beg leave now to direct the attention of the House. Many of the remarks with which I this evening prefaced my observations on the navy, apply equally to the army. I need not repeat then), having the same object in view, viz., promotion to the older officers. The Select Committee, to which I have already alluded, speak of the army in their Report as follows:—"The Committee cannot close the military branch of their inquiry without Stating the favourable impression which they have de rived from it as to the general economy and management of the army. They would have been happy if, in the performance of the duty intrusted to them, they could have effected any greater saving to the public; but taking into view the peculiar circumstances of our military service, as pointed out in various parts of the evidence, and particularly by the Duke of Wellington, in the memorandum already referred to, and taking also into view the fact, that whilst the salaries and emoluments of most branches of the civil service have considerably increased since 1792, those of the superior officers of the army, with few exceptions, are the same as they were a century ago—they hope that in the alteration which they have recommended they will be found on the whole to have carried the principle of reduction as far as they could without detriment to the efficiency of the public service, or to the just reward of professional merit." That Committee were at great pains to inquire into the state of our military and naval appointments; the public is indebted to them for many valuable suggestions, and their observations on the management and economy of the army are highly creditable to that branch of the service. But admitting, as the Committee does, the increase of emoluments to the civil servants of the country, and coupling that admission with the withering sentence which concludes their Report, I again appeal to the hon. Members of that Committee, whether circumstances have not now materially altered—I appeal to them, and I appeal to this House, who voted twenty millions for the West India slave proprietors, and I ask whether a little more than as many thousand pounds can for one moment weigh with any hon. Member in doing only a bare act of justice to the officers of the army? I ask, whether it be right that a lieutenant-colonel in the British service, who fought at Waterloo, should still be a lieutenant-colonel, while he who fought in the same battle, in the same rank; in the Prussian service, has now attained nearly the highest rank in his profession? Having made that comparison between the British and Prussian service, I shall abstain from making invidious comparisons between any of the different branches of his Majesty's forces. But I think I am bound to prove to the House, and I wish to prove it to the country, that well-grounded dissatisfaction exists in almost every department of the service. I think that the grievances which generate that dissatisfaction ought to be redressed, and I am anxious that those gallant Officers should not suppose that there is any unwillingness on the part of this House to do them justice. In confirmation of the dissatisfaction to which I have alluded, prevailing in the various branches of the service, I may call the attention of the House to a printed document which fell into my hands the other day, entitled "Observations on the Corps of Royal Artillery." Does any Member of this House believe that these observations were from the pen of a civilian, or that I produce them on this occasion to serve any particular purpose, or produce any stage effect? No, Sir; I produce them to show only that the gallant Officers of that distinguished corps have grievances to redress, and that they, as well as all other Officers in his Majesty's service seldom complain without a cause. Sir, the sentence which prefaces these observations is as follows:—"The want of retirements and slowness of promotion are the great grievances under which this corps labours." It is a short sentence, but expressive, and the one which follows it is equally so:—"It is conceived to be a hard case that, after exposure to the casualties of a military life, there should be no adequate retirement at the end of it." I shall pass over the few observations which follow; but there is one of them which has struck me so forcibly that I cannot help noticing it to the House; for the House, I am sure, will scarcely believe that artillery officers cannot, whatever be their length of service, retire upon half-pay, except under the decision of a medical Board. The remedy proposed in these observations is, "that artillery officers, above the rank of subalterns of twenty-two years' general service, and subalterns of eighteen years', should be allowed to retire upon half-pay, as was formerly the case, and that after thirty years, when disqualified by infirmity, all ranks should be allowed full pay." Sir, if it was the case formerly that military officers were allowed to retire on half-pay, I should be anxious to know the reasons which induced the authorities to make so great a change in the system which formerly prevailed in that corps. I find in the pages which follow these observations, extracts from the evidence of Lord Fitzroy Somerset, and the gallant General opposite (Sir H. Hardinge), before two Select Committees of the House of Commons, in 1828 and 1833, stating their opinion of the effects of the system of promotion in the artillery. The evidence of the gallant General is so striking that I beg leave to read the extract:—

"You have stated, that owing to the system of promotion in the ordnance service, the colonels do not get the higher ranks till they obtain an advanced age. Can you state, out of the nine colonels of artillery, how many there are above seventy years of age?—I should say, that of the colonels of the artillery there are six at present above seventy years of age, and I know some upwards of eighty; I know one that is eighty-four, and another of the engineers that is eighty-two. In the lower ranks, the average time before an officer of artillery attains the rank of first captain, is forty years of age.

"If the artillery were to be called into active service, would the captains of those companies enumerated by you be able to go into the service with them, or would you have to appoint fresh officers?—I conceive the mischief to the artillery corps is so great, from the slowness of the promotion, and from the want of energy which that slowness generates, that I conceive, when the artillery officer has obtained his commission, he is indifferent and careless in qualifying himself further for his profession. During the Peninsular war, we were obliged to take a captain of artillery to assume the command of the whole of the artillery; thus a captain had a lieutenant-general's command, having about 8,000 men, and about 3,000 or 4,000 horses, undertaking the sieges in Spain, and the management of the artillery in the field.

"The greater part are unfit for the active service of the profession when they have arrived at that rank which would have enabled them to assume the relative command with officers of the line. I have another instance, in the case of Sir George Wood, who commanded the artillery at the battle of Waterloo, who was a major of artillery, and who was the oldest officer at the battle of Waterloo.

"What was the rank of the officer in the French artillery in the corresponding command?—The corresponding rank in the French service would have been lieutenant general.

"What was the corresponding rank with that of Sir Alexander Dickson?—Lieutenant general."

My gallant Friend, the Member for Nottingham, knows a captain of artillery who was present at every battle during the Peninsular war; that distinguished officer is still a captain, and if he lives to the age of a hundred, may not attain the rank of a field-officer. But why need I single out individual cases? Do not the army-lists tell me that lieutenant-generals of 1814 are still lieutenant-generals, and other officers like them, in high rank, whose promotion costs not the country a six pence, are in a similar predicament. Are not the lieutenant-colonels of 1814, 15, and 16 still lieutenant-colonels, and the majors of the same year still majors? The captains of 1813, 14, 15, 16, and 17 still captains? Sir, I refer hon. Members to my source of information—the last army list—where they will find colonels who have been fifty years in the service; and I see opposite a gallant Officer, the Member for Suffolk, still a colonel, although I believe he commanded the Fusileer brigade, which decided the battle of Albuera twenty-eight years ago. Sir, I find, both in the army and the navy-lists, another corps; their motto I see is, "Per mare, per terram." I do not know which element they prefer, but this I know, that on either element the services of the Royal Marines have never been surpassed. Well, the senior first lieutenants on the effective list of that corps have been twenty-eight years in the service, and there are seventy lieutenants who entered the corps previous to the peace of 1814. I ask the House if there is not ground for dissatisfaction in that corps? It will be said, that casual promotion has been going on in the army, as well as in the navy. So it has; but the great promotion in both services has been, to another world. Since 1830, death has removed from the army three field-marshals, forty generals, fifty-four lieut.-generals, and fifty major-generals. Their number may not be quite accurate, as a few may have sold out. I am not aware of the number of inferior rank who have died, nor do I know the amount of the diminution of half-pay, but it must be very great, and no power on this earth can stop that diminution. If that be the case, and that we are fixing no permanent burthen on the country, this House I am sure would take the opportunity of doing an act of justice to the army and navy, by anticipating, if it were possible to anticipate, the kind and generous feeling of our gracious Sovereign towards his older officers. I am aware that I cannot possibly give satisfaction to those whose cause I endeavour to plead, but I think they cannot misconstrue my motives. I have been told, and I believe it to be the case, that many modes may be suggested to ameliorate the condition of the various ranks in the army and navy. But there are in this House, as well as officers connected with both services, men, of high honour and integrity, and of great professional experience, and on whom that task must devolve, and they, I am sure, will not consider it a task. But, Sir, as I said before, my object is a present remedy for a present and increasing disease of dissatisfaction and disgust. I have shown the paltry sum which will be required for the navy; and I will undertake, for a sum not exceeding 25,000l., to give, I hope, comparative satisfaction to the army. I have shown, I hope satisfactorily also, that both sums will be reduced in amount much more than one-half in less than two years, and that it is but a temporary advance. I will undertake to do it for less, and will find security to my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I feel confident, when his Majesty chooses to exercise his prerogative by rewarding the older officers in both services, this House will place the necessary means at his disposal.

rose to support the motion. As the hon. Gentleman who had brought the subject under the notice of the House had so fully explained the hardship inflicted on the officers of the navy by the want of adequate promotion and encouragement, he would confine himself to the case of the officers of the army. The hardship upon officers of the army, from the want of adequate promotion, was much greater now than formerly, for there were now no battalions into which an officer could retire upon full pay. By an order made in 1830, no officer was entitled to retire upon half-pay, until such time as the expense of that branch of the public expenditure should be reduced from 140,000l. to 40,000l. He could not see any reason why the officers of either military service should not be held as much entitled to consideration as the officers engaged in the civil service. Now, let them, for example, take the case of military officer thirty years in the service, whose pay was 600l. a-year. Upon his retirement, he would be entitled to a re tiring pension of 146l. a-year, whilst a clerk in the civil service, receiving the like salary, would be, after the same period of service, entitled to a retiring allowance of 450l. per annum. He believed that there was no service under the Crown in which there was not some chance of retiring on a full allowance, unless it was either the army or the navy. Officers in the service of the East-India Company were better off than those in the King's service, and after both had served in India for the same period, the officers in the King's service returned home lower in rank, and worse provided for in every way, than the officers in the employment of the East-India Company. Though the pay of the officers of the French army was lower than ours, yet, by the circumstance that the half-pay of the army of that country was increased in proportion to the length of service, the officers of the French army were, in general, after any considerable period of service, enabled to retire in better circumstances than the English officers of the same standing. With respect to the slow ness of promotion in the navy, he could mention the case of an officer in the navy who was forty years in the service, and who had been thirty-four times in battle. His last service was on the coast of Africa, and he had returned home with health impaired, and had been subjected to law-suits in consequence of circumstances that had occurred in the execution of the command that he held under the Crown. Yet this individual, notwithstanding that long period of service, was still in the rank of Commander. The hon. Gentleman concluded by expressing a hope that some thing would be done to remove the hard ship complained of.

said, it was for him no praise to feel, in common with other Members, the claims which old and distinguished officers possessed on the consideration of the House and the country. He believed that many of those individuals had experienced great disappointment from the want of promotion consequent upon the close of the war. This was in a great degree the cause of the hardship complained of. He was most willing to acknowledge the claims that these officers had upon the House and the country; yet he felt bound to take other circumstances into consideration. He could not forget, that in the year 1833, a Committee was appointed to investigate the subject of the army and navy appointments. The resolutions which that Committee came to, strongly recommended that, unless in some exigency of the public service, no additions should be made to the generals and flag officers. On that Committee there sat many Gentlemen of both services, who naturally felt the fullest anxiety for the interests of both, and he had never heard that any opinion was expressed dissenting from the resolutions that that Committee then adopted. At the present time there were no less than 360 general officers, and for these the whole army did not find employment in the pro portion of more than one in ten. The whole number in actual command did not exceed from thirty-six to forty. In the estimates of the year the amount for general officers unattached was 106,000l. Taking into consideration the recommendation of the Committee three years ago, he did not feel that at present the Government would be justified in proposing any measure on the subject. When he said this, he was at the same time bound to state, that he felt that it would be necessary, in the course of the next Session, to bring the subject fully and distinctly before the House. The hon. Member had alluded to a case of retarded promotion in the artillery service, but the slowness of promotion in the individual case alluded to, arose from the system on which that service was conducted. In dealing with this subject, Ministers wore anxious to bestow rewards upon deserving and meritorious men, but at the same time, recollecting that the country was anxious for a diminution of its burdens, they did not feel at liberty to recommend just now any measure upon the subject. They were now paying the penalty of want of consideration at former times. If means had been taken to check and diminish the too great increase of the army-list at a former period, the complaints which they now heard would not have become necessary. With respect to the promotions that had taken place in the navy within a period of five years, he found that in the two years preceding 1830, that was in 1828 and 1829, the promotion of lieu tenants amounted to 213; whilst in the years 1831 and 1832 the number was eighty-four. In 1828 and 1829 there were 139 commanders and fifty-seven captains promoted; in the subsequent two years the appointments were thirty one commanders and seventeen captains. At the same time means had been taken to restrict the admission of midshipmen into the naval service. But that the bur den of the dead weight was already so enormous, he was sure that the House and the Government could find no greater pleasure than to pay that tribute to meritorious service which was so justly its due. His Majesty's Government did not feel at present that they should be authorised to propose a general brevet, or an extensive promotion in the navy, but it would be the duty of the Government to look into the whole subject, and in the course of the next Session to bring it under the consideration of the House.

regretted to have heard the observations that had fallen from the Secretary at War. Nothing could be more disheartening to both ser vices, than to hear a declaration from the Government that no brevet promotion was to take place this year. The reduction in the number of general officers, since the diminution of brevets, had become considerable. They had been reduced from 550 to 360, thus making a diminution of 190 general officers since the war. He thought that this reduction was a reason why promotion should be given to the officers of the army. The pay of the officers of the army was lower than that of those engaged in the civil service, and that was a reason why the encouragement of promotion should be held out to them. The House would recollect, that at the conclusion of the war a considerable number of officers were placed on half-pay. That arose out of the exigencies of the service. The right hon. and gallant Member contended that a great diminution having since occurred, it was an additional argument why the hopes of the army should be kept up by additional promotion. It had for a long period been the custom to hold out encouragement to the officers of the army by small brevets, about every sixth year. This was now the seventh year since a brevet had taken place, and he did not know anything more calculated to dispirit the officers, than the declaration of the noble Lord that no brevet was to take place. In 1814 a brevet was issued, by which many general officers were raised to higher rank and additional pay. He admitted it was an expensive brevet. However, if there was anything to complain of on that score, he was sorry that the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs was not there to defend it, for that noble Lord had signed the warrants. That brevet had been rescinded in 1818, and a saving to a very large amount had, in consequence, been effected. When it was considered that the half-pay of the officers who served at Waterloo was the same as of those who had served at Blenheim, and that no in crease had taken place for upwards of a hundred years, whilst a considerable in crease had occurred in the pay of those employed in the civil service, he considered it a reason why the army were entitled to consideration. In fact, he did not wish to make any distinction between either service, for he thought, when speaking of the service generally, that each of its branches had equal claims to consideration, and he was sure it was the wish of the Members of both to make no distinction between them. He believed that a brevet sufficient to satisfy the expectations of the army; would not have produced an additional expenditure of more than 10,000l. The last brevet had not exceeded 11,000l. He wished that the noble Lord had devised some means by which hope would be held out to the officers of the army, for he considered that nothing could be more disheartening and unsatisfactory to both services, than the declaration of the noble Lord.

, in explanation, contended, that after the resolution of the Committee of 1833, the Government were not in a condition to propose any recommendation on this subject. He did not think it would be for the interest of the country, nor for the interest of cither ser vice, that they should do so under the pre sent circumstances. With respect to the anxiety of the Government on this subject, he had last year, when he succeeded the late Secretary at War, the honor to add a supplementary estimate, increasing the pay of general officers to 400l. a-year.

contended, that it was the duty of the Secretary at War to propose an augmentation of this description, when he had ascertained it to be the pleasure of his Majesty that it should take place. If it was his Majesty's pleasure, it was then the business of the Secretary at War to propose it to the House. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman proceeded to explain the constitutional grounds on which that augmentation had been delayed at the period referred to by the noble Lord.

deprecated the narrow economy which would alienate the good will of some of the bravest and best officers. The regular united service was not even on an equality with the East India Company's troops, for these latter had a half-pay at a fixed period of service, which went on increasing from time to time. He would implore his Majesty's Ministers not to disgust some of the best officers in both services.

was sure that the officers of the army and navy would feel much indebted to the hon. Member who had brought this subject forward, and he trusted that it would have a good effect. He was a major general of seventeen years' standing, but though he did not feel particularly desirous of any further promotion, he certainly felt anxious that many deserving men, who were at present below him in rank should, receive that promotion to which they were justly entitled. Even advancement, how ever, so far from being serviceable, was sometimes injurious, for there was this anomaly in the army—that a lieutenant colonel when advanced to the rank of major-general in most cases found himself worse off in point of emolument than he was before. The junior class of officers, whom he might call the operatives of the navy, and who endured more danger and fatigue than any other, had neither the re payment of promotion nor distinction; for on almost every occasion when badges or medals were given out for any brilliant action, they were overlooked. He would particularly press the case of the artillery corps on the attention of the House and the Government. The artillery was the most, efficient arm of the British force in the field, and they were exposed to more danger during the war than the artillery of the French, because, while the object of the latter was to dismount the guns, that of the former was to reduce the numerical strength of the enemy, and the manner in which they executed their hazardous duty during the frequent opportunities he had of witnessing it, had always excited his admiration. He thought the motion of the hon. Member well deserving the consideration of his Majesty's Government.

coincided with what had been said with respect to the class of officers below a certain rank, and it was the same in the navy as in the army. Mid shipmen, not boys, but young men of six and-twenty and eight-and-twenty years of age, and who had served for ten years, if they obtained a ship would be only entitled to the paltry sum of 501. a-year, and if they had not a captain to give them a ship they would get no pay at all. What inducement was that for young men to undergo the severity of the strict examination for a lieutenancy; the British navy felt that it was now neglected when its services were not called for; yet though the hopes of those in both the naval and military branches of the service were to be blighted for another year, still, as the noble Lord held out some hopes, and as they believed that Government intended well, he would trust to the future for something that would give satisfaction.

was sorry that the motion had been brought forward, as it was the proper office of the House of Commons to be a check upon the Government, and it ought not to be hurried on by a motion like that before it, to consent to adopt a principle of extravagance that would be wholly unjustifiable. He must say, that throughout the whole of the debate, from the first speaker to the last, the only subject referred to had been the situation of the officers, that of the privates and subordinate officers had never been once alluded to; the question had been considered in a partial, and not as it ought to have been, in a general point of view. If the recommendations which he had submitted to the House in the years 1819, 1820, and, 1821 had been attended to, the circum stances which had given rise to the present motion would never have existed, because on those occasions he had strongly pointed out the expediency of calling in officers from half-pay to active service, instead of appointing young persons to new commissions. In fact, a large portion of the dead weight, on account of the army, was incurred to remunerate those who had seen no service at all. If the practice which he at the periods in question so strongly deprecated, had not been kept up, that just ground of complaint, of officers of eight or nine years' standing, attaining the rank of lieutenant-colonels in the army, and post-captains in the navy, would not have existed. Whilst he deplored the state in which the artillery and marines were placed, yet in considering the question of conferring additional honours, he could not overlook the claims which others had to participate in those honours—he alluded to those whom he would call the operatives of the army and navy. If promotion had been, as he had suggested, fairly distributed, there could not now be the grounds of complaint that were made, nor would persons of nine years' standing be commanding in the army and navy. The present complaints were all owing to the system of promotion which had been pursued by former Governments. He knew that cases of hardship did exist in consequence; but, at the same time, when he heard officers complaining that there were no retired allowances allotted to certain classes of officers, he would ask whether there were not many other classes of industrious individuals in society, who had no retired allowances after they had ceased to be able to work. He believed there was no service so well paid as that of England, and that there was no service so ill-used, with regard to promotion, as the English service. Officers were promoted in it who had no talent; or, at least, if he admitted them to have talent, they certainly, in most cases, owed their success to the superior influence of patronage. With regard to the motion of his hon. Friend, he really could not see how, in the present state of the country, and with the small surplus which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to deal with, the views of his hon. Friend could be entertained by the House. Under these circumstances, he regretted that the present discussion had been introduced, as he certainly could not give his hon. Friend that support which he could otherwise have wished.

contended, that the interests of the naval and military services were not sufficiently attended to. He thought prize-money might have been more advantageously appropriated by way of remuneration. No naval officer was allowed table money, not even the Admiral, until he was on his station. He thought naval officers were much worse off than military. According to the regulations of the army a lieutenant-colonel might in twelve years be made a major-general, and in thirty-five years a naval officer might not be able to attain equal rank. He knew an instance in which there was 150,000l. prize money, and when a distinguished naval officer applied to Lord Liverpool for his portion of it, his Lordship said he knew of no such fund. In a maritime country like this the interest of the navy and of the army also was of prime importance. In a civil office, clerks would be allowed to retire after half the period of service, and on double the pay compared with naval officers.

supported the motion. There were 700 midshipmen who had passed examination—of these 200 were unemployed, and of the 500 who were employed some were paid so little as 10l., 20l. and 40l. a-year. He knew a very meritorious officer who was twenty-five years a midshipman. He was not only married, but a grandfather, and he had stood god-father to his grandchild. Who could suppose a midshipman a grandfather? He really hoped the Government would not require much prompting in a question so important as this.

said, that seventy-five naval officers previously alluded to were appointed in 1802, and were now supporting themselves on 240l. a-year each, while military officers of the same standing were now general officers.

, in support of the motion, instanced the case of an officer who had been in sixteen general actions, and received the thanks of three Sovereigns, but received neither rank nor emolument in the British service. Had he been in any other service he would have obtained the highest promotion. The gallant Member maintained that in every department of the civil service, which was not so laborious or hazardous as the naval or military, promotion and compensation were infinitely superior.

was understood to say, that the Admiralty would be glad, and, were always glad, to entertain the claims of old meritorious officers; but they had a duty to perform to the public, which frequently rendered it difficult for them to accede to every application. There could not be so much promotion in times of peace as under a war establishment, and it was; the number of promotions in time of war that rendered these applications so numerous.

begged to know from his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he intended to bring on that night the motion of which he bad given notice. The question was one on which the House was not agreed; and, from the importance of the question, he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought it desirable at that late hour of the night to raise a discussion upon it, especially as the House was not very full?

said, if the question were to be discussed for the first time now, or when it was brought on before there was a decision of the House against the Bill, there might be some grounds for postponing the consideration to another time. But when that House and the country had already pronounced in favour of the Bill, then he would not be acting fairly or on principle if he postponed it that night. He would occupy but little of the time of the House, and would therefore move "That the House resolve itself into a Committee, to consider the civil disabilities affecting his Majesty's subjects of the Jewish persuasion."

said, that as his right hon. Friend had not given any reasons why he called upon the House to resolve itself into a Committee, he should content him self with simply negativing the motion proposed. Two petitions had been presented in favour of such a measure as that which it was proposed to bring in; and was that a sufficient reason for the motion? He believed, that he had before stated, what was admitted by every hon. Gentle man, that there had not been presented a single petition from the Jews assembled together as a religious body, in favour of a measure for the removal of their civil disabilities. No petition had emanated from any synagogue, nor had it ever been de bated in that House that any Chief Priest or Rabbi had given their support to a Bill for their emancipation, as it was termed. That fact alone, he thought, was a reason, regarding the matter as a religious question affecting our duties, as well as their (the Jew's) rights, which was deserving of more attention than it had received. He be- lieved that not only had no great body of the Jewish people of this country forwarded to the Mouse any prayers for the concession of that object, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer then proposed to grant, but, on the contrary, that he was correct in stating that some of them, on other than civil grounds, objected to the motion itself. He believed that many of the Jews felt, that the concession which was sought to be forced upon them was one which they could not receive consistently with their own religious character. The Jews were not a creed but a nation—they still called them: selves a nation, and there existed a great distinction between the two. They were not Germans or English, but they were Jews, and in that character, and in that sense only, they wished to be recognised. Now he would not quote Christian authorities upon this subject, he would quote the authority of one of the Jews themselves; he would quote from a Jew who was known to his right hon. Friend, because he re sided in the borough which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) represented. He alluded to the Rabbi Cruz, a person eminent for his learning. He would quote from this authority especially, as a witness to be received before others, because he was a witness to the wishes and obligations of those whose conduct he superintended. What was the language adopted by this eminent person to one of his brethren on the subject of emancipation, as it was called, in a pamphlet published at Cambridge, entitled "An Answer to a person signing by an initial, for the emancipation of the Jews, by the Rabbi Cruz, Professor of Hebrew at Cam bridge." This author declared that any one desiring emancipation acted against the ALMIGHTY! and that he was entitled to think so of his own community; whilst others by granting it, gave the highest praise to GOD! He could quote other passages of equal force, bearing upon the subject, but that he did not wish to weary the House by doing so. There was, however, one passage bearing on the point, that the Jews were not, in their own opinion, the natives of any nation, but a people or nation of themselves, which he should beg leave to advert to, because it affirmed most emphatically the position which he had originally insisted on. When the writer of the work to which the pamphlet was an answer, claimed the rights of an English man on the ground of being born in Eng- land, the learned author replied in it, "You are not an Englishman, you are a foreigner; you are no British subject, you are one of the nation of the Jews." He should say nothing more than that if the Jews had cause of complaint, it was free for them to come forward and prefer their complaint. Why did they not do so? It might he said, as the writer to whom the pamphlet was written in reply said, that because they were born in England they were Englishmen, and entitled to the rights of Englishmen. He denied it. When a body of people separated themselves voluntarily from those among whom they resided, they were no longer entitled to participate in the privileges enjoyed by those from whom they had separated. It was so with the Jews. They called them selves the Jewish nation; they did not boast in the title of British subjects. Being born in England gave no exclusive right to the title of Englishmen. The Jews had wealth, riches, beyond most people; they had protection, they had equal rights in the eye of the law—everything but political power. He (Sir R. Inglis) would take it for granted that the Bill proposed to be introduced by his right hon. Friend was the same as that introduced by Sir Robert Grant in the year 1834; and, therefore, that the tenor of it would be to abolish the words in the oath, "On the true faith of a Christian." Now, what would be the consequence of that abolition? The only words which designated the nation as Christian would be erased from the records. He would call on the House to say whether, at any period of our history since we had become a Christian people, any individual had been admitted to civil power who had not made the declaration that he was a Christian? and he would then ask if it was prepared to get rid of that last security for Christianity, and place the affairs of this country in the hands of those who not only were not Christians, themselves, but who also believed Christ to be a blasphemer and an impostor? In doing so, the House would be doing what it could to deprive the country of all security, that its affairs would, for the future, be administered on Christian principles. If Jews were admitted to legislative power, by a parity of argument every other description of religionists or non-religionists should be admitted to it also. It was a most important question, and one which should not be carried through even its first stage in a House so thinly attended, and at such a late hour of the night. It might, no doubt, be said, that it was not its first introduction to Parliament. He admitted it; but still he could not help thinking that it would have been much more courteous of his right hon. Friend if he had postponed it until those who usually took a part in similar discussions were present. With respect to the main question, he would ask the House whether a community of Jews would admit Christians to legislate for them? The answer was obvious. They would not. Was it then, to be considered a necessary liberality on the part of Christians to admit Jews to govern them? It might be said, that the number of Jews likely to be admitted would be very small; but to that he should answer, that he had learned from late experience to put no faith in such assertions. Besides, how ever few they might be, their talents and their zeal might be sufficient to compensate for their deficiency in numerical strength, and enable them to do their will as effectually as if they were in greater force. Believing that any power which might be conferred on the Jews would be exerted against and not for the Christian creed, he was not one of those prepared by granting any concessions to them to add a new danger to the external fabric of the Church (the internal fabric was protected by a higher power than that of man), or put it in the power of a Jew, Turk, Heathen, or Infidel to do more harm than had been already done to the Christian religion. He felt deeply concerned that by such and similar concessions as that pro posed by his right hon. Friend, by little and little, all security for the continuance of Christianity as the religion of the country would he entirely frittered away. With that conviction strong upon his mind, he could never consent to the proposition of his right hon. Friend, in any of its stages. He believed it to be as unlawful for the British legislature to grant the concession contained in it as it would be for the Jewish people to receive it, and he felt bound to warn the House of the consequences likely to flow from it if it were to be carried into execution. It would be a practical removal of every test of religious belief in affairs of State. After that it would be of no consequence what religion the Legislature of this country might possess. He would go farther, and say it would be of no consequence whether it had any religion or not. He was surprised that a House calling itself Christian should cheer such a contingency. Was the cheer a delicate expression of opinion, or was it only a hasty exclamation without thought? He hoped the latter. In opposing the proposition of his right hon. Friend with all his power, he believed that he was only discharging a duty to his country.

gave his hon. Friend full credit for the conscientious part he had taken; but he claimed equal credit for himself in that which he had pursued and meant to pursue on the question before the House. He was decidedly and distinctly opposed to the view taken of it by his hon. Friend. He did not, in the first instance, mean to have trespassed on the attention of the House; but he should now beg its indulgence for a few moments, in consequence of what had fallen from his hon. Friend on the subject of his motion. His hon. Friend had said, that there were no petitions of any importance in favour of the motion. To this he would reply by referring him to those from the great commercial communities of London and Bristol, and also to those from Portsmouth, Devonport, and other places. These petitions were not only important from the circumstances of number and locality, but also from the fact that the petitioners were in close communication with the great body of the professors of the Jewish faith in this kingdom, and had, therefore, an opportunity of acquiring an accurate knowledge of their habits, moral and social, and their political feelings and opinions. The Rabbi Cruz might think what he pleased on the subject, and express his opinions as strongly as he chose, but the question was not to be decided by his opinions. It was a question of principle—a question not involving any insensibility to a religious belief, as his hon. Friend would fain imply, but involving the principle that civil and religious functions were essentially different in their nature. It was urged by his hon. Friend that the Jews believed themselves a nation, and did not look upon themselves as of any people among whom they resided. Did that make any difference to them in the amount of the King's taxes—did the collector abate a shilling for that cause—were they exempt from the consequences of high treason for it—were they not, in fact, equally liable to all the burthens of the State as their Christian fellow-subjects? Why then should they be debarred a participation in the rights and privileges claimed and enjoyed by them? If they were alien in feeling to this country, who made them so? Who but ourselves and our barbarous statutes? But the public had long since decided in favour of the question of removing the civil disabilities of the Jewish people. When two candidates for public honour, one a Jew, the other a Christian, came before them, they almost invariably decided in favour of the former. After such a manifestation of public feeling, was the House prepared to keep on the statute book the last miserable remnant of barbarism and religious persecution? His motion was more to release the Christians from disgrace than the Jews from disabilities. The Jews worshipped the same God as we did—from their scriptures we derived much of our religion and of our moral law. To exclude them from civil rights would be to assume the function of the Deity. We had no hesitation n associating with Jews—in dealing with them—on some occasions we contended for their good offices, and wished to stand well in their favour. Why, then, oppose their being made equal with us in civil privileges? He had no view to disgrace the Christian religion in the amendments he proposed in the statute law, but to render it all due honour by clearing away the impurities which clung to it under its name. He trusted the House would, therefore, allow him to go into a Committee, that he might bring in the Bill which he meant to move for. It was precisely the same as that introduced by Sir Robert Grant, neither more nor less. He much regretted that the advocacy of the question should be confided to him, and he was sure so did those hon. Members who recollected the efficient and powerful support which the former Bill had received from Sir Robert Grant and Mr. Macauley. To those who had heard them, the remembrance would be better than his best arguments: to those who had not, he trusted that he had only to repeat that the mea sure involved an immutable principle of justice. It was the question whether, having removed from the statute book all religious disabilities except this, would the Legislature leave that one spot as a mark of the foul cancer which had so long gnawed and defaced our Constitution?

deprecated, the unseemly period of the night at which his right hon. Friend had thought fit to bring on his motion; and he thought that it was not too much of his hon. Friend near him to ask a postponement of it to a more fitting occasion. Though the question was one which had received the assent of that branch of the Legislature, it had by no means its unanimous concurrence. Under these circumstances, it was not a question to be brought forward at such a late hour in such a thin House. The proposition of his right hon. Friend was an insidious way of undermining all religious distinctions. If it were not, why was a Jew to be preferred to a Mahometan? If it were affirmed the Legislature would be open to all sects and denominations alike, were hon. Gentlemen prepared for that consummation of things? He, for one, was not; and he should never give his vote in favour of any proposition which went to undermine Christianity as the religion of the land. The hon. Member concluded by protesting against the introduction of such an important question at such a late period of the night, when the benches were empty.

said, that he should always support any proposition for doing away with any species of civil disability on ac count of religious opinions. The hon. Baronet had alluded to the paucity of petitions in favour of this motion, but the House had already passed the principle of the Bill by a numerous majority, and therefore there was no need of such an expression of national opinion at the pre sent. If, however, the people of England thought (as the hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, alleged) that there was any security to the Christian religion in pre serving this miserable remnant of a barbarous code, why did they not evince their conviction by petitions against the Bill? He believed that the Christian religion had never derived any support from that intolerant statute which it was proposed to repeal; but, on the contrary, it had suffered the greatest disgrace and injury in every country where it had been adopted.

begged, as a man who had passed a considerable portion of his life amongst his Mahometan fellow citizens, to express an earnest and sincere hope that the time was not distant when we should get rid of the stigma of having in that House placed any man under political disabilities on account of his religious creed. He should very much like to know at what precise moment it was, that the professors of Christianity made the disco very, that it was essential to the existence of their religion that the professors of all other religions should be deprived of political rights. He, for one, was a follower of Him who said, "Do unto others as ye would they should do unto you;" he could not congratulate the hon. Gentlemen opposite that they were of the same faith and creed. He protested against the disgrace and the discredit of allowing that they stood there as Legislators, not because their interests were involved in the welfare of a certain country, but because they were the professors of a certain faith. He trusted that the time was not far off when this stigma would be removed, and that persons of whatever faith, whether Jews, Mahomedans, or any other, would be admitted to that House whenever they were found worthy of the confidence of a constituency.

was glad the hon. Member for Oxford had taken his stand against this Bill, and believed the great body of the people would be sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought it necessary to bring in such a measure. He would not have lent himself to such a Bill if he had looked, as he ought, to Him by whom kings reign, and by whom princes dispense justice. He did not know how they could hope for a blessing on their labours, if they gave their assent to a mea sure that went to introduce into that House a people who said that the great Head of the Church was a blasphemer and an impostor.

said: Yes; injustice had its reward—iniquity had its reward—there was a blessing attending the imposition of the burthens of the State on the shoulders of the Jews, but there was no blessing at tending the doing them justice. He denied that hon. Gentlemen opposite who upheld the principle of persecution, were actuated by Christian principles, and he wished to know by what right they dared to assume to themselves, as legislators, the principle of infallibility? He declared that the debate was disgraceful to the country. He could not refrain from the expression of his abhorrence of the odious and unchristian avowals of the opposers of this Bill. The hon. Baronet who led that opposition had been driven from one position to another, and, failing in exciting the bad passions of hon. Members against the Jews as heretics, he had denounced them as worthy of exclusion as infidels. But the House had no way of keeping out heretics. It was, indeed, an ugly word, and might be retorted. [Hear.] He wished the noble Lord opposite would speak up, and not keep contradicting him in that tone. Perhaps he could tell him what a heretic was. Perhaps he would define it—anybody who was not a member of an Orange Lodge. All that they had to do with any individual who applied to enter that House, was to find that the constituents of the place he came from had thought him a proper person to represent them. He would be the first to declare the importance of religion to the individual; but he held that it was impossible for men to judge of each other's creeds and consciences; and it was expressly forbidden them to do so. He was surprised that any one in that House should think of using the sword of the law in any shape on account of conscientious differences of opinion, in the present day.

did not think it necessary to justify the speech of his right hon. Friends, or to defend them from the coarse attacks with which the hon. Member for Kilkenny took every opportunity of assailing them, and vilifying their motives. They, and he also, had understood the scope of the motion to be, that henceforth Jews, infidels, Mahometans, and heretics, would be welcome there! Thus, it was now openly and shamelessly avowed, that it is indifferent whether the Christian religion be any longer characteristic of this House—whether it is or is not to be received as part and parcel of the law of the land. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had declared, that there was no way of preventing heretics entering that House; but he insisted there was, for when a new Member presented himself at the Table, he must declare himself a Christian.

No, no.

said, that if the oath was read, they would find that it was essential to the character of a legislator of that House that he should be a Christian.

said, that it appeared to him that the nation already suffered considerable inconvenience from the introduction of too many classes of citizens into its legislation. Other States had similarly suffered. Rome itself at length fell a victim to the extension of the rights and privileges of citizenship to the multitudes she ruled over, He had as great a respect for the Jews as he had for Mahomedans, but he believed they had not a sufficient respect for the English nation to entitle them to seats in its Legislature. They were so distinct a people that they would never amalgamate with Christians. They would always have a Jewish party in the House, as they had a Roman Catholic party, and he believed they did not find that very convenient or agreeable. The Jewish party would, like the Roman Catholic, be always found ready to join, and further any discontents that might exist, and cause endless annoyance.