rose to present a petition from the Roman Catholics of Newfoundland, signed by 3,217 persons. Several of the parties who had subscribed it were Members of the House of Commons in that colony, and they stated in their petition a long series of oppressions, which had been inflicted upon its Roman Catholic population. They complained that they had been deprived of all share in the civil employments of the island, and that they had been treated with every species of indignity which Judge Bolton and the other justices of the colony could throw upon them. They further alleged that no Catholic was permitted to enjoy any situation of importance, and they prayed the House, after taking these premises into its consideration, to secure them the free and unrestricted worship of God, according to their consciences, whether in the chapel or in the dungeon, and to remove those officers from all situations of trust in the colony who had been ancillary to the system of bigotry and persecution.

supported the prayer of the petition, and said, that he had been informed by a person of good faith, that Mr. Bolton, the chief justice of that island, had been at the head of an exceedingly bitter and malignant persecution of the Roman Catholics of that island.

presented a petition from certain electors of Middlesex residing in the village of Hammersmith, complaining of the intimidation practised upon the electors at the late election by certain magistrates of that district, who took their stand in the most conspicuous parts of the polling-booths there, for the purpose of observing how the different tradesmen of that place voted, and praying for the adoption of the vote by ballot as the only means of putting an end to such coercion and intimidation in future. He could from his own personal knowledge confirm the truth of many of the statements contained in this petition, and he knew that great inconvenience and considerable loss had been sustained by many parties in consequence of the oppressive conduct which the petitioners denounced. He alluded more particularly to the case of the keepers of public-houses, who were dependent almost on the pleasure of the magistracy for the renewal of their licences. He could prove, if it were necessary, at their bar, that in Middlesex magistrates had gone a canvassing in public-houses in such a manner as made the keepers of them feel that the renewal of their licences depended on their not resisting the will and pleasure of those who had the power of withholding them. That was an evil, however, which was not confined to Middlesex; it unfortunately extended all over the country, and the House of Commons was, therefore, bound to discover a remedy for it. The hon. Member then proceeded to present a petition with a similar prayer from the inhabitants of the village of Castle Hedingham, in the eastern division of the county of Essex. That petition complained of the ross bribery which had been practised at several of the elections in that county. He could say from his own knowledge of a county neighbouring on that village, he meant Norfolk, that gross bribery had been employed by both parties at the recent election, so that the elections there were rather elections of money influence than elections bespeaking the genuine sentiments of the electors. He considered that the authors of the Reform Bill, the present Ministers, should——

submitted, that although the House always listened with pleasure to every word which came from the hon. Member for Kilkenny, who so frequently addressed it, he must suggest that the hon. Member was then going beyond the limits usually assigned to the remarks of hon. Members on the presentation of petitions.

did not admit any such rule as that which the right hon. Gentleman had adverted to. It was a rule which, if admitted, would deprive the people of England of the benefit of the right of petition. He was not going beyond the usual limits, and even if he were, he would stand upon his right—

appealed to the Chair, and called upon the Speaker to decide whether he had been light or wrong in the observations which he had made respecting the rule of the House.

If I am thus appealed to, I must state again what I have often stated before—that, when I was first appointed to this Chair, I found that great inconvenience was felt by the House in consequence of the protracted debates which took place upon the presentation of petitions. Various plans were in consequence suggested to remedy that inconvenience, one of which would have taken the petitions entirely out of the consideration of the House. The only way of getting rid of it appeared to be by adopting a morning sitting. That was, however, a proceeding which, after three years' experience, was found to be extremely inconsistent with the daily avocations of hon. Members, and I am bound, with respect to myself, to say that if I should be obliged to sit here every morning, from twelve o'clock to three, for the purpose of receiving petitions, I must leave another, and a very important, part of my duties undischarged. Therefore it was, that this rule was laid down, and, as I understood, was approved and sanctioned by the House, that the proper time of discussing all petitions which had reference to subjects hereafter to be discussed by the House was when those subjects were specifically brought under its consideration. Another rule was, that any Member presenting a petition, and giving notice that he would on an early day bring the subject of it under the notice of the House, should be entitled to have that petition printed with the votes. There were, however, two cases of exception made to these rules. The first was this:—whenever an individual was assailed in point of character, it was deemed that the presentation of a petition would be a fitting opportunity for him to give any explanation or refutation of the charge that was in his power. The second case was where any thing was stated in the petition which required the prompt vindication and interference of the House. The House will see that I can have no interest in the matter beyond the convenience of the House. The House will, however, see that if the rule be not strictly drawn, and rigidly adhered to, it is no rule at all. Many things may be said on the presentation of a petition which will lead to discussion—many things, which will not produce it. On the present occasion, I was observing a neutral course; but as I am appealed to, I must observe that the hon. Member for Kilkenny is going beyond the usual rule. Whenever the House intimates to me that it is dissatisfied with that rule, and that it wishes to see that rule relaxed, I shall feel it to be my duty to place the rule again under its consideration, and to submit to any decision to which hon. Gentlemen may think it expedient to come.

observed, that the Speaker had stated the rule very correctly; but it appeared to him that the inconvenience arising from the observance of the modern rule was greater than that arising from the previous practice. The rule had been productive of serious detriment to the people of England, as it amounted, in point of fact, to something very like a suppression of their complaints, their wants, and their wishes. Formerly, the presentation of petitions, as the Speaker would well recollect, occupied the time of the House every evening till eight or nine o'clock. In his opinion no time was lost by that practice, as a mass of information was then driven into the minds of the most inattentive Members, which produced fitting results in due season. The public, moreover, took more interest in the brief but sharp skirmishes which occasionally took place on petitions than it did in the more elaborate speeches which were discharged amid the complicated manœuvres of a grand field day's debate. He submitted that even the House itself had no right to lay down a rule, which, in point of fact, deprived the people of England, if not of the right of petition, at least of the opportunity of making their petitions known to the House and to the public. It must rest with the discretion of hon. Members themselves to determine the extent to which they would carry their remarks. ["No."] He said yes. The discretion of every hon. Member must be the only limit of his remarks. What was the object of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in calling him to order? He had stated the facts set out in the petition—he had stated the prayer of the petitioners, and what they wished to have done to carry it into effect, and he had been about to state what he had a perfect and undoubted right to state—that the country had a right to expect that those Ministers who had introduced the Reform Bill as a means of extending the right of suffrage would complete that Bill, and render it more effective, by giving immediate protection to those who were entitled to the franchise under it. He would not admit either the correctness of the right hon. Gentleman's conduct in calling him to order, or the wisdom of the order on which the right hon. Gentleman had relied.

I will not enter at present into the policy of the rule: but what is material for me is, that the same rule should be applied to all. I cannot permit one hon. Member to enlarge upon the petition which he presents, and then refuse the same permission to another. I urge upon the House that, if it wishes to depart from this rule, it ought to make me perfectly secure as to what it wishes to have done.

rose and said, that whatever might be the opinion of the House with respect to the presentation of petitions not having a material bearing upon subjects under its consideration, that which had reference to the instant trial or liberation of persons under confinement called for the ready sanction of the House. The petition which he had now the honour to present was from Glasgow, and was signed by twenty thousand persons; and its object was to bring under the consideration of the House the case of five poor citizens of that place, who were placed in confinement by direction of the law officers of the Crown. In bringing this petition forward, he desired it to be understood that he expressed no opinion whatever as to the character of the charges brought against these persons, or whether the parties implicated were guilty or innocent. It was enough for him to bring the matter before the House to enable the law officers of the Crown to give an explanation as to the course which they intended to pursue. It appeared that in June last, eighteen persons, engaged in the weaving of linen, were apprehended, charged with conspiracy, for the purpose of unduly raising the price of wages. They were also charged with combining to administer illegal oaths, and with being implicated in the perpetration of a murder which took place in Glasgow. After undergoing a long examination, five of those persons were sent to prison under this very serious and complicated charge. The remaining thirteen were let out on bail. These five individuals had been imprisoned from June up to that moment. On the 24th of October, they received notice that they would be tried on an indictment—an indictment, be it remembered, which occupied forty-nine long folio pages, containing almost countless counts, and spreading over a long-protracted period of time. Of this complicated expensive indictment they had to take a copy, which had on the back of it the names of ninety witnesses. These parties had to prepare for their trial and defence, which they received notice on the 24th of October was to take place on the 10th of November following. Conscious, as they said, of their innocence, though poor in circumstances, ignorant of the law, and overwhelmed by these complicated proceedings, they determined at once to throw aside the means of protection by delay, which the law of that country afforded them, and to challenge instant trial. Having no funds of their own, and but few friends, they made an appeal to their own order, the working classes. These classes did not instantly respond to their call, but referred the circumstances of the case to a committee, in order to be satisfied that they were not only legally but morally innocent. Being so in their minds, they felt it their duty to call upon the working classes of every description throughout the country to come forward and throw their shield over their oppressed fellow-workmen; and thus in these times, when it was well known that labour was not overpaid, such was the interest taken by all classes of this description, that the sum of 500l, greatly to their credit, was remitted to Edinburgh. That money was barely sufficient to pay the expenses of their defence against the complicated proceedings, in retaining counsel, in preparing evidence, and conveying their numerous witnesses to Edinburgh, at which place the trial was to be. He was told that, in addition to the necessary inquiry into what ninety witnesses, whose names were recorded upon the indictment, might have to say in support of their charge—no small labour for those who were professionally engaged —no small cost to those who had to pay it—these parties had to take to Edinburgh fifty witnesses for their exculpation, perfectly prepared to repudiate the charge and sustain their innocence. On the 10th of November the trial was to take place, when they received some intimation from the prosecutor that it would stand adjourned till the 4th of December. This was the power which he understood the law officers of the Crown had in that country, and in this instance had exercised. This knocked down the courage of the men and exhausted all their means, and they had been again obliged, but not with similar success, to make another appeal to their fellow-citizens to meet the trial, which was to come on on the 4th of December; yet to a certain extent they did so, and were prepared for their trial on the 4th of December; but a short time previously they received another communication from the law officer of the Crown, that this indictment was not then to be tried, but that another indictment would be prepared, and that such indictment was to be tried on the 3rd of Ja- nuary next. Now these were the simple circumstances of the case. These helpless individuals, who had been incarcerated in a dark and dreary dungeon from the month of June last, scarcely with any food; and their families without support, having no means of succour but their labour, from which they were cut off, had been brought to the bar twice, and now their trial was deferred for the third time. It was not necessary for him to go further into the circumstances of the case. He would concede for the present that the crime with which they were charged was of the most heinous description; he would presume that the prosecutor was perfectly able to make it out that they had been guilty of the serious offences of which they were arraigned; that they might be fairly exposed to the strongest sentence of the law; and yet he would ask the House whether persons so circumstanced were to be made the sport and prey of an oppressive system of law like this? It was nothing to say that the defenders of the prisoners might have challenged the time which the Crown had taken; it was nothing for the Crown officers to say that they had done nothing but what the law had empowered them to do. What these parties claimed was prompt and costless trial. Law and justice had both been delayed; and he asked the Lord Advocate in what way these parties, stripped as they were from the beginning, of all the means of payment, with those resources already exhausted which were with difficulty raised from a poverty stricken people—in what way were they to appear on the 3rd of January, with that formidable array of Scotch advocates, who, if not led by the Lord Advocate himself, would be enough in number and strength to overwhelm even the purest innocence? He asked in what way were they to have their trial? On the 10th November they were prepared with the most able advocates which money could purchase, and it might be said that the advocates of the Scotch bar would appear again with equal eagerness without further remuneration; but how were the fifty witnesses' expenses to be paid—men who were unable to earn 10s. a week, yet who were to be brought a distance of forty miles and back, from Glasgow to Edinburgh? He did not offer any opinion on the charge itself against these prisoners, nor did he call on the House to make any exercise of its powers, All he wished was, that it should be practically shown that no man should be treated as guilty until ascertained to be so by the law of his country; and that these persons should be forthwith discharged, or their trial accelerated; or if not, then that they be supplied with the means of procuring a fair and honest trial. He had also another petition to the same effect from the burgh of Kilmarnock.

said, that he could have no difficulty whatever in answering any part of the statement of the hon. Gentleman; a somewhat similar statement had been made some time before by another hon. Member, and the answer then given would almost equally apply now. There was not one part of the statement of the hon. Member that did not admit of a sufficient answer. The charge against those individuals was one of the most serious nature, a charge of assassination, the result of a conspiracy carried on by an association which had subsisted during a number of years, and which had during that time produced similar offences—an association bound together by secret oaths, and supported by a system of intimidation; so powerful and well-compacted as to render the procuring of evidence to commit almost impossible. It being a charge, then, of so serious a nature, it became the duty of the public prosecutor to carry forward the prosecution by all the means in his power, taking care that no unnecessary expenses were incurred, and no unnecessary hardships inflicted on the prisoners, but that every possible advantage consistent with the due maintenance of public justice, should be afforded them. There had been great delays undoubtedly, but the law required them. If they could have been tried at half an hour's notice, it would have been then called a great hardship that so short a time was allowed. For his own part he was very much disposed to shorten the time. He would say hat two or three days were quite long enough, and it would be a great convenience to the public prosecutor to have the time shortened; but a great outcry would certainly be raised at such a proposition; for it would be said that the public prosecutor was pouncing on the prisoners at a short notice merely to suit his own convenience, while by the law of the country they were entitled to fifteen days' notice. In the present instance great delay had been caused in consequence of the extreme difficulty of getting the necessary information. It was the duty of every public prosecutor to make the evidence as complete as he could before proceeding to trial. On the day when this trial should have come on he received information that very important further evidence had been discovered; that there were other witnesses who would throw great light on the matter. It, therefore, became his duty to gain time, for the purpose of ascertaining the value of this new evidence, and, if necessary, of causing an additional indictment to be preferred, because, according to the law of Scotland, no witness could be examined whose name was not in the indictment. It accordingly became necessary to raise new criminal articles, in order to afford the opportunity for examining these witnesses. That was the reason why, in discharge of his duty, he had thought himself bound to move that further delay. He was quite sure that no Member of that House would be found to impute personal motives to the law officers of the Crown in these proceedings, for doing that which they, in the discharge of their public duty, held to be necessary. It was also said that there was a great array of counsel against them. Why, there was a greater array of counsel against them than in their behalf, and they appeared to have every means of defence. But if they had not those means of defence, they were entitled to call on the court to appoint for their defence any counsel whom they might think fit; and he was quite sure no Scottish advocate would refuse to plead under such circumstances. The accused in Scotland had also the advantage of having the last word, which they had not in England. Upon the whole, therefore, he was persuaded that the Government, in the present case, had acted fairly and properly.

, aware of the custom and the law of Scotland, could assure the House that upon the statement of the hon. Member for Southwark, which was made with great propriety, no case had been made out for the interference of the House.

said, that he had not the least doubt that the persons confined for the murder were innocent; but there was such an entire system of combination, that be thought it ought to be inquired into, or they would never be able to get at the guilty persons.

said, that he did not think this was a fit subject for legislation. He thought the Bill would work great hardship and injustice if it were allowed to pass, as it would have the effect of depriving married women of what might be their only means of subsistence.

hoped, that leave would be given to bring in the Bill, as the House would then have a better opportunity of judging of the plan of the hon. and learned Member.

did not rise to offer any objection to the introduction of the present Bill, but merely to express a hope that her Majesty's Government would consider the bearing which these individual acts of legislation would have upon the general statute law of the country. They had appointed Commissioners with a view to consolidate the law, and if individual Members, although with the best intentions, brought in Bills without a full consideration of the bearing of their individual propositions upon the general statute law, he was afraid that the statute law would become more complex and confused than it was at present, and their desire to consolidate it would be defeated by the introduction of these individual measures. The hon. and learned Member had no less than five distinct notices on the books. Now, if other hon. Gentlemen followed his example, he (Sir R. Peel) was afraid that the result would be a still further complication of the law than that which at present existed.

concurred in the general observations of the right hon. Baronet; but with regard to the present Bill he thought the law was open to much amendment, and that at least the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be al- lowed to have an opportunity of laying his plan before the House.

said, he had never heard the names till then, and he must confess that he heard them with considerable surprise. He had hoped that the Members of the Committee of last year would have been re-appointed, at least so many as were still in the House, if it was expected that the Committee should draw up a fair report. At present it appeared to him that the names had been selected in such a manner as best to ensure a report favourable to the hon. Member's (Mr. Horsman's) own views. He would move that the names of the hon. Members who constituted the Committee should be again restored to the list; and if that were not complied with, he would move that the consideration of the nomination be adjourned to a future day. He thought that he had reason to complain that the hon. Member for Cockermouth should have nominated this Committee without holding some communication on the subject with the opposition side of the House.

said, that it was impossible that the hon. Member could have heard the names of the Committee, or he would not have brought an accusation of unfairness against him. There certainly was one charge to which he must plead guilty. It might be for want of discernment on his part, but he was not aware that the hon. Member for Selkirkshire was the authorised medium of communication with the other side of the House. He had thought it his duty to communicate with an hon. Member on the other side of the House, who had been a Member of the Committee of last year: he alluded to the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham (Sir T. Fremantle.) There was one objection to the course proposed by the hon. Member for Selkirkshire; namely, that if hon. Members told him that they had rather not serve on the Committee, that circumstances prevented them attending, he had no means of compelling their attendance. Under these circumstances, in every instance in which he had been compelled to substitute a name he had substituted a Member of the same politics. The Committee of last year had been struck as fairly as possible: there were eight from that side and seven from the opposition side. On the present occasion the same thing was done. The two hon. Members who had been selected to replace the Members of the other side of the House who had served on the Committee of last year were recommended by the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham. He had done everything in his power to obtain a fair inquiry.

considered that the mode adopted by the hon. Mover was perfectly satisfactory. The principle on which the Committee was appointed appeared to him to be a fair one, but he hoped that the nomination of the Committee would be delayed for at least twenty-four hours, in order that hon. Members on the opposition side of the House might have an opportunity of considering the subject.

said, that certainly the hon. Member for Cockermouth had consulted with him as to the names, and they had entered into the arrangement mentioned; but of course that arrangement was in no way binding on the House—it was merely a matter of convenience to both parties, which was usual in such cases. He must, however, say that he had not seen the names of the present Committee before. He understood that the names of the Members of the Committee of last year would have been retained as far as it was possible to do so, but he found several Gentlemen who had not served on the last Committee proposed now. These were Mr. R. Stewart, Lord J. Stewart, Mr. E. Ellice, junr., and Mr. Gillon. He must therefore protest against his name being used as agreeing to this Committee, which had to inquire into a matter involving a great deal of party interest.

said, that he did not say that the hon. Baronet had seen the names of the Committee. All he said was that the hon. Baronet agreed to substitute the names of two Gentlemen from his own side of the House in the room of two other gentlemen of the same political opinions who had retired from the Committee, or who were no longer Members of the House. He had asked all the old Members of the Committee to serve again, but on the refusal of some of them he had been obliged to substitute others. He was quite prepared to hear to-night the names of several Members on the hon. Baronet's side of the House who would not be able to serve; and he fully intended to allow the hon. Baronet to supply their places as he thought proper. As to the names on the old Committee which he Mr. Horsman had substituted by others, he thought the hon. Baronet would admit that there was no great difference in their politics when he mentioned the names of the former Members, namely, Mr. Fox Maule (no longer in Parliament), Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Divett, and Mr. Warburton.

, after admitting the importance of the subject matter of this Bill, and of the other Bills for which the hon. Member had given notice for this evening, expressed his disapproval of the practice which had lately grown into use in this House of introducing Bills without general statements of their objects and utility, and reserving all debate upon the subject of them till their subsequent stages. This practice, instead of throwing the onus of making out a case of necessity for his Bill upon the mover, threw the onus of making objections to it upon those who disapproved of it, and then only left to the mover the trouble of replying to the points which had been made out against him. He thought the subjects of the present Bills required great consideration; they contained many valuable suggestions, but he should be glad if they were introduced so as to allow time for their perusal and consideration during the recess.

said, that the subjects which these Bills embraced had been considered in Committee, and he had taken care to guard against the objections which had formerly been urged.

observed, that these Bills had been introduced last Session, and contained many valuable suggestions. He certainly thought it would be an ad- vantage that hon. Members should have an opportunity of seeing those measures before the recess; and he understood that they had during the holidays received the best attention of the hon. Member who introduced them. He hoped the House would be inclined to adopt the present motion, on the full understanding that before they were pushed to a subsequent stage, not only the Government but the House would be afforded the opportunity of making itself completely cognisant of them.

said, that, as he considered the papers for which he was about to move, were subjects of too great importance to be fully gone into in the absence of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department, he should abstain from touching upon many parts of them to which, had the noble Lord been present, he should have thought it necessary to call his attention. As, however, he had the authority of the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) that the papers should be granted, he trusted he might be allowed to state a few of the grounds on which his motion was founded. In the year 1833 the quarrel of the succession in Spain assumed that formidable aspect which still continued to press upon the industry, to excite the passions, and to cloud the hopes of that unfortunate country. Donna Christina, who was then, as now, the de facto Regent, adopted divers measures with respect to the succession, which were calculated to rouse the scarcely slumbering passions of the people. He alluded more particularly to the manner in which the Royalist troops, consisting of about 250,000 men, were disbanded; a body which up to that period had been considered as the principal bulwark and shield of the country. Many men of high rank and consideration in Spain had thereby been dismissed from offices of importance, because they approved of what were called Royalist politics in Spain. That created so much confusion that hatred began to assume the form of violence, and violence, in many instances, that of bloodshed. In this state of things, a body of men, to the amount of 950, who had formed them selves into a corps of volunteers in support of these politics, had found them- selves obliged to seek refuge in Portugal, and ought afterwards to have obtained their liberty, in virtue of the treaty to which his motion more particularly referred. A Gentleman had some time ago asked the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs as to the present prospects and future hopes of this corps. The noble Lord then expressed it as his belief that their situation was not so desperate or deplorable as had been represented in the newspapers and other quarters, but said that he would forward the petition placed in his hands by the hon. Member for Oxford to the Portuguese Government, and communicate the answer as soon as he received it. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Borthwick) would not have called for the production of the papers to which he referred, if it had not been for two facts. His hon. Friend (Mr. G. Price) the late Member for Sandwich, had, by the authority of the persons so imprisoned, laid before the noble Lord a statement of the facts of their case, and required his interference in their behalf; but to that communication the noble Lord had from that time to the present given no reply, although he had, with such a statement before him, expressed his belief to the hon. Member for Oxford that the situation of these persons was neither so uncomfortable or desperate as had been represented. Now, what were the facts? Why, that those persons were now confined in a ravelin of Fort St. Julian—that means were on foot for delivering them up unconditionally to the Christino Government, and that they prayed, whatever might be their fate, that they would be spared so serious a calamity. It was on the broad ground of humanity, and not of policy, that he appeared as their advocate in that House. He did not ask hon. Gentlemen to agree with him in the views he entertained with respect to foreign policy—he did not ask them to pledge themselves to any opinion on the subject of the rival claims to the Crown of Spain—but he did call upon that House to consider well the statement of these prisoners before they consented to their being surrendered up to the tender mercies of the Christino Government. Hon. Gentlemen would recollect what occurred in 1833. In 1833 Don Carlos was resident in Portugal at the death of his brother, King Ferdinand, but he lived there us a private individual. He did not, however, conceal his pretensions to the Crown of Spain, but he took no part whatever in public affairs. At that period Portugal was the scene of civil commotions. It was highly dangerous to travel the roads, as they were all beset by the hordes of the rival powers then contending for the Portuguese Crown. There were then with Don Carlos 950 Spanish emigrants, of whom the 600 of whose unjustifiable detention he complained were a part, and they formed themselves into a battalion for the protection of Don Carlos. These parties never drew sabre or sword, or took any part, in the quarrel against the Queen of Portugal; on the contrary, they strictly confined themselves to the only object which they had in view, namely, the protection of Don Carlos. Don Miguel finally capitulated, and the agreement—the international agreement—then entered into between the Queen of Portugal and her allies, the Evora Monte treaty, was inserted as an additional article; so that, in fact, the papers for which he moved formed part and parcel of the title of the Queen of Portugal to the possession of the throne of that country. In an historical work on the revolution in Spain, by Walton, he found a translation of this treaty, and, therefore, without undertaking to say whether it was an accurate one or not, he would venture to give the substance of the treaty as he found it in the work to which he referred the House:—

"His Royal Highness the Infante Don Carlos shall leave Evora with his suite on the 30th of the current May, for Aldea Gallego, where he shall embark.

"In his journey thither the Marshals of Portugal will answer for the personal safety of his Royal Highness and suite, and provide for him such escort as his Royal Highness may point out.

"The Spanish subjects who may he in Portugal, compromised in the service of his Royal Highness, shall be received in a provisional dépôt at Santarem, whither they shall go under such escort as may be necessary for their security.

"The Portuguese Government shall give them the means of subsistence in the dépôt until they may be able to go there from without danger to some other place of residence."

Now, in pursuance of the stipulations contained in this treaty, it was suggested by Mr. Grant, the Secretary of his Britannic Majesty's Legation then in Portugal, that these 950 persons should be assembled at Aldea Gallego, and that proper provision should be made for their protection. This was done. There were then but two ships of the British fleet there to take them away, and in these vessels 240 embarked, and were conveyed to Antwerp and England, according to the terms of the treaty. This left 680, whose liberty, up to this time, had never been called in question, either by the Portuguese or any other Government. At Aldea Gallego these men were left defenceless and unarmed, and, instructions were afterwards given to them to go to Santarem, on the understanding that all necessary provision would be made to insure their safety and protection. No such protection was, however, afforded to them, but still this body marched the whole distance from Aldea Gallego to Santarem in the short space of five days. It was melancholy to recal to mind the hardships which they had to endure during those five days. They were not only driven from every village and town through which they passed, or in which they sought shelter or relief, but nowhere was protection afforded to them. The only subsistence they were able to obtain was the roots which they picked up, and the only shelter they could procure was such as the forests in the line of their march gave to them. Many of them died of hunger, and more perished by the hands of assassins, who waylaid them, and, even at that moment, the plains en the banks of the Tagus bore melancholy witness of the fact that this treaty—a treaty which bore on it the stamp of British sanction—was violated in the face of Europe, for literally the bones of these victims now lay whiteening on that ground which was so well known to British valour, and which was so dearly in the recollection of every Englishman. But he would not trouble the House by detailing the sufferings of these unfortunate men in all their marches and counter marches. Suffice it then to say, that in one short month, from the 30th of May, 1833, to the 30th of June following, no fewer than 272 of them fell victims either to assassination or disease, brought on by hunger and improper treatment. From Santarem a deputation from this unhappy body subsequently went to Lisbon, and represented their forlorn and helpless condition to the Portuguese Government. Upon this they were removed from Santarem to Tories Novas. The deputation, the House should understand, travelled from Santarem to Lis- bon without their liberty having been even once called in question. They were also permitted to go on board the fleet, and, had there been room for them, they might have remained on board. There was not, however; they therefore returned back to Santarem, to communicate to their companions the answer which they had received from the Portuguese Government, and they then were allowed to proceed to their new destination, Torres Novas; and, bad as had been their sufferings before, here their real misery commenced. It was not until the arrival of the Ambassador of Donna Christina that the fortunes of the emigrants changed—that their hopes were dashed to pieces; for it was then for the first time that they heard of the intention to deliver them up to the tender mercies of a Government so liberal and humane that its most cherished General was the butcher of women and the desolator of towns and villages. In their next march from Torres Novas to Peniche numbers of them fell a sacrifice to the marauding bands of peasantry by whom they were attacked; and although they travelled under a military escort not a soldier of their guard fired a single shot in their defence. When they arrived at Peniche they were followed by two carts full of their wounded companions, and even at Peniche they did not fare better, for one of them, a Colonel, was heartlessly massacred in the hovel where he had been placed. Some of them were lodged in a convent that was in ruins, and there they were left not only without proper shelter, but without a sufficient supply of food. From this place the greater part of them were sent on board the hulk Don Pedro, and the remainder, about eighty in number, were transferred to the Castle of St. Julian. It was an extraordinary statement, but nevertheless a true one, that out of 680 men there was a diminution in the short period of three years and a half of 391, produced by disease, brought on by cruel and inhuman treatment. The account on which he made this statement, was dated the 19th of November, but of course he had no means of knowing how many had perished since. He thought, however, that the simple fact of such a diminution having taken place within so limited a period, was in itself enough to startle that House, and to require her Majesty's Government promptly and at once to interfere in their behalf.— He said, that, in consequence of the absence of the noble Lord, he would abridge his statement of facts, and he should do so; but he, at the same time, must entreat the House to bear in mind the melancholy situation of those unfortunate persons, and to permit him to refer to letters which had been received from some of the prisoners—men whose honour could not be doubted—in confirmation of the statement which he had made. The hon. Gentleman then read the following letters:—

"Tower of St. Julian's, Lisbon, Oct. 20,1837.

"SIR,—I received your esteemed favour of the 1st inst., and in reply thereto I beg to inform you that we have made repeated applications to the Government to cause the Convention of Evora Monte to be fulfilled, the violation of which is enormous and glaring, but of none of these applications has any notice been taken until lately, when some of the deputies, and more particularly Don Juan Victorino, sensible that justice was on our side, have spoken strongly in our favour; and yet all this has ended in nothing, nor is there a hope that anything will be done for us.

"By this post we send various applications to London, and we do not write to our friends, not to put them to the expense of postage, as we consider them short of funds; but, however wretched they may be, they cannot be in so miserable a condition as the unfortunate beings of this déspôt, who out of the scanty pittance of one hundred patacos (18s. 9d.)t allowed to each monthly for his support, are, at the end of the current month, in nine months' arrears; and even from this allowance they lately wished to deduct four per cent.; in such manner that we dread this pittance being altogether withdrawn.

"By the enclosed you will see what has been agitated in the Cortes here; but, after all, this is mere speechifying, and amounts to nothing; for so long as the infamous Perez de Castro, the Christino Ambassador, remains here, this weak Government will come to no determination; therefore, if, through your zeal and exertions, you do not succeed in liberating us poor captives, I firmly believe that our bones will be left to moulder in this prison."

The House would understand that the writers felt they were detained as prisoners contrary to the stipulations of a treaty, and, therefore, some allowance was to be made for the terms in which they expressed their sentiments with respect to those who had spoken against them in the debates of the Cortes. He trusted that it would not be necessary to have any more speechification on this subject, but that the facts which he had brought under the notice of that House would induce her Majesty's Government to adorn the commencement of her reign by an act which would not only reflect honour on the high and dignified station which she filled, but which would be in accordance with her own gentle and generous spirit, namely, the liberation of those unfortunate persons.

"Our misfortunes, in fact (the letter continued) daily become more intolerable. We are kept confined under ground, and at seven in the morning our windows are opened. We are then mustered, and the adjutant calls over our names. After this we are again shut up, and at twelve they open our place of confinement, in order that our miserable food may be brought in, and at one as many as twenty-five are allowed to ascend the ravelin above our prisons till four in the afternoon. We are then again mustered and the names called over, when we are shut up till the next day, unless the adjutant out of commiseration, allows our windows to be left open till sunset; but this seldom happens, so that while the sun is yet up we are excluded from daylight. In short, believe me, if any of us survive this wretchedness, they will remain blind and their health totally destroyed, &c.

(Signed) "Marquis DE LA ZERREZUELA,"

Viscount DE LA MOTILLA.

"To D. Ramon Salvador."

The next letter which he would read was from Miguel de Quintana, and, although he wished to read the whole of it, he would—out of consideration for the time of the House, and the important subject which was likely to come under their notice that night—content himself by giving extracts only. The hon. Gentleman then read as follows; —

"Tower of St. Julian's, Lisbon, Oct. 26, 1837.

"Sir,—I confirm the contents of mine of the 20th, inclosing the report of the diplomatic committee of the Portuguese Cortes, recommending our being delivered up to Spain at a fixed period, on condition of our being amnestied by the Spanish Government, or, at the expiration of that period, that passports should be delivered to us for foreign countries. You may easily imagine how much we have been alarmed at the first part of this proposal, fearing, as we do, that it is founded upon some intrigue of Perez de Castro, the Christino envoy here. Three years and a half have expired of our painful slavery in this kingdom, and scarcely has a day passed without us having solicited this Government to grant us passports, in compliance with the convention of Evora Monte. We have published three manifestoes—we have represented our case to the British Government, and several Lords in particular, but nothing have we obtained.

"Sometimes we have seen this Government inclined to give us our freedom, or at least to alleviate our unhappy fate, but invariably has the infamous Perez de Castro stepped forward with remonstrances from Madrid, and we have not only been left as we were, but even worse. This happened to us so long as the Cartistas remained in power, whose leaders Palmella and Villareal, were our bitterest enemies. The Constitutionalists came in with the aid of the revolution of September, 1836, and they began by treating us better. Sa da Bandeira, the Minister of Marine, officially wrote to Madrid to have us exchanged. Many letters passed upon the subject, but the result was always obstructed by the infamous Perez de Castro. Finally, in last July, they had come to an understanding, and a transport ship and two schooners were ready to convey us to St. Sebastian, when Saldanha's insurrection prevented the affair from being realised, and it has remained paralysed up to the present moment.

"To D. Ramon Salvador."

The letter which he would now read was from Madame Luno, who had been Maid of Honour to the wife of Don Carlos, and whose husband was one of the parties imprisoned at St. Julian. It was in these words:—

"Lisbon, Oct. 26, 1837.

"Having learnt at the Spanish depot that you have been commissioned to obtain the liberation of the poor sufferers so long dragging a miserable existence there, indeed, ever since the signing of the Evora Monte Convention, I do not hesitate to address you. My unfortunate husband is one of the sufferers, and, owing to the wretchedness which he has endured, he is now ill of a brain fever; and, although somewhat better, I have no hopes of his recovery so long as he remains in his present miserable condition. Under securities I have been able to get him out of the depot, and we are now in the house of a Portuguese lady, without whose benevolent aid we should have perished through want. Such is our miserable condition, after having lost everything.

"As I have remained in Lisbon, I have not ceased calling upon Ministers, Deputies, and Ambassadors, using every possible exertion to have their sufferings alleviated, by endeavouring to have the Convention observed, and passports delivered to them; but, unfortunately, all my efforts have been vain, and, at the solicitation of the Spanish Ambassador, Don Evaristo Perez de Castro, instead of alleviation, their condition is rendered worse, as they themselves inform you, &c.

(Signed) "MARIA DEL ROSARIO VALERA.

"To Don Ramon Salvador, London."

He thought that this was a case in which the strong arm of power ought to be used, and he did hope the British Government would advise the instant liberation of men who had committed no crime—who had not been guilty of violating any law. If they could be accused of high treason against any Government—if they had committed any crime, either as soldiers or civilians—why, let them be brought to a fair trial; and, if the charge were established against them then let their punishment be not only severe but speedy. But if on the other hand, their safety had been guaranteed by the British and Portuguese Governments—if they had suffered three years and a half's confinement for no positive crime, and contrary to a treaty which formed part of the title of the Queen of Portugal to the throne of that country—if they had endured all the miseries which he had described, then he said it was the duty of this country, unless her Majesty's Government wished to appear as weak as their Peninsular allies had proved themselves wicked, to take immediate steps for the liberation of those men. He knew it had been said that Don Carlos was in want of soldiers, and that these parties would be an acquisition to his cause. This was not the case. These prisoners were willing either to be exchanged or to go to any other country than Spain. They were ready to sacrifice their own rights, although they did not consider themselves as prisoners of war, but they were not willing to be delivered up to the tender mercies of a Government from whom their companions had suffered so deeply. He held in his hand an official return from the officer in command at Fort St. Julian as to the number of the prisoners confined there and on board the hulk. In the former the number was ninety-two and in the latter 230, besides nine ladies. The whole of the prisoners were kept in unjustifiable and cruel confinement, and it was stated that they were not allowed even a sufficiency of provisions. There was not, he believed, a case parallel to this to be found in the history of any country of which there was a record. The hon. Member then read the following letters from Commandant Roderiguez to Don Ramon Salvador:—

"Fortress of St. Julian, Lisbon, Nov. 5."

I have seen your letter, addressed to the Marquis de Zerezuela. &c. However much I might wish to say, my pen would be too feeble to describe the sufferings which this dépôt has experienced. Charged with its interior Government ever since the month of May 1835, in consequence of the Commandant, with other Officers, having been deported to the Azores Islands, I have not ceased to demand of the British Parliament, the British Sovereign, and his Ministers, the fulfilment of the Treaty of Evora. No other answer did I receive but silence, oppression and tyranny. I lost no opportunity of enabling the cries of these unhappy people to reach the hearing of his Majesty (Don Carlos), in order that he might, if he could amidst his vast cares, remedy their wretched fate. I know not whether I had the honour of any of my application had reaching his Royal hand.

"In the meanwhile that this plan is realizing, and in consequence of the flight above-mentioned, the officers, and even the women, are kept in continual confinement—myself ever since the said day of the 19th September, separate in solitary [incomunicado,] in one of the prisons of the tower. When will so much suffering have an end? Wherefore I repeat to you what I said in my previous letter. Unless with a strong hand at all hazards, and without delay, measures be taken for our liberation, assuredly the fatal delivery of us up to our enemies will be effected. But I confide in your zeal, energy, and solicitude to see so barbarous a measure obviated, &c.

"I suppose that you are aware that the privates belonging to the dépÔt are still kept in an old hulk,, confounded with criminals, and abandoned, it may be said, to their fate: but ever constant, and with serene mind, anxiously looking forward to the day of their sighed-for liberation, which I hope is not far distant; and till it arrives, I remain, &c."

"Lisbon,. Nov. 19.

"I cannot, while in the depot, lay protests before this Government. All I can do is to interest myself more and more with Deputies of the Cortes, in order that they may ward off the fatal day. Within the last few days one has been presented to the British Ambassador, and another is forwarded to him this day. Of these protests, our remonstrances, petitions, &c., a volume might be formed. The rough copies exist in my possession, and, together with the printed papers, they will ever afford authentic testimony that here nothing has been neglected for a single moment.

"It would, indeed, my friend, almost appear as if curses from all sides followed the dépôt. Within and without we are persecuted, for within elements are not wanting to embitter our days. Some persons will, sometime or other, experience the punishment deserved in the remorse of their own consciences, and this seems to be the only guarantee we now have. In the midst of all, our misfortunes continue, our oppression is prolonged, and our freedom delayed, for in the meanwhile that his Majesty Don Carlos is consulted, and his royal determination arrives, or before things are put in their proper train, months will elapse, and the Government of Christina will avail itself of this, and by main force, while that of Portugal, forgetting its dignity and obligations will make the delivery—the last calamity that can befal us. Do not believe that I say this to you from suspicion or surmise, I have data, and here they shall be published, in confirmation thereof, &c."

These letters were down to the 19th of last month, and they showed that, instead of being relaxed, the sufferings of those prisoners were rather increased, and that their numbers were almost daily diminishing, from the severity of the treatment they received. The object which he had in view in mentioning the few facts which composed this monstrous and unheard of case was, that the whole of the papers, with the answer of the Portuguese Government, should be laid on the table of that House, in order that it might be seen whether the sufferings of these persons, inflicted under a treaty by which protection was guaranteed to them by the British Government, was not only a violation of the law of nations but a direct insult to this country. Upon this point he had much to say, but he would abstain from going into it, in consequence of the absence of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign affairs. As soon, however, as the whole of the papers for which he meant to move were laid upon the table, he would reserve to himself, should it not be taken up by abler hands, the right of bringing the whole subject before that House; but he sincerely trusted that the noble Lord would, in the meantime, so interfere as to effect the liberation, or, if not, to cause an amelioration of the condition of the unfortunate persons on behalf of whom he appeared, not as a political advocate, but as the advocate of humanity. The hon. Gentleman, in conclusion, moved for a copy of the convention of Evora Monte; and also a copy of the letter enclosing the same addressed by Mr. Grant to the Infante Don Carlos; also, a copy of the letter addressed to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs by the Commandant of the dep6t of Spanish Emigrants detained in the hulks, and in the prison of Fort St. Julian, at Lisbon.

said, that as there was no objection to the production of the papers for which the hon. Gentleman moved, it was not his intention to offer any opposition to the motion. With regard to the discussion of the subject, it was quite clear that the House could not properly judge of its merits without the papers for which the hon. Gentleman called, and when they were laid on the table it would, of course, be competent to the hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Member opposite, to take any course he might think necessary. As to Don Carlos, all he would say was, that he was most fortunate in being allowed to leave Portugal, because had it not been for the British Government, had he remained in that country, he would, in all probability, have been taken and tried for high treason.

said, that Don Carlos was fully sensible, so were the prisoners, of the conduct of the British Government at that time. He held in his hand the correspondence connected with the treaty of Evora Monte, and he must say, that much credit was due to the British Government for the course they pursued on that occasion, and he only hoped they would now act in the same spirit, and not allow themselves to be influenced by the machinations of others elsewhere. The obligation of the British Government was the more binding on them because this treaty originated in their own diplomacy. The Duke de Terceira and the Conde de Saldanha, in the official statements which they made to their Government, said: —

"Lemos declared that he was not empowered to act for Don Carlos, when Mr. Grant, the Secretary of the British Legation, took upon himself to represent that Prince and his interests, and with him they stipulated for the articles contained in the treaty. These articles were as follow:—

"Don Miguel having capitulated, Mr. Grant, Secretary of her Britannic Majesty's Legation at Lisbon, addressed the Infante Don Carlos, under date of the 26th of May, 1834, in these words;—'General Lemos not having treated respecting the interests and security of your Royal Highness and the Princesses of your family, I took the liberty of submitting to the Marshals, commanding the Portuguese armies, this subject, in which I feel a lively interest; and I now enclose to your Royal Highness the articles stipulated with them, a copy of which I this day send to my Ambassador. I hope they will meet your Royal Highness's approbation, whose assent thereto, I flatter myself, I shall to-morrow receive, signed, in order that I may, conjointly with the said Marshals, occupy myself in their execution."

said, that was the second time he had been doomed to listen to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Borthwick) on so grave a subject as the affairs of Spain. It was not his intention to say anything on this occasion calculated to excite dis- cussion, but he could not at the same time help making one or two observations on what had fallen from the hon. Member. It was his intention, if the hon. Gentleman did not, to bring the whole subject under the notice of the House after the recess. There had been great alacrity on the part of the hon. Members opposite to go into the general subject during his absence from this country; and, in compliance with the expressed wish of many hon. Members on his side of the House, he was most anxious to bring it forward, not so much as regarded himself, but because he owed such a course to the officers and soldiers who had served under him, and against whom aspersions had been poured out both in that House and by the press, under the influence of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. The fitting opportunity had not yet arisen for entering upon such a statement, and, therefore, he now gave notice that it was his intention, immediately after the recess, to bring the whole subject under their consideration. The hon. Gentleman had complained of prisoners being confined in the hulks and ravelins of Fort St. Julian; but what, he should like to know, had that to do with the English Government? Such a charge might be made against the Government of Portugal; but then the House should recollect why they were confined—that they were confined as prisoners of war. The complaint was, therefore, a groundless one, and the only question was, whether a ravelin was not better as a prison than a hulk. It was, however, complained that the Portuguese Government had violated the convention of Evora Monte; but was it not clear that the fate of Don Carlos involved that of all those who followed him as a guard? Since that convention a war had broken out in Spain between Don Carlos and the Government of Spain; and was it not, therefore, right on the part of the Government of Portugal, to restrain those of Don Carlos's followers who were in arms, and to prevent them from being exchanged or liberated. They were, in fact, national prisoners, and consequently the disposal of them could not depend on the will of either the Portuguese or the British Governments. He would not at present go further into the details connected with the conduct of Don Carlos; but he must be allowed to say that any one would be led to suppose from the statements of the hon. Gentle- men opposite that they were in entire ignorance, or the facts were so mistified, that they could not understand them, for otherwise they would not commit themselves by coming forward so frequently as they had done as the advocates of Don Carlos. They must be altogether ignorant of the Durango decree, or the fifty British subjects who had been massacred under that decree, or they never would have taken such a course.

said, that, although he was most anxious to enter into the whole subject connected with the war in Spain, he could not understand what connexion that matter had with the subject now before the House. What the hon. Gentleman on his side of the House had done was to appeal to her Majesty's Government whether they were not bound by a particular treaty to use diplomatic interference with the Portuguese Government on behalf of those prisoners? He had not come down prepared to enter into a general discussion, but he was happy to know that the hon. and gallant Officer opposite intended to bring the subject conected with his own proceedings before the House at an early period after the recess. He could assure that hon. and gallant Officer that there was no wish on the part of his (the Conservative) side of the House to shrink from such a discussion—but he must be allowed to say that the hon. and gallant Officer had no just cause of complaint in consequence of any reference which had been made to him on any one occasion when the affairs of Spain were mentioned during his absence. The hon. and gallant Officer no doubt had duties to perform elsewhere; but if he had been in his place in that House he might have taken part in the discussions which occurred in vindication of himself. He, however, thought it hardly fair of the hon. and gallant Officer to complain that the matter had been unnecessarily pressed upon the attention of that House. The term for which the men serving in the Legion which the hon. and gallant Officer commanded had nearly expired, and, under such circumstances, was it at all wonderful that his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir H. Hardinge) had, felt it his duty to bring the whole subject forward as he had done? In the whole of that discussion no imputation had been cast upon the hon. and gallant Officer opposite, nor had any statement been made which rendered it necessary for him now to be at the trouble of vindicating his character. The disposition evinced by every hon. Member who took part in that debate was, to do justice to the spirit and gallantry which the hon. and gallant Officer had displayed, and no one was more prompt in doing this than his hon. and gallant Friend by whom the matter was brought forward.

said, he had nothing to complain of on the ground of courtesy with respect to the right hon. Gentleman, nor had anything been said by him which he could feel as unpalatable. He was glad, however, that the opportunity would be afforded to him to bring the general subject forward. With regard to what the hon. Member (Mr. Borthwick) had said about his being actuated by feelings of humanity, and not by political motives, all he could say was, that it was this observation which had caused him to rise. He said that, on the score of humanity, and without any reference whatever to policy, Don Carlos was the last description of prince who was entitled to either the sympathy or compassion of that House.

thought, that both of the parties who had spoken were at variance about the fact. It had been stated that nothing to the prejudice of his hon. and gallant Friend had been said in the course of the debates referred to; but did the right hon. Baronet not recollect that on the very day information of a slight defeat experienced by his hon. and gallant Friend was received, an opportunity was sought to bring the whole subject forward, and that aspersions and charges were then made not only against him but the whole corps which he commanded. With a full recollection of all that took place when the matter was brought forward, he could only say that he was glad his hon. and gallant Friend would have an early opportunity of going in detail into the whole subject, as the conduct pursued towards him was anything but fair.

said, that though he had taken no part in the debate in question, he must vindicate the right of every hon. Member in that House to express an independent opinion on every subject connected with British interests, and though at the time when this debate occurred the gallant Officer was absent, seeking renown in a foreign service, he would recal to his recollection that other officers, who were also Members of that House, had a duty to perform to the British service which they were bound to fulfil. For his own part he would never shrink from the discharge of his duty, and he should feel himself perfectly at liberty to speak of the conduct of the gallant Officer in a public sense, or of any other individual, whenever he felt it his duty to do so. If the hon. and gallant Officer was absent from his duty in Parliament upon that occasion, he felt quite sure that all who took a part in that discussion would have felt better pleased that the hon. and gallant Officer had been present. What he wished to assert was the right of a Member of that House to express his opinion upon any subject under discussion.

said, that the hon. Member had asserted the privileged right of a Member of that House to speak freely of the public conduct of any individual. As far as the general conduct of any individual, he did not mean to deny that right. But did the hon. Member mean to say that there was any instance of a similar course to that which had been pursued towards him and the troops under his command? If the hon. Member could point out any instance where a similar course had been pursued towards a British officer or the troops under his command as had been pursued in his case he would then consent to the applicability of the vague generality which the hon. Member had put forward.

said, that if an officer went into the service of a foreign Power, and that any discussion arose as to the propriety of his continuing to serve in that foreign service, or as to the continuance of the troops under his command, he considered that the Members of that House would have the fullest liberty to make any observations that their sense of public duty prompted. He considered that the right of a Member to discuss the public conduct of any individual in a public point of view in relation to any questions before the House could not be denied.

said, that on the occasion of the discussion respecting Spanish affairs he thought that the hon. and gallant Officer had been very severely dealt with.

would claim for himself and for every other hon. Member the right of questioning the public policy, and, in his mind, the very doubtful public policy, which had been pursued in respect to Spain; and he would claim the exercise of that right however closely it might be connected with the conduct of the hon. and gallant Officer. He had never spoken harshly of the conduct of that hon. and gallant Officer, nor did he suppose he ever should. But when a question came before the House as to the policy of continuing British subjects in the service of a foreign State, when persons who objected to that policy, and who might entertain strong objections to the course that had been altogether pursued, it was impossible, notwithstanding any delicacy that might be used, not to say something which might be disagreeable to the feelings of an individual engaged on such service. He could state that when his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir H. Hardinge) had brought forward his motion he had abstained from using many documents that bore upon the conduct of the hon. and gallant Officer, and he did so from a feeling that he was not present to defend himself. With respect to the question itself, it was the duty of his right hon. Friend at the time to have brought the motion forward. It was a motion to inquire whether or not the House would agree to an address to the Crown to discontinue the service of British subjects under a foreign Crown. The right hon. Gentleman, in conclusion, stated that he would claim the right to express his opinion in the fullest and freest manner upon any subject of public policy, and that he should do so at any risk of provoking any commentary that such a course might call forth.

said, that no person ever raised a question so entirely preposterous as to deny the right of any hon. Member to state his opinion freely upon any subject before the House. So far from that, it was not only their right but their duty fully and freely to discuss any matter in which the public interests were involved. No question had been at all raised on that point. All admitted the right—the question was as to the proper exercise of that right. No one doubted that it was perfectly open to any hon. Member to dispute the policy of the order in Council as to the continuance of the British Legion in the service of the Queen of Spain. He was also ready to admit the right to speak of the conduct of the Legion, and of any officer either in his public or individual capacity. He was not now further going to discuss that question; when the proper occasion came he should be quite ready to do so. That would be the proper time to discuss the question, and not upon a question on which they were all agreed. There was no difference of opinion as to the right and duty of Parliament to discuss with freedom all questions that came under its consideration.

said, that any irritability that had been evinced might arise from the fact that he had used one or two words which might have been misinterpreted. He had spoken of calumny and asperity; but he used those expressions in reference to the conduct of the public press, which had received countenance in that House, and he would take for granted that nothing had occurred which was in any way unparliamentary.

was present at the debate in question, and he could assure the hon. and gallant Officer opposite that his situation and personal gallantry were fully considered, and he did not think, on that occasion, that there had been any tendency to throw anything discreditable upon the character of the hon. and gallant Officer.

thought that, on the occasion referred to, expressions had been made use of calculated to produce soreness. If he recollected rightly, something like the term "hireling" had been made use of. With regard to the right of discussion which had been asserted, it was a right which no one denied; the only objection that could be was to the manner of the exercise of the right. During the absence of the hon. and gallant Officer great alacrity had been shown to bring forward questions affecting his conduct; but now that the gallant Officer was present the same alacrity did not exist, and he was forced to give notice of his intention to bring forward the subject himself.

said, that there were no grounds for the charges which the hon. Member had made. The same urgency did not exist now as had existed last year, and the hon. Member could therefore draw no analogy from the circumstances of last year. If notice had not then been given and the motion brought forward, the opportunity would have been lost, as the order in Council was just upon the point of expiring. But he must deny that they were to be precluded from discussing a question because an hon. Member did not happen to be present, and they were forced to bring forward the question of Spanish politics last year at a time when the hon. and gallant Officer was not in his place in Parliament. As he was on his legs he must beg to allude to an observation that had fallen 'from the hon. and gallant Officer. He seemed inclined to characterise as the supporters of Don Carlos all those at his side of the House who felt disposed to question the policy of the present Government respecting Spain, but before the gallant Officer did that he would ask him was he prepared to take upon his own shoulders every cruelty that had been committed at the other side? When the hon. and gallant Officer was prepared to do that he might then talk of the supporters of Don Carlos.

was present when the right hon. and gallant Officer (Sir H. Hardinge) brought forward his motion respecting Spain, and he was ready to say that both that gallant Officer and the seconder of the motion had treated the question in that manner which his hon. and gallant Friend had a right to expect. He regretted that many severe expressions had been made use of concerning the troops under the command of his hon. and gallant Friend. Those troops had been subjected to misfortune; but they had conducted themselves on all occasions with a gallantry that was creditable to them as British soldiers. With respect to the cruelties that had taken place, it would be hard to hold his hon. and gallant Friend accountable for them. He hoped whenever they came to the discussion of this subject they would enter upon it without asperity towards his hon. and gallant Friend, or the troops engaged under his orders.

was anxious to have abstained from anything connected with the hon. and gallant Officer, without giving him an opportunity of replying. With respect to what the hon. and gallant Officer had stated, he having had occasion to take part in the debate on Spain, as far as he recollected, no person called in question the bravery of the hon. and gallant Officer. He had merely called in question the policy that continued the hon. and gallant Officer in Spain, and when the proper occasion came he should be prepared to do so again. He trusted to be present when the hon. and gallant Officer would bring forward his motion, for it had now assumed a proper form. He did not now mean to discuss what had been said about Don Carlos. He had been stigmatised as a blood-thirsty tyrant, but that at least was a reason why they should not allow one whom they so stigmatised to outstrip them in the race of humanity. As the noble Lord had made his appearance he would state that, had he been earlier present, he would have had the honour of enlarging more at length upon the subject which he had brought forward. Now that the noble Lord was in his place he would state that all the facts of the case had for some time been in the possession of the noble Lord, as they had been laid before him in a letter from his hon. Friend, the late Member for Sandwich. To this statement the noble Lord had not given an answer. Having now done his duty, he would leave the case in the hands of the noble Lord, believing that, when the facts of the case were established, he would do his duty in the cause of humanity and liberty.

regretted he had been detained by business elsewhere. He would have been in the House earlier; but the notice of the hon. Member for Evesham was the 13th on the paper, and he did not anticipate it would have come on so soon. He regretted that his absence should have in any way shortened the speech of the hon. Member.

rose, in pursuance of his notice, to call the attention of the House to certain proceedings of the board of guardians of the Sunderland union. In a recent debate in that House on the manner in which the new poor-law had been administered in the Sunderland district, the hon. Member for North Durham stated, that in Sunderland 200 unhappy children had been left destitute, in consequence of parochial relief having been withdrawn from them. When the report of these observations reached Sunderland it excited the utmost indignation, and the board of guardians of the Sunderland Union immediately met, and agreed to the following resolutions: —

"At a special meeting of the board of guardians of the Sunderland union, holden at the commission-room in the Exchange, in Sunder- land, on Friday, the 1st day of December 1837, the attention of the board having been drawn to a speech reported (in The Morning Chronicle and other London newspapers) to have been delivered in the House of Commons by the honourable Henry Thomas Liddell, on Monday last, on the subject of the new poor law, wherein he is represented to have made statements to the effect that 'in Sunderland relief had been withdrawn from 200 unhappy children, who were thus left destitute; and that dark rumours were afterwards abroad about children being found dead; and that although no cases of child murder had been brought home to any parties, it had been more than suspected that many of them had been deserted by their mothers to starvation'—

"It was unanimously resolved, That the board do give the most unqualified contradiction to the above statement, which they have seen with feelings of surprise and indignation; and that Mr. Liddell should immediately be requested to give up the name of his informant, in order that this atrocious and unfounded imputation may be properly investigated.

"It was also resolved, That the clerks do immediately communicate the above resolution to Lord J. Russell (her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department), to the Poor-law Commissioners, to Sir John Walsham, bart., the assistant commissioner for this district, to the Members for this borough, to Mr. Hedworth Lambton, to Mr. Hume, and to Mr. Liddell; and that the same be advertised in The Sunderland Herald, The Newcastle Courant, The Durham Chronicle, and in The Morning Chronicle and Times London newspapers.

"It was also resolved, That the vice-chairman do sign the above resolutions on behalf of the board.

(Signed) "THOMAS REED, jun.,

Vice-Chairman, Sunderland Union."

For himself he could distinctly deny that since 1834, when the vestry of Sunderland came to a resolution not to afford relief to bastard children, a single child had been left in a state of destitution. He stated this on his own experience in the first instance, he himself being chairman of the board of guardians of the Sunderland union; and he also stated it on the authority of a letter which he had received on the subject from the vice-chairman of the union. With respect to that part of the speech of the hon. Member for North Durham respecting dark rumours of children being found dead, he could also give it an unqualified contradiction. In Sunderland, containing a population of 60,000 persons, there had been only one inquest on a case of infanticide during three years. In consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member for North Durham, he should feel himself called upon to move that there be laid before the House a copy of the correspondence between the board of guardians of the Sunderland union and the Poor-law Commissioners in London.

seconded the motion.

said, that, called upon as he had been by what had just fallen from the hon. Member, he must beg leave for a short time to request from the House that indulgence which he had never known them refuse to any one under such circumstances. He thanked the hon. Member for having brought forward this subject, and he had no fault to find with the manner in which the hon. Member had done it. Nor had he any difficulty in saying, that if the observations which he had really made had been such as had been attributed to him, the hon. Member would have had a perfect right to call upon him to make an explanation on the subject. The hon. Member had read to the House some resolutions which had recently been agreed to by the board of Guardians at Sunderland. Although he was far from complaining of any general inaccuracy on the part of the newspaper press, and waved all reference to privilege in this particular instance, yet he must observe that persons ought to be condemned on what they had actually said, and not on that which they were only reported to have said. The resolutions of the board of guardians at Sunderland alluded to his speech as reported in The Morning Chronicle and other London newspapers. As The Morning Chronicle, however, was specifically mentioned, he (Mr. Liddell) had thought it right to turn to its pages to see what sort of a report had been given of his speech in that paper. He was perfectly confident, that if his speech had been correctly and fairly given the misunderstanding which prevailed would not have occurred. The observations which he had made in that speech were not directed against any individuals whatever, least of all were they directed against the board of guardians of the Sunderland union. As to the circumstance to which he had alluded, it had occurred in 1834, which was before any commissioner came down to Sunderland, before any union was incorporated, and, therefore, before a board of guardians was in existence. This fact completely exo- nerated him from having thrown any imputation upon this ground on the board of guardians of the Sunderland union. But he would say that that board had shown a very impatient anxiety to set themselves right with the public; and to do so had passed the strong and exciting resolutions which had been read by the hon. Member for Sunderland, which resolutions they had advertised in the provincial and London papers, and had transmitted copies of them to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Poor-law Commissioners, and others. And all this they had done on the faith of a report of his speech, which, he was bound to say, was as incorrect as any report that had ever been given of any speech uttered in that House. However painful it was to him to trespass upon the time of the House, he felt himself called upon, in the presence of those who had heard the speech in question, and who, therefore, would have the power of criticising the observations he should make, to remind the House of what ha actually did say. In speaking of the Poor-law Amendment Act, and on its introduction into the northern counties, and in stating his opinions as to its applicability to that country, he had divided his observations under two heads—the principle and the practice; and while he objected to the principle of the law, he distinctly declared (and he was sure the noble Lord would do him the justice to confirm him in this statement) that no complaint had reached him with regard to the practice of it; but, on the contrary, that he was satisfied that under the direction of that able Commissioner, Sir John Walsham, the law had been administered in practice, in the most humane, discreet, and efficient manner. Now, if that statement of his had been fully and fairly reported, the board of guardians of the Sunderland union would not have taken the offence which they had taken. He had certainly read a letter, which showed from the returns on the subject that the workhouse system in some places had not been carried into practice with the discretion and humanity which might have accompanied it; and he had also said, as he could prove, that the workhouse principle was not necessary in the counties of the north of England, that he trusted Government would not carry that principle into a county in which it had occa- sioned much disgust. He had then gone on to speak of the bastardy clauses; and had said that in principle they were equally objectionable, and that he trusted he should live to see the day when those clauses would, if not repealed, be greatly modified. He had then said that great dissatisfaction had been felt in the north with respect to those clauses; and that in the borough of Sunderland alone two hundred infant children had been deprived of parochial relief; but he had said nothing of their being left in a state of destitution. Now it was not denied (and he held in his hand a certified copy of the vestry minutes to that effect) that on the 11th of December, 1834, the vestry of the parish of Sunderland had agreed to fourteen resolutions, one of which was, "that no relief should be granted to any bastard child after that week, and that that rule should be universal in its application." This rule being universal, applied to widows with one child, and in all other cases he (Mr. Liddell) certainly did not believe that the statement of nearly 200 children having been deprived of relief was at all an exaggerated one. At all events he could only give the statement as he had received it; and when he recollected that the population to which the resolution of the vestry applied amounted to between 50,000 and 60,000 persons, he must repeat that he did not think the estimate extravagant. He sincerely believed that when the returns in the report of the Committee of which he had the honour to be a Member, came to be laid before the House, it would not appear that there was any great discrepancy between the fact and his statement. He now came to what he had said on the occasion in question respecting dark rumours. Let it be remembered that he had alluded to them merely as rumours, not as facts. He certainly had heard such rumours; and certainly, if the severe enactment to which he had alluded had been followed by any acts of harshness on the part of the Sunderland magistrates, it was no wonder that such dark rumours should be spread. Having made these explanations (and he felt great pleasure in having an opportunity of making them) he was willing to undergo any infliction for having stated what he considered to be facts; and, to show whether they were so or not, he was quite ready to move that the necessary papers be submitted to the Committee to which he had already al- luded. He would now conclude by expressing his thanks to the House for the attention with which he had been listened to, and his hope that he should not again suffer from being misreported.

declared he must say that he thought the hon. Member for North Durham had been highly culpable in making the assertions which he had made a few days ago before he had inquired into the case. Before the hon. Gentleman had stated that 200 children had been deprived of relief, he ought to have applied to every quarter from which he might have expected to obtain accurate information. A statement so calculated to excite the feelings of every man who heard it ought not to have been made but upon the best authority. But the hon. Member had made it on the authority of a letter, and when asked the name of the writer of that letter, the hon. Member had not dared to give it.

observed that the hon. Member ought not to use the word "dare."

had the hon. Member for North Durham made the necessary inquiries? He ought, before he made such a statement as that in the House, to have written to the vice-chairman of the board of guardians of the Sunderland union on the subject. He would then have received the unanswerable statement that, notwithstanding the vestry minutes of 1834, no parochial relief had been refused in Sunderland in the cases alluded to. He would ask the House was it probable were the circumstances described by his hon. colleague true, that he should not have heard of it? He resided near Sunderland; he was in constant communication with all classes, high and low, rich and poor, in that town; and he had not heard a word about two hundred children having been left without parochial assistance. It was a remarkable fact with reference to the New Poor-law, that in the Sunderland district at the late general election, the candidates who declared themselves in favour of that law were in a decided majority. With regard to his statements respecting dark rumours the hon. Member had entirely backed out of them. Really some hon. Gentlemen appeared to be particularly sensitive. What had induced the hon. Gentleman to make this explanation seemed to be the resolutions which had been agreed to by the board of guardians. But he had refused to give up the authority on which he had made his original statement, and had refused to state in what provincial papers the statement had appeared. The hon. Member would do neither the one nor the other. He must therefore again say that the hon. Member was most decidedly culpable. He was glad the subject had been brought under discussion, for the inhabitants of Sunderland would now have the satisfaction of knowing that the House did not believe the statements of the hon. Member, and that those statements had only brought upon the hon. Member censure and ridicule.

, although he could not assent to what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just spoken, felt obliged to the hon. Member for Sunderland for giving the hon. Member for North Durham the opportunity of making an explanation. He begged to state that there was a union at South Shields, the population of which place was nearly equal to that of Sunderland, and that making all due allowance for the imperfections which must naturally accompany the commencement of a new system, that system had given great satisfaction, not only to the ratepayers, but to those who were the subjects of relief under it. It was with the board of guardians at South Shields a secondary consideration whether the rates were increased or diminished: their first consideration was to provide comforts for the destitute, and to maintain the independence of the labourer. It now appeared that the unfortunate declaration respecting the Sunderland union related to a circumstance which took place before the present system came into operation, and it afforded a fair specimen of what could be done under the old law.

wished to say a few words, being one of the Representatives for Sunderland. He was not in the House when the hon. Member for North Durham made the statement which had occasioned so much discussion. If he had been, knowing the state of things in the borough of Sunderland, he should have immediately believed that the hon. Member had been imposed upon. For although the Poor-law Bill had not been particularly well received in Sunderland, and although its principles were not particularly well liked in that place, it had been carried into practice with a kindness and forbear- ance towards the poor which he was convinced had not been exceeded in any part of the kingdom. He had never heard the slighest imputation on the conduct of the board of guardians of the Sunderland union. He could also state from his own observation that the resolution of the vestry in 1834 had never been carried into effect; and that he knew no place in which there were more kindness and consideration manifested towards the poor, or a greater disposition evinced to afford relief to the sick and the suffering. He was sure that the explanation of the hon. Member for North Durham would mitigate the pain and anxiety which had been created in Sunderland; and he had thought it right to state what he had stated in confirmation of what had fallen from his hon. colleague.

would not have risen but for the general eulogium which some hon. Members had passed upon the new Poor-law. As he represented a constituency in a part of the kingdom in which it was not so great a favourite, he felt it his duty to say so, nor did he think that he should act fairly by the House if he were not to do so. Those who had spoken in favour of the Bill as operating in some places, must allow him to enter his protest against its operation elsewhere. It had been said, that he had ridden into Parliament on the popularity which he had acquired by opposing the Poor-law Bill. He should be ashamed of himself if he had been influenced in his opposition to the Bill by any such motive. But he must fairly say that he did object to the principle of the Bill, if he understood it; and he was persuaded that the measure would be tolerated only in places in which the leniency of its execution would defeat its own principle. In the borough which he represented a large majority of the guardians of the poor had accepted the office for the express purpose of counteracting the provisions of the Act.

said, that, whatever might be the merits of the Poor-law Act, it was very unfortunate, with respect to a measure on which so much difference of opinion existed, that a misstatement should go forth calculated to excite, not merely disapprobation, but horror. He gave every credit to the ton. Member for North Durham for his intentions; but it was hardly fair, on that hon. Gentleman's part, to state rumours on no authority, or on authority which he was not disposed to give. He (Lord John Russell) hoped that what had taken place would make hon. Members cautious when placed in similar circumstances.

observed, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Liddell) had rather varied his statement as compared with that which he made the other evening. He begged to remind the hon. Gentleman of his former statement. It appeared that the Gentlemen who in that House, as well as elsewhere, took upon themselves to denounce the Poor-law Bill, and to attribute circumstances to its operation which would reflect disgrace not only upon the framers of that Bill, but upon society generally, were unwilling, now that the opportunity was afforded to them of testing a fact, to enter into any inquiry or to hear any explanation upon the subject. He should not then have risen if he had not received a letter from the chairman of the board to which allusion had been made, assuring him that no such facts had taken place as those alleged by the hon. Member (Mr. Liddell). As to the misrepresentation of which the hon. Member complained, he (Mr. Hume) would briefly state what occurred. On the morning after the discussion took place, the hon. Gentleman called upon him (Mr. Hume) with a newspaper in his hand, and asked him whether he (Mr. Hume) thought that that which was reported of them both was correct. He (Mr. Hume), having looked at the report, stated that which he should then repeat, that as far as he could recollect the report appeared to him to be correct. The words were these:—"In Sunderland alone, immediately after the Act coming into operation, parochial relief was suddenly withdrawn from no less than 200 unhappy children, and dark rumours went abroad of the mysterious disappearance of many of these innocents." These were the words reported; and, as far as he could recollect, they were the words used. At all events they were words so strong as to give rise to an immediate expression of feeling from all parts of the House. He immediately rose and called upon the hon. Gentleman before he left the House to give the Government such information on the subject as might enable them to take the necessary steps to ascertain the accuracy of the rumours in question, and to prevent such occurrences for the future, if true. But when he (Mr. Hume) sat down the hon. Gentleman repeated his statement, and observed that "with regard to the fact of two hundred children having been deprived of parochial relief in Sunderland, he happened fortunately to be fortified in his statement by the written statement of a Gentleman, who, he believed, was better aware of the state of affairs in Sunderland than any one else." If that were so, then he (Mr. Hume) called upon the hon. Member, in justice to those who had supported the measure, and in justice to the guardians of the union whose conduct he arraigned, to name the gentleman from whom he derived his information. That was a duty from which no hon. Member of the House could shrink. He confessed he was surprised to hear any hon. Member call the explanation which had been offered by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Liddell) that evening a candid explanation. He called upon the hon. Gentleman to give up the authority upon whose written statement he founded his charge. Unless the hon. Gentleman did so every man in the House must draw his own conclusions as to the accuracy of the statement. If the hon. Gentleman were in possession of a written document upon the subject, he was bound to produce it. In spite of the cries of "Name!" which prevailed in every part of the House when the hon. Gentleman intimated that he had an authority for what he was stating, he went on to observe "that rumours had been afloat as to the finding of infant children deserted by their mothers, and found dead, or in a state of starvation. These rumours, he begged to repeat, certainly did prevail, and they were mentioned in the papers at the time, though he was not aware that any cases had been brought to proof." The hon. Gentleman had certainly most completely failed to adduce any proof in support of the disgraceful rumours to which he alluded; and he must observe that he had never heard any one of these charges against the Poor-law Bill which, when traced to its source, did not turn out to be a pure and unmixed fabrication. The hon. Gentleman stood now in the position of the author of an alleged calumny; and as a Member of the Committee up stairs he must beg of him, if there were any real foundation for the charge, to lose no time in declaring it. The hon. Gentleman's own character and own honour required that he should do so. At present the hon. Gentleman's explanation was anything but satisfactory. The cause of truth and of justice required that the hon. Gentleman should either declare that he had been misinformed, or bring forward such facts as should satisfy the House that his statement was well founded.

declared, that the hon. Member for Kilkenny had begun, continued, and ended his speech in misrepresentation. When the hon. Gentleman said that he (Mr. Liddell) had called upon the Government not to extend the act to that part of the country with which he was connected, the hon. Gentleman said that which had no foundation. He only asked the Government not to press the application of that most obnoxious part of the bill which established the workhouse system. As to the authority upon which he (Mr. Liddell) had made his statement, he had only again to repeat that he would not give it up. Rather than give up his authority he would share in any responsibility to which the statement might give rise. As the best proof he could offer of the accuracy of his statement, he should feel it to be his duty to move that there be laid before the Committee the vestry books containing an account of the number of children receiving parochial relief in the borough of Sunderland in the month of February, 1834; and the number to whom relief was extended three months afterwards.

rose to mention a case which came within his own knowledge. A poor woman of decent and highly respectable character, under circumstances that excited universal commiseration and sympathy in the whole board of guardians, applied for some small allowance towards the support of her bastard child. Every one of the guardians felt that the poor woman was a proper object of relief; but, under the rules and regulations laid down by the commissioners, they felt that they were compelled to refuse any assistance except upon the condition of her entering the workhouse with her child. The poor woman, in his presence, indignantly refused to comply with the terms offered to her, and exclaimed that she would rather starve first. This feeling, he believed, was very general, and it therefore appeared to him to be high time that some distinct understanding should be come to as to whether the board of guardians were to be permitted to exercise the sound discretion which, he was glad to find, they had done at Sunderland, or whether they were to be compelled to administer the law in the harsh and cruel manner which, he was sorry to say, he, with others, were obliged to do in the instance to which he had referred.

, in rising to move that certain names be added to the Education Committee, regretted that he was obliged to trouble the House with any observations. The real object that he had in view was to secure from the appointment of the Committee a fair representation of the feelings and opinions which prevailed upon the subject on the different sides of the House. Thinking that there had been an attempt made by the Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House to overwhelm the opinions which were supposed to be entertained on the side of the House to which he was attached, he felt it to be his duty to bring this particular case under the consideration of the House; and he did so, not merely in reference to the importance of having the different parties in that House fairly represented in Committees, but in reference to the importance of the object of the Committee itself; for it must be obvious that if an impression were to get abroad that the Committee appointed to discuss so important a matter were not fairly and impartially constituted, whatever the determination of that Committee might ultimately be it would carry no weight with the country, and moreover would excite against the Committee a great deal of hostility. The Education Committee, as it at present stood, was composed of ten Members of the Ministerial side of the House and five only of that side of the House. The direct object that he had in view was to add those Gentlemen to the Committee who he was sure would be regarded as wholly unexceptionable in point of character and acquirement, and who, moreover, had a peculiar claim to be placed upon a Committee of this description. He had taken the trouble to refer to the several Committees appointed by the other side of the House: they were ten in number, and he found that the gross number of Members of which those ten Committees were composed were divided in the following proportions—one hundred and eleven Gentlemen representing the opinions of those who sat on the Ministerial side of the House, and only forty-eight the opinions of those who sat on the Opposition side. It would, he thought, be admitted on every hand that such a disproportion could not be regarded a a fair representation of the feelings and opinions of a House of Commons where parties were so nearly balanced. Two Committees only had been appointed by the side of the House upon which he (Mr. Goulburn) sat; but in each of those Committees a fairer and more equal proportion was observed. Taking the gross number of the two, he found that there were fourteen Members chosen from the ministerial side of the House, and fifteen from the Opposition, making a very manifest distinction between the manner in which Committees were appointed on the two different sides of the House. When Mr. Roebuck moved for a Committee upon the education of the lower orders, he took a more equal course than had been pursued in the present instance. All that he (Mr. Goulburn) requested the House to do was to adopt the same proportion as that observed by Mr. Roebuck. With this view he begged to move "To enlarge the number of the Committee appointed to consider of the education of the poorer classes in great towns in England and Wales, by the addition of the names of Mr. Pusey, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Acland."

, in replying to the motion, thought it would not be necessary for him to enter into any discussion of the general question of the appointment of Select Committees, because it must be notorious to every body that the Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman's motion related could not have been appointed with any reference to the opinions of either side of the House, or to the manner in which parties were separated. The object that his hon. Friend had in the appointment of the Committee was to select, as far as possible, Gentlemen who were not in any way connected with party or influenced by party views—gentlemen who were the most likely to give the best attention to the subject. He thought that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was objectionable on two grounds. In the first place, it appeared to him that as the House had laid down a rule that the Members of Committees should be limited to fifteen, it would be very undesirable, except on some very extraordinary grounds, to deviate from that rule. There was also this further objection: he had already stated that this Committee had nothing to do with the party politics and party views of the two sides into which the House was ranged. Therefore the deduction which the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to draw from the disproportion of Members representing the opinions of the two sides was really, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman must himself admit, not applicable to this case. If hon. Gentlemen were anxious to serve upon this Committee, he should greatly prefer, instead of increasing the number of the Committee, that some of those who were already upon it should give way for the new comers. But if that were not agreed to, and even if it were, when they came to the selection of names he should venture to observe that he did not think the names mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman would be the most proper that could be introduced upon a Committee of this description. No possible objection could be taken to them upon any other ground; but it certainly did not appear to him that Gentlemen who were chiefly connected with the landed interest, were the most proper persons to place upon a Committee appointed to consider of the means of extending education to large towns. If it were necessary to alter the proportion of Members upon the Committee, he (Mr. Thomson) should be perfectly ready to retire —he was quite willing to offer his name as a sacrifice; but he protested against the increase of the numbers of the Committee. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw his motion, or at all events wait a day or two until it was seen whether some arrangement could not be come to.

was decidedly of opinion that this Education Committee was very badly constructed, and the discussion which had arisen upon the present motion clearly showed that the system upon which Select Committees were appointed required to be changed. When the object of the Committee was a fair one he did not see what possible objection there could be to a short delay of one day to scrutinize the names of the Members of whom it was proposed that the Committee should be composed. He knew it would be said that this would give rise to discussion; but if the proposed appointment were a fair and equal one what dread need any one have of the result of a discussion? In the present instance it certainly appeared to him that the selection of Members was not a fair one, and it too frequently happened that those who succeeded in obtaining a Committee upon a pet subject appointed only those Members to set upon it whom they knew to be tolerably favourable to their views. It was said that the great object of the present Committee was to extend education to the large towns, yet it was singular that not one Member connected with the county of Middlesex or with any of the metropolitan districts was attached to it. A Committee of this kind ought, in his opinion, to be compounded only of county Members and the Members of large towns. Under all the circumstances, seeing that the matter was one of very great importance, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would do well to withdraw his present motion, with the view of bringing the subject forward in a more formal manner after the recess.

said, that the discussion which had just taken place strongly confirmed the impression under which he spoke the other evening with respect to the policy of requiring that those who appointed Committees should give some short notice of the names they proposed to place upon them. Under the existing system they had fallen into a sort of habit of considering the appointment of Select Committees as a sort of patronage to be exercised by the gentleman by whom a Committee had been obtained. It was said that if notice of the names were given it might serve to provoke discussion, which would be inconvenient and objectionable. He thought quite the reverse. What was it that gave rise to the present discussion? The disproportion that existed in the Committee as to the representation of the feelings and opinions of the two sides of the House. This would be avoided if proper notice were given, so that the House might become aware of the manner in which it was proposed to construct Committees. If the Committee proposed were not a fair one, there could be no harm in the discussion; if it were perfectly fair, in all possibility there would be no discussion. With respect to this particular motion, it was said that the subject to which it referred was not a party question. He totally dissented from the truth of that assertion. It certainly was not a question upon which any party struggle was likely to take place; but the House would be miserably mistaken indeed if it supposed that the country did not take a deep interest in many questions that were not considered nor treated within the walls of Parliament as party questions. Party questions often turned upon mere straws. They were of importance to them in that House; but they were regarded as of but little or no importance to the country at large. Many of the most important questions—questions affecting the welfare of the country generally, and in which the country generally took the deepest interest—were not party questions. Upon all such questions it was of the utmost importance that the feelings and opinions of the Members of the Legislature should be fairly represented. Education was not a party question; but yet if a Committee were appointed in which the opinions of the two sides of the House upon the subject of education were not fairly represented, no report that the Committee could make would be satisfactory to the country. It appeared to him that the House ought at all times to require from a Member who obtained a Select Committee some short notice of the names of the Members he proposed to place upon it. He became the more impressed with this idea when he remembered how nearly parties were balanced in that House, and yet perceived the vast disproportion that existed in all the Committees appointed by the hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side.

hoped, that the right hon. Baronet would not allow this matter to rest, but would come forward with some distinct proposition upon it. He (Mr. O'Brien) had no doubt that the great majority of the house would agree with the right hon. Gentleman that some distinct notice ought to be given of the names proposed to be placed upon the Committee.

said, that with respect to the observation of the President of the Board of Trade that the Committee was to consist of the magical number of fifteen, he begged to say that Committees originally consisted of twenty-one; it was quite clear, therefore, that the House had the option of altering its own rules. At present there was a certain prestige attached to the reports of the Committees of the House, because it was supposed that they expressed the opinion of the whole of the Committees, whereas possibly they only expressed the opinion of a bare majority, which in the present instance would consist only of eight.

understood that the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. Member for Lambeth had agreed to withdraw their names, if the House would allow it; he therefore, saw no difficulty in the House agreeing to his motion.

thought, it proper to state that the rule of the House was, that on any Gentleman proposing the names of fifteen persons to constitute a Committee, he must previously obtain the consent of those individuals to stand on that Committee.

was not one of those who agreed with the hon. Member that a candidate for a seat in Parliament ought to be absolved from all expense whatever, nor was he of opinion that any Member ought to be paid for coming to that House. He should not object to the bill being brought in, but he should certainly oppose any clause that went to make liberal treatment of the voters illegal. He wished to ask the hon. Member when he intended to move the second reading of the bill.

was anxious to have the Bill printed, in order that Gentlemen might be acquainted with its provisions, and he should propose that on the third Wednesday in Feburary it should be read a second time. The clause against treating had been expunged from the Bill, in consequence of a similar clause having been inserted in the Bill introduced last session by the hon. Member for Bradford.

hoped the House would look steadily at what might be the consequence of that part of the Bill by which it was proposed to relieve candidates from the charge of erecting booths, and of transferring that charge upon the crown or upon the country. At first sight such a proposition did not appear to be an unequitable one; but it behoved the House to look well to what might be the probable consequence of it, while they were consulting economy. The consequence might be, that the constituency might not have the means of getting to the poll within the period now limited by the law. Supposing the leading authorities by whom those booths were to be erected should be in the interest of one of the candidates? Such might be the case; they ought, therefore, to consider well the possibility of abuse under the proposed change. While on the other hand, if the candidate, from an apprehension of intimidation or of disturbance, were to be at liberty to erect a booth where he pleased, provided he did so at his own expense, that would be a very great check against those evils. He thought, therefore, that the law as it now stood under the Reform Bill was a very good law. It afforded an excellent precaution against intimidation by giving an option to the candidate to erect a booth any where he pleased at his own expense. He trusted the House would give attention to the possible consequences that might arise under the proposed alteration.

said, that the Bill of last year was not confined solely to the financial affairs of the county, but interfered with the judicial powers of the magistrates. The county was to be divided into districts, in each district there was to be a paid committee, and a person very much resembling the mayor of a corpora- tion was also introduced. That Bill was rejected by a great majority of Gentlemen on both sides of the House. The hon. Member rejected the suggestion of last year that members of the boards of guardians should be elected to assist the magistrates in the appropriation of the county-rates. If, however, any interference were necessary, he thought that, perhaps, the least objectionable arrangement would be, that the board of guardians should depute some of its members to assist the magistrates in the distribution of the rates. But it was his opinion that so great a change as the one proposed in the expenditure of the county-rates ought not to be introduced by any one hon. Member, but that her Majesty's Ministers ought to take up the subject. They ought to take upon themselves the responsibility of proposing to the House what they might think desirable to be adopted, and if they did so, they would of course take care and confine their measure strictly to the financial concerns of the county, and prevent the possibility of the present judicial arrangements being interfered with. He certainly objected to the introduction of the Bill, at the same time he should not do anything so uncourteous as to divide the House against it.

did not intend to oppose the introduction of the Bill; at the same time he was very sorry to hear from the hon. Member that not only the object of the Bill, but a great number of its details, were nearly similar to the Bill of last year. He certainly was in hopes that the hon. Gentleman would have somewhat modified his views, in consequence of the opposition which his former Bill met with. He did not object to the principle of the present Bill, so far as proposing to give to the rate-payers some control over the expenditure of the very large sum of money that came under the head of county-rates. If they looked, on the one hand, to the immense increase of the rates since 1790 and on the other hand, at the decrease that had taken place within the last four or five years in the amount of the poor-rates, he thought it was very natural that a wish should be expressed that that part of the expenditure of the county should be subject to the greater control of those who had to bear the burden than was now obtained. But he owned that the hon. Gentleman did not judge wisely, whatever might be the pro- priety or goodness of the principle of the Bill in introducing so many provisions in a measure conferring this control, and which seemed to him might be given by very simple means. If, therefore, he found that the opinion of the House was the same as last year with respect to the hon. Gentleman's Bill, he should be disposed to ask leave to introduce a Bill having the same object in view, but proposing to obtain that object by the most simple possible means. He would not say, at present, that there ought to be n election of persons from the board of guardians; at the same time it was a machinery that was ready to be applied, and which certainly offered considerable advantages. At all events he should propose to limit himself to this—that a certain number of members of the board of guardians should be elected, in order to meet and consult with the Finance Committee of magistrates on the subject of the expenditure of the county, and he should propose to give them only the same power, and exactly the same power, which was now exercised by the magistrates with regard to the finances of the county. From the outline of the Bill of the last Session it seemed necessary that many offices of different kinds should be created which would necessarily have led to an increase of county-rates. He thought that any Bill on this subject should be of the simplest kind; that it should give to the rate-payer some power in matters of finance, but that it should extend to them no other part of the authority now vested in the magistracy. The question as to their judicial power was an entirely different subject, and ought to be kept separate from that question. If leave were given to the hon. Member for Kilkenny to bring in this Bill, he would state to the House the course which he would pursue. If the Government thought that the object of the Bill ought to be carried into effect, it would be the duty of Ministers to endeavour to attain the object by introducing a Bill. As to the hon. Member's Bill of the last Session, he did not attend the second reading, partly owing to the fatigues of the heavy debate which had lasted during the two previous nights, and partly because, after giving every consideration to the subject, he did not clearly see any means of carrying out the clauses of the Bill, even if it had been read a second time; and he thought it scarcely adapted to the end which the hon. Member had in view. He would sit down, assuring the hon. Gentleman that he had done good service to the House and to the country, by bringing forward that subject. He was sorry, however, that he could not agree in the present Bill so far as to adopt its provisions, but if the hon. Member did not consent to adopt a different machinery, he should feel it incumbent upon him to introduce a much simpler measure.

was sure that it would be as satisfactory to the country as it was to himself to find that the noble Lord agreed in the principles of this Bill, for there was not one principle to which he had not given his sanction. The great principle of the Bill was to give the rate-payers a voice in the election of the persons who were to disburse the rates, and to allow some control over the power of expenditure. The hon. Member for Lincoln was in error if by his denial he meant to intimate that this Bill interfered with the judicial power of the magistracy. All it did was to vest the financial power in the hands of aboard. The noble Lord had said that the provisions of this Bill would lead to great expense, and if the noble Lord could suggest any more simple machinery, he (Mr. Aglionby) would be exceedingly glad: he feared, however, that the noble Lord would experience great difficulty in so doing. If the present Bill were brought in, the noble Lord would not be precluded from bringing in a better Bill. He strongly supported the object of the present Bill, and though he might think that some of the details could be amended, he was convinced that some measure was necessary to cure the great evils and the most gross expenditure which had formerly taken place. He alluded to the period when the quarter sessions met with closed doors, and when no power was given to the rate-payers to know the application of the money, and when, therefore, there was no control. This system had been altered, however, in many counties through the good sense and wise conduct of the magistracy, who had thrown open the doors, and had thus been the means of effecting great saving in different counties.

was glad that the Government intended to take up this question, because he feared that the Bill as it stood last year, instead of decreasing, would have had the effect of increasing' the county-rates. His opinion was, that the ratepayers ought to have a control over the expenditure, and he further thought that in the board of guardians they had a machinery ready made to hand for their purpose. The board might select some member of its body to mix with the magistrates, and assist in regulating the financial affairs of the county. He believed that such a proposal would give satisfaction to the country, and that they could give all the necessary power to the rate-payers without harassing the country with another class of elections; and on the whole he thought that the subject was better in the hands of the Government than of any individual Member of the House.

rose and said, that it was with deep anxiety that he made his present motion, He hoped, however, that hon. Members of that House were disposed to give a favourable consideration to the gracious recommendation which had been made by the Crown. It would be in the recollection of the House that during the last Session, soon after the demise of the Crown, a question had been asked of the Government by an hon. Friend of his, who was no longer a Member of that House, but who was, at that time, the Representative of Bristol, whether it was the intention of the Government to propose any additional provision for her royal highness the Duchess of Kent? It was in reply stated that Ministers had no intention to make any proposal at that moment. But it was now considered the proper and fitting time for its introduction, and the present period was advisedly chosen; because, as the question of the civil list was still under discussion, it might be considered, that though the present proposal was not necessarily connected with the civil list, and though the dignity of the Crown was less immediately connected with it, yet that it ought to be adverted to in Parliament before the Civil list Act was passed. He hoped that the proposal which he was about to make, would meet with the approbation, not only of the Commons' House of Parliament, but also of the great bulk of the people. He did hope, that the kind feeling which was expressed in her Majesty's most gracious Message, and the consideration which her Majesty felt for her royal highness the Duchess of Kent, would" not only extend itself over the country, but that it would be confirmed and strengthened by its union with another sentiment which would influence the House, a feeling not only of respect and of attachment to her royal highness on her own account, for her personal character, but a deep sense of obligation which the House and the country owed to that illustrious Princess for the manner in which she had educated the reigning Queen of England, for the protection which she had cast over her childhood in the trying circumstances in which she was placed, for the sedulous care which she had taken of the education of her Majesty. These feelings of gratitude would not but be increased from the consciousness which pervaded all classes, that the country was now in the enjoyment of the success attending this excellent training. In order fairly to state the case of the Duchess of Kent, he would allude to the provision which had already been made for her royal highness, to the position in which she had heretofore stood, and in which she then was placed, and then he would in conclusion explain the proposition which he had to make in conformity with the gracious wish expressed in her Majesty's Message, and to what he believed to be no less the sincere wish of the House. Her royal highness's marriage took place in 1818, and it would be recollected by the House that, previously to that date, serious discussions had taken place relative to the royal marriages, and to the provisions which were to be made for the royal family. The House would, also, particularly recollect the discussions relative to the marriage of his royal highness the Duke of Kent. When the Message, announcing this event, was received, all parts of that House, Members of both sides, the Government of the day, at the head of which was the Earl of Liverpool, uniting with the hon. Members who formed the Opposition of that day, entertained but one feeling, and expressed but one opinion relative to the character of the Duke of Kent, and of the sense in which the House appreciated the character of that illustrious Prince. No sooner was the royal Message, announcing the marriage, received, than it was at once answered by an Address from that House. On that occasion, a jointure of 6,000l. a-year was voted to her royal highness the Duchess of Kent, and some circumstances were stated in connexion with her royal highness and of the marriage, to which he would wish particularly to draw the attention of the House. On the 15th May, 1818, Lord Castlereagh, who was then Secretary for Foreign Affairs, thus expressed himself:—

"He was persuaded that the marriage itself must be felt by the Committee to be, in every point of view, highly satisfactory, and that if any consideration were wanting to recommend it, that consideration would be found in the fact that the connexion was not new to the country: but that the illustrious female, with whom his royal highness was about to ally himself, belonged to a family of whose virtuous and amiable qualities the country had already experienced the most convincing proof. He must say, in justice to this illustrious lady— and it was a feature of her conduct highly creditable to her, and which, he was sure, would recommend her to the respect of the Committee—that although, when the treaty of marriage was in progress, she felt it her duty not to relinquish the personal guardianship of her children by her former marriage, she did not extend that disposition to the pecuniary advantages of her widowhood, but that her marriage would deprive her of an income of 3,000l. a-year on that score, and of other smaller pecuniary advantages arising from her guardianship, amounting in the whole to about 5,000la-year. Until his royal highness was thirty-two years of age, he had only 5,000l. a-year allowed him by his royal father, and his emoluments of about 5,000l. a-year from his situation of commander-in-chief of the British possessions in North America." ^*

At that time, an outfit was proposed for the Duke, but it appeared from the debates, that his royal highness declined being the cause of any burthen to the country in that respect. The jointure of 6,000l. was then voted to her royal highness. In the year 1820, her royal high, ness and the country were deprived of the Duke, who in that year died, and at that period her royal highness had no other income than a jointure of 6,000l.; even for some months after the decease of the Duke, in consequence of some defect in the words of the Act ruling a settlement of this income, her royal highness could not receive this scanty provision, and thus she would have been left without one farthing, having given up her own income, but for some private assistance which she obtained. Under the will of the Duke, her royal highness was entitled to much personal property which was bequeathed to her—personal property on the continent, as well as that which belonged

^* Hansard, vol. xxxviii, p. 730–731.

to the Duke in this country. He might state to the House, and he felt little hesitation in doing so, for it was already well known, that his royal highness died in embarrassed circumstances. What, then, was the conduct of the Duchess? She abandoned the claim which she might have sustained under the will, and which was available, and she gave the whole up to the liquidation of the debts of her deceased husband. In taking this course, undoubtedly the best reward which she could receive was the approbation of her own conscience; and he should not have alluded to the fact, but that he felt it to be his duty to communicate it to the House as a part of the case which he had to present to their notice. Her royal highness continued from 1820 to 1825 filling the rank which was conferred upon her by her marriage, and in the receipt of the income only of 6,000l. derived from the public. He need only appeal to hon. Members who would be able to form a judgment from their own expenses how very inadequate was this sum for the purpose of maintaining the station which her royal highness held, and of supporting her family establishment. Although he must declare his opinion, that an act of generosity on the part of a royal personage to whom he was about to refer, was highly to his credit, yet he was also compelled to state, not much to the credit of England or of Parliament: during many successive years her royal highness was only enabled to support the position which she held by a contribution which she received from his Majesty the present King of the Belgians. He stated this, not merely to the honour and praise of the royal individual to whom he had referred, but also in explanation of the facts; for he conceived that it was a fact most material in the consideration of the case. The fact was mentioned to the House in the year 1825 by a noble Friend of his, Lord Ripon, and it was then stated that the amount of contribution thus made to her royal highness by her brother was 3,000l. per annum. He was of opinion, that the public had better at that period have looked generously into the circumstances of her royal highness than to have allowed her royal highness thus to have been assisted. He had already informed the House, that the property to which her royal highness would have been entitled under the Duke of Kent's will had been given up by her for the benefit of the creditors. Thus, therefore, she was left on the death of her husband without furniture, without outfit, and without any further credit than what her name and position enabled her to obtain. In the year 1825, the matter was again brought before Parliament, and then an additional sum was granted; and from that time to the year 1831, the annual sum which her royal highness received was 12,000l. He now desired to refer to some of the statements which had been made on the subject, not because he wished to support the case by fresh evidence—that, he thought, was unnecessary —but merely with a view historically to point out the true bearings of the case. In 1825, Lord Goderich stated that, soon after the death of the Duke of Kent, Lord Londonderry was asked, whether it was the intention of Government to propose an additional grant to the Duchess of Kent. His answer was, that he did not think it necessary at that moment, inasmuch as Prince Leopold had expressed his intention of contributing to the maintenance of her royal highness and her child. Mr. Canning, on the 27th of May in the same year, said: —

"In the case of the Duchess of Kent, the parties agreed in the propriety of the grant, and if Government had anything to answer for, it was for not having proposed it sooner. There could not be a greater compliment to her royal highness than to state the great unobtrusiveness of her life, and that she had never made herself the object of the public gaze, but had devoted herself to the education of that child whom the country were now called on to adopt."

In 1831, when Lord Grey was at the head of the Administration, a formal proposition on the subject of the income of the Duchess of Kent was brought before Parliament. Up to this time the contribution from Prince Leopold had continued, and the assistance was still from time to time afforded the Duchess, but Lord Grey's Government proposed to this House the grant of an additional 10,000l. to her royal highness, by which her total income would then be 22,000l.; and this having been voted, that sum was now annually received by the Duchess. Even with respect to these grants a singular degree of frugality and economy had been shown by the House of Commons. The whole of the sums voted, namely, the jointure of 6,000l., and the subsequent sums of 16,000l., by which her royal highness's income was raised to its present amount, were all voted absolutely to the Duchess of Kent; the object of the later votes, however, being stated to be the education and support of her present Majesty; these annuities were for the life of the Duchess, with one exception, which was an annuity of 6,000l. for the life of her Majesty; in the event that her Majesty should survive the Duchess, in law this annuity of 6,000l. would still exist, and would descend to the executors of the Duchess according to the course pursued with regard to annuities in ordinary cases. This, however, was a position in which he thought the House would not wish that this Parliamentary grant should continue to stand. The grants were made to the Duchess of Kent; and it never could be supposed to have been the intention of the House, that the annuities should survive her royal highness, and therefore in the Bill which he now proposed to introduce be made a provision by which this anomaly would be corrected. He had endeavoured to state the peculiar position of the Duchess of Kent, and he should next wish to call the attention of the House to the situation in which her Royal Highness was placed in relation to the Throne. He believed that this was the first instance since the reign of Henry the 7th, in which there had been a princess placed in the exact position of the Duchess of Kent, for in all other instances the personage similarly situated had either held the rank of Princess Dowager of Wales, or of Queen Dowager. He referred to this circumstance because the House would see that if the Duchess of Kent had been placed in either of these situations, provision would necessarily have been made for her support to a much larger extent than he was inclined to recommend. There had been various recent cases in which such provisions had been made for Queens consort and Princesses of Wales; he found that in 1761 the jointure of Queen Charlotte was fixed at 60,000l.; in 1795, the allowance to Caroline, then Princess of Wales, was fixed at 50,000l.; while in 1831 that of the present Queen Dowager was fixed at 100,000l. He adverted to this for the purpose of showing that if it had not been for the peculiarity of the situation of the Duchess of Kent, a peculiarity which had not existed since the reign of Henry the 7th, she would already have had an abundant provision made for her—a provision, he repeated, much larger than that which the Government now intended to propose. In further considering the question, he would again remind the House of the fact, that the Duchess had received fifty per cent upon her public income from the Prince Leopold and in alluding to this, the House must be quite aware of the circumstances attending the sum granted to that Prince for his support. Subsequently, however, on his assuming a position different to that in which he had before been placed, and on his becoming a foreign prince, feeling no doubt that there was an inconsistency in continuing as a Sovereign to draw a parliamentary annuity from this country; with that nice sense of honour by which his Majesty was distinguished the King of Belgium at once voluntarily gave up the whole of the income which he received, subject only to the payment of certain small charges, thus abandoning an income of 35,000l. freely granted to him by this country, and which was his property as much as any income by the law of the land could be made the property of any individual. By this generous renunciation of his rights the King of the Belgians, had already effected a saving of 180,000l. to the nation; and he could say that a nicer discrimination could not have been evinced than that which was exercised by that Prince —for while he reserved to himself the right of apportioning a certain sum to be distributed in this country in charitable uses—he gave up the whole of the surplus of his income to the nation from which he derived it. He had stated these facts of the case rather because he thought it was his duty not to exclude them, than because he imagined there would be any disinclination or reluctance on the part of the House to murk by a support of his resolution the high sense which every hon. Member must feel of the admirable qualities and conduct of the Duchess of Kent. The best proof of the existence and the universality of that feeling was the trust which at the accession of his late Majesty had been reposed in her Royal Highness. He alluded to the passing of an act of Parliament, drawn up with more than common care and attention, and attracting more than ordinary notice, recommended from the other House, introduced by one Government, adopted by another, and agreed to by both, and by the Legislature and the country, by which all showed their sense of the character of the Duchess of Kent, and their implicit reliance upon her conduct. Parliament marked the respect they felt for her royal highness, founded on past services, by voting unanimously that she should be Regent, in the event that her present Majesty should succeed to the Throne before she should have attained her majority. The words of the preamble of the Act imported the high respect entertained for her Royal Highness; that preamble declared that the enactments which it contained were adopted in order to secure to the people that civil and religious liberty which had been enjoyed by them during the reigns of his then present and his late Majesty. A greater tribute than this could not have been paid to her Royal Highness's character, and it sufficiently proved the high esteem in which she was held, and the confidence which was had in her in the event of her being called upon to act in the administration of the affairs of the country, It was, therefore, as a tribute of respect to her Royal Highness, and he was confident with the fullest concurrence of the country, that he made a proposition to the House, and that proposition was, that a vote of an additional 8,000l. a-year should be passed for her Royal Highness, this vote being accompanied by an alteration of the law by which the reversionary annuity now payable for the life of the Queen should be converted for an annuity for the life of the Duchess. There was no one, he was sure, who had looked into the question who would not think that the proposition was one which deserved the approbation of the House. The Message from the Throne stated that the increased proximity to the Throne of her Royal Highness was one reason for an additional allowance being made. He knew it would create many an additional claim on the bounty of her Royal Highness. He did not think that it would be urged as a reason against the increased allowance, although it had been suggested out of the House that her Royal Highness might possibly reside with the Sovereign; he was convinced that it would have occurred to every Gentleman that the residence of her Royal Highness with her Majesty ought to be a matter of free choice and affection on her part, and that it ought not to be looked upon in the light of a matter of economy, or a subject of necessity to one or the other. It would be dangerous in every sense, whether considered with regard to the public, the private feelings of the illustrious parties, if so pitiful a consideration should be entertained. He had now endeavoured to state the grounds on which the proposition was made, and the reason for which it was delayed until now. Independently of the question of amount of money, he thought there existed only one feeling on the part of the House, and that was a desire to have an opportunity of testifying the deep sense of gratitude which they entertained for the mode in which her Royal Highness had conducted the education of her present Majesty. In this House, where every hon. Gentleman looked forward and with expectation and delight to the prospect which was presented to them by the character of her present Majesty, was there one amongst them who did not know that the formation of that character had been the care of her august mother, to whom the charge of her education had been given; and he was sure that hon. Members would mark by their votes the sense in which they estimated her Royal Highness's conduct in this particular. He could show by reference to the cases of the Duke of Clarence and others, that the income now proposed was infinitely less than that which had been voted on former occasions; and he might be allowed to state that, in fact, the utmost increase of charge to the public would be 2,000l. a-year. That sum would be more than covered by the cessation of the annuity of 6,000l. enjoyed by Prince George of Hanover, which expired in June last. But he was sure the House would not contemplate the question in that way; they would feel that this was an occasion on which they had to acknowledge that great services had been rendered to the country, and they would be anxious to pay this tribute of their gratitude for those services. He believed that it would be a source of gratification to them to avail themselves of this the earliest opportunity of replying to the gracious message received from the Throne. He must apologise for the length of his statement, as well as its inadequacy. He had entered into explanations that perhaps were not required; he had suggested difficulties that might not be raised, and met arguments that probably would not be urged, but he thought it better to anticipate and dispose of every possible objection at once, than to leave anything to be answered hereafter. He concluded by moving that her Majesty be enabled to grant an additional yearly sum, not exceeding 8,000l., out of the consolidated fund, for a more adequate provision for her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent.

assured the House that no individual felt more grateful than he did for the vast and important services rendered to the country by her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, and no one in that House desired more sincerely than he did to see her in the full enjoyment of the high gratification which she must derive from witnessing the result of her exemplary conduct towards the illustrious object of her care and devotion. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman in allusion to this portion of the subject had in no respect exaggerated the truth. But while he cordially participated in these feelings, he could not but express his regret that a precedent for the present grants had been quoted which the country considered to be of an extravagant character. It was no doubt in some respects gratifying to make exceedingly liberal provisions; but in all such cases it was the duty of the House to look also to the interests of the people, and to take into consideration in what manner these provisions were to be paid. The grant of 100,000l. per annum to the Queen Dowager had been alluded to; though, however, that sum was paid, hundreds of thousands regretted it. He must confess that when the right hon. Gentleman gave notice of his motion he was not prepared for a proposition of the nature of the present; he had no idea that the right hon. Gentleman would propose that they should grant to her Royal Highness any sum beyond that which she now enjoyed. It was because he entertained the greatest respect for her Royal Highness, it was because he earnestly wished that she should continue to enjoy the popularity which she had so honourably earned, that he was unwilling that one farthing of money should be given to her which might injure her in the estimation of the country. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that in making a provision for her Royal Highness they ought to grant liberally; but he would ask was not the provision of 22,000l. per annum already enjoyed by her Royal Highness a liberal provision? He did not think that her "increased proximity," to the Crown warranted the grant. If they could put a price on gratitude, it was not possible for any individual to be disposed to vote a larger sum on that account than he would; but he felt opposed to the present vote because he feared that it would place her Royal Highness in a situation to derive injury rather than benefit from it. Of the allowance of 22,000l. per annum, it should be re- membered about three-fourths must be saved by the diminution of expense occasioned by her Royal Highness's altered position since her Majesty's accession. The 8,000l. was a paltry sum to contemplate, us an increase. But he objected to the principle. He would now say no more than again express his deep regret that more consideration had not been given to the subject before her Majesty's Ministers came forward with a proposition which certainly did not appear to him to be consistent with the principles of justice.

was happy to find that the hon. Gentleman did not oppose the motion. The hon. Gentleman had stated his doubts of its propriety, but a little more moral courage would have enabled him to answer them. He had net suggested any specific objections, but had merely expressed his fear that the grant might alienate the affections of the people from her Royal Highness. In reply to the hon. Gentleman, he would ask, was it not for the House to take its own line, irrespective of any possible objection that might arise out of misconception? As the hon. Gentleman had only expressed his doubts as to the propriety of the vote, he trusted that it would pass unanimously. He believed that it would be seconded by the country. The people would feel from what they had witnessed of the past expenditure of her royal Highness, that in making an addition to her income they would only be affording her the means of contributing still further to the encouragement of every good object. He believed that the income of no one individual in the country had contributed so largely as had that of her Royal Highness to charitable and benevolent purposes.

, as one of the "guardians of the public purse," considered it his duty to say a few words on this question. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have acted more consistently if he had submitted his proposition to a fuller House: it would have been more satisfactory to the country had this vote been taken when there was a greater number of Members present. He would be one of the last to refuse such a sum as 8,000l. per annum if it were necessary to the dignity or comfort of her Royal Highness, but looking at her Royal Highness's present income, and considering the charges from which it would hereafter be relieved, he could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was such a professed friend of economy, would have done better had he postponed the consideration of the grant till a future period, or had he brought it forward earlier.

thought, that the debt to her Royal Highness was one that was not to be discharged by money; but he felt that they were bound to provide her Royal Highness with the income that was necessary to enable her to continue that generosity and benevolence which had marked her past career. The income now proposed was, in his opinion, not more than adequate to those high purposes. It seemed to him that out of this subject an important question arose that he desired to put to the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Did he know that her Royal Highness, in the education of the illustrious Princess—in her administration of her small income for state purposes—had not incurred some debts? If she had, he would say, that they ought to be paid. They were all aware that she had lived in profound retirement till the age of the Princess made it necessary to introduce her to the British public. He knew nothing of her but what he had observed of her public conduct, but he felt that not one pound had been spent on that illustrious Princess—that not one pound of obligation had been incurred on her account—but must be approved. If, then, her Royal Highness had incurred any debts, he was willing to vote a grant to set her free in the course she was now to run. That, he thought, was the only way in which the House could evince its gratitude.

hoped the House would allow him to say a few words, this being his first essay before them. It appeared to him that some of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down were of rather an extraordinary character for one who ventured to present himself to the House in the character of a friend of her Royal Highness. [Sir F. Trench: No.] Well, then, he would change the word "friend," and substitute for it that of "well wisher." He would ask the House whether it was consistent with the character of a well-wisher of her Royal Highness for any one to come before them and introduce the subject of debts supposed to have been contracted by her Royal Highness, without having heard a word to that effect either from the right hon. Gentleman in his statement or from any other quarter? When such matters were mooted by one who professed to be a well-wisher of her Royal Highness, she might very forcibly exclaim, "Save me from my friends!"

thought, it would have been more satisfactory to the House, and more respectful also, if, when her Majesty's Government stated the arrangements they proposed with regard to the civil list, they had conveyed to the House some intimation of the increased provision which they now recommended for her Royal Highness. This fact could not be concealed, that many hon. Members, who had left London under an impression that no such proposition was likely to be made, had they been aware of it, would have been anxious to be present, for the purpose, he believed, of expressing their general concurrence in the arrangement. He should give his assent to the proposition which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman. On all occasions when 'the Duchess of Kent's conduct had been brought under the consideration of Parliament, he had expressed in the strongest terms his sense of the gratitude due to her Royal Highness for her superintendence of the education of the illustrious Princess, who was the natural object of her care. She had devoted herself in the most exemplary manner in which a mother could to that important national charge. When retirement was best suited to the age of the Princess, she consented most cheerfully to the most rigid seclusion. When the Princess had arrived to a more advanced age, and it became of importance to introduce her to the society of the leading men of all parties, and likewise to acquaint her in some degree with the manners of the world, there were no bounds to her liberal, but necessarily moderate, hospitalities. He could conceive that in indulging in that hospitality she might have exceeded the limits which Parliament had prescribed for her expenses. He, however, made no inquiry on that subject. The provision appeared to him to be a liberal one, and he could not concur with his hon. Friend behind him (Sir F. Trench) in seeking to get the House to increase the allowance which had been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He must say, that he could not reconcile it to his feelings to express an opinion in concurrence with that of his hon. Friend. He took it for granted that her Majesty's Government, before they came to this House with this proposition, had made due inquiry, and he was certain that it would not be becoming to enter into very minute details on such a subject. In forming an opinion he considered himself bound to compare this provision with similar provisions that had been made for others; and in so doing he must say, that he found nothing in the amount of the proposal that startled him on account of its extravagance. Presuming that the grant was determined on after due inquiry had been instituted by her Majesty's Ministers, he gave his cheerful acquiescence to the motion. If he entertained any doubt as to its propriety, his respect for the private character of her Royal Highness, his sense of her public services during the whole course of her education of her royal daughter, would induce him to suppress that doubt, and unite in the hearty concurrence which he hoped would make this vote an almost unanimous one.

said, there was so little appearance of unwillingness on the part of the House to concur in this vote that he thought it unnecessary to resort to any arguments in its support. As to the time at which the motion was brought forward, it was the opinion of her Majesty's Government that while, on the one hand, this was a matter which did not properly form part of the civil list, the civil list comprehending only the arrangement required for her Majesty, on the other hand it would not have been proper to delay it till after the Christmas recess. He did not think that the state of the House was such as to render it improper at this time to bring forward this subject. It was not a question upon which it was likely there would be any opposition of parties; and it appeared to him that there was a sufficient number of Members present to consider the proposition. He did not think that they could have chosen a more proper time in order to bring forward the subject than the present. He could certainly say that the education given by her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent to her present Majesty was such as to entitle her to the gratitude of the people of this country; because while on the one hand she carefully provided that the Princess should not be confined to the society of any one political party, she did at the same time afford her an opportunity of meeting the most distinguished persons of every division of opinion. He felt, therefore, that the motion proposed was one which ought to be received without any mark of dissatisfaction whatever. He was sure, from the communication they had had on the subject of this vote, that it was the wish of her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent that the proposition made to Parliament should be received with satisfaction. As this was the wish of her Royal Highness, he trusted it would also be the feeling of the House, because it was only by its being granted with willingness and cheerfulness that the grant could be satisfactory to her Royal Highness; and he was quite sure that her Royal Highness would not be gratified with any proposition which tended in the slightest degree to produce dissatisfaction.

said, that the noble Lord seemed to have misunderstood him. He did not object to the time at which this grant was brought forward, but he did object that it should be brought forward without the slightest intimation that it was intended to propose such a grant. When the proposition was made with respect to the civil list, seeing how intimately connected this provision was with the settlement of the civil list, he thought that the increased allowance to her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent might have formed—though not a part—a consideration connected with it. This message had been brought down on Monday, and they were called upon to pass the vote on Tuesday. He thought it would have been doing justice to the vote, and not in the slightest degree prejudicing it, if rather more time had been given to its consideration.

said, he had not the honour of the intimacy, and scarcely of the acquaintance, of her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, and he had merely given his opinion as a Member of Parliament. He thought that the debt of gratitude to that illustrious lady could not be repaid, but still they were bound to do everything in their power to show their gratitude; and he rather regretted, if a further sum were necessary, that Ministers had not had the courage to come to the House to ask for twenty—ay, fifty, or a hundred—thousand pounds more.

rose under feelings of extreme regret to state to the House the reasons why he could not approve of the present grant. No one could be more willing to pay respect to the merits of her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, and no one entertained a more lively sense of the gratitude which the country owed to the illustrious lady for the manner in which she had discharged her high duties; but he felt that this was a debt which could not be paid in pounds, shillings, and pence. The question appeared to him to be this, was the situation of the Duchess of Kent so altered by the accession of her daughter to the throne as to call for an additional vote from Parliament? The phrase in the message was her "increased proximity to the throne." Now, it should be recollected that of the sum of 22,000l. granted to her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, a considerable portion was specifically granted to defray the expenses of the education of the Princess. These expenses no longer existed. The income of the Duchess of Kent now exceeded that of any of the princes of the blood royal. The Duke of Sussex had a smaller income, and her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester had an income only of 15,000l. He could not see in what respect the situation of the Duchess of Kent differed from that of any of the other Members of the royal family, or why she should be called upon for a larger expenditure. He certainly felt many objections upon principle to the present grant, but, under the circumstances, he would not offer any opposition.

did not rise to offer any opposition, but merely to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this fact. If this resolution for the grant of 8,000l. were embodied in a separate Bill, the right hon. Gentleman would find himself embarrassed by the previous Acts of Parliament sanctioning former grants; but if he took a resolution for the whole income of 30,000l. which was intended to be granted, and embodied them altogether in one Act of Parliament, all the difficulty would be avoided.

said, that all that was wanted in this preliminary resolution was to have the sum voted.