rose to ask the leave of the House for the introduction of several Bills, to consolidate the laws relating to the Post office. Those laws were now scattered over the Statute Book. There were 141 Acts, or parts of Acts, relating to the Post-office—they were so numerous, and so scattered, as to lead to great inconvenience to the public, as well as to the department which they regulated. He thought, and had long felt, that it was extremely desirable that those Acts should be consolidated, and so arranged as to be easily understood, and of easy access. He felt it his duty to the authorities of the Post-office, and more particularly to that very intelligent and valuable officer of the establishment, Mr. Peacock, its solicitor, to say, that when the Commissioners turned their attention to this subject, they found that the Post-office authorities had already given it so much consideration, that little more remained to be done than to submit these Bills to the House. The Government had long felt the necessity for such a consolidation of the laws, and he believed the reason of the delay had been a fear, on their part, that as the Bills must comprise every point relating to the management of the Post-office, they would lead to much discussion, and would, therefore, interfere with the progress of more important Bills. He had felt so strongly the force of that objection, that, notwithstanding his extreme desire for a consolidation of those laws, he should not have felt himself justified in introducing the Bills, had he not communicated with those gentlemen who usually took part in the discussions relative to the Post-office, and had their assurance that they would consider them as Bills merely for consolidating the laws, and as not interfering with the other matters already before the House relative to the Post-office. The Bills which he proposed were four in number. The first was simply to repeal all previous Acts relating to the Post-office. The second was to regulate the criminal laws relating to the Post-office. The third related to the management of the Post-office, and the rates of postage; and the fourth to the privilege of franking letters. He had stated, that the measure he proposed was one of mere consolidation, and that it contained no substantial alteration. At the same time, in that which related almost entirely to the criminal law, he believed there was no difference of opinion, as to the policy of the alterations which he meant to propose. He was therefore desirous of stating these alterations. This Bill related almost entirely to the differences existing between the punishments for the same crimes in the English and Irish Post-office. A very much heavier penalty attached to some offences in England than in Ireland. Offences to which the punishment of death attached in Ireland, in England were considered only misdemeanors. He was sure the House would not longer allow these differences to remain on the statute-book, and he therefore proposed to alter the criminal law in this respect. The offence of robbing the mail-coach, or of stopping it with intent to rob, was punishable with death in Ireland. In this country the punishment was transportation for life; and he proposed that this penalty, in future, should attach to the offence in Ireland as well as in England. He proposed also, that the offence of stealing a letter, or opening and detaining it, should be visited with the same punishment in Ireland as in Great Britain. There was one other point of difference relating to the two countries—namely, the privilege of franking enjoyed by the Irish Members and the English Members. He proposed, in future, that the privilege be assimilated. He would conclude by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to alter the criminal law relating to the Post-office.

seconded the motion. He could assure the House, that after a most anxious inquiry into the laws, it WAS now proposed to consolidate, he was convinced that this was one of the most beneficial measures that had been brought before the house for a long series of years. The laws upon this subject amounted in number to 160 or 164, he could not say which, us they were in such a state of confusion, as to render it almost impossible to determine which had been repealed, and which had not. He thought great good would be effected by making one or two good laws out of the whole.

thought it was of no use to pass laws, unless there was an efficient executive to carry them into effect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, last year, had introduced a Bill for the purpose of altering the executive of the Post-office; that Bill passed that House with little or no opposition, but in another place it was thrown aside, on the ground that they had not time to attend to it. It was of great importance that the change in the Post office proposed last Session, if it were to be introduced this Session at all, should be introduced as soon as possible. The proposition was, to place the executive in Commissioners instead of one Postmaster General, who was a Peer, and had too much to do elsewhere, to enable him to attend to the affairs of the Post-office. He (Mr. Hume) did not think that there would be much advantage derived by having the head of the Post-office in the House of Commons; but he was unwilling to throw any difficulties in the way of the plan of the Government. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state that he intended speedily to introduce the Bill, so that it might have full consideration in the other House, and not be rejected under the plea, that it was sent up there at a late period of the Session. There was no department of the public revenue that required so much attention as the Post-office. The amount of revenue derived from the Post-office was the same indeed as it was fifteen years ago, which could only be attributed to great neglect and mismanagement. It was therefore due to the country, if the Post office were to be made a source of revenue, which he thought a bad principle, that it should be rendered as advantageous as possible. He trusted they would soon have a Post-office executive, which would render that department efficient for the purposes for which it was established, and productive of profit—at present it was neither.

adhered to the opinion which he had expressed last Session, that the Post-office department, in its present stale, was defective. He admitted also, that in order that measures of this kind should be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, they ought to be introduced at an early, not at a late period, of the Session, in order to give time for their consideration in another place; and, without pledging himself to the details of the measure, he would state, that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill, in a few days, on the subject.

, in pursuance of the notice he had given, rose to present a petition for the repeal of the duty on marine assurances, from merchants, ship owners, underwriters, and insurance agents of London. He had, he said, also to submit a resolution upon this subject. The petition, coming, as it did, from the intelligence, respectability, and wealth of the city of London, connected with the trade, commerce, and navigation of the country, supported also by petitions from England, Ireland, and Scotland, and from all the large trading and manufacturing towns of the kingdom, he was certain would have great weight with the House. In bringing forward the motion of which he had given notice, for the gradual diminution of stamp duties upon marine policies, he had, he considered, a right to advert to the petitions presented last year upon that subject. To prove the impolicy of this tax, the discouragement it inflicted upon British insurances, and how much it tended to promote successful foreign competition, he observed that in 1810 the amount of imports and exports was 80,707,823l., upon which the stamp duty on marine policies was 414,205l.;and at present, when the imports and exports were 125,396,225l., so far from the stamp duty on marine policies being on the increase, it had dwindled down from 414,205l. to 219,000l. What was the case in Ham burgh and other cities which coped with this country in the same branch of trade? In Ham burgh, the amount paid for marine policies in 1814 was 41,791,000 marcs ban co, and in 1835 it increased to 195,233,000. In Amsterdam, the amount paid in 1810 was 36,450,000 francs, in 1835 it increased to 82,820,000. In Antwerp, the amount was 741,120l. in1821, and the increase in 1835 to 1,200,000l. There had been a great increase in other countries, while the tax was dwindling away so much in this as now to be hardly an object to the revenue. He considered that the right hon. Gentle- man, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had furnished him with an irresistible argument upon this subject, should, indeed, that right hon. Gentleman be now disposed to offer any opposition to his motion. Last year the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer took credit to himself for having adopted the suggestion of the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, when he addressed that House in the year 1830. Upon that occasion, the President of the Board of Trade commented upon the impolicy of the duty on marine insurances. He then observed that the stamp duties on marine policies amounted to 282,000/.,when the tonnage was 3,935,000l. In 1826 the stamp duties on sea policies amounted to only 219,000/., though the tonnage had increased to 5,154,000l. In consequence of this impolitic course, the insurances went away to Holland and America, where the premiums, including the duty, were less. So convinced was Lord Althorp, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the impolicy of this tax, that he made some reduction in it—a reduction which that noble Lord calculated would affect the revenue to the amount of 100,000/.; but which was in fact such a relief to the commercial world (slight even as it was), that the loss to the public revenue did not exceed 10,000l. He was aware that Members of the House, placed as he was, were always likely to meet with opposition from the Chancellor of the Exchequer when they brought forward resolutions similar to that he was about to submit to the House, for a Chancellor of the Exchequer disliked any Member of the House interfering with what he regarded as his peculiar functions. He was aware that there were already notices on the books for a repeal of the soap-tax, for a repeal of the window-duties, and that the noble Lord, the Member for Buckinghamshire, would attempt once more to procure a repeal of the malt-tax. He would give one short reason why the House ought to prefer a repeal of the stamp duties on marine policies. They exceeded by very little two hundred thousand pounds; and it was quite clear that if the Government and the Legislature were disposed to give up the tax, they had not the same difficulty to encounter which they had with the other taxes, the repeal of which was proposed, namely, that none of the latter could be abandoned, unless some other tax was resorted to supply their place. His resolution, he wished to observe, did not bind the House to a repeal of the stamp duty this Session, but that the House would take it into their early consideration. If the right hon. Gentleman would give no promise either to repeal or reduce this obnoxious tax, it would be his (Mr. Robinson's) duty, in connexion with those who were so much interested on the subject, to have a petition for warded, and to take the sense of that House respecting it, in order that they might ascertain how many Members of that House thought that such an obnoxious tax ought to be continued. He was not aware that it was necessary for him longer to trouble the House. He would merely state that there was another tax for which a claim had been put in, and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might think interposed a reasonable objection to his concurring in this motion. There was a claim, and a very powerful one, on behalf of some reduction of the taxation of the policies upon fire-insurances. It was perfectly well known that the duties upon fire policies were higher nominally than those upon marine-policies. But the reason why he considered that his claim was stronger in favour of a reduction of the duty than fire-policies was, that marine-policies were chargeable, perhaps twenty times every year, by the succession of their voyages, but the duty upon fire policies was only charged once a-year, nor was it even levied again upon a dwelling-house being changed into a warehouse. This was a reason why he thought that the claim for the reduction of the duty upon fire-insurances was not so strong. He also considered that the amount arising from fire-insurances was very large, and if the Chancellor of the Exclequer were to volunteer their reduction some other my must be substituted. If the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were prepared to tell the House that he was satisfied of the policy of no longer continuing this impost, and that he should he prepared to come down to the House dining the present Session with a proposition for the repeal or reduction of this tax, he should best discharge his duty by leaving the matter in the hands of that right hon. Gentleman. But if the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he was not so prepared, and gave no reason to hope for such an abolition, he should be obliged, in the dis- charge of his duty, to divide the House. He would conclude by reading the terms of his motion, which was to this effect, "That the gradual diminution of stamp duty derived from marine-policies, during several years of increasing trade, commerce and navigation, has fully demonstrated the impolicy of this tax, in the discouragement of British insurances, and the promotion of successful foreign competition, and that it is the duty of this House to take an early opportunity to repeal or reduce the same."

seconded the motion. He knew well all the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, he knew the weight which ought to attach to his arguments on this subject, and he therefore seconded the motion with sincere pleasure and satisfaction. He hoped that after the circumstances detailed in the petition presented by the hon. Member, and the mode in which he had brought those circumstances before the House, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would grant the prayer of the petitioners, and offer no opposition to this motion.

said, he certainly had nothing to complain of in the manner in which his hon. Friend had introduced this motion; he had stated his case shortly, and had stated briefly the arguments that pressed in favour of it. His hon. Friend told him that if he would only say that he meant to reduce this tax in the present Session he would not divide the House. Undoubtedly any other Gentleman whom he had ever yet heard in that House would likewise be indisposed to divide the House if he could obtain the whole of his objects without a division. The proposition of his hon. Friend, even on his own showing, did not go to the extent of committing the House of Commons to repeal or reduce the duty in the present year; it merely referred to some early period—it was very uncertain, and certainly did not compel the House to the repeal of the duty in the present year. But the hon. Gentleman said, that if he would only promise to repeal this tax in the present year, or, in other words, if he got more than he asked in his resolution, he would abstain from pressing the house to a division. He would at once say that he did not think that these petitioners had no claim to relief. If he said any such, thing, he should say what he certainly did not feel. He thought that the petitioners had an undoubted claim to be considered with respect to their complaints. But it was very easy for any Gentleman acquainted with the subject of marine insurance, or fire insurance, or any other tax, to make out a case against the existence of that tax. There was scarcely any tax that would stand discussion on its own merits. They were all evils in themselves, and it was scarcely possible to name a tax which could not be proved to be objection able in its nature. They were all evil, and he at once admitted that this was an evil tax. But in determining upon the repeal of taxes, he would only ask Gentlemen to consider whether it was possible to deal with the question of repeal of taxation except upon the principle of showing the inconvenience felt from one tax in comparison with the inconvenience attending the continuance of another. The House could not at present come to any decision on this subject. They were not in possession of the actual state of the finances; they were just at the close of the financial year, and the House had not yet heard what was the actual surplus of income over expenditure. They had no means of judging what disposable income would remain to be dealt with by the House; and yet the hon. Gentleman called upon the House absolutely to come to a definite decision. On a former occasion he believed the hon. Member for Manchester gave notice of a motion on the subject of the cotton duties. He took the liberty of stating on that occasion, and he would take the liberty of stating to his hon. Friend, who made this motion, that he really would not undertake to argue these taxes in detail till he had an opportunity of ascertaining what was the amount of disposable surplus, and how that amount could be best applied. His hon. Friend had himself stated, that there were on the orders of the House, notices with respect to the reduction of the duty on malt, on soap, on cottons, on tobacco, on windows, on fire insurances, and on life insurances. Now he was not disposed, on the mere statement of his hon. Friend to affirm the proposition that the reduction of the duty on marine insurances stood so pre-eminent over all other taxes that he was bound to give it the preference, and not to consider it with reference to the claims of other petitioners, but to take this question up at once, and give it the preference over all others. He would say, that his hon. Friend's motion was one which called for the serious consideration of that House: he was perfectly willing to say that it should be taken into the most serious consideration of his Majesty's Government. When the proper time arrived, he should be prepared, if he assented to the doctrine of his hon. Friend, to propose a reduction of this duly; or if he did not assent to that proposition, he would state the reasons that induced him to give the preference to reduction in some other branch of the revenue. Beyond this he would not go. He did not think that it would be just with respect to other Gentlemen who had been induced to suspend their motions until the period of the Budget. His hon. Friend knew that the period was not very remote; and that they were at the close of the financial year. He would therefore say that, in his opinion, his hon. Friend would best consult the interests of those whom he represented on this occasion if he left the matter entirely in the hands of the Government. At the same time, he was unwilling to sit down without expressing some difference of opinion from the statements that had fallen from his hon. Friend, and more especially in expressing a serious difference of opinion from a paper which had been industriously circulated and put into the hands of Members of that House. The hon. Gentleman had stated that this was a dwindling duly. Now this was not the fact. So far was it from being the fact, that when they made the reduction in 1833, thereby carrying into effect the proposition that had been received from the committee at Lloyd's, from that period it had not been a falling, but an augmenting duty. In the year ending in January, 1835, the duty was 201,000l.; in January, 1836, it was 218,000l.; and in January of the present year it amounted to 254,000l. These figures showed that the duty was not, as the hon. Gentleman said, gradually diminishing. It showed also that they might, in some instances, make reductions without any loss of revenue. The declaration of this being a falling duty he met with the simple announcement of its being an increasing one. He was unwilling to move a negative of the hon. Gentleman's proposition if he drove it to a division: he would rather move the previous question than a direct negative. But, independently of other objections, he had already stated his objection to any resolution being put on the journals of Parliament which was so vague and uncertain, and which left every individual Member to put upon it any interpretation he pleased. It did not even pledge the House to consider the subject in the present Session. He thought it would be much better, under all the circumstances, to leave the matter in the hands of the Government. He would give no pledge, except that he would consider these claims in common with the other claims, and that he would give them all their due weight. He would, however, admit that he believed the statement of his hon. Friend was correct when he stated that one effect of the present high rate of duty had undoubtedly driven to the Continent a great deal of the business. He would again repeat that he would take this subject into consideration, but he must object to these resolutions, which, even if they were good in themselves, were drawn up in so vague and indefinite a manner that they appeared to pledge the House to something, when, in reality, they pledged them to nothing. On these grounds he felt bound to oppose the motion.

hoped, that after the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, his hon. Friend would not press this motion. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that a case had been made out, and promised to take the subject into his most serious consideration between this time and the period of the financial statement. Under these circumstances, he was convinced that his hon. Friend would best consult the interest of the parties whom he represented by not pressing this question. He was as warm an advocate of the reduction of this duty as his hon. Friend; and when he entreated him to withdraw his motion, he did so, entertaining a confident expectation that, upon consideration of the case, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would feel called upon to propose either the total repeal of this duty, or a very large reduction.

, having brought forward this question ten years ago, was unwilling to allow the discussion to drop without offering a few observations. He thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated a convincing reason why this subject ought to be brought under the consideration of the House, when he admitted that a great part of the insurance business was transferred to the opposite coasts, thereby destroying a profitable branch of trade without any relief to the shipping interest. This point was of considerable importance in the consideration of this question. This tax was exceedingly injurious in its operation. Of this he was quite sure, that until Members of that House brought forward the several taxes that pressed most severely on their constituents and the different interests of the country, unless they discussed the objection that might be laid against them, and the reasons for them, they could not expect that the public would derive much relief from taxation. He thought, therefore, that the hon. Member for Worcester had done good service in calling the more immediate attention of the House and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this subject. It was really a sound and true principle to press home and strongly; and the more taxes the Government was asked to remit, the better was the chance of the reduction of some of them. He would advise the hon. Gentleman, after the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to take the sense of the House upon his motion; but if it were not brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Gentleman might at a future period fairly submit the question to the House, and take the opinion of the House upon it.

concurred in the recommendation that had been given to the hon. Member for Worcester, not to divide the House upon this motion. It was but fair to wait and see what measures would be proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject.

would not divide the House. The strength of his case had been admitted, and he considered that what fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer was equivalent to saying that he would bestow upon the subject his favourable consideration.

rose to move the re-appointment of the Committee on turnpike tolls and trusts, for the purpose of considering such legislative enactments as ought to be recommended on the subject. It would, in his estimation, and in that of the Committee generally (which sat last year), be most desirable to maintain the various turnpike roads throughout the country by a house rate equitably levied, and carefully appropriated, so as to secure a cheap and satisfactory mode of communication. The object which he sought to attain by the re-appointment of the Committee was to submit to their consideration a measure similar in principle to that which he had brought forward during the administration of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Tamworth, for the purpose of consolidating their trusts in the management and outlay; but differing from it in this respect—that instead of a central board in London, he would propose the establishment of such boards in the different country towns, under the management either of Commissioners, or of the courts of quarter sessions; so that no new turnpike act would be enabled to pass without, in the first instance, receiving their sanction: bills promoted by local boards of this description would be infinitely more palatable to the country generally than bills for similar purposes emanating from a central board, managed by the Under Secretary of State, and influenced immediately as would be universally supposed, by his Majesty's Ministers. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the re-appointment of the Committee.

was not disposed to accede to the hon. Gentleman's motion. He should have no objection to the renewal of the Committee, if the hon. Gentleman proposed to extend its labours to Ireland and Scotland. Upon the single branch of the inquiry to which their labours had been hitherto directed (he alluded to the turnpike trusts in England) they had already completed their report. He had no objection to the hon. Gentleman bringing forward the measure upon this subject to which he had alluded, and should be happy to give to it his most attentive consideration; but he did not at the same time think that there was any necessity for reappointing the Committee. With reference to turnpike trusts generally, he would observe, that the necessity for consolidation, strict economy of outlay, publicity of the accounts, and abolition of useless offices, was becoming every day more strikingly apparent.

said, that no intention whatever existed upon the part of Government to throw any impediment in the way of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Lymington. He would suggest to that hon. Member to bring in his Bill, which could subsequently, if necessary, be referred for consideration to the re-appointed Committee.

said, that his motive in calling for the document alluded to in the notice of motion on the Order Book, was to solicit the attention, and endeavour to persuade and prevail on the justice, or at least to excite the sympathy and compassion of Parliament, of Government, and the country on behalf of the unfortunate and innocent sufferers by the disastrous consequences of the gunpowder explosion which occurred in the City of Limerick about two months ago, an event which was deeply interesting to every portion of the empire; for even while he was speaking a similar fatality might be happening in some other locality, and he therefore trusted the House would kindly attend to him while he gave as brief as possible a detail of this unfortunate occurrence. His attention was directed to this subject at the commencement of the Session, aware that, however lively the impulse of feeling and pity might be on the first announcement of such a calamity, yet that sympathy was a plant of very fleeting nature, and as a French writer aptly said, "Mankind can bear the afflictions of others with great Christian, patience;" but the various interruptions to which motions were liable, prevented an earlier notice of the subject. He was himself an eye-witness of that awful and destructive calamity and he could unfeigned idly assure the House no picture, however vivid—nocolouring, however heightened—no description, however heart-rending, could exceed the sad and shocking reality. In a moment several houses disappeared as if swallowed up by an earthquake, or prostrated by some supernatural agency. The gas lights were at once and simultaneously extinguished in that vicinity, and the street presented a terrific gloom, while the gathering crowd were left in darkness and in doubt as to the cause and the extent of the calamity. The unfortunate inmates were of course buried under the ruins, and the piteous moans, the agonizing appeals made by the surviving relatives to disentomb and save their unfortunate friends, still rang in his ears and harrowed up his feelings. Although the persons present were deeply anxious to meet such an appeal, circumstances painfully but imperatively forbad it. The lateness of the hour, nearly midnight, and the apprehension that more powder might exist in the ruins, and by collision, in the dark, might explode, and the dangerous state of the surrounding houses, the walls of which were, in fact, tottering to their fall, all prevented them from assisting. All these considerations compelled the magistracy, the army, who promptly gave their valuable aid, and the people, to forbear till morning. About thirty persons in all suffered either loss of life or limb, or experienced some grievous injury; but if the calamity had happened a couple of hours earlier, one hundred persons at least would have become victims. Life or limb were, of course, beyond the power of Parliament to restore, but some pecuniary relief to the innocent sufferers in property was within the power, and, he trusted, within the inclinations and province of a paternal Legislature and a compassionate people. Some few persons lost their all, and were at once, and without any fault, reduced from comfort and independence, to poverty and destitution, while others had lost more or less, for every window in the neighbouring houses was shattered to atoms. Nevertheless, a few thousand pounds; perhaps eight, or any thing Parliament might be disposed to grant, would afford relief, and surely that was no great sum to ask on such an occasion from the sympathy of a great and humane nation. Relief for such purposes was not, he believed, unusual, and had been, he understood, conferred on sufferers in the West Indies, when hurricanes devastated those regions. Limerick, however, had a claim on the justice of Parliament—because this calamity arose out of an injudicious state of the law in permitting a universal and promiscuous sale for so dangerous an article. Moreover, the magistracy there had memorialized the Irish Government previously and timely on the subject; and their application was, as usual, promptly noticed by the excellent Viceroy, but before any satisfactory arrangement could be adopted, the unhappy reality arrived. This misfortune to Limerick ought, he thought, at once lead to a more safe mode of vending gunpowder; and, in his opinion, and in that of his constituents, it would be wisest to confine its sale to a public depot, superintended by a public responsible officer; or that, if sale were at all permitted to private persons, it should be in canisters only. If this disaster to Limerick produced as it ought so necessary a protection to every other part of the country, could that country or its representatives refuse or begrudge a few pounds to remunerate Limerick, whose misfortune had caused this improvement and protection? Under these circumstances and considerations, he thought he had made out a case which called upon the justice of the Legislature, or, at all events, on its sympathy, for relief to the sufferers in Limerick. In Cork, too, and elsewhere, the greatest alarm existed, and public meetings were convened for the purpose. But perhaps it will be replied, let the gentry subscribe; to which he would answer, that any one acquainted with an Irish provincial town (and no one knew Limerick better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer,) would admit that the residents were utterly unable to raise anything like such a sum, and moreover, that they had raised all that was in their power, a month or two before, to relieve the then appalling wants of their poorer fellow-citizens. It might also be said, that it would be opening a door to similar applications from other places. It might further be said, why did they not insure? But besides that this calamity arose out of so unforeseen a cause, the very dearness of insuring, from the excessive duty upon it, was a serious bar to industrious people, and moreover it was even doubtful whether insurance companies would be liable from such a cause. He could not sit down without noticing the great zeal and beneficence manifested on the occasion by the medical gentlemen in Limerick, by the army, and by the amiable Mayor of that city, and indeed by all classes of the community. He left the case in the hands of a considerate and compassionate legislature and Government, and trusted that his representations, his appeal, and anxiety, would be met by corresponding feelings and results.

had no objection to grant a copy of the memorial, but he could not hold out any hope of compensation to the sufferers on whose behalf the hon. Member had brought forward his motion. He sincerely sympathised with those individuals in the misfortune which had befallen them, but the hon. mover and Seconder must, upon reflection, perceive that, if Parliament were to grant compensation this instance, they would be establishing a precedent of a most frightful magnitude. Not only would persons losing property by any calamitous accident apply to Parliament for compensation, but, under the impression that they would be sure to obtain it, they would be careless about securing their property, and taking precautionary measures for its safety.

observed, that as the object of his motion was to obtain relief for those to whom it related, and as no hope of such relief had been held out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be quite nugatory to merely obtain a copy of the memorial. He would, therefore, withdraw his motion.

begged leave to call the attention of the House to the depredations committed by persons employed by railroad, canal, and other public companies, for the purpose of introducing some measure for the protection of the persons and property of his Majesty's subjects during the time such public works were in progress, and moved for leave to bring in a Bill to effect the same. If Parliament were to evince the same readiness henceforth as they had done last Session, for the advancement of railroad speculations, in a short time there would be scarcely a village free from such depredations. Railroads were yet, however, but in their infancy, fifty-six railroad petitions had been presented last year, out of which thirty-five had been granted. They had had seventy-five applications for railroads this Session, and twelve for canals; and if Parliament were to assent to all these Bills, there would be about one hundred railroads forming in the country at the same time. At present there were 11,000 men employed on the London and Birmingham Railroad, and taking but half that number for each, they would have a body of not less than 500,000 men employed in these works, not of the most respectable characters, or taken from the most respectable ranks of society. He therefore thought the House would agree with him that there ought to be some law to prevent those persons from injuring the property of the neighbour hood in which they might be employed. He wished not to be understood as expressing a feeling hostile to railroads, which generally speak ing, were a great benefit to the country. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

observed, that the depredations of which the hon. Member complained were not confined to the vicinity of railroads or canals. There was not a great building of any kind carried on in the neighbour hood of which offences more or less did not consequently take place. He did not mean to object to the introduction of the Bill, but he hoped the House would maturely consider the question, and come to the conclusion of not passing such a measure, unless they were prepared to go much further, and legislate upon every alteration and minute circumstance that might occur in connexion with the commerce of the country. They should, indeed, be very careful of avoiding all confusion in dealing with the criminal law.

looked upon such a Bill as that proposed, to be a peace-preserving measure. There was no doubt that persons employed upon railroads set the existing laws at defiance, by quitting the neighbour hood in which they worked immediately after they had committed some robbery or outrage, changing their names, and looking for employment at a considerable distance from the scene of their offences. This he asserted from his own observation, residing as he did in a neighbour hood in which various railroads were in progress. He thought that the law, as respected master and servant, should be maintained with respect to railroads, and that the proprietors should be made responsible for any depredation committed by persons employed by them.

said, that they required no new law on the subject. The existing law was quite sufficient to prevent the evils complained of, as far as legislation could effect it. Before the hon. Member introduced his new measure, the House ought to have been made acquainted with its nature.

was always unwilling to oppose any motion for returns made to this House, and particularly so when it came from his hon. Friend, the Member for Greenock; he regretted that he had not had an earlier opportunity of making some statement on the notice which had been given by his hon. Friend, who appeared to have proceeded on some very erroneous impressions, when he desired the judges of the Court of Session to assign the reasons which had induced them, under an Act of sederunt, to tax the inhabitants of the counties of Scotland, implying that this taxation had been unequal and arbitrary. They were also required to state the statutes under which they had acted, and their reason for doing so. The judges of the Court of Session, in regulating the fees of sheriff clerks, had acted entirely under the provisions of the 6th Geo. 4th, cap. 23, which required them to revive an Act of sederunt which had been passed in 1748, and to take into consideration what fees they should judge reasonable hereafter to be exacted by clerks; and, in doing so, to take into consideration the Reports of the Commissioners, appointed in 1815, to inquire into the duties and emoluments of persons belonging to judicial establishments in Scotland. There was a provision in that statute, that no clerk, then holding an office, should be bound to accept of them, in lieu of the emoluments to which he was legally entitled, unless he thought fit, and that the regulations should be postponed during his life, unless he agreed. The Court were also directed to appoint five sheriffs to report on these regulations and tables of fees. Soon after, an Act of Parliament was passed, authorizing the Court of Session to make a new form of process for Sheriff Courts. This was prepared in 1826, and materially altered the form of proceedings in Sheriff Courts. In consequence of this change in the proceedings, the construction of the table of fees was attended with great difficulty, as it was necessary to adopt them to the new mode of procedure.—Long and laborious inquiries were made with that view, and Acts of sederunt were passed by the Court of Session in 1830 and 1833. In the course of these inquiries, a temporary table of fees was adopted, which, according to the information the judges received, was considered a commutation of the existing fees, and was not supposed either to increase or to diminish them. The judges had no power to depart from this, so far as regarded the sheriff clerks, who were appointed at the time when the Act was passed, unless with their consent; but they were authorised, with regard to those appointed afterwards, to take into view what fees they should think reasonable. It appeared to the Committee of Judges, that the fees received in many counties afforded more than a reasonable allowance to the sheriff clerks; and upon a Report from a Committee of three of their number, to whom the matter was referred, they lowered the fees to as small a rate as they considered afforded a reasonable allowance to the persons who might hold the office. Their views are explained in that Report, which he would move should be laid before the House. It was signed by a judge of great learning and ability, and most scrupulous in the discharge of every duty intrusted to him. There was no individual holding any situation of public trust less disposed to exceed any powers delegated to him, than the learned judge to whom he referred. Instead of wishing to tax the suitors, it was that judge's wish, acting under that Act of Parliament, to reduce the fees or taxation, as it has been called, as much as he was empowered to do; but he had no power of providing for the clerks otherwise than from the fees, and he was bound by the Act to leave, in each case, what would afford a reasonable amount. This was a very laborious undertaking imposed upon the judges by Act of Parliament, and delegated by them, in the first instance, to be reported on by a Committee. It might be said, why not fix an uniform fee in every county? And if in small counties that would not afford a suitable maintenance, let the sheriff's clerk be paid otherwise. It was no doubt in the power of the Legislature to have done this, but that was not the power which was delegated to (he judges by the Act of Parliament. They did consider whether they had the power of making an uniform fund, and apportioning fees to the different Sheriff Clerks, according to their duties—but they found they had no such power. Their object, therefore, was, to exercise such power as they had, in the manner most beneficial for the country, and with that view they recommended a reduction of the fees as low as they thought was reasonable in each instance. It was very hard where the object of the judges appears to have been to lower fees, and where they had done so in all the larger counties, and increased them in none, to accuse them of laying on taxation, which must mean that they had increased the fees. If this misapplication had prevailed, he trusted it would be removed by the Report of the Committee of judges made in December, 1835, and he should afterwards move that it, together with the Act of sederunt, should be printed and distributed among the Members of this House. He regretted very much that his hon. Friend had framed his motion in such terms as might have conveyed a very unfavourable impression of what had been done. He was sure that it would be removed from the mind of every person who might peruse that report. In looking forward to judicial reform, there was nothing more important than to keep in view, that justice could not be well administered, and retain its due authority, unless the judges, who sit in courts of law, received that support and respect from the Legislature to which they were entitled; where they were truly labouring to diminish burthens, they were entitled to the gratitude of the country. Whether such duties should be imposed upon them, or in what terms they should be given, was a very different question, but he asked every person to suspend his judgment in this instance, until he had the proceedings referred to before him, and he would see from the report of that excellent judge, the spirit in which the question was examined, and upon which the regulations of the Court were framed. The character of judges was public property, and where they performed a difficult and laborious duty, with the best resolutions, they were entitled to the support and respect of the House, and of his hon. Friend, who was desirous to improve the administration of justice in Scotland. They could not exceed the powers given them by the Legislature, and any fault that had been found with what was done, applied to the Act of Parliament itself, and to the arrangements which must necessarily be made under it, and not to the judges, who were directed to carry those arrangements into effect. The Legislature imposed various restrictions, and gave limited powers. The report which he now moved should be laid before the House, would show that the judges had followed out the course prescribed to them, with the most anxious desire to fulfil the intentions expressed in the Act of Parliament.

consented to withdraw his motion, and the amendment moved by the Lord Advocate was agreed to.