was sorry that he did not see the Secretary for the Home Department in his place; but though he was not present he could not have any hesitation in moving "That a return of the present valuation, as far as can be ascertained, of all the property, in lands, manors, forests, liberties, or of any nature whatsoever, which originally belonged to the several monasteries, abbeys, chapelries, or other religious houses, which, under various pretexts, and for other purposes than those for which they were established and endowed, have been from time to time alienated from the service of the Church; also a return of the names of the individuals to whom, and the periods at which, such were granted, and by whom they are now severally enjoyed." He thought it was high time that some Member should rise and defend the Church Establishment. He trusted the noble Lord would not shrink from any inquiry into these matters. Edmund Burke had said of that noble Lord's ancestor, the Duke of Bedford, that the grants to the house of Russell from the Church lands were not only outrageous to the Church, but absolutely staggered credibility. He had taken great pains to ascertain the exact amount of property which had been alienated from the Church—in fact, of which the Church had been robbed. In making calculations he had to rely chiefly upon historical records, and he believed that such alienated property would be found to amount to no less a sum than 938,308,000l. Where was the hon. Member for Kilkenny? Why did not that hon. Member take up this subject? He was sorry that he did not see the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud, or the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in their places, but he hoped that no opposition would be given to this motion by the hon. and learned Gentleman, her Majesty's Attorney-General.

said, that the only reply which he could give the hon. and gallant Officer was, that it would be impossible to furnish the returns which he had moved for. The hon. and gallant Officer had not suggested to whom the orders for these returns were to be directed. They would go to every landed proprietor in England or Wales, and it would be necessary to search titles for a period of three or four hundred years back to see whether or not their estates ever belonged to the Church, and, having done this, to ascertain when they were granted from the Church, and to whom. On a moderate calculation at least fifty thousand orders should be issued by the House, and at least one million of titles examined. He supposed that the motion of the hon. and gallant Officer was intended merely as a piece of pleasantry, and to amuse the House. He should not have thought it necessary to say anything in replying to the motion of the hon. and gallant Officer if it had not been suggested to him by his noble Friend (Lord Morpeth) that he ought to explain to the House what its nature really was. He begged that the hon. and gallant Officer, seeing the utter impossibility of furnishing these returns, would consent to withdraw the motion.

could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that if the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed that he came there to waste the time of the House, or to amuse it, he was totally mistaken. He trusted that none of those alluded to by the hon. and learned Attorney-General, had had their title-deeds in the late fire in the Temple. He treated the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman with the most sovereign contempt—and he was surprised that they should have fallen from one holding such a situation.

rose, in pursuance of his notice, to bring under the notice of the House certain circumstances which had created such a sensation among the Protestant inhabitants of the city of Derry as rendered the interference of Parliament necessary. On Sunday, the 14th of January, 1838, at the hour of three o'clock in the afternoon, the funeral of a Roman Catholic lady took place in the churchyard of the cathedral of Derry. She was a Roman Catholic, and notice was previously sent to the sexton of the cathedral that her friends intended to bury her there, and that two Roman Catholic priests would attend the funeral in their robes. This was communicated to the Dean of Derry, and he immediately sent word to the parties that he would not allow a Popish funeral to be celebrated in the churchyard of the Protestant cathedral of Derry. Notwithstanding this peremptory refusal on the part of the Dean, the funeral took place, and two Roman Catholic priests, the Rev. Mr. Monaghan and the Rev. Mr. Dempsey, came to it in their robes. When the nearest relation of Mrs. Cathcart heard that the funeral was to take place in this manner, contrary to the wishes of the Dean of Derry and the rest of the Protestant inhabitants of that town, he said, that if such an attempt were made, he for one would not attend the funeral. He held in his hand a copy of the informations, which were sworn the next day before the mayor of Derry by the sexton of the cathedral and another individual, who made affidavit that the funeral then took place in the churchyard, against the wishes of the Protestant clergy and of the officers of the cathedral; that the Roman Catholic priests attended in their robes; that all the ceremonies usually observed at Roman Catholic funerals took place; that they consecrated the clay, said certain prayers in Latin, celebrated the mass, and went through all the Catholic rites for the burial of the dead. The Dean of Derry wrote, on the 16th of January, to Mr. Drummond, giving him an account of all this transaction, and calling upon the Irish Government, through him, to punish the gross infringement of the law, and the daring breach of the statute, which had taken place on the 14th. On the 27th of the same month, an answer was sent by Mr. Drummond to the Dean, stating, that he had consulted the law officers of the Crown, meaning thereby the Attorney and Solicitor-General, and that he had received from them an opinion declaring, that the parties against whom the Dean complained, had not been guilty of any breach of the Act of 10 George the 4th, cap. 27, sec. 6. That opinion he afterwards discovered, was founded upon the assumption that the Dean of Derry had granted permission for this Popish funeral to take place. Now, was not that a most extraordinary assumption, after the Dean had written to Mr. Drummond complaining that, in the churchyard of his cathedral, an infraction of the law had taken place? It was an Irish assumption to say the best of it, but came with very bad grace from the Irish Attorney-General, seeing that that learned officer was himself a Roman Catholic. The Dean of Derry, on receiving that letter, instantly, and in the most decided manner, wrote to Mr. Drummond, contradicting the assumption that he had given any, the slightest countenance to the performance of a Catholic ceremony in a Protestant churchyard; and after a lapse of three weeks, he received another letter from Mr. Drummond, communicating to him that the law officers of the Crown- considered, that the transaction of which he had complained was a breach of the statute, and that the two Roman Catholic priests who had attended the funeral in their robes had made themselves each liable to a penalty of 50l. At the time when all this took place the Bishop of Derry was absent from his diocese, and resident in Dublin, and he (Sir R. Bateson) had the authority of that right rev. Prelate to state, that no leave had been given by him or by any clerical officer under his control, to celebrate that Popish ceremony in a Protestant churchyard. That right rev. Prelate went to Mr. Drummond in person. Whether the complaint which he had then made was of more weight than the complaints of the Dean and the other Protestant inhabitants of Derry, he could not tell; but certain he was, that, six weeks afterwards, the law officers of the Crown said, that the proceedings Of these Roman Catholic priests constituted a distinct breach of that statute. It was not the wish either of the Dean of Derry or of the Protestant inhabitants of that city, who had taken up this cause, to inflict any severe punishment on these who were guilty of that outrage, provided they were sure that they would not be guilty of a repetition of it. Whether what was stated in the papers was true or not, he did not know; but it had been asserted, that Dr. M'Loughlin had Written to Mr. Drummond, stating, that his clergy had not been guilty of that outrage. Dr. M'Loughlin, the titular Bishop of Derry; Who was respected by all who knew him, Was in a state of decrepitude from ill-health. He had no power over his clergy, but was completely in the hands of his coadjutor and namesake, Dr. M'Loughlin. But Dr. M'Loughlin, the coadjutor, had been guilty of that outrage, because he had not exercised the power which he had over his clergy in preventing it. If a similar offence should be repeated, he was certain that it would lead to riot and tumult, if not to blood- shed, in the city of Derry. There was no city in Ireland in which the Protestants felt such reverence for the bones of their ancestors, as the citizens of Derry did; and it appeared to them to be a gross insult to the memory of their brave ancestors to have these Popish ceremonies celebrated even in the presence of their remains. There was no occasion, he would add, for so gratuitous an insult: for the Roman Catholics of Derry had their own burying-ground and their own chapel, and until the last few years had lived on the very best terms with their Protestant fellow-citizens. The Protestants, however, felt that the transaction which he had just described, was an outrage upon their religion, and they called upon the Government to make the Roman Catholics feel the enormity of it, and to have such proceedings checked for the future. But was this all that the Protestants of Derry had to complain of? No. On the anniversary of the shutting of the gates of Derry, they had to complain that a Captain Robinson had entered their city at the head of an armed force, contrary to the chartered rights of the city, and had prevented the apprentices from shutting the gates. For such an outrage they had obtained no redress. All this made the Protestants of Derry feel that they had not had justice dealt out to them by the Members of her Majesty's Government. Would it be credited, that the apprentice boys of Derry had been brought up to the bar of a court of criminal justice for celebrating the successful defence of that city by their ancestors, and of that Protestant constitution which was now the recognised constitution of England? Yes, for no greater an offence than that they had been tried, convicted, and imprisoned. Their sentence was not commuted—their punishment was not mitigated. He thought that if they were brought to the bar of criminal justice, so also ought the Roman Catholic clergymen who had appeared in their robes in a Protestant churchyard to celebrate a Popish funeral. He could not conceive any justification for such conduct as that of which they had been guilty. His constituents felt sore on this subject, and demanded an explanation from the Government. In order to give the Government an opportunity of Making that explanation, he should now move for copies of the correspondence that took place between the Irish Government and the law officers of the Crown with the Dean of Derry, and with the rev. Messrs. Monaghan and Dempsey, Roman Catholic priests, in Derry; and also with Dr. M'Loughlin, titular bishop, and with Dr. M'Loughlin, coadjutor to the same, in Derry, relative to a breach of the law committed by certain persons in the churchyard of the cathedral of Derry on Sunday, the 14th of January, 1838."

said, that with one exception, he had no objection to the production of the documents for which the hon. Member had moved. It was not usual to produce the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, and he therefore trusted that the hon. Member would omit from his motion the words, "law officers of the Crown." With that omission, he had no objection to the motion. With respect to the case itself he had no hesitation in saying, that the proceeding in question was a most improper, a most unauthorised, a most indelicate, and, he must add, a most illegal proceeding. When it first came under the consideration of his hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General for Ireland, as it did not appear that the performance of these funeral rites, had been celebrated without the permission of the clerical officers authorised to give it, it was assumed that that permission had been given. The delay which had taken place in answering the representations made to the Irish Government was owing to his absence from Dublin, and to the despatches having followed him from Ireland to this country. When it appeared to him that the intrusion of these Roman Catholic clergymen into the consecrated ground of the cathedral of Derry, was without the permission of the dean, the law officers of the Crown immediately declared their opinion as to the illegality of their proceedings. He did not understand the Dean of Derry to have expressed any wish that any prosecution should be instituted against them. What he called upon the Government to do was, to prevent the inhabitants of Derry from being annoyed by a repetition of it. The Irish Government thought that this would be best done, by pointing out the indelicate and illegal nature of the proceeding, and by warning the parties that it should not be repeated without exposing them to severe and summary punishment. Accordingly, a letter had been sent to Dr. M'Loughlin, informing him of the enactments of the law, and warning him and his clergy against any repetition of the offence. The Irish Government had received a communication from Dr. M'Loughlin that no such proceeding should occur again within his ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The right hon. Baronet had said, that the titular bishop was not authorised to make any such declaration as he had done. He (Lord Morpeth) was not sufficiently acquainted with the ecclesiastical discipline of the Romish Church in Ireland, to know whether that was the fact or not. The Irish Government thought that the Roman Catholic bishop had a right to communicate with it, and the Dean of Derry had called at the castle and had expressed himself satisfied with what the Government had done. With respect to the invasion of the chartered rights of Derry, by a stipendiary magistrate, he had only to say, that it had been made in consequence of the representations of the Protestant inhabitants that they feared some outbreak on the part of the apprentice boys. The Irish Government had, in consequence, sent a small detachment of the police to Derry to preserve the peace, but with no other motive whatsoever.

said, that it was quite ludicrous to call a proceeding like this, an outrage upon Protestant feelings. What were the facts? An old woman had died. She was buried in the open churchyard. Two Roman Catholic priests went to her grave in their robes. They said the prayers of the Church over her corpse. There was no riot, no tumult in their proceedings, and yet, because their prayers were uttered in Latin, the whole course of their proceedings was styled an outrage. Was not this making a mountain of a mole hill? The hon. Baronet had told the House, that at three o'clock in the afternoon mass was said over the corpse of this old woman. Now, it was a pity that the hon. Baronet should be so little acquainted with the religious principles and practices of the neighbours amongst whom he lived, as not to know that mass could not be celebrated at that hour. Either the hon. Baronet had read his affidavits wrongly, or his affidavits stated what did not, and what could not, take place. But it had been said that this was a trespass on the parson's freehold. But this poor woman on the payment of her fees, had a right, if she pleased, to be buried in that free- hold; and it had not been said yet that she had ever refused to pay them. By the statute of easement of burial a penalty of 50l. was imposed on any Roman Catholic priest who said prayers in the churchyard without the permission of the incumbent. Instead of seeking to recover this penalty himself, however, the Dean of Derry wrote a letter to the Castle, demanding a prosecution by the Government. Was this judicious conduct? Ought not that clergyman to have recollected the principles on which it had been announced that the government of Ireland was in future to be carried on? The Dean of Derry, however, actuated by a better feeling, had afterwards abandoned the complaint; and he could wish that the hon. Baronet had followed his example. Even in their graves, the Roman Catholics of Ireland were not free from religious animosity. Would the bones of the Protestants of Derry lie worse, because those of old Mrs. Cathcart lay among them. It would have been a much more sensible course in the Dean of Derry, if, instead of writing to the Irish Government, he had remonstrated with the Roman Catholic clergymen, and threatened to prosecute if the trespass were repeated.

remarked, that an occurrence like the present, of a kind quite unprecedented was very likely to produce angry feelings between the Catholics and Protestants, and the Dean of Derry had only done his duty in acquainting the Government with the particulars of the transaction. The Protestant apprentices of Derry had been prosecuted with great promptitude by Government on a late occasion, for closing the gates of the town, in infringement of the Procession Act, and punished for the offence. Instead of acting with fairness on the occasion referred to by the hon. Baronet, Government had avoided all cognizance of the facts, and all enforcement of the law to the utmost extent in their power; and when the facts were forced on their notice, they had entered into a secret and stealthy compromise with the person who was the head and from of the offending.

thought the Government deserved the greatest praise, instead of blame, for quietly settling an unfortunate difference.

said, in his opinion, Government had acted with the greatest partiality. The offences of Protestants connected with religion, were punished summarily and heavily, while those of Catholics were in a great measure passed over.

thought, the occurrence laid before the House was not only a breach of the law, but a gross sacrilege.

observed, that the act alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, had been passed to preserve peace between the Protestants and Catholics, by preventing collisions in the churchyard where burials took place, and ought, therefore, to be enforced with peculiar strictness. As the titular Roman Catholic bishop was present to set an example of breaking the provisions of the act, he did think the case required the gravest consideration on the part of Government. The hon. Baronet was certainly quite justified in bringing it before the House.

said, that continual encroachments were made by the Irish Roman Catholics, on the rights and privileges of the Protestant Church, and it was proper that public attention should now and then be directed to the spirit manifested by them. That spirit convinced him that nothing would satisfy them but the destruction of the Protestant Church, and the substitution of the Roman Catholic establishment in its room.

said, as to the charge of partiality, this case was of an entirely novel and unprecedented nature, while the case of the Derry apprentices recurred annually, and had been made the subject of an act of Parliament. He regretted that hon. Gentlemen opposite were so much less easily pleased than the person who made the complaint.

remarked, that the noble Lord had not made the shadow of an attempt to defend the outrage, as he must still call it. He had no objection to omit from his motion the words requiring the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, since that was contrary to the usual custom.

moved for a copy of any communication from the Colonial Office to the Marquess of Sligo, the Governor of Jamaica, directing the sudden emancipation of the apprentices upon the estate of Philip Anglin Scarlett, Esq., and for copies of any other documents relating to that transaction. The hon. Member said, the slaves on the estate of this gentleman had been declared entirely free, and discharged in consequence of some defect in the registration. The labourers had abandoned it, and left it entirely uncultivated up to the present time. Mr. A. Scarlett had suffered in the rebellion of 1830, having fled before the insurgents for his life, with the loss of all his property. However, he had settled on another estate, where, by an accident by fire, he a second time, lost his all, and was utterly ruined. Nothing but his buoyancy of spirits enabled him to rise above these repeated calamities, and the present motion related to no fewer than 107 negroes, who he complained had been illegally and unduly declared free. Without expecting much advantage from a complaint to the House of Commons, yet this was the only course open to him. Government appeared to have neglected the course pointed out to them by the law on this subject. A special magistrate had repaired to the estate, without, he believed, any notice to the proprietor, assembled the negroes and declared to them that they were free. They thanked the governor, and thanked their master; but declared they would continue to live with him, and labour for him, which they continued to do for some time; but such is the fickleness of the race, that just before the cropping season they left him, and the crops were, in consequence, wholly lost and wasted. The ground on which the manumission took place was, that the negroes were not duly registered. Now he contended, that they were duly registered according to the act 59, George 3rd, c. 120. They had been registered (as slaves) in 1816, and up to 1832; and that his opinion was correct, and that they were registered within the meaning of the Abolition Act, was confirmed by a decision of the Privy Council. It must be observed that no intention was ever imputed even to the proprietor of wishing to evade the registration; there was no fraud whatever in the transaction. Mr. Scarlett, the petitioner, complained of a great grievance, the amount of which was, that injustice had been done to him in consequence of Government having undertaken to enforce their own views of the law. In the motion which he had felt it his duty to make, he had no intention of making an attack upon her Majesty's Government. On the contrary, he thanked them upon the part of the petitioner, for enabling him to defend his just claims to his property. He did not, for a moment, suppose that Lord Glenelg himself would do anything harsh or oppressive; but he thought that a certain kind of influence was exercised in the Colonial Office, which was both injurious to the colonies and prejudicial to this country. The hon. Member concluded by moving for copies of any communication from the Colonial Office to the Marquess of Sligo, the Governor of Jamaica, directing the sudden emancipation of the apprentices, upon the estate of Philip Anglin Scarlett, Esq., and for copies of any other documents relating to that transaction.

was at a loss to know what object the hon. Gentleman had in view in the motion which he had made. The facts occurred so far back as 1835, and could not, of course, be fresh in the recollection of hon. Members. The case was simply and entirely one of law, turning upon the construction of the Slave Emancipation Act. The noble Governor of the island of Jamaica had taken the step complained of in accordance with the opinions of the law officers of the Crown. He could not understand what the hon. Gentleman meant by bringing the case before Parliament at a time when parallel and corresponding cases were under the consideration of the judicial Committee of the Privy Council upon appeal from the courts of Jamaica, and after all the House had lately heard as to its incompetency to decide upon abstruse points of law. The case was shortly this:—In the spring of 1835 the Marquess of Sligo, then Governor-General of the island of Jamaica, brought under the consideration of the Secretary of State for the Colonies a question which had been raised there upon the construction of the Act of Parliament, as to whether or not the slaves which had been registered in 1832, and had not been registered in 1835, came within the provisions of the Emancipation Act. The law officers of the Crown having the question submitted to them, were of opinion that the slaves ought to have been registered triennially, and that in cases where that had not been done, they were entitled, under the provisions of the Act, to unconditional freedom, and the Government would not be justified in compelling them to continue to submit to a continuance of slavery. Acting upon this advice, the Marquis of Sligo set the slaves upon the estate of Mr. Scarlett free. Under these circumstances, he could not consent to the production of the whole of the papers in the Colonial-office upon the subject, as there was no order for the liberation from the Colonial-office. He had no objection to the production of the Jamaica papers, which he thought would answer the hon. Gentleman's object.

replied. The want of registration was entirely a mistake, for which a man ought not to lose a large portion of his property.

observed, that in Jamaica the fault of non-registration lay entirely with the owners of the slaves, and not with the returning officer.

would shortly state to the House the reasons which induced him to bring under their consideration his motion for the total abolition of the tax upon Soap. The chief reason was, that that important branch of their manufactures had lately fallen into a state of decline and decay. He knew how unpalatable long statements of figures were to the House, and he should, therefore, endeavour to state, as simply as possible, the alteration which had taken place in the manufacture of that article since 1833, the year when a reduction of one-half was made in the tax upon the proposition of Lord Althorp. In 1833, the quantity manufactured was 154,579,990lbs.; in 1834, 154,260,000lbs.; in 1835, 160,374,000lbs.; in 1836, 159,038,664lbs.; and in 1837, and up to the 5th of January, 1838, it was 152,114,157lbs.; exhibiting a decrease upon the gross quantity in 1837, as compared to 1836, of five per cent., and as compared to 1835, of nearly seven per cent.; upon the net quantity of soap imported into Ireland and foreign countries there had also been a decrease of ten per cent. Great, however, as that decrease was, it would have been much greater if it had not been for a sudden and accidental demand for the commodity in October last. The effect of the heavy pressure of taxation, and the extent of competition by the smuggler were such as nearly to ruin the soap trade in some parts of the kingdom, and nearly to drive it altogether out of others. In the year 1830 there were 148 towns in which the manufacture was carried on. At present the manufac- ture was continued only in eighty-three towns. Of course, this diminution of the trade produced a corresponding effect on the amount of the revenue derived from it. In the year 1835 the tax on soap amounted to 781,795l.; in 1836 it was 748,795l., being a reduction of four per cent. as between the years 1835 and 1836, to which was to be added a further reduction of three per cent. in last year as compared with the year before. He could show that this arose from the great extent to which smuggling was carried. He had said, that the trade was driven out of some towns. In some of those in which it still remained it was little more than nominal. There were in the country thirty licensed soap-manufacturers, none of whom paid 50l. a-year to Government in duties, and yet they were obliged to pay 4l. a-year for the licence. In the town of Chippenham only 157lbs. of soap had been manufactured last year. This arose from a large portion of the quantity consumed being supplied by smugglers. Formerly there were great difficulties in the way of the smuggler, so that he could hardly carry on the contraband trade to any extent without great risk of detection; but now they could manufacture as the regular trader without leaving any trace by which they could be discovered. Great facilities were afforded to the contraband trade in candle manufactories. There were 3,000 of these in the country, and from the fact of there being no excise survey in those manufactories, the contraband trade in soap might be easily carried on, and it was, he believed, so carried on in many of them. The trade had in its nature difficulties enough to contend with besides those superadded by heavy taxation and consequent competition by smuggling. Its materials were very dear, and the cost of labour cheap, as compared with many other articles of manufacture. Amongst the many baneful effects which the heavy tax had produced, might be mentioned the want of improvement in the mode of manufacture. It was the same now as it had been in the reign of Queen Anne. It was, besides, exposed to great hardship and annoyance, from being subject to the regulations of complicated laws, for even the unintentional breach of which the manufacturers were exposed to severe penalties. No encouragements were held out to experiments by which the mode of manufacture might be improved, for the materials used in making any such experiment would be charged, whether the experiments were successful or not; one effect of this was, that we were far behind the French in this branch of manufacture. Another injurious effect of the tax was that it deprived the country of a lucrative source of foreign commerce. We were driven out of the South American market for this article by the North Americans and the French in the apparatus which we used, for we could not make soap out of the vegetable oils as well as they could. Another objection to the tax was, that it was partial in its operation. The tax did not extend to Ireland. He was as anxious as any man that Ireland should share in all the advantages enjoyed by other parts of the kingdom; but he saw no reason why that country should be exempted from any taxes imposed on the people of England. It was also a strong ground of objection to the tax, that it was unequal in its pressure. It pressed most heavily on those who were least able to bear it, and with least severity on those who could best afford it. In a word, it fell heavily on the poor, whilst its pressure was not felt on the rich. The direct duty on soap was 14l. per ton, and the indirect might be rated at 3l. more; so that on a ton of soap, the price of which was 40l., there was a tax to the amount of 17l. The duty did not vary with the quality of the article. It was 17l. on that of 40l. the ton, and was no more on the highest quality of soap, which might cost 100l. the ton. It was not necessary for him to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer how best he could supply that amount of revenue which the abolition of this tax would take away; but he thought that a very large proportion of it might be supplied by the removal of a very large part of our excise board and establishment. It was unnecessary now for the objects for which it had been originally instituted. A few years ago the expense of collecting the revenue in that department was between 2l. and 3l. per cent., but in 1835 it had risen to the enormous amount of 6l. 168 per cent., and this on only ten articles of excise. That department was now relieved from the collection of duties to the amount of 18,000,000l. It was relieved from the payment of drawbacks to the amount of 1,700,000l., so that its present duties were comparatively light. If the establishment were reduced, as it might be, and without any inconvenience to the public, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might effect a saving to the amount of 450,000l. This was not his opinion alone; it was also that of the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry. Those Commissioners were also of opinion that if half the soap-tax were reduced, the increased consumption, and the putting down the contraband trade, would make more than the difference to the revenue. He had now shown that the effect of the tax and of its consequence—the smuggling had caused the trade generally to decline; that it greatly interfered with the industry of the country; that it was partial in its application and unequal in its pressure, falling with great severity on the poor, and but lightly on the rich. On these grounds he thought he had a right to call on the right hon. Gentleman to consent to its abolition. But he had also another ground, in showing a source from which it could be supplied. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the total abolition of the soap-tax.

said, it would be unnecessary for him to detain the House for any time, as the subject had been so frequently discussed before. He could not accede to the motion of the hon. Member for Falkirk, who proposed to reduce a tax that brought 700,000l. or 800,000l. into the treasury, without providing any substitute to make up for so great a loss of income. Was the revenue, sufficient, he would ask, to enable that House to forego so large a sum? If it were, then it might be well for the House to consider the propriety of reducing or abolishing this tax, but several other taxes should also be taken into the consideration of hon. Members. However, in the present state of the revenue it was impossible to entertain the question for a moment. Let hon. Members look to the statement of the last quarter's revenue as published in the Gazette, and they would find, that there was an actual deficiency of income compared with expenditure of 655,000l., and in such a state of things it was impossible for the House to submit to a sacrifice of 800,000l. It had been remarked that this was not a party question. He was fully aware of the fact, and had perfect reliance on the support of hon. Members opposite, in refusing to grant a reduction that would be so injurious to the interests of the country. The hon. Member who brought forward this motion had excluded from his general ar- gument the fact, that whilst other taxes remained the same as during the war, one-half of the tax upon soap had been remitted in 1835, and the tax now was the same as it was a century ago. In 1782, the tax was 1½d., afterwards it was increased to 3d., and subsequently it was reduced to 1½d. The manufacturers of soap, therefore, had not much to complain of, and he trusted the House would not acquiesce in the abolition of this tax, without which the Government could not conduct the public service. The hon. Member said, that if Government would reduce their expenditure, the revenue would not suffer by the reduction of this tax. The Government had a more direct interest in the reduction of expenditure than the House of Commons, and he could confidently say, that since he had had the honour of filling an official situation he had made every exertion to reduce the expenditure of the country, but that House generally thwarted the intentions of Government. The hon. Member said, let the excise be reduced. Now, it so happened, that when reductions in the salaries of the officers of excise and customs had been proposed by the Government the House had opposed their recommendation. The excise officers in the performance of their duties had not been guilty of any want of courtesy as was generally attributed to them, and he maintained that the majority of excise prosecutions were on the recommendation of the manufacturers, for the purpose of defending the honest tradesman. He admitted, that this was a decreasing tax, and consequently deserved the consideration of the House, but he could not agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, who attributed the decrease to smuggling, or a neglect of cleanliness amongst the people. He was rather inclined to attribute it to the very general substitution of soda for soap in washing. He would tender an engagement on the part of the Government to simplify the excise laws, and make that clear and distinct which was before liable to doubt, as far as it could possibly be done; but he was not in a position at that moment to propose any reduction of duties. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in a motion which tended to deprive the Government of the means of fulfilling their actual engagements; but if the hon. Gentleman did, he must meet it with a distinct negative, on the ground of the public benefit at large, and he hoped the hon. Gentlemen opposite would support him in doing so.

said, that he could fully enter into the feelings of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon his opposition to the motion of the hon. Member for Falkirk; for it was impossible, in the present decreased state of the revenue of the country, to propose a total abolition of the duty on soap; but, at the same time, he was not altogether satisfied that something not very far short of a total abolition would be a great relief to the manufacturers, without causing any material injury to the public revenue. If it were reduced, the consumption, and consequently the revenue, would be increased. In his opinion, the present high duty could not be long maintained, for since the year 1833, 3,000,000 pounds of soap had been brought to charge less than in that length of time preceding, notwithstanding the increase of the raw materials, and this could only have been occasioned by smuggling. He would suggest to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to follow out the recommendations of the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry as to the manufacture of soap, which had lain unnoticed for the last three years, and would just mention a most remarkable fact, that at present the retail trade of London was for the greater part not supplied by regular, but by clandestine, manufacture, proving the extent to which smuggling was carried on. He thought a reduction of thirty-three per cent. might be made without any loss, and he should therefore move as an amendment, that the present duty on soap be reduced by a third.

must vote against the present motion, but could not give a silent vote lest it might be thought if he did so, that he had changed his opinions upon this most mischievous tax. He had always looked on this tax as a restraint upon the health and comfort of the poor, and that it ought to be repealed; but when he had formerly voted for the abolition of it, there was an excess in the expenditure of the country, which might have been so reduced as to meet the consequent deficiency in the revenue. The house-tax might have been retained in preference, as it was felt chiefly by the rich, but the soap-tax fell principally on the poor. He certainly thought that a reduction in the duty might restrain smuggling, and not be a loss ultimately to the revenue, but he was not fled from the decreased revenue? When competent to judge what might be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever obtained a surplus, he ought to consider this as one of the first taxes to be repealed. When he (Mr. Benett) sat on the Opposition side of the House, he had felt the great necessity which there was for reduction in the expenditure, and had then voted for a repeal of this duty, in order to compel the Government to reduce their outlay, and he must certainly admit, that he had done this without considering whether there was any surplus or not; but let them look at that time and the present, and see the great reduction which had been made by those who now sat on the Ministerial side, and it would be clear to every one that they could not approve of the present motion. There was not now the same field for reduction as at that time. After the vast reduction that had been made, it would not be easy to meet an extra deficiency of 800,000l. With this explanation, he avowed his intention of voting against the motion.

could not allow the present motion to go to a division without making one or two observations on the amendment of the noble Lord. He had in no way been prepared for it, for he had come to the House to discuss the motion of the hon. Member for Falkirk, and had received no notice whatever of the amendment which had been proposed. He felt that he should not discharge his duty if he did not call the attention of the House to the motion of the noble Lord, and to the consequences of it, and the principles which it involved. The noble Lord said, that on the authority of the Commissioners a reduction might be made in the duty, and that although the first year there might be but little increase of consumption, it would afterwards become so great as to supply the deficiency of the duty in consequence of the reduced rate. Now, he would ask the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had cheered this proposition, whether they were prepared to try the experiment when there was so great a deficiency in the revenue as had been the case in the last year? When there was a surplus it might be tried, but would it be just to do so at the present time, when the consequence must be, that if it turned out unsuccessful, many of the public engagements must remain unsatis- fied from the decreased revenue? When he had reduced the duty on glass, it was said, why did he not repeal the whole duty, for by leaving a third of it he left the frame of the tax, and the manufacturer was still exposed to the oppression of the excise. That might be said in this instance, and as he considered that the motion and amendment were the same in principle, he should certainly oppose them.

had never supported any proposition that he thought would endanger public credit; and if he were of opinion that the reduction of this duty would have that tendency he would not vote for it. When, three years ago, the duty on soap had been reduced one-half, there was not that proportionate increase in the amount of soap on which duty was paid as might have been expected. It was plain that the deficiency arose from smuggling. The question was whether, by an additional reduction, a stop would not be put to smuggling, and thereby, eventually, a greater amount of revenue be paid into the excise? When the duty on whisky was reduced from five shillings to two shillings and sixpence a gallon, it was predicted that the revenue would greatly suffer. What was the fact? That the very first year after the reduction of duty the revenue on whisky increased fifty per cent in amount. No man who had read the report of the Commissioners with attention could fail to remember their statement, that it was clear that the small traders in soap were principally supplied by smugglers. Was it not advisable to make an experiment, the effect of which would be at once to put an end to smuggling, and to do justice to the fair trader? With a deficiency in the revenue of 500,000l. or 600,000l. it would not do to repeal the duty entirely. At the same time, he thought for the interests of the community, that a reduction ought to be made in it, and the amendment of the noble Lord should therefore have his support. He contended, that the reduction of the duty would not diminish the revenue to any important extent; while by the consequent cessation of smuggling, the fair dealer would no longer be exposed to a most injurious competition. The right hon. Gentleman declared, that the Government had endeavoured as far as possible to keep down the expenditure; but did he mean to say, the civil list was as economical as it might be, or that the naval and military establishments of the country were not at the present moment the same as during the administration of the Duke of Wellington? In point of fact, his hon. Friend (Mr. Benett) was quite mistaken in supposing that he was supporting an economical Government. The Ministers could not justly allege that they were taken by surprise on this question, for the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry had already expressed their opinion, that the duty might, with advantage, be reduced.

regretted to hear, that the amount of the establishments of the country would not allow of any reduction of taxation; for he had hoped that the policy pursued towards Ireland, might have led to a diminution of the army, and that the saving thereby effected, would have been sufficient to cover any deficiency, which might be caused in the revenue by a remittance of taxes. He thought, too, that an increased revenue might be derived to the country from an improvement of the mercantile policy, which had, he was sorry to say, been greatly neglected hitherto. He agreed with the hon. Member for Kilkenny in his statement, that the present was not a new question, for it had for some time been pressed on the consideration of the Government. With respect to the duty on soap, he knew that but one opinion prevailed in the trade—viz., that it could not be justly and equally enforced. This was also the opinion of the Commissioners of Inquiry, and what, he should like to know, was the use of appointing a competent Commission, if their recommendations were to be set at nought? The question for the House to consider was, whether the Commissioners of Inquiry, who were in favour of a reduction of duty, were not more worthy of confidence on this subject than the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer? With respect to the conduct of the Board of Excise, he believed that they frequently disregarded communications made to them from the trade, and that it was the policy of the board, not to communicate directly with the manufacturers, and without direct communication, it was impossible for them to obtain any practical knowledge.

defended the Board of Excise from the charge of neglecting the communications addressed to them, which might have arisen from the circumstance of their answers being sent not directly to the manufacturers, but to the various local officers, who were directed to forward them to the proper quarters. The Commissioners of Excise were anxious to meet and receive communications from any parties connected with the trade, whom they invariably received with the greatest courtesy. The noble Lord opposite, had told the House, that he moved his amendment in pursuance of the recommendations of the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry; but the amendment did not embody the object of those recommendations. The Commissioners had proposed, that the duty in England should be reduced, and that then it should be extended to Ireland; and what the noble Lord desired, was to have all the reduction, and to give no equivalent in return. With regard to the evils which it was said the tax on soap occasioned, he should have thought, that they arose not so much from the amount of the duty as from the inconvenience produced by the interference. If that were so, the noble Lord's amendment would not get rid of the evils complained of, for though the duty might be reduced, all the inconvenience arising out of the interference of the excise would remain. And now he begged the House to bear in mind what it was that the Commissioners stated. The Commissioners, it was true, said, that eventually the revenue would not lose by the reduction of the duty; but then it should be considered, that under the most favourable circumstances, it would take two years before the same amount of duty could be recovered; and the question for the House to decide was, how the revenue for the next year was to be raised? Could hon. Members, as honest men, consent, at that moment, to try an experiment with the revenue, ignorant of what its amount might be, and knowing that within three or four days, they would be fully informed of the extent of the resources of the country? The real question for the House to determine was, whether the proposed experiment could be trusted to for making up the reduction in the revenue which must take place, if the duty on soap was in part, or wholly abolished; and he trusted hon. Members would pause in the present proceeding, till it was ascertained what surplus of revenue was at their disposal.

thought, there were many other taxes more oppressive to the poor, and calling more strongly for reduction, than the tax upon soap. There was, for instance, the malt-tax; but if they cut down the revenue now, they would render themselves unable to provide funds for those improvements, beneficial to the country, which would soon be called for. He would vote against the motion.

was extremely glad this discussion had taken place before the budget was brought forward, as the House had been informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of revenue was likely to be at their disposal, after providing for the usual expenditure of the year. That was returning, to the old system, and he was happy that the discussion had elicited the necessary information from the right hon. Gentleman. The House could not have forgotten, that last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to bring forward the Budget in March, but that it was not till June that they had been furnished with a full explanation in regard to the revenues of the country. If the present discussion had not taken place, the right hon. Gentleman might have pursued the same course this year as he had adopted last year, but the House now knew what the real state of the revenue was. They were returning to the old system, which he considered best, as he thought it proper that they should know something of the revenue before the budget was brought forward. With regard to the motion before the House, he thought it would tend to beat down smuggling, and it was on that ground he should support it, and not on the ground of reducing the revenue.

was understood to say, that he objected to any measure, tending to throw the funds of the country into confusion, and on that ground he would vote against any motion for the reduction of taxation, till the Budget was brought forward, and until the House knew what surplus was at its disposal.

replied, and said, that he had heard no argument which could convince him that there was anything improper or impolitic in the motion he had brought forward. In his opinion, there was no ground for any of those apprehensions which had been expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, If, however, the House was more inclined to adopt the amendment of the noble Lord opposite than the original motion, he should give way, but for himself, he could not consent to any compromise as to the abolition of the tax. He was willing to withdraw his motion in favour of Lord Sandon's amendment.

hoped he might be allowed to say a few words after what had just fallen from the hon. Member opposite, and to state the course which he intended to pursue. After what had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the public revenue, and after the right hon. Gentleman had sued to them so strongly in formâ pauperis, he was unwilling to take upon himself the responsibility of any consequences which might result from so great a reduction of income as would follow the abolition of the duty on soap. They were promised that the budget should be brought forward in the course of a few days, when the House would know what amount of revenue was at the disposal of the country, and he therefore proposed to with draw for the present the amendment he had moved. ["No, no," and "Divide, divide."] If the House wished that he should press his Amendment to a division, he was willing to comply with their wishes.

, to call the attention of the House to the petition of the electors of Belfast, relating to the system of taxing witnesses' expenses in election cases; and as that was a subject of some importance, he trusted it fully justified him in bringing it under the notice of the House. The case was so new, that he had hunted in vain for authorities. The petition, which must be fresh in the memory of the House, related to the claims of two gentlemen who were witnesses before a Select Committee of the House, and the very Committee which had seated them. The petitioners, who were agents to the Earl of Belfast and Mr. Gibson, the sitting Members for Belfast, until very lately, objected, among many other things, to the qualification, in respect to property, of Mr. Tennent, whom he did not then see in his place, and to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dunbar) opposite; warrants were issued requiring those hon. Gentlemen to produce the necessary documents in proof of their qualification. Mr. Tennent, in behalf of himself, applied to Mr. Alexander Montgomery, the agent of the petitioners, for money to defray his travelling expenses to London, giving notice, at the same time, that unless his demand was complied with, he would not produce the papers. In consequence of this application, in order to secure his object, the agent gave a personal undertaking for such expenses as should be awarded to him. After the decision of the Committee, favourable as it was both to Mr. Tennent and to Mr. Dunbar, Mr. Tennent made a demand upon the agent for, in addition to the usual charge of one guinea a-day, the amount of 10l. for travelling expenses home to Belfast, although he still remained in London. The demand made by Mr. Dunbar was for 42l. 1s.,—namely, for travelling expenses to London, 10l.; for twenty-one days' expenses from the 13th of February to the 6th of March, 22l. 1s,; and for travelling expenses home, 10l. This demand was accompanied by a note to the following effect:—"The above are the particulars of my expenses, and I request you will appoint a time for the taxation thereof, and I will give you notice, that until the amount thereof be paid I will remain in London at your expense. GEORGE DUNBAR." Mr. John Bates, the law agent of the present Members, had also furnished a demand for 123l. 19s. although he came to London solely on their business, and his personal attendance was required throughout the proceedings. The expenses so claimed had been awarded, and the petitioners therefore complained of the present system of taxation of the expenses of witnesses in election petition cases, and prayed for an alteration. Unusual as the case was, he had found one precedent bearing on it. He referred to the Hertford case, reported by Perry and Knapp, in which it was held that a witness could only demand ex- penses for bringing him up to attend on the Committee, but that all subsequent expenses were subject to taxation. In this case the parties had gone before Mr. Rose, whose decision had been much impugned in the public newspapers and otherwise, and therefore it would be an act of justice to that Gentleman to have the matter investigated. It was his intention to move for a Select Committee to institute an investigation. Having stated the leading features of the case, he would ask, did not the House think it was one which called for some notice? Was it fair to say, that even if parties could make out no case against the qualification of a candidate, they were to be debarred from the proofs of it, or to be allowed to have them only under the penalty of paying such heavy expenses? He thought it due to the character of the House and to common justice, that there should be some expression of opinion against claims of this kind, or some inquiry into the state of the law which justified such claims. He should, therefore, move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the laws which regulate the taxation of witnesses' expenses examined before Committees appointed for the trial of controverted elections.

did not rise for the purpose of opposing the motion of the hon. Member for Kerry, but as his name had been introduced into the petition he was sure that the House would pardon him for addressing a few observations with respect to it. It had been truly stated in the petition, that a demand had been made on his part for his expenses, and he thought no doubt could be entertained of his right to make that demand, as the officers appointed by the House had awarded expenses in similar circumstances to his colleague. This was not, however, the reason why he had made a claim for expenses. His reason was, that Lord Belfast's agent had made a demand, amounting to 15l., and when he (Mr. Dunbar) was made aware of this, he informed his solicitor, that if he chose he might apply for the amount of the expenses to which he (Mr. Dunbar) was legally entitled. But whilst he said this to his solicitor, he told him at the same time, that they should not be accepted by him (Mr. Dunbar), but that they should be divided amongst the poorer class of witnesses, who suffered considerably in consequence of being detained from their various pursuits and occupations of business in London, waiting to be examined. As it might be supposed by the party opposite, that he had been put to no expense, he wished to avail himself of the present opportunity of stating, that it was not the fact. He had been served with a notice to produce a certain deed, in order to afford to the sitting Members the fullest opportunity of questioning his qualification and of searching into it. He was advised to be prepared with the witness to that deed, lest some cause of complaint or objection might be raised if that witness was not present. Accordingly, he had been placed under the necessity of bringing the witness he alluded to at great expense from the north of Ireland, and that witness being a professional man, and having been detained for upwards of three weeks, he felt bound to allow him three guineas a-day and his expenses back again, and this witness alone had cost him (Mr. Dunbar) upwards of one hundred pounds. Now, after he had been subjected to all this expense, would it be believed, that that deed never had been asked for? But that was not the only expense to which he had been subjected with respect to his qualification. He had been questioned respecting another deed, and after that deed had been produced, and after the opposite party had considered and perused it, they found that it would not answer their purpose. They accordingly returned the deed, and refused to give it in evidence. Now, he asked the House, was not this a case of hardship—was it not a case of hardship that a Member in this way should be compelled to produce his deeds, and that after they had been searched and inquired into, it should appear that there was no foundation—that there were no grounds whatever for the course that had been taken respecting this transaction? There never was a more frivolous or vexatious attack—never a more groundless and wanton attempt to assail the qualification of any Member—than had been made in his (Mr. Dunbar's) case. He would venture to say in the presence of those who would be able to correct him if he was wrong, that if his qualification was the only question before the Committee they would have been constrained bye the groundlessness of the case in that respect (as we understood the hon. Member) to have found the defence of the petition frivolous and vexatious. Without having had to call a single witness in defence of his qualification before the Committee, they came to an unanimous decision that there were no grounds on which to impeach his qualification. Even more than this—Lord Belfast, his opponent, had stated to him, that in his opinion his qualification ought not to be questioned. It would be quite a mistake for any one to suppose that the parties to the petition were the parties whom he sought to obtain his expenses from. Why, no man could be considered in his senses who would think of expecting a single farthing from them. Two of them had been struck off by the Committee as not being qualified to vote as 10l. freeholders. They were mere men of straw. He had a better mark; for whatever obligations the hon. Member for Kerry and his Friends at the other side of the House might be under to the party to whom he alluded, he, at least, was not under any whatsoever. The party to whom he alluded was Mr. Gibson. It was at the instance and request of that individual party that the summonses had been issued, as appeared from the originals in the Secretary's office. As he had stated that he was under no obligations to Mr. Gibson, he felt no hesitation to mention, that the day on which Lord Belfast had made up his mind to give up the defence of his seat, Mr. Gibson came down to the House and voted. The hon. Member for Kerry had told them, that he could not find a precedent for the demand made, and neither could he find any precedent for a man voting after it had been settled that he did not rightfully possess a seat. The instance of a Member's voting on the day on which the tenure of his seat was about to expire, was a case without precedent, and one which he hoped they would never see followed in practice. He wished to make one observation with respect to a gentleman whose name had been mentioned in connexion with this case. He alluded to Mr. Bates, than whom there was no more respectable gentleman in his profession. That gentleman would never have thought of asking for his expenses if Lord Belfast's agent had not made an application for his expenses. To show that Mr. Bates was sincere in that course, he opposed Lord Belfast's agent's claims before the Committee, and so far succeeded as to prevent that party being allowed more than a part of them. That gentleman then, immediately withdrew his own claim, though it was larger in consequence of his having been obliged to go to Ireland, whilst the other party, Lord Belfast's agent, remained in London, being engaged, as he styled himself, in the capacity of a Parliamentary agent. As a matter in which he was so much personally concerned had been brought before the House, he felt bound to make this statement, and thanked the House for the indulgence with which they had heard him.

said, that the conversation which had just ensued showed the extreme inconvenience of entertaining such a motion as the present. This question of costs had already been referred under a particular Act of Parliament to two individuals, who always had been, and ever would be, without any political leaning, against whom there could be no suspicion—viz., a Master in Chancery and one of the clerks at the table. That tribunal had been fixed in order to avoid questions of this kind being brought by way of appeal before the House. It was obvious, that to enter upon such an appeal it would be necessary to go into the whole history of the election—into everything which passed at the trial of the petition, and with a full experience of similar cases, he felt it would be infinitely better for the House to avoid entering into an examination of such questions. As to an examination into the laws, it was unnecessary, for the law under which the claim had been recognised was contained in one short clause of the statute. If better referees in such cases than a Master in Chancery and one of the clerks at the table could be found, it would be easy to make a provision changing the tribunal in the Bill now before the House, or by a separate measure, if necessary. He was however, of opinion a more fair or impartial tribunal could not be found.

said, he thought it was most unjust, on the part of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dunbar), to have attacked the late Member for Belfast (Mr. Gibson). He had read the letter addressed by that Gentleman to his late constituents, and he found nothing to censure in it; and he must add, that he never heard of a more extraordinary decision than that which had said a lease for lives renewable for ever was not a freehold. In Ireland it had always been so considered. Upon that tenure a great part of the property in Ireland was held, and he (Mr. H. Grattan) appealed to any lawyer to say, whether a qualification founded on such property was not sufficient. He maintained that Mr. Gibson had as good a qualification, as good an Irish freehold, nay, much better than the hon. Gentleman who now sat in his place.

would decline entering into any part of the present discussion, concurring, as he did, in the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wynn). He was unwilling to presume that there was any reason to find fault with the officer in the discharge of the duty referred to him, and seeing no such grounds, he was equally unwilling to accede to the present motion.

rose to move for a "copy of any precognition taken for, or report made to, the Lord Advocate of Scotland, respecting the conduct of the Ayrshire yeomanry cavalry, in and near the town of Kilwinning, during the last election for the county of Ayr; especially such extracts as will show the order issued for the assembling of the above corps, or any part of it, on the day previous to the said election; the name or number of the troop or troops assembled, and the number of men from other troops than those ordered out, with the names of the officers commanding or accompanying the troops which turned out on that occasion, and stating whether with their own troops and men, or with those of other troops; also the name of the place or places where the officers and men were ordered to meet, and were quartered during the day and night previous to the aforesaid election; also the hour and place at which they paraded on the election day the distance of that place from the polling station at Kilwinning, the hour they marched into that town, stating also the pace at which they were conducted, and the hour and place of their arriving at the polling-booth, the time they were kept there during the hours of polling, and when relieved from duty." If the learned Lord would consent to grant his motion, he would not say one word upon the subject; but as he was given to understand that the learned Lord would oppose it, he felt bound to offer a few words in explanation of his object. The reason for which he asked it was, that the yeomanry corps in many parts of the country had been disbanded by the Government. He was far from complaining of the adoption of this course; but what he complained of was, that the Government had not gone far enough. There were two corps in Scotland still in existence—those of Lanarkshire and of Ayrshire, and he desired to know what justification there was for their maintenance? for he was prepared to argue that they should peculiarly have been disbanded. He asked for the returns referred to, in his motion, in consequence of the transactions of the corps. He would state, and believed his statement could be proved, that at the last election, on the day before the polling took place in Ayr, the corps of yeomanry was summoned—by whom or for what purpose, he did not know—but they were summoned in a peculiar way. Two troops were called out, but persons connected with the corps, both privates and officers, but who were not immediately connected with those troops, were called upon to volunteer to act with them. On the night before the poll, the officers were quartered in Eglinton Castle, and the privates were also provided with shelter in the stables and outhouses of the castle, or in the houses immediately adjoining. On the next day, when there was no riot, or appearance of riot, the troops were wantonly marched into Kilwinning at full gallop, and with their swords drawn, and every attempt was made to provoke the people to a riot, the men themselves being placed at the side of the polling-booth, for the purpose of preventing the electors coming to the poll. But however they might have acted in this respect, the conduct of those who had marched them into the town was unconstitutional and improper, in being likely to produce terror in the minds of the people, and to cause risk and danger to their property and their persons. He repeated that his only object was, to show these corps were of such a description as to be peculiarly proper to be disbanded, for he had been informed that they were employed as a species of canvassing committee for the Tory candidates in the different counties. He should hope, therefore, that the learned Lord would not find it incompatible with his duty to grant the returns he asked for.

could not agree to grant the motion of the hon. Member, and for a very good reason. The fact was, that although a report had been made to him in reference to the conduct of the yeomanry on this occasion, yet the report was not of such a nature as to enable him to give the returns called for. It was merely in the nature of a precognition, which stated that some degree of riot had taken place, but the facts which it set forth were by no means ample, and the precognition itself might be revoked by the witnesses, from whose evidence it was framed, before any trial could take place. It was not of such a nature, therefore, as to afford the necessary information to the House, its object being merely to convey a species of primary information to the Crown, which might subsequently be acted upon or not. It was evidence taken merely at the instance of the Crown, and without any cross-examination, and it would afford only conjectures which could not be fairly acted upon. He was desirous merely to say, that the production of the document could not produce any satisfactory result for the precognition did not touch on any of the particular points referred to by the hon. Member.

saw no difficulty in saying, that as far as this corps was concerned, whether as regarded the officers or the privates, he believed it was most respectable; but he could not help adding, that if any corps should be required to put down any disturbance, or to disperse a mob, the yeomanry was the very last which should be called on to act, for their own sakes; and he would ask what possibility there was that they should be well disciplined, when they went out to drill only for a week at a time, and then as much for amusement as anything else. In this country the people depended on the standing army, and they did their duty, and nothing but their duty.

submitted, that the hon. Member for Kirkaldy was travelling out of the matter under consideration.

said the hon. Member appeared to be mistaken with respect to his opinion in reference to the yeomanry. He repeated that he had the greatest respect for all the component parts of it—for officers, men, and horses. He was the last person who, in his capacity of Lord-Lieutenant, would have called out the yeomanry force to act in such a case.

meant to speak to the question which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Falkirk. Belonging to the county in which the yeomanry were established which had been referred to by that hon. Member, he would say, that he believed the statement of that hon. Member to be quite true; and he could not exactly understand the nature of the duties of the learned Lord, which prevented him in his capacity of public prosecutor from laying before the Houses the circumstances which must have come to his knowledge. He had admitted the riot, and he had admitted, that he knew something of it, but he would not communicate what he knew. He was prepared to say, that the time had arrived when the duties imposed upon the learned Lord required revision if he should be allowed to conceal circumstances which might come to his knowledge under them.

rose, to bring the subject, of which he had given notice, under the attention of the House, and he would not trespass long on the House at that late hour; but he must observe, that the motion was one which was of very great importance.

inquired what the specific motion of the noble Marquess was?

said, that the noble Lord asked him what was his specific motion, and he would take the liberty of reading to the House the resolution which he intended to propose. It was in the following terms:—

"It is the opinion of this House that the duties of the Lord High Commissioner and the Governor-General of her Majesty's North American provinces should be conducted with the utmost possible degree of economy, consistent with a just remuneration of the persons employed. That it appears by returns which are before this House, that the amount of the expenditure for one year on the establishment of Lord Gosford, as Governor-General, amounted to 12,678l.; and that it appears to this House, that such establishment was founded on a just and liberal scale, and is a proper precedent to be acted upon in the case of the establishment of the Earl of Durham."

It would be in the recollection of the House, that a question had been asked of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) with reference to the appointment of Lord Durham, and he answered, after some con- sideration with the representative of the Colonial-office, that there would be no objection to a return of the amount proposed to be expended being laid on the table of the House. By Returns which were now before the House, it would be found, that on the 10th of March a letter was written to Lord Glenelg by Lord Durham, containing a memorandum of the establishment proposed, so far as he could judge of the assistance which he should require. That was on the 10th of March. On the 24th, after the question had been asked of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Glenelg wrote to Lord Durham in the following terms:—

"I have the honour to inform you that a desire has been expressed by a Member of the House of Commons that a statement of your Lordship's establishment as Governor-General of the British North American provinces and her Majesty's High Commissioner for the adjustment of certain affairs in Canada should be laid before the House. Lord John Russell, on the part of her Majesty's Government, having assented to this request, I shall be obliged if your Lordship will furnish me with a statement of your establishment for this purpose."

This was on the 24th of March, the Return having been sent by Lord Durham on the 10th, and as Lord Glenelg asked Lord Durham for his appointments, it appeared that the Cabinet had left him to arrange the matter himself, and did not tell him what they would allow. On the 26th of March a letter was written by Lord Durham to Lord Glenelg, and it stated that

"Her Majesty having been graciously pleased to intrust to me the general Government of six provinces in North America, the entire administration of affairs of one province during the suspension of the ordinary form of Government, and a separate Commission for the adjustment of weighty affairs affecting the permanent welfare of all her Majesty's possessions in North America, I must require, for the due performance of those important and multifarious functions, the most zealous and efficient co-operation."

He was convinced that the efficient cooperation of the House of Commons would not have been withheld.

"I feel it due to those who leave this country on this arduous and difficult service to ensure to them adequate and honourable remuneration."

He would go along with the noble Lord in this too, and would express his opinion that a proper remuneration should be given.

"By this feeling I have been influenced in the formation of an establishment for carrying on the Government of North America, and have the honour of inclosing you a copy of my letter to Sir George Grey of the 10th instant, in which are included the details which your Lordship requests. I have also to state to your Lordship that I have received from the Commander of the Forces permission to avail myself of the services of four paid aides-de-camp, whose assistance will be urgently required in the various personal communications which I must necessarily make to the Lieutenant-Governors and commanders of Her Majesty's forces in the different provinces placed under my Government. I have now given to your Lordship all the information I can afford you at the present time. On my arrival in North America I may possibly find it necessary to require further executive assistance, but I can assure your Lordship that I shall ever be guided by as strict an attention to economy as is consistent with what is, I own to you, my primary object, the efficiency of the public service."

He had felt it his duty to bring this question forward before Lord Durham started on his mission, that the House might express its opinion as to whether the noble Lord should have the power of putting the country to unlimited expense, or whether the expenses of his establishment should be limited to something about the amount of the expenses of the establishment, including salary, of his predecessor, Lord Gosford, which was 12,678l. per annum. When a man, having the abilities and the disposition to serve his country, made the offer of his services, or consented to take office, he only did that which it was quite proper he should do; but if the services of the noble Earl were thought worthy to be employed, he considered it much better that the individual should receive pay for them than that by rendering them gratuitously, the country should incur a greater expense than if a salary had been afforded. He thought instances might be found in which that had happened, viz., that the acceptance of gratuitous services had been more costly to the country than the payment of a fixed salary would have been. He had always thought that the government formed the administration of persons employed by it; he did not believe, that it had been the practice to leave it to any officer whom it employed rather to form his administration, or to determine how few or how many that administration should comprise. If report spoke truly, the mission of the noble Lord was to be on such a scale of splendour and expense, that he thought it due to the House that her Majesty's Ministers should be called on to state what were the circumstances under which the noble Lord would embark for Canada, and that this House should have the opportunity of determining whether it would give its assent to the noble Lord being empowered to incur an unlimited expense; whether he should be allowed to have an immense establishment, comprising, as it was said the noble Lord's was to comprise, sixty or seventy individuals; or whether it would not rather that the noble Lord received a fixed salary, and that some limit were set to his expenses, so as to make them approach very nearly to the expenses of the establishment of his predecessor. He found in the memoranda of the salaries required for the establishment of the noble Lord, that the Governor-General was to be put down blank. There was to be no remuneration for the services of the Governor-General; he offered them gratuitously; but he thought they were bound to look at the whole of the bargain that it was proposed to make. He concluded that the Private Secretary of the Governor-General was also to receive no salary, for, in place of any emolument being set down for that officer, the entry was also blank. No doubt that the noble Lord proposed to render his services to the country in a very handsome and chivalrous way, and no less must be said of the noble Lord's Private Secretary, who, he believed, was Mr. Edward Ellice; but he did not think, that this got rid of the objection to unlimited power being given, or to the expense of the noble Lord's establishment. From the memoranda to which he had already referred, it appeared that, besides the Private Secretary, the Governor-General was to take four other secretaries. There was the Chief Secretary at 1,500l. a-year; there was the Military Secretary—a most unexceptionable gentleman, certainly as gallant and highly distinguished an officer as ever trod the soil; he was to receive 700l. a-year; and then there were two Assistant Secretaries or clerks at 600l. a-year. These salaries of the Secretaries amounted altogether to 2,800l. per annum; the salaries of Lord Gosford's secretaries amounted to 1,505l. per annum. Why should the noble Lord take with him this number of secretaries, and at so great an amount of cost to the country in salaries, he could not conceive. He believed there never was an instance before of a person, being similarly employed, a requiring so many attachés as did Lord Durham. After the secretaries came another person who was to be in the retinue of the Lord High Commissioner, he being described as the noble Lord's "legal adviser." He had taken great pains to examine the establishments of former Lord High Commissioners, and in none of them he had found a legal adviser one of the appendages. Now, as there were already in Canada an Attorney-General and a Solicitor-General, with a salary of 500l. per annum each, gentlemen who were no doubt very respectable in their way, and when they found that there was a legal adviser proposed, with a salary of 1,500l. per annum, he thought it was of importance that they should know who this legal adviser was to be. This was information which, in his opinion, the House ought to possess, it being intended, he imagined, that the officer in question should, in a great measure, supersede the other legal Gentleman he had mentioned, and it being unquestionable that very great responsibility would devolve on him. By the letter of Lord Durham they were also informed, that the Lord High Commissioner was to have the services of four paid aides-de-camp; and when he saw it stated, that they would be urgently required to ride fast all over the country, he was induced to make some inquiry to ascertain the number of aides-de-camp that had been required by as great and illustrious a commander as our service ever could boast. The Duke of Wellington, when field mar-shall in 1815, found that six paid aides-de-camp were sufficient: but when he had the command not only of our own army, but of the allied troops of all the foreign nations engaged with us in carrying on the war, had he eight aides-de-camp? No; he had only four. Now he (Lord Chandos) would put it to the House whether there was any comparison to be instituted between the importance of the services likely to be rendered by the Lord High Commissioner in Canada, and that of the duties which were performed by the Duke of Wellington in the Peninsula? It should be stated, that the Duke of Wellington had objected to officers being taken from the ranks to serve as aides-de-camp without permission from head-quarters. But he begged to ask what was all this for? If the noble Lord, high in rank and station, and one to whom this country looked with respect—if he were going to some great country where splendor was required, and it would be desirable for the riches and power of his own country to be displayed, the case would be essentially different; but the present was an instance of an individual going to a country where anything like splendor was unknown, and where a Lord High Commissioner was, in his opinion, more likely to conciliate by a quiet demeanour, and by an unostentatious government, than by all the display and splendor proposed by the noble Lord. Did the noble Lord suppose the discontent which had existed in Canada, having arisen in a great measure from the amount of the civil expenditure—did he suppose, that by carrying with him a large number of aides-de-camp,—that by surrounding himself by a numerous body of attaches—that by a profuse expenditure and an extraordinary display of magnificence, he should be likely to succeed in calming the discontent, and in reconciling men's minds to the new government? He thought, that the gallant Officer who was now in Canada had the necessary degree of firmness, and was as well able to conciliate as would be the noble Earl in his capacity of Lord High Commissioner with all his splendor. He would repeat that such display was not wanted in a country where one of the great evils of which they complained was, the existence of poverty to a great extent; an exhibition of splendor there, was not only not necessary, but was not likely to be favourably received. He must say, he had felt not a little surprise that no other Gentleman in the House had felt it his duty to allude to this question, because, as they all very well knew, there were many of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who used to be much in the habit of taking a deep interest in the financial affairs of the country, and who, when they sat on the Opposition side of the House, were always awake to things of that sort. He should have been glad if some of those hon. Gentlemen had taken the matter up; but, as they had been silent, feeling its importance, he had considered it his duty to bring it under the consideration of the House, with the view of obtaining the expression of their opinion. He must say, he considered it something in the nature of a job. He thought it probable that the noble Lord was looked upon with some degree of jealousy, and that to have found him an appointment at home suitable to his high rank and great ability, might have been an inconvenience. He thought it probable, that the Lord High Commissionership of Canada was given to the noble Lord with the view of removing him to a distant part, where he would not inconvenience the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and where he would have the opportunity of displaying his talents and his power. He had no wish to deny to the noble Lord any portion of the credit that was due to him on account of his talents and worthiness as an English country gentleman; he knew he was greatly respected in the county where he resided, and he should lament if any thing he said were suffered to detract from what was due to the noble Lord in that capacity. One of the questions which he wished to ask the Government was, whether the noble Lord was to be allowed any outfit? In the reports of his intended magnificence, they had heard of the plate he proposed to take with him, and of the great number of servants that were to be hired, and he thought that the questions which naturally resulted from such reports were—was the country to be charged with the outfit? and if it were, what was to be the cost? Would they allow him the same outfit as was allowed to the Governor-General of India or to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland—say 20,000l. or 30,000l.? Would they do this, or would they give him neither allowance for outfit nor fixed salary, but say he should have the power of putting the country to an unlimited expense? If the latter were the proposition, he would say, he decidedly objected to it; he thought it would create a precedent that would be dangerous in itself, and that such an arrangement was not likely to be of the slightest benefit. What were the opinions of the noble Lord himself on such subjects. In the year 1817, when Mr. Lambton, he made a severe attack on Mr. Canning, the expenses of the right hon. Gentleman's embassy to Lisbon being then under consideration. He thought he could not do better than quote part of the speech of the noble Lord on that occasion. On the 6th of May, in 1817, towards the end of a very long speech, Mr. Lambton said:—"Under all these considerations, he called on the House to come to a decision on the merits of the case. He had now to put to the test the sincerity of the professions of the House, of economy and vigilance over the extravagant conduct of Ministers. He showed them a case in which the public money had been most culpably and disgracefully squandered; no sort of necessity had been shown, in the papers which the Government had submitted, as their justification: on the contrary, every document tended to prove most clearly, that in no one instance had they more abused the confidence reposed in them by Parliament than in the present. If in these times of distress and discontent it was important for the House, to acquire a reputation of strict public virtue and incorruptibility, they would mark their sense of this proceeding, and show the people that they still retained within themselves the means of satisfying their just claims, and of protecting them against the culpable and profligate extravagance of Ministers."^* In conclusion, he would call on the House to watch narrowly, the expense that the country would be put to on account of this mission. Lord Gosford was able to carry on the government at an expense of 8,000l., and he did not see why any one who was going out with the same rank should have the power of putting the country to a greater expense. There was, to be sure, one title added to the name of the noble Lord, which was not allowed to that of Lord Gosford; the noble Lord was Lord High Commissioner, and Lord Gosford was High Commissioner only; but was that a difference such as would justify them in allowing to the noble Lord an unlimited power of expending the public money? He now begged to move the resolution which he had already read.

in seconding the motion, observed, that the present was one of those cases which especially required to be brought under the consideration of the House of Commons, and he begged it to be distinctly understood, that no part of its effect would be to deprive the noble Earl of any of the just means or advantages necessary to an effective discharge of his duty. Of what importance to him could be a few aides-de-camp, more or less, or an additional lieutenant or two? But an abuse of liberal expenditure would be not only a waste of the public money, but possibly an impediment to the public service; for let it not be forgotten, that the noble Earl was going out to a colony, especially jealous of superfluous expense; that the de-

^* Hansard, vol. xxxvi. p.166.

puties from Lower Canada had expressly stated, that the calculations of the mother country with regard to expense were wholly unsuited to the circumstances of our North American colonies. Mr. John Neilson one of those examined was asked this question:—"You approve of the cession of the whole revenue, provided a sufficient civil list be secured?" He answered," Certainly. They are very bad managers of our revenue in England: they are accustomed in their own persons, to a far larger scale of expenditure than we are here, and they are unfitted to deal with a public revenue so moderate as ours." So much for the testimony of one qualified to pronounce an opinion; but what said the letter of Lord Durham itself, who was now going out to Canada with an equipment and cortege that would astonish the people of that colony? It was a letter in every respect most unsatisfactory: it formed no guide as to the nature of the duties which the noble Lord would have to discharge. In answer to an inquiry with regard to expense, he says," that being intrusted with a separate commission for the adjustment of weighty affairs, affecting the permanent welfare of all her Majesty's possessions in North America, I must require for the due performance of these multifarious and important functions the most zealous and efficient co-operation." He (Mr. Praed) desired to know how it happened that the noble Earl was to have the adjustment of any affairs whatever. Surely it was understood that he was going out not to settle, but merely to inquire; from his letter, however, the very contrary would appear, and when asked for precise sums, and items of account, he replied to the inquiry with a statement about multifarious and important duties to perform.

"With trope and metaphor his Lordship comes,

"Phrases for figures, similes for sums."

His Lordship also stated, that he would require four paid aides-de-camp. Were these to be for the purpose of carrying important communications, or were they merely to swell the pomp and splendor of the Governor? His Lordship then proceeded to say, that he had now given all the information he could afford, and, considering that all this information had been given fourteen days before, and considered unsatisfactory, it was rather curious that his Lordship should say, at this time it was all he could afford. His Lordship said on his arrival in America he would afford—what? further information? No such thing, he might, perhaps, require further executive assistance. Then there was the legal adviser, who was to supersede the Attorney and Solicitor General; the House certainly required some explanation on this subject. Now, he asked with his noble Friend, what were they to get by this mission? He looked at it with the greatest suspicion, because he did not anticipate any great benefits from it. He would not say anything as to the personal fitness of the noble Earl—that would be trenching on the prerogative of the Crown; but he thought all this parade—these four paid, and four unpaid aides-de-camp—were, particularly as the rebellion was put down, extremely useless on a mission, the end of which was, merely to carry into effect a commission of inquiry—to add to our already immense mass of Canadian information. He expected nothing from this inquiry, but another great blue book, like the last. For the various reasons which these considerations suggested, he should give the motion his support, confident that it was a resolution which the House ought to adopt, and confident at the same time, that the mission to which it had reference, would end in failure and disappointment, as

"St. Paul's great cupola just brought to bed,

"After large labour, of a small pin's head."

must, in the first place, remark, that the noble Lord had followed a very bad practice, though he was not the beginner of it, of bringing forward a motion like the present, of very considerable importance, without having given the House any previous information respecting it. The noble Lord was aware that Lord Durham was about to discharge a most important duty—the noble Lord was aware that Lord Durham was going out to Canada to fill a most important situation—the noble Lord was aware that the Government had charged the noble Earl with very high duties, and that they were responsible to the country for the appointment they had made; and yet the noble Lord had thought proper to bring forward a motion inculpating Lord Durham, and this, too, without giving any notice to the House that such a motion was to be made. The noble Lord had only told them that he would call the attention of the House to the subject. This was the ordinary way giving notice on that which it was not to be supposed would be the subject matter of a motion, or which, if a motion were made on it, was one that could not be objected to. The noble Lord had merely told the House he would call attention to the subject. If then a contrary practice were to be introduced, if it was intended that when a motion of censure upon an individual were to be proposed, it was to be brought forward without any previous information to the party accused, then he could not say, that any such practice would be useful to that House. With respect to the motion itself, he did think that it was one of a very paltry character. As to the hon. Gentleman who seconded the motion, he seemed to know nothing either of the state of Canada or the measures that were under consideration. Canada having been disturbed by insurrection, Canada, too, having likewise been agitated by the discords between the different bodies comprising her Legislature, that Douse had thought proper to suspend her Legislature altogether, with the view of making arrangements, if it were possible, for having an harmonious Government established. It was proposed to intrust, under such circumstances, very great and important duties in that country to an individual whose talents, and whose accomplishments, and whose fitness for such an office the noble Lord had not denied. The noble Lord had not stated a single objection to that appointment, no more than any other Member of the House during the discussions upon the measure had attempted to show, that the person who had been selected by the Government was not perfectly fitted for the office, and who had undertaken its duties, as he thoroughly believed, from a sincere wish to serve his country. No one had attempted to show, that the noble Earl was not perfectly competent to discharge the functions of so high and important a situation. The only attack which the noble Lord had made was upon the expenses of the mission of Lord Durham. He said, that the motion of the noble Lord was merely an attempt to cramp the exertions of the Governor-General. It was merely an attempt at attack upon a minor point, when all the attacks upon the greater part of the measure had failed. It was only an attempt to aim at the smaller matters connected with the mission, and it was, too, an attempt to raise unfounded prejudices for the purpose of baffling in some degree the effect of the mission intrusted by the Government to Lord Durham. It was this, and nothing else. The noble Lord had proposed, with respect to Lord Durham, that his expenses should be defined, and that they ought to be measured by the expenses of Lord Gosford, and the noble Lord seemed to imagine that Lord Gem-ford had been sent to Canada to receive a salary for his services. Lord Gosford had not been sent to Canada with a salary—he had been sent with the mere ordinary form of having his expenses paid, with certainly the instruction that economy should be attended to; and it was also to be observed that Lord Gosford had with him two other Commissioners, whose expenses were not included in the account referred to by the noble Lord. But then it was to be remembered, that Lord Durham was intrusted with functions which had nothing to do with those that had been confided to Lord Gosford. Lord Durham, besides being Governor-General of Canada, was also high Commissioner over other provinces in North America, and, in addition to his other most important duties, he had, together with a Council to be named by himself, to frame laws for the regulation of Canada until the Legislature, to be afterwards sanctioned by Parliament, was established. It was to be recollected, too, that a Legislature had existed in Canada during the time that Lord Gosford was governor. The noble Lord knew, that the machinery of that Legislature was carried on at very considerable expense. The amount of the sums paid in the year to the Speaker and Members of the House of Assembly, during the time that the Constitution was in force, was very considerable; so that if the noble Lord meant to contend, that the whole of the expense of Lord Durham's mission was to fall upon this country, it was to be remembered that the total amount of the whole of the revenues of Canada, a great part of which were consumed in the expenses of the Legislature, were expenses that would not be incurred during the time that Lord Durham would stay in Lower Canada. The noble Lord had, indeed, said that many remarks had been made with respect to the expenses of Lord Durham's mission, which were not to be found in the papers. Now, as to the particular number of servants and grooms which Lord Durham meant to take out, he could not give the noble Lord any information; but then he was aware that rumours, and unfounded rumours too, had been circulated for the purpose of injuring Lord Durham's reputation. One of these rumours was to the effect that Lord Durham was to be furnished with an extensive service of plate. The origin of that rumour was, that Lord Durham had sent his plate to a goldsmith for the purpose of having it valued, and ensuring it during its passage to Canada. And that was one of the rumours which the noble Lord naturally believed, and which he thought, perhaps, justified him in the course of proceeding he had adopted. The noble Lord had also alluded to the aides-de-camp appointed by Lord Durham; and the noble Lord had also thought fit upon the present occasion, he did not say whether rightly or wrongly, to attack her Majesty's Government for Lord Durham's being sent to Canada. As to the hon. Gentleman, who seconded the motion, his ignorance made him think, that all danger was at an end. On the contrary, the state of Canada was critical. It was to be observed, that the situation to which Lord Durham had been nominated was much more consonant with the great situation of a governor-general of India, or the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, than to that of an ordinary governor. The Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whoever he might be, had always four aides-de-camp, and generally several others were appointed by him. The noble Lord had mentioned the name of the Duke of Wellington. That was only for the purpose of exciting a prejudice in the House. Whoever the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland might be, he said it would be unfair to institute such a comparison between him and the Duke of Wellington, and to say of him that he was not to be placed on an equality with the Duke of Wellington, who had commanded all the armies of Europe. The number of aides-de-camp were to be looked to, and considered as to what were at the moment the rank and the station of the persons to whom they were attached, and the office to which they belonged. He did think, that there was one reason why Lord Durham should have the number of aides-de-camp which had been objected to, and that was, he thought, a perfectly valid one it was, that he might wish to make confidential communications with the other governors of the North American provinces, or the British minister at Washington, and might think it better to intrust an aide-de-camp to proceed with them, than transmit them by post, or send them by a common courier. Another appointment of Lord Durham's had also been much criticised—it was that of "a legal adviser." On this subject, it might be observed, that peculiar duties were imposed upon Lord Durham; for he had to consider whether he should bring forward certain propositions, for the pur- pose of their enactment, before the Special Council, of which he was himself to be the bead. He ventured to say, that, possessed of talents, as Lord Durham was, which particularly fitted him for the situation of governor, yet it could hardly be expected, from him that he could propose such measures as under the circumstances, would be required without the legal advice of a person fully competent to discharge that duty towards him. The noble Lord had alluded to the Attorney and Solicitor-General of Canada, and asked, could not they perform this duty. He had no fault to find with those law advisers; but the question resolved itself to this: Must not some such matter be left to the discretion and responsibility of the Government for the time? When Lord Durham mentioned the matter to the Government, it was considered by them he had taken a correct view of it, and they believed, that its adoption would tend to the successful termination of his Lordship's mission. As to the person in view for such an appointment, he was not aware of any particular person at the present moment; but he thought, that the appointment in itself was a very proper one. Now, the noble Lord had said, that it was by a display of magnificence of this kind, that Lord Durham would endeavour to govern the province of Lower Canada. This was said by the noble Lord, and yet the noble Lord admitted, indeed he could not deny, that Lord Durham did not rely upon magnificence or upon display; but upon his talents, his energy, his character, his well-known principles, his acquaintance with the history and the constitution of various countries, and it was these means and these qualifications which gave him influence wherever his country might place him, or in any station that he might happen to hold. Then the noble Lord had alluded to former examples, and by way of a personal taunt, he had brought against Lord Durham a motion, which, as Mr. Lambton, he had made respecting the expensive mission of Mr. Canning to Lisbon. That sounded very well, as if it were similar to the mission upon which Lord Durham had been engaged, and as if the objection could be of a similar character. He thought, notwithstanding the splendid speech of Mr. Canning—the most splendid, perhaps, he had ever made—that the general impression was, that Mr. Canning had been sent upon an expensive mission without there being a sufficient reason for incurring the expense, and that there was no real necessity for sending Mr. Canning, nor was there any weighty and particular business to be performed. He remembered the sarcastic observation of a gentleman upon this occasion who said to him, "whatever you in the Opposition may think of the competency or incompetency of those who fill certain situations in the Government, you cannot, at least, deny that our ambassador to Lisbon is fully competent to hold that situation." It was, then, upon that objection, that Lord Durham had founded his motion against Mr. Canning; but then he had never denied, nor at any former time had the Opposition denied, that where important duties were to be performed, great charges must be incurred; that where a public duty was to be discharged, and an individual was chosen by his Sovereign to perform an arduous duty, that in such a case, the expenses were, to a certain degree, to be regarded as a matter of indifference, and it was left to circumstances to determine them; and as a proof of this, he referred to the speech of Earl Durham upon the very motion respecting Mr. Canning. Upon that occasion, it was said by Lord Durham, that

"The expense of Sir Charles Stuart had been referred to, but that could form no precedent for the expenditure of the right hon. Gentleman. The whole of Sir Charles Stuart's expenses were occasioned by the Peninsular war. He actually held the reins of the Portuguese Government. He was a member, he believed, the sole efficient member of the regency, and was forced to incur the whole of his large expenditure, to discharge the high official duties of his situation. But the case was very different when the war had ceased, and when the ambassador was no longer a member of the Portuguese government,"^*

There Lord Durham had given as a reason for the expenses of Sir C. Stuart's mission, his being an efficient member of the regency, and holding the reins of the Portuguese government. Then by this it appeared as if Lord Durham had anticipated the noble Lord's motion, and, at the very time that he was bringing forward his own motion respecting Mr. Canning, as if he were guarding against the attack that was afterwards to be made on himself; for he justified expense when, according to his own words, there must be a "large expenditure incurred in the discharge of high official duties." In the discharge of these duties he had declared, that larger expenses must be incurred. There had been many

^* Hansard, vol. xxxvi. p. 165.

instances of cases in which large expenses were incurred upon special missions; and, before he sat down, he meant to read for the House a few of the cases in which they had been incurred. It might be thought that this was not a good system, and that it ought to be abolished. He did not think so. It had always been the system acted upon in this country. An ordinary salary was allotted for ordinary services; but, upon special occasions, and when persons were sent out specially, and had no limited time to stay, nor exact expenses to incur, a different course had been adopted. Here were a few of the instances in which special expenses had been incurred:—1808, Mr. Hookham Frere, Spain, 12,307l., September 1808, to September 1809; 1808, Mr. Villiers, Portugal, 17,500l., November 1808, to February 1810; 1809, Marquess Wellesley, Spain, 13,584l., May to November 1809; 1813, Earl of Aberdeen, Vienna, &c., 15,220l., August 1813, to September 1814; 1813, Earl of Clancarty, the Hague, &c., 29,005l., November 1813, to May 1816; 1814, Viscount Castlereagh, Frankfort and Clermont, 11,000l., January to June 1814; ditto, Vienna, 21,596l. June 1814 to April 1815. What was the case with respect to those expenses? There had been considerable expenses incurred in the attendance upon Congress, at which the affairs of Europe were to be arranged. The objection to Mr. Canning's embassy to Lisbon was, that expenses were incurred where there was no court, and where there was no important business to be done. But Lord Castlereagh was engaged upon important business, and it was not his fault if great expenses were incurred. He did not believe, that any party in the House denied, that important duties were to be performed. It was not, and it could not be denied, that these important duties were to be discharged, and it could not be denied, that it was necessary, that a court should be attended to. Here, too, were most important duties to be discharged, and yet an endeavour was made to nibble at the expenses, to cut off a secretary, or to find fault with a number of servants, for the purpose of its being palmed upon the House as a kind of popular motion. But to proceed with the expenses of special missions:—1815, Lord Castlereagh, Paris, 13,500l., June 1815, to January 1816; 1818, Lord Castlereagh, Aix-la-Chapelle, 7,948l., August to December, 1818; 1825, Sir C. Stuart, Lisbon and Rio, 24,647l., January, 1825, to October, 1826. This was a most important mission, for Sir C, Stuart was the bearer of proposals, of which they all recollected the consequences, as by them a constitution was introduced into Portugal. The expense of that mission, however, appeared to be 24,674l. He had quoted these instances and examples of special missions, for the purpose of showing that Lord Durham was not the first person sent by this country, who was not required to fix a very exact limit to his expenses beforehand. Where great and important duties were to be performed, the person chosen to perform them was one who was considered the person best calculated to execute such important duties. No exception should be made with respect to Lord Durham, in such a case, and under such circumstances. He found no one—not even the noble Lord who had brought forward the present motion—to find fault with the qualifications of Lord Durham, or to express a doubt as to the manner in which he would perform his duty. He said, then, that the state of Canada was most critical, and that much must depend upon the judgment and the energy shown by the noble Earl in the due execution, and the suitable performance of his duty. He said, that one of the great faults of the Government of these North American colonies was, that the station generally of the Governor of those colonies was not a station of more consideration, and of more importance than it had been, so that men of the highest talents might be induced to undertake the duties connected with the office of Governor. But, at all events, he did say, that at the present moment, they could not overrate the importance of those duties, or the necessity of having a man of the highest talents to execute them. Therefore it was, that he asked of the House, if it wished to see those duties well performed, not to cramp the exertions of Lord Durham, in performing such duties, by agreeing to the present motion. He asked of that House, if they were satisfied with the appointment that had been made, if they would not censure what was just, if they would not throw an impediment in the way of the good to be hoped from the future, not to agree to a paltry motion of this kind. It was wished that they now, by hesitating at the expense likely to be incurred, would indirectly express that want of confidence which the House would not express, when a motion to that effect was honestly brought before it.

was, he said, most willing to meet the challenge of the noble Lord, as to the character and talents of Lord Durham. They had not spoken of the character and talents of Lord Durham as they might have done, and they had refrained from doing so, not because they admired that noble Lord, but out of respect to her Majesty, who had appointed him. Respect for the prerogative of the Crown was no rule with hon. Gentlemen opposite. A noble relative of his own had been appointed by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, when in office, to the embassy of Russia; but hon. Gentlemen opposite searched the noble Lord's speeches, and found out an expression in which he (Captain Wood) did not concur, and which he believed the noble Lord himself scarcely felt, and had made this expression a reason for an address to the Crown, that the noble Lord should not be appointed to his important office. He (Captain Wood) thought, that if he were to search through the noble Earl's speeches, he might find him advocating the most extreme changes in the constitution, and prove him not to be the man to assuage in Canada those discontents, which the noble Lord had been so active in raising in England.

was as anxious as any man in the House to promote a wise economy, but he did not see how anything in the nature of a wise economy could be promoted by the noble Lord's motion. He believed that Lord Durham had undertaken this arduous and onerous commission, most reluctantly—that, in fact, he had only undertaken it to oblige her Majesty: and he did not conceive that it would have been too much even if Government had given the noble Lord a carte blanche to spend whatever he thought proper; safely depending upon the noble Lord's high honour and integrity, not to spend one pound more than he deemed actually necessary for the purpose of carrying his important mission to a satisfactory result.

did not mean to do any thing which should disoblige her Majesty. The noble Lord talked of the motion being a paltry one; he had never heard a more paltry reply than the noble Lord's. The House was entitled to an explicit statement of what the expense of this mission would be. This was, forsooth, called a reformed, retrenching Government; but they seemed to him to be carrying on a continuous, fraudulent system of increasing the expenses of the country. The fact of the matter, as the noble Lord near him had just said, was, that Ministers found Lord Durham rather an inconvenient neighbour, so they put the country to the expense of sending him a long distance, out of their way. Whatever opinion the noble Lord might have, about the reports circulated on this subject, he believed a great many of them to be well founded. The whole concern was a manifest job.

, jun., (St. Andrew's) at that late hour of the night, would trouble the House with but very few words. He did not see that it was necessary for any one on that side of the House, much less so humble an individual as himself, to defend the appointment of Lord Durham. The best proof of the excellence of that appointment was, the bitterness and malignity with which it was assailed by hon. Members opposite. The fury and vehemence with which hon. Members opposite attacked Lord Durham, would only render his character higher, and his appointment more popular than ever. He did not, of course, suppose that the people of this country would be ill natured enough to say, that the noble Lord, in bringing forward this motion, was actuated by any feeling of jealousy that he had not been deemed a better pacificator than Lord Durham, or that the hon. Seconder of the motion was influenced by any feeling of annoyance at not having been selected as the best possible legal adviser; but the people of this country would see and say that the motion was brought forward in a spirit of enmity to the political principles on the basis of which, it was well known that Lord Durham was about to proceed on his important mission. One word with regard to himself. It had been stated, that it would have been more economical if he had been paid a salary, and he saw, in a Tory print of that morning, that his salary was described as l. s. d. with nothing underneath. He could only state, that when the communication was first made to him with regard to accepting this appointment of private secretary, a salary was proposed. He, without a moment's hesitation, refused positively to go out on those terms, because he thought himself amply remunerated for any trouble or pains he should take in the mission that was to take place, by the happy results that he hoped would occur. Deeply interested as he was, in all that affected that country, if the result of the mission should cause a desirable change in the affairs of Canada, he should feel himself amply remunerated for any mere personal trouble that could possibly take place, and for the greatest services that he could possibly perform.

rose merely in consequence of the allusions that had been made to the appointment of a legal adviser. Before an adviser could be appointed, of course he took it for granted that there must be something to advise upon. If it was to be upon the laws of Canada, he must remind the House of what had happened to the Hollander, who came to England to teach Dutch, and who found, that it was first necessary for him to learn English. So if the legal adviser was to go to Canada, to advise upon the laws of Canada, he must first learn them. But if this were not the purpose of the appointment, perhaps it was to advise as to what ought to be the constitution, or what permanent measure should be adopted with regard to Canada. He should object to either purpose. He should object to strike out a new constitution for Canada by the aid of any lawyer, however able. He hoped, therefore, as regarded the legal adviser, that they should hear a better account as to what were to be his functions. He wished to hear from the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) what really were to be the functions of that gentleman.

having been alluded to in the course of the debate felt called upon to address a few words to the House. He must acknowledge that he heard with great astonishment, the whole of the debate on this subject. It was the first time that he ever heard economy professed by gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, and he could not believe, that they could be serious. It appeared to him, that hon. Gentlemen opposite had brought forward this subject, in order to annoy the gentlemen on that (the ministerial) side of the House; and this, too, without any serious intention of carrying it into effect. He had never heard a motion of this purport proceed from the other side of the House before that night, When he looked at what their conduct was with regard to Canada—when he saw them make no opposition to sending out brigades of guards and whole detachments of troops at an expence of about 400,000l.—were they, after this, to refuse a latitude to the individual who was to be accountable for the result of this very expensive preparation? It appeared to him, that by such a proceeding they were stultifying themselves. This was the language made use of by the noble Lord who made this motion, No man of sense could object to the words of the motion; but he judged of its object by the language used by those who brought forward the motion. What was the amount of the expenses of this mission, as appeared by the papers before the House? Not more than 3,500l. He saw nothing set down for the Earl of Durham. There was, indeed, the legal adviser, about whom so much fuss had been made. Some Gentlemen opposite, seemed to be very sore and jealous on this point. He called upon the noble Marquess to look at the real expense of this mission. There was nothing in the papers before the House, to show that the expense would be greater than the mission of Lord Gosford. If there was, let the noble Marquess point it out. If, indeed, he added to the expense of the mission, the expense of sending out so many regiments of infantry and squadrons of cavalry, there would appear to be a very considerable expense incurred by Lord Durham as governor, and his would be a very expensive Government. The proposal of the noble Marquess was to the effect which every body wished—namely, that the expense should be kept within reasonable bounds, consistently with the station of Lord Durham; but what was the language in which that proposal was made? The bitterness of that language showed, that there was something in the background. Was it not, in truth, an attempt to retaliate for the abortive mission of the Marquess of Londonderry? He should like to know, whether the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire approved of this motion or not. Did not the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex show the bitterness with which this attack was made upon the Earl of Durham, and did not that speech show, that, this motion was now brought forward, because the Marquess of Londonderry was attacked and prevented from going on his mission. Did not this debate show, that this was a mere formal question. This was not a question of ten, twelve, or twenty thousand pounds—the whole tenor of the debate showed, that it was a mere personal attack upon the Earl of Durham. It did not appear to him to be a question of economy one way or the other, but a mere personal attack, and he therefore could not support it.

said, it had not been his intention to obtrude upon the House on this subject, for reasons which it was not necessary to mention. But an expression had fallen from the noble Marquess in the course of this debate which he could riot allow to pass in silence. The noble Marquess stated, that he considered the appointment of his noble relative a job. If the noble Marquess meant to say, that his noble relative had, in the slightest degree, shared or participated in what the noble Marquess called a job, he did say from the confidence he had in the high and honourable feelings of his noble relative, that a greater untruth had never been uttered against any man. ["Order!" and "chair!"]

was sure the hon. Member would see the necessity of explaining the term he had made use of in the heat of debate.

said, he bowed to the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, and would say, that a greater mistake or misrepresentation had never been made. It did appear to him, that if ever the House was called upon to lay aside party feeling, it was upon the subject of this important appointment. In another place, when his noble relative was addressed upon this subject, he was treated by the most influential men of the Conservative party in what appeared to him to be a totally different manner from that which was exhibited on this occasion by the other side of the House. The most influential men of the Conservative party in the other House forbore, and generously forbore, from saying anything until they could form a judgment upon a consideration of his noble relative's acts. They said, they would do so when they knew what those acts were, but the same party in that House had thought proper to bring forward this motion before they could know what those acts were. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Chandos) had acted in a totally different manner from that pursued in the other House of Parliament. The noble Marquess had, he thought, shown a want of fairness and courtesy in never having the slightest intimation sent to his noble relative that such a question would be put. The noble Marquess came down night after night putting these questions behind the back of his noble relative. It was perfectly competent for the noble Marquess to get any Peer who was actuated by the same sentiments as the noble Marquess to put questions to his noble relative. The noble Marquess knew that his noble relative had been in his place to answer any questions that should be put to him for many nights running. He could only say, that he would not have risen if it had not been for an observation which he conceived to have been personally offensive to his noble relative; and he could only say, in conclusion, that his noble relative had accepted this most important and difficult situation at great self-sacrifice; and he could assure the House that nothing on earth could have induced his noble relative to accept the situation but an imperative sense of public duty.

, in rising to set the House right, begged to say that with regard to the first resolution he wished to move the previous question.

said, he had heard such extraordinary comments made in the course of this debate upon the motives of his noble Friend with whom this motion had originated, and upon the demand made in the House of Commons with respect to the public expenditure, that he felt it absolutely necessary to rise for the purpose of protesting against the precedent sought to be established. He thought, that the hon. Gentleman, who, with a very natural feeling, prompted by fraternal affection, had risen on that side of the House, could not imply, that the Opposition had shown any disposition unfairly to question the appointment of Lord Durham. He did not consider, that they were entitled to call in question the qualifications of the Earl of Durham for the office to which he had been appointed. Her Majesty had the unquestionable prerogative of selecting whom she should think proper to fill that office; and he should think it inconsistent with the respect which he owed to the Crown and the privileges which the Crown exercised, if he made the particular qualifications of the noble Earl the subject of discussion in the House of Commons. He must say, that he had not heard in the course of the debate upon the Canadian affairs any expression which Lord Durham had a fair right to complain of. He did believe, that never had any appointment been made which, considering the excitement that prevailed with respect to party politics, had been treated with more perfect fairness by the opponents of her Majesty's Ministers than the appointment of Lord Durham. He considered this question to be one entirely apart from the jurisdiction of the House of Commons; but, at the same time, he must contend for the absolute right of the House of commons to bring forward propositions relative to the public expenditure. And he must say, that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had not discharged his duty in a manner becoming a Minister of the Crown when, upon this question of expense being raised, the noble Lord imputed it to unbecoming motives. What would have been said of the Opposition, in the Government, if the Opposition had questioned the expenditure of any public office, if no satisfactory answer had been given to the question, but they had taunted their opponents with unfairness, or if, in questioning the expense of a public establishment or arrangement, they had imputed to the Opposition that they had been influenced by motives of party hostility or mean malignity? Such conduct would have been justly characterised as little short of treason to the privileges of the House of Commons, and an insult to the understanding of its Members. In professing his concurrence with the course pursued throughout the Canada discussion, he neither meant to raise any question as to the qualifications of Lord Durham, nor did he then question them in the slightest degree; but, consistently with that intention, he had a perfect right, and after the manner in which he had been challenged he would exercise the right of inquiry, whether or not the establishment proposed for Lord Durham did not exceed the just bounds of economy? He did not in this respect find any fault with Lord Durham—the fault he found was with her Majesty's Government. He must say, that the first letter written by Lord Glenelg to Lord Durham, the first letter that appeared in the papers, was a letter without precedent as being addressed by a Minister of the Crown to a public officer. The House would from thence see, that if the establishment proposed by Lord Durham had been ten times more extravagant than it was, the imputation would not have rested upon the department which left Lord Durham the exclusive judge of his own expenditure. He would ask, was it ever known, that a Minister of the Crown addressed a letter of this kind to a public officer about to proceed in the execution of his duty? Supposing it were desirable to prescribe beforehand the establishment, what authority ought there be to limit that establishment? Was it the individual himself, or was it the Treasury, after communication with that individual, and with the department to which he was responsible [Lord John Russell: So it was]. The noble Lord said so it was. But look at the letter of Lord Glenelg. No previous arrangement having been made on the subject, it apparently never occurred to the Government to determine what ought to be the proper outfit or establishment. But here was the letter of Lord Glenelg:—

"Downing-street, March 24,1838.

"My Lord—I have the honour to inform you, that a desire has been expressed by a Member of the House of Commons in his place, that a statement of your Lordship's establishment as Governor-General of the British North American provinces, and her Majesty's high Commissioner for the adjustment of certain affairs in Canada, should be laid before the House. Lord John Russell, on the part of her Majesty's Government, having assented to this request, I shall be obliged, if your Lordship will furnish me with a statement of your establishment for this purpose.

I have, &c.

(Signed) "GLENELG."

"The right hon. the Earl of Durham, G. C, B, &c. &c."

He would say then, upon the terms of this letter, which was to be consulted for the purpose of ascertaining the meaning of the writer, that it appeared to him that never were terms made use of which could more clearly acknowledge Lord Durham as the judge of the establishment which ought to accompany him to Canada; and he was surprised that Lord Durham, with the natural desire of every man going on any eminent service, in the first place, that that service should be effectually performed, and next, that those who accompany him should be amply remunerated, did not seek for a still more extensive establishment: but the treasury of the country should be the judge to correct this natural feeling in its officer, and to curtail within proper limits the establishment with which he ought to be accompanied. The course pursued by her Majesty's Government, he repeated, was entirely without precedent. He was bound to say of these estimates, admitting to the full extent the natural desire on the part of the noble Lord to insure the efficiency of his mission, and admitting also, that true economy often consisted in a sound and judicious exercise of liberality, admitting the weight of all these considerations, he was bound to say, that he thought the noble Lord's estimate of the expenses of his mission to be much larger than was necessary. First, there was a chief secretary, with a salary of 1,300l. a year, then a military secretary at 700l. a year, and then two under-secretaries; he did not mean to say 200 secretaries, though, perhaps in so saying he might only be anticipating what was to follow; no, but there were two under-secretaries at 300l. a year each, and then, besides all these, were to be a private secretary, and a legal adviser. Now, looking at these appointments only, if his opinion was asked on the subject, he was bound to say, that he considered them exceedingly large; he thought them enormous in reference to the duties which were to be performed. With respect to the legal adviser, with a salary of 1,500l. a-year, the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, said, that he was not in the slightest degree aware of who was intended to fill that situation. Now, that being the case, he was really sorry for the noble Lord's ignorance on the subject. The noble Lord was, in this instance, like the phoenix, a vast species alone, for he could venture to say, the noble Lord was the only man in the House who did not know who the legal adviser of Lord Durham was to be. He would undertake, at least, to say, that there were many Members composing what was termed "her Majesty's opposition" who could confidentially inform the noble Lord upon the subject if called upon. [Name.] He certainly should not have considered himself entitled to name the individual to whom he referred, as the communication had been made to him privately, and it might possibly happen that he was mistaken. But of this he was quite sure, that in the communication which had been made to him, a trap had not been laid for the purpose of misleading him. And as the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard was one of those who called upon him to name the intended legal adviser of Lord Durham, he would only say, that when the hon. and learned Gentleman said to him, "I shall not be among you when the controverted Election Bill is discussed," that observation gave him distinctly to understand, that at the period in question the hon. and learned Gentleman's face would be directed towards the western possessions of her Majesty. Now, this was an inference, which, coupling the declarations of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, with the rumours which were previously in circulation on the subject, he thought a very remarkable one. [No!] Oh, then, the hon. and learned Member went out gratuitously, and in that case there was another candidate for the office of legal adviser. He thought, that when any one who knew the rumour previously in circulation, and then coupled with it the information which the hon. and learned Gentleman volunteered to confide to him, that he should not be here when the Controverted Elections Bill was discussed, he might very fairly infer, that nothing would induce the hon. and learned Member to abandon this measure, but the hope of rendering valuable service to the public by giving legal advice to the Governor-General of the Canadas. If he was mistaken in drawing this conclusion, he could only say, that he was extremely sorry for it; but that, at the same time, it was one into which he had fallen bonâ fide. However, the case might be, he must say, that he thought these half-confidences were very inconvenient, or at least the hon. and learned Member ought to have added a postscript, or warning note to this effect:—" Mind, I am not going to be legal adviser to the Governor-General of the Canadas." He must say, that he was rejoiced to hear, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not to be the legal adviser of Lord Durham; not from any personal objection to the hon. and learned Gentleman, or from any doubts as to his qualifications for such an office; but because he thought that, if these appointments were too freely given to Members of Parliament, it might amount to a virtual evasion of the statute of Anne, which rendered the appointment to a new office inconsistent with a seat in that House. Now, as to the necessity for the office at all, he must say that, considering that the Act which Lord Durham would have to administer was one of the very plainest and simplest description, he thought that the taking out a law adviser upon the subject, in addition to all the other Secretaries, was quite unnecessary and uncalled for. Then, again, was the point of outfit, upon which he thought that the House of Commons ought to have some information. With respect to the motion of his noble Friend, the question was simply this; that the establishment of Lord Gosford was a fair precedent to regulate that of Lord Durham. Now he put it to the House whether there was anything unfair in this very simple proposition. The hon. Member for Limerick, who considered that Lord Gosford's establishment was too large, thought also that that of Lord Durham ought not to exceed it. If that were the hon. Member's view of the case, it would be impossible for him to oppose the present motion, for he who opposed the present motion, must either hold the proposition that this was a subject which was not within the legitimate cognizance of the House of Commons, or must be prepared to maintain that the resolution was niggardly and parsimonious in its allowance of expenditure. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had taunted the hon. Member who had succeeded him, for what had fallen from him on this occasion, but did the hon. Member mean succeeded him as Member for the county of Middlesex, or in the advocacy of the doctrines of economy? For it so happened, that the hon. Gentleman had not only ceased to represent the county of Middlesex, but also to uphold the right of the House of Commons to meddle in matters concerning the public economy, without exposing itself to the imputation of personal malignity, or disappointment, or other unworthy motives to those who brought the subject forward. The hon. Gentleman declared, that this was the first occasion on which the advocacy of economy had proceeded from this (the Opposition, side of the House.) Now, it was always a tedious and invidious task to enter upon comparisons between the economical arrangements of one Government or another—but he would beg to state a few facts illustrative of the feelings of Government when he (Sir It. Peel) and his Friends were in office. [Mr. Hume: I did not allude to you.] Oh, the hon. Member did not allude to him (Sir Robert Peel.) Perhaps, he only alluded to the younger Members of that side. However, he was going to show that the attack of the hon. Member against former Governments, on the score of want of economy, was unfounded; and he should proceed to prove what he averred, by citing the practice of the Government in a precisely analogous case, when he was at the head of the Treasury. On that occasion he, in conjunction with his noble Friend (Lord Aberdeen), advised his Majesty to send an individual out to the Canadas to perform certain duties. The individual selected for this appointment was an individual of the first rank and station, Lord Amherst; a nobleman holding the rank of Earl in this country, a nobleman of no obscure name or station, and one who had never filled any subordinate office, but had recently filled the office of Governor-General of India, with all the gorgeous and royal splendor which surrounded that appointment. In the next place, let them consider the duties which Lord Amherst would have to perform in Canada. His Lordship was to be Governor-General of Canada, and also his Majesty's Royal Commissioner; so that, as far as titles went, the appointment was very analogous to that of Lord Durham. The duties which Lord Amherst would have to perform were thus described in a letter, dated April 2, 1835, from Lord Aberdeen to Lord Aylmer, notifying to the latter nobleman the appointment of Lord Amherst:

"This individual in the capacity of his Majesty's royal Commissioner, will repair to Lower Canada, fully instructed to examine, and, if possible, to terminate, the various points of discussion, in the hope of composing all those differences which have so long agitated the province, and which have deeply afflicted his Majesty's loyal subjects. For this end, it will be the object of his Majesty to renew an inquiry into every alleged grievance, to examine every cause of complaint, and to apply a remedy to every abuse that may still be found to prevail; for this end there is no sacrifice he would not cheerfully make which should be compatible with the fundamental principles of the constitution itself, and with the continued existence of the province as a possession of the British Crown."

The right hon. Baronet then proceeded to state the duties which were included in the commission of his noble Friend, who expressed his belief "that some comprehensive scheme of general education might be adopted." ["Oh, oh!"] Why, Sir, said the right hon. Baronet, the noble Lord was allowed to dwell on the important duties of Lord Durham's mission; and surely it is a legitimate course for me to show what those were which appertained to Lord Amherst's office. Show that I am speaking of matters which are inapplicable: answer me if you can, but do not suppose that you will succeed in doing so by uttering unmeaning sounds. I am contending that my noble Friend's duties were not exactly of equal amount to those of Lord Durham, but that they were, on the whole, most important, as he filled both the offices of Governor and high Commissioner. I don't say, that the two offices were exactly of equal importance; I make every just abatement on that account; but still they were of an analogous nature; and Lord Amherst, a person of high rank, and who had filled the most important offices, was selected for the former situation. Now, what was the establishment of, and the expense proposed to be incurred by Lord Amherst? And I ask the hon. Gentleman who has attacked the want of economy of a Conservative Government to compare the establishments, making every just abatement for the difference of duties of the two noble persons, and then to answer me this question, which of the two Governments has given the greatest practical proof of economy? I admit to the noble Lord, that he cannot extinguish the system of special missions. I acknowledge that it is exceedingly difficult to decide what expenses may be incurred in an extraordinary and temporary duty; and I say at once that the mission of Lord Amherst was a special mission, and that equal objections apply on principle to Lord Gosford's office of Chief Commissioner on a special mission also. But the establishment of Lord Amherst, as governor and Royal Commissioner, in what did it consist? Mr. Elliott was the single person appointed by the Government to accompany him. I believe on Mr. Elliott's recommendation a clerk was assigned him. There was also a private secretary. That was the whole extent of the establishment. Let those who are now at the treasury contradict me if I am wrong, but I believe, that the total charge incurred for the outfit did not exceed 1,000l. I believe, that the arrangements for that mission were completed, and that Lord Amherst was on the point of sailing, I may be wrong in my recollection (but if I be, I am subject to correction), and I don't believe, that the total charge incurred by the preparation of Lord Amherst for the voyage, with an outfit, exceeded the sum of 1,000l. Now, when I look at the expenses preparatory to Lord Amherst's departure to fill a situation of rank, and when I remember the duties which devolved on him, I ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) whether he is warranted in saying, that a Conservative Government never gave any practical proof of economy? I will allow you to make every increase on account of the difference of duties, and yet I will still maintain this position, that the establishment proposed for Lord Durham does far exceed, does exceed in a fourfold degree—that establishment, for duties which were nearly analogous, provided for Lord Amherst. Sir, I protest, therefore, against the doctrine which has been maintained, that because we (the Opposition) question the expense of public establishments, you have therefore a right to answer us by saying, that our considerations are not those of public economy, but spring from hostility to the individual, or disappointment that Members at this side of the House are not favoured by being selected for those appointments. That charge, I say, is unfounded; but this charge I prefer against you who have been the constant advocates of economy, that when an individual participating in your political sentiments is appointed to a public situation you then show a tendency to forget the principles which you have professed; and that your political accordance with the man obliterates your recollection of the principles which you maintained against Governments to which you were opposed. And then it is, that you call the questions which we originate, paltry questions, not deserving consideration; and then it is, that you reconcile yourselves to an establishment when connected with the services of your own friend which had the position of political parties been reversed, he who sanctioned, he who advised, your proceeding, would be the first in high-sounding terms to denounce as aggravating the feelings of the country suffering under distress, and as evidence of a wanton and profligate disposition on the part of Government. With what triumph would you have referred to the avowal that your finances were in such a state that you could not part with a third of the soap-tax. How you, or some of you, would have dwelt on what I have before heard stated, that a great number of the hand-loom weavers might have subsistence provided for them by the sum allowed to the extravagant establishment which was proposed to be confirmed and sanctioned! But now, because that establishment is proposed for one in whose political sentiments you concur (you the class of which the hon. Member for Kilkenny is the representative and warmest advocate) forget the principle which you formerly avowed, and try in every manner to throw ridicule and contumely on those who act in a temperate and moderate manner in accordance with your practice; and you, through your leader, the hon. Member for Kilkenny, justly give rise to the imputation, not only that you have been succeeded by others in your seats, but that you are also succeeded by others in your advocacy of the principles of retrenchment and economy.

had not the slightest wish to affect any concealment upon the subject of his connexion with Lord Dur- ham's mission. With that mission he had connected himself at the request of the noble Earl, but not in the capacity of legal adviser. One word, as he was on his legs, on the general question. The question at that moment really before the House was, that the Earl of Durham in his special mission should be limited to the same amount of expenditure as the Earl of Gosford had incurred during his mission. Now, a great mistake prevailed respecting the expenses of the Earl of Gosford's mission. The return on which the noble Marquess had rested his argument, did not include the salaries of the secretaries and other officers belonging to the establishment of the Governor-general of Canada. These salaries amounted to 4,000l. a-year. The Earl of Gosford was also attended by two Assistant-commissioners, who received 2,000l. a-year each. The additional expenses, then, of Lord Gosford's mission, besides those included in the return to which he had before alluded, were 8,000l. a-year. But it was unwarrantable to put these two missions on the same footing, and to say, that, because so much money sufficed for the expense of Lord Gosford's mission, the same sum would therefore suffice for the expense of Lord Durham's. Now, there was no difference between the officers intrusted to these two noblemen! He contended that the authority intrusted to these two noblemen was very different. The Commission of the Earl of Durham, was, in the first place, much more extensive than that of the Earl of Gosford. In the next place, the Earl of Durham was invested with greater powers as Governor of Lower Canada, than any Governor had ever been invested with before. They had given to the Earl of Durham powers almost despotic; they had invested him with all the powers of the executive government of Lower Canada; and yet, they were then called upon to assert that the Earl of Durham ought not to have a larger sum to meet the expenses of his office than the Earl of Gosford had, who had all the aid of secretaries and other officers, belonging to the permanent establishment of Lower Canada. They should also take into consideration the great exasperation which prevailed at present in Lower Canada, and which would, of necessity, throw the Earl of Durham more than any of his predecessors upon the resources of those whom he took out with him. When the Earl of Gosford had the aid of two Commissioners, with large salaries, was it too much to let the Earl of Durham have the aid of one legal adviser? When that noble Earl was going to settle such important questions in Canada, as they all knew he was sent out to settle, was it too much to grant him such a modicum of legal advice as he could procure for 1,500l. a-year? The confidence of all parties had been granted to that noble Earl. He repeated, that the confidence of all parties must have been granted to that noble Earl, when they determined to invest him with almost despotic power, and he would repeat the assertion, though he should be met again with cries of "oh!" from the disappointed Gentlemen on the opposite benches, and of "no, no!" from nobody knew whom. Would they, then, after confiding to the Earl of Durham the power of making laws for Canada, and of preparing a constitution, by which it was possible that our North American colonies might be governed for ages—would they show by the vote to which the noble Marquess wished them to come, that they valued a few paltry pounds more than the liberty of the millions which they had confided without reserve to the noble Earl? They had, already, given that noble Earl unlimited power; they could judge by no past precedent of the expenses which he must incur in the exercise of that power; and this motion was intended to cramp him in an unprecedented manner in all the circumstances which were requisite to give efficiency and success to his mission. He therefore trusted, that it would not meet with the approbation of the House.

wished to say a few words in reference to the allusion which the noble Secretary for the Home Department had made to the conduct of a revered relative of his, during his celebrated mission to Lisbon. An hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, had spoken, as if it were a hardship on the Earl of Durham that any limit should be placed to the amount of his establishment, and to the expenditure necessary to support it. Now, it might be recollected, that that noble Earl was the very person who had brought an accusation against his revered relative, the late Mr. Canning, on the occasion to which the noble Secretary had alluded. It might also be recollected, that Mr. Canning, in his justification of himself, against the charges preferred against him by the noble Earl, referred to the line of conduct which he had pursued on accepting the embassy to Lisbon, and that he had stated, that as soon as he found a question must arise regarding the "extraordinary expenses" of his mission, he had called upon the noble Lord then at the head of the Treasury, to fix something precise, by which he might guide himself in regulating those expenses. His revered relative did not choose to expose his character to the suspicions which might have been cast upon it had he allowed those expenses to run on uncontrolled by the Treasury at home, It was remarkable that at a distance of twenty-one years from that debate, the Earl of Durham should be claiming for himself, in his expenditure on a civil mission, that very latitude which his revered relative with a more statesmanlike feeling, had determined to discard.

did not rise to dispute the full right of the House, or indeed of any Member of it, to question any part of the public expenditure; neither had his noble Friend near him ever questioned the existence of that privilege, either upon that or upon any previous occasion. That which his noble Friend had found fault with was the manner in which this motion had been brought forward, both as regarded the way in which notice of it had been given, and as regarded the unfairness with which it had been afterwards treated. It was not fair that, without any previous notice, further than that of an intention to call the consideration of the House to the expenses of Lord Durham's mission, a motion of censure should have been brought forward both against an individual on the point of starting on an important public mission, and against the Government which had appointed him to execute that mission. He maintained, that it was a censure on the noble Earl to assert that he had accepted an office of high rank and dignity to which undue allowances were attached, and on the Government to assert, that it had given him those allowances without a due regard to economy and retrenchment. The right hon. Baronet seemed to find fault with the Government because it had not made a full statement of the extent of the noble Earl's establishment, and of the amount of its necessary expenditure; and had complained that the letter addressed by his noble Friend Lord Glenelg, to the Earl of Durham, was not the usual mode of demanding from a public servant an estimate of the expenses of his proposed establishment. Now it ought to be recollected that his noble Friend the Earl of Durham, was going upon a special mission, and from the very nature of a special mission it was obvious that no previous establishment could be formed for it, and if so, that no estimate of its expense could be laid before Parliament. The reason why the return for which the noble Marquess had moved was given, was a desire to comply with his wishes, and the noble Marquess wished to have the return in order to have some sort of data for his present motion. The expenses which his noble Friend might be forced to incur in the execution of his mission could not be foreseen; and therefore a previous establishment could not be formed. The right hon. Baronet had complained of the extent of the establishment now given in by the Earl of Durham, and had compared it with the arrangement which the right hon. Baronet had himself made for the establishment of Earl Amherst. He had no objection to enter into that comparison, but before he did so, he would beg leave to say one word on the case of Mr. Canning, to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had just referred. There was no similarity between the mission of Lord Durham to Canada and the mission, as it was called, of Mr. Canning to Lisbon. He thought at the time, and he still continued to think, that the sending an embassy to Lisbon at the close of the war was a wise measure, and that the expenses incurred in it were not greater than the occasion required and justified. The right hon. Gentleman could not feel greater admiration for his deceased relative, Mr. Canning, than he had always felt, and still continued to feel; but this he must say, that Mr. Canning's was not a special mission, but a regular embassy with a fixed salary—and that was the real difference between the case of Mr. Canning, to which the right hon. Gentleman had adverted, and the mission of Lord Durham, which was at that moment under discussion. He was now willing to enter into the comparison, to which the right hon. Baronet had challenged him, and to contrast the economy of the present Government with that of which the right hon. Baronet had been the head. Though he did not wish to throw any imputation on the right hon. Baronet as having encouraged an undue expenditure, be must nevertheless assert that the present Government stood as well on economy as that to which it had succeeded. In the first place, the Earl of Durham was going out to Canada on condition of charging the expenses which he actually incurred, and without having any specific salary fixed for his services. He also went out to a colony where there was no governor. Now, Lord Amherst went out to a colony where there was a regular governor with a salary of 4,500l. a-year, concurrent with his own salary as a commissioner. The mission sent out by the right hon. Baronet was, therefore, the more expensive of the two, as the country had two governors, and therefore two salaries to provide for. With regard to the outfit of the Earl of Durham, the right hon. Baronet was sufficiently acquainted with diplomatic details to know, that there was no allowance for an outfit made on a special mission, for all such charges were considered as part of the general expenses of the mission. Now, though Lord Durham had not with him a concurrent governor, enjoying a salary of 4,500l. a year, and though Lord Amherst had, there was a considerable sum allowed to Lord Amherst for an outfit. Both Lord Durham and Lord Amherst were to have a secretary with a salary of 1,500l. a year. On that point, then, there was nothing gained on either side. Lord Amherst, however, besides having his own secretary, had at his command the secretary and all the other members belonging to the establishment of the governor of the colony. It was only right, then, to add the expense of the governor's establishment to that which the right hon. Baronet had formed for Lord Amherst as Commissioner, if they wished to ascertain the real expense of Lord Amherst's mission. "Ay," said hon Gentlemen on the other side, "but Lord Amherst did not carry out with him a legal adviser." But did the House see nothing in the difference of the political circumstances of the colony at the present moment, and when Lord Amherst was on the point of going there?—did it see nothing in the difference of the duties to be performed by Lord Durham, and by Lord Amherst?—did it see nothing in the greater difficulty of the task imposed upon Lord Durham by the recent insurrection, which rendered it a matter of duty on the part of the Government in this country, to send out a legal adviser with Lord Durham, although none was sent out with Lord Amherst? Lord Amherst went out as a Commissioner to settle the disputes then raging between different classes of her Majesty's subjects. His authority did not extend to Upper Canada: he had no legislative power. The existing Constitution was not suspended, and he was not called upon to draw up a new Constitution in its stead. But all this Lord Durham had to do, and, therefore, when the House saw the difference of the duties to be performed by his noble Friend, the Earl of Durham, and by Lord Amherst, he thought that it would agree with him in declaring, that it was the bounden duty of Government to furnish the Earl of Durham with a legal adviser. The Gentlemen opposite, on the present occasion, had not given the slightest intimation of their intention to move a vote of censure either against the Ministers or against the Earl of Durham. Their conduct was a departure from the ordinary practice and courtesy of the House. He must remind the House, that when the Canada Bill was before it, the right hon. Gentleman had objected to certain words in the preamble, because he would not, either directly or indirectly, incur any responsibility as to the success of the mission of his noble Friend. The right hon. Baronet said, he would give to Lord Durham those ample powers which the Bill conferred upon him, but that if he in any way identified himself with the noble Lord's instructions, he would be taking on himself a responsibility which he had no wish to incur. Now, the right hon. Baronet and his friends, according to this creed, were taking on themselves a responsibility in making this motion which they ought not to incur, if their object was to deprive Lord Durham of that assistance which Government thought necessary for the due performance of its functions; and, in conformity with the system they had adopted, of throwing on Government the whole responsibility, and leaving Lord Durham to perform his duties as he might, and reserving to themselves the right to find fault afterwards, if he and the Government should fail. They were bound not to attempt to induce this House to deprive Lord Durham of those means of discharging his duties which Government, acting on the responsibility thrown upon them, had thought necessary for the exact and efficient performance of them.

said, that the hon. Member for Durham had expressed himself warmly, in reference to a term of which he had made use, and which, he admitted, could not remain unnoticed. Now, he had not the slightest hesitation in saying, that he never intended to give the slightest pain to the Earl of Durham; but he certainly reserved to himself the right of criticising the conduct of her Majesty's Government, and the appointments they thought proper to make. The noble Lord opposite had accused him of wishing to take the House by surprise; but he must tell the noble Lord, that he was completely mistaken. He had given due notice of his intention to bring the subject before the House; and when the hon. Member for Durham charged him with discourtesy towards his noble relative, in putting questions behind his back, as he was pleased to term it, he must say, first, that he had not the honour of being known to the noble earl; and next, that it was not usual for Members of this House to communicate to Peers the course they meant to take on the public affairs. The practice of putting notice of questions on the paper, was entirely new; and he remembered that he had himself put questions to Lord Althorp, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, on two occasions, in ten minutes after he had acquainted the noble Lord with his intention. He had heard nothing from the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, or any hon. Member on the same side, to induce him to change his opinion regarding the mission to Canada. He should only add, that he disclaimed all feelings of a personal nature in making his motion. He had been actuated solely by public motives, and had felt bound to do so, because the mission entailed on the country an immense expenditure, of which the House ought to take cognizance.