rose, to bring on the motion of which he had given notice as follows:—"That the exclusive privileges now enjoyed by the Bank of Ireland are injurious to the best interests of that country, and it is therefore most expedient and just to place, as soon as possible, the banks of Ireland on a footing of equality." He wished to know why Ireland, which so much wanted the benefit of capital, should be continued under such a system of monopoly any longer? He considered that they were now in a situation to throw out of view what had been the evils of joint-stock banks, or of the Bank of Ireland. They were now in a situation to call upon the Government, to say why the system of banking in Ireland should not now be put on the same footing as the banks in Scotland. He would call for the same justice to this country, only that he knew that the Bank of England had its monopoly for a certain time; but in the case of the Bank of Ireland it was different, for their charter of exclusiveness was now at an end, and there could be no reason for continuing so injurious a monopoly. Why was the capital of the Bank of Ireland, amounting to two millions and a half, lent to the Government at an interest of four per cent.? He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had continued the former rate of interest, or whether since January any new arrangement had been made? Seeing the right hon. Gentleman might have borrowed the money at three per cent., if he was paying four or four and a half per cent., it was evident that was to the great injury of the public. He wished the Government to declare their intentions as to the future state of banking in Ireland, and he now begged to move his resolution.

n seconding the resolution, said, he hoped the Government, if they had it in contemplation to renew the charter of the Bank of Ireland, would recollect the circumstances under which that charter had been originally granted. It was antecedent to the Legislature of Ireland becoming part of that of England; and in consequence it was considered necessary that Ireland should, as England had, have a national bank. But since the Act of Union had passed, what necessity could be imagined for two national banks?

said, both the mover and seconder of the amendment had fallen into error, in supposing that in moving the Committee, the object was to consider the evidence and frame a Report. On the contrary, he had stated that there were three distinct questions on which evidence was to be taken—the establishment of branch banks of England throughout England; the issues, by certain of these joint-stock banks of bank paper in substitution for their own; and, thirdly, this subject of the Bank of Ireland. The proceedings in the Committee had been strictly in accordance with the statements he then made. It had not inquired into matters which were the subject of investigation on previous occasions, and there was therefore no inconsistency in the course taken by the Committee, and the declaration which he had made. He should decline now entering into an argument on the case, because he could show to the House a sufficient reason for reserving that subject for future consideration. Nothing could be more indiscreet on his part, than to go into a premature discussion as to whether he agreed with, or dissented from, the proposition of the hon. Member, because it might prejudice the question to do so before the evidence which had been taken was in the hands of Members. But the hon. Gentleman had a right to see that the public interests were not affected or forestalled out of doors. The Report which had been brought up, although not yet in the hands of hon. Members, adverted to this subject, and recommended that a bill, in continuation of that of last Session, should be brought in, in such a manner as to give the House an unfettered discretion in the next Session to deal with the question as it should think fit. This was doing all that could be required in the present posture of affairs. Without going into the general proposition, he wished to say one word on a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He not only had thrown out a supposition, the practicability of which he did not doubt, that an unrestricted freedom of competition in banking would be advantageous to the interests of Ireland; but he had thrown out a much larger proposition, that if it were not for the privilege of the Bank of England, a free competition of the banks of issue in this country was a matter which he contemplated as advantageous. This was a suggestion to which he should enter his dissent, reserving it as a matter for future consideration. There was another matter on which he also wished to make an observation. Undoubtedly there was on the advances made by the Bank of Ireland an amount of interest beyond the market rate of interest. But, at the same time, the Bank of Ireland acted differently by the public from the Bank of England, which charged 340l. per million on the management of the public debt, whilst the Bank of Ireland transacted this without any charge whatever. He would not go into the question further, than to assure the hon. Member, that if he looked minutely into this matter, which must be done next year, at any rate, he would find that so great a saving as he anticipated would not be effected. He was as anxious as any man to save 30,000l. or 40,000l.; but he was afraid that could not be done. He, however, thought the arrangement that had been made, such as deserved reconsideration. The hon. Member had observed, upon the effect of joint-stock banks, and had said that the inquiry that had been entered into with respect to them, and the publication of the evidence, had been adopted by the Government in a feeling of hostility towards them. Now, in answer to that, he begged to say that he had been actuated by no such feeling. The hon. Member had also said, that the publication of the evidence had left those banks in a state of feverish excitement. In that statement he could not agree with him, as it was his belief that the publication of the evidence had been attended with the best effect, as it had given to the banks, many of which were in their infancy, the benefit of the example and experience of the older banks. The Northern and Central, and some of the other banks, were in no way connected with this subject; and if they were, when he considered the pressure under which the public laboured, and the small number of failures that had taken place, he felt convinced that the principle of joint-stock banks was good, and would prove beneficial to the country. Under these circumstances, he trusted, the explanation he had given would be satisfactory, reserving to himself the right of proposing any legislation in the next Session that he might think fit.

, after the intimation just given by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as also the statements made on a former occasion, that in next Session of Parliament not only the affairs of the Bank of Ireland, but also the principles by which the affairs of the Bank of England were regulated, would be submitted to a committee and there undergo examination and discussion, thought it would be most advisable if his hon. Friend would not persevere in his motion. Some of those principles by which banking companies were regulated, particularly with respect to unrestricted circulation, had been the subject of discussion with men who were best informed upon the subject; and it being now decided, that a committee would sit for the purpose of deciding upon these and other points next Session, he trusted his hon. Friend would withdraw the motion.

would avail himself of the opportunity to make some further inquiries on a subject on which he had on a former occasion applied for an answer to the right hon. President of the Board of Control. He hoped, that he might now be permitted to ask what was the nature and object of the expedition which had recently been sent from Bombay to Bushire. He asked this question because, from the Indian newspapers, there was every reason to believe, that it was connected with hostilities towards Persia. It had long been known, that an intimate connexion of a diplomatic kind existed between Persia and Russia. It was also known, that that connexion had of late assumed a closer character, for the siege of Herat was now directed by the Russian envoy, who happened to be an officer of engineers. He mentioned this to shew the importance of the subject, connected as it was with Persia on the one hand, and with Russia on the other. He understood, that it was notorious, that a connexion subsisted at present between Russia and Persia, and that it was even carried to the extent of being of an offensive and defensive nature. Now, the nature of the expedition recently sent from Bombay seemed to compromise our pacific relations with Persia, and if so with Russia. He therefore requested the noble Secretary to inform him, if he deemed it compatible with his public duty, first, whether the object of that expedition was such as would justify Persia in placing herself in a hostile relation towards us; and secondly, whether he had received any information as to the nature of the secret treaty between Russia and Persia.

could only refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer which he had already received from his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Control, that the expedition to Bushire had been sent out, not by this Government, but by the Governor-general of India. As to the secret treaty which the right hon. Gentleman conceived to exist between Russia and Persia, he had no information.

contended, that this was not an unnatural question to put to the noble Lord on going into a committee of supply. Surely, the House had a right to know in what position its foreign relations were placed. He, therefore, would ask the noble Lord whether the expedition had sailed to occupy any part of Persia. Had it gone with hostile intentions towards Persia, or by the solicitation of the Government of Persia? To say that it had gone by the authority of the Governor-general was no answer to the question. We ought to know whether it had sailed with hostile intentions against Persia.

submitted, that the right hon. Baronet should have put that question to his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Control, when he stated, that the expedition had been sent in consequence of an order from the Governor-general of India.

inquired, whether there was any truth in the report which had obtained circulation, and caused considerable uneasiness in the city this afternoon, that the packets to and from Mexico had been interdicted by the French Government from carrying specie, the property of private individuals, while the blockade lasted?

said, the hon. Gentleman knew, that according to the strict doctrine of the law on blockade, the French Government would have been entitled to establish an absolute blockade, whereas they had made an exception in favour of the packets in and out between this country and Mexico. Two questions were put to the French Government, whether they would allow these packets to carry specie belonging to merchants; and next, whether they would allow them to carry specie belonging to the English Government, and required for the service? The French Government acceded to the latter part of the request, to allow the packets to carry specie belonging to the Government, but declined to allow them to take specie belonging to individuals. The permitting packets to pass at all, was an indulgence which we had no right to expect according to our own principles, and allowing packets to take specie belonging to Government, was another indulgence which they had no right to expect.

in rising to bring forward the subject of which he had given notice, begged to assure the noble Lord opposite that he was actuated by no vexatious feeling on the present occasion. But he felt that the constitutional rights and liberties of the people of this country had been invaded, and would be invaded more and more every day, by the Poor-law commissioners, acting under the noble Lord, unless some means were taken to place a proper check on their proceedings; and therefore, he felt it his duty to the public at large to bring this matter forward. At the same time he begged to observe, that in any remarks he should have to offer nothing was further from his intention than to make any reflections on the private character of the commissioners; he spoke only of their public conduct. He knew he was treading on delicate ground in bringing forward this matter, when so much excitement prevailed relative to the poor laws; but he would state explicitly, that whatever might have been his opinions of the Poor-law Amendment Act before it became the law of the land, he had now no desire to see it repealed; on the contrary, if its repeal were proposed, he should oppose it. But great amendments were necessary, in order to make it satisfactory to the people; for unless it were satisfactory it could not be effectual. In his opinion the erection of those vast buildings throughout the country would prove not only a most extravagant but a most useless expenditure of the public money. To say nothing of the cruelty to which their unfortunate inmates were subjected in the separation of parents from children, brother from sister, and husband from wife, if even they came to be used to the extent of their capacity, those workhouses would be found to be in every respect the pests of the country. He did not see why the poor of England should not have a protector as well as the unfortunate negroes, whose case had excited so much sympathy in this country. It appeared from a paragraph which he had read in a newspaper this morning, that in consequence of ordering roast beef and plum pudding on the day of the coronation to the poor of a certain workhouse, contrary to the instructions of the Poor-law commissioners, the master had been condemned to one month's imprisonment. The certain effect of the uncontrolled dictatorial powers with which the commissioners were invested would be to infringe upon the rights and liberties of every individual in the community, within and out of that House. He had felt considerable alarm two or three months ago on reading the' following statement which appeared at the time in the public papers:—

"An order has just been issued by the Poor-law commissioners which it is understood will be forwarded to all the unions in England, directing the guardians to appoint within a specified time persons to perform the duties enumerated in the first schedule below, such persons to be paid by an annual salary, and to find two sureties for the due performance of their duties. The duties to be performed by one person are to be specified by the Poor-law commissioners according to circumstances, and every person appointed to perform the duties stated in the first schedule shall undertake in case he be nominated and elected by the inhabitants in vestry of any parish or place within his district, and appointed thereto by any two justices of the peace to perform with- out any additional remuneration any of the duties enumerated in the second schedule, or any other duties imposed by law upon overseers of the poor, and not enumerated in the first schedule; and every person appointed under the order shall have power to execute the duties assigned to him in like manner, and to all intents and purposes as an ordinary overseer of the poor; and any board of guardians may at any time suspend the performance of the duties of any assistant-overseer appointed in pursuance of the order, until such suspension be confirmed or taken off by the Poor-law commissioners; and if the suspension be confirmed by the Poor-law commissioners, but not otherwise, the remuneration of such assistant-overseer and his continuance in office shall, if the commissioners so direct, cease from the day of such suspension. No person shall be chosen to perform any of the duties unless he will undertake to devote the whole of his time to the employment, not following any trade, profession, or any other occupation whatever, except he be already a paid officer of the union, and except he be elected to perform the duties stated in the second schedule."

Perhaps he was not entitled to call that an order of the commissioners, or even a proposed order; but he was entitled to say, that he himself had seen it in the minute-books in Somerset-house He had no doubt every one would agree with him in thinking it a most objectionable paper; indeed, he hardly thought the noble Lord himself would be found to approve of it. In the first instance, it attempted to take away from the parochial authorities every description of management of their own affairs; even the parish books were to be placed in the hands of a hired servant of the Commissioners, liable to be dismissed at a moment's notice. Then, in the most underhand manner, it interfered with that particular clause of the Reform Bill, which provided for the making out of the lists of voters for Members to serve in Parliament. He would ask, whether the centralization principle was not clearly manifested in every part of the last debate on the question of the Poor-law for Ireland; and whether that ought not to convince the people that, if they were not on their guard, they would speedily have but little left worth the caring for. What was the noble Lord's intention with respect to the police? He had heard, that it was intended to place the new police of the city of London under the authority of the noble Secretary for the Home Department. The establishment of a rural police, likewise, at the beck of the noble Lord, would, he supposed, soon follow, and then the enthralment of the country would be complete. He should now proceed more immediately to the consideration of the question before the House. Early in March he had first given notice of the motion which he was about to move, and he had then no reason to think, that the papers he sought would have been refused. When he made the motion, however, the noble Lord objected to the production of the letter, stating, that it was not a final order determined upon by the Poor-law commissioners, but had only, as he thought the noble Lord said, been laid by them before some one or two persons in order to have the advice of those persons upon it; and then the noble Lord went on to suppose a case, and said, that if he, as Secretary of State, had thought proper to write a letter to his under-secretary, and desire him to make any suggestions upon it which might occur to him, the House of Commons would not think of calling for the production of a paper written under such circumstances. Be that as it might, this was his answer, and the noble Lord had thus the full advantage of his supposed case. Shortly after this, a public paper, friendly to the Government, said, that he had greatly mistaken the fact, in saying, that this letter had been sent through the country generally, for that the truth was, it had only been sent to Poole and (he thought) two other places. He wrote to Poole and received, through the medium of a noble Member of that House, the following answer from Mr. Parr, the clerk of the Poole union:—

"My Lord,—I much regret, that I have unavoidably been prevented answering your Lordship's favour with Mr. Palmer's enclosed before this. The order, with schedules Nos. 1 and 2, for appointing an assistant-overseer, was received from the Poor-law Commissioners on the 13th of January last. The Commissioners sent it to the guardians, and stated it to be an order, they would be prepared to sanction, if the guardians approved of it, and that I, as the clerk, should be instructed to fill it up, and return it to the Commissioners. The guardians were unanimous in their opinion, that the powers given to the assistant-overseer by such order ought not to have been given to any one individual, and the Commissioners were informed, that the guardians disapproved of such order. Subsequently—namely, on the 8th of February, another order was issued to appoint a collector of poor-rates, &c.

"Poole, April 24, 1838. "ROBERT H. PARR.

"To the right hon. Lord Ashley, M.P,"

Of the effect of the circular of the 8th of February he could only judge from a document which he had seen, and which he found had been sent to the Chorlton-on-Medlock Union; and on speaking on this subject, he did feel, that the House ought to understand what kind of control they had over the Poor-law commissioners. But from the act of Parliament, if he understood it correctly, it appeared, that every order from the board of Poor-law commissioners ought to be understood as a general order, and was to be laid upon the Table of that House, in order, that such steps might be taken as should be thought necessary if it was disapproved. But he was told, at the office of the board at Somerset-house, that as long as the board only issued one or two at a time, they were not to be considered to be general orders; but not to dwell upon this part of the subject, he must express his hope, that the noble Lord would not on that occasion take shelter in pretexts of political expediency or diplomatic secrecy, and refuse the production of the letter for which he was about to move. The hon. Member concluded by moving "for the production of a copy of a letter dated the 8th of January, 1838, addressed by the Poor-law commissioners to the assistant commissioners, with which certain proposed orders for the appointment of assistant overseers were sent."

could not object to the motion of the hon. Member on grounds of state necessity, nor that the letter, if produced, would cause any great revelation of state secrets, but he objected to the production of this letter for the same reasons as he had stated when the matter was first mentioned to him. More than one of the Poor-law commissioners had stated to him that they had directed some one in the office of the board to draw up a letter to be sent to the guardians of some of the Poor-law unions, and that such a letter was sent to two or three of the assistant-commissioners, who were requested to say whether the steps proposed in it would be useful or not. But the commissioners had themselves seen, upon considering the letter as drawn up, that there were two or three points in it which it would not be desirable should be carried into effect. But on the 12th of May they did agree to a letter amended from the former, to be sent as before. Now, his objection to producing documents of this nature, was this—that when persons like the Poor-law commissioners were in communciation with their subordinate officers, that House had not a right to call for the correspondence between them until the whole matter was finally settled. There was the less reason why he should in this case consent to the production of the letter, as he believed, that by some means or other it had appeared in some one of the newspapers. On the ground, then, that the production of this document would establish a bad and inconvenient precedent, he must refuse his assent to the motion.

, in rising to propose the vote for the support of the British Museum, could not help expressing his persuasion that the House must observe with great pleasure the increasing interest felt in this great institution, and he could not but think that the hon. Members composing the Committee, among whom was the hon. Member for Kilkenny, would agree with him that the Committee enjoyed a most agreeable sight, when quite unexpectedly they passed through the rooms of the Museum, and remarked the great numbers of persons who were taking a calm and rational delight in the various objects of curiosity presented in the Museum. The right hon. Baronet moved that a sum of 27,469l. be granted to provide for the expenses of the British Museum.

fully concurred with the right hon. Baronet in the account he had given of the interesting spectacle the committee had witnessed in their visit to the British Museum, and contended, that the principle of opening public institutions and buildings for the free acess on one day in the week or more ought to be carried further than at present. He had reason to think, that the trustees of various provincial museums were about opening them to the public generally, and he did not see why the same thing should not be practised generally. He could not refrain from mentioning the gratification with which he observed the material increase which had taken place in the number of persons frequenting the reading-room of the British Museum. In the year 1825 the number of readers was 3,800, but last year they amounted to no fewer than 69,913. He expected the greatest possible public advantage from this free use of the library. With regard to the other part of the Museum, he did think, that after service on Sundays it might be set open for the rational enjoyment of the people with very great advantage.

admitted the importance of acquiring the two collections that had been alluded to, and he thought it highly desirable to keep the public opinion in favour of grants of this kind. He had not any fears of opposition from either side of the House when votes for objects of this kind were concerned, for he knew that the House would always be ready to give the most liberal assistance to the Government in carrying such objects into effect. He thought, however, that there was one inconvenience in prospective discussions of this kind for which a strong opinion was expressed by the House in favour of those collections—it had the effect of raising the market against them in their capacity of purchasers. He had the highest respect for the names attached to the memorial, and should give the subject the consideration which it deserved.

said, with respect to the time of admission the Committee had made very liberal arrangements. They had opened the Museum on Easter and Whitsun weeks, and had given the public great additional facilities in other respects. The Museum was at present open to the public during three days in each week. Now it should be recollected, that there were two objects to be kept in view; one was, the admission of the public, and the other, to give scientific persons the opportunity of improving themselves, free from the bustle which was inseparable from a crowded attendance. For this latter object two days were set apart, namely, Tuesday and Thursday, and the remaining day, Saturday, was set apart for the purposes of cleaning. With respect to an additional day, and to appointing admission on Sundays, he had a strong opinion on that subject. He would not disturb the unanimity that prevailed by expressing that opinion; but he thought as one reason against that proposal, that the officers of the establishment required that day for rest. He considered, that the interest taken by the humbler classes of the people in collections of this kind was not only calculated to promote the moral and intellectual improvement of the people, but to increase and strengthen their attachment to their country. The right hon. Baronet warmly concurred in the importance of securing to the public the two collections that had been alluded to, for if the opportunity was lost it might never occur again. He hoped, also, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would take into consideration the state of the buildings, and see, that it would be the best economy to bring them to a state of completion as soon as possible.

wished to say a few words as to the amount of this grant. It would be remembered, that in 1836 it was first agreed to vote a sum of 10,000l. for the relief of the Poles. At that time the number in this country was somewhere about 400, and it was then intimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the relief should be granted only to such Poles as were in the country at the time. Since that time the number of Poles in the country had, from various causes, increased—a considerable portion had been let loose by a neighbouring country on our shore, so that there were now 200 of those unfortunate individuals in the country who were totally excluded from Parliamentary relief. The frequent appeals to that charity, which, he was happy to say, was never inattentive, proved this, and all the idle amusement of the day had been called into requisition to assist in their relief. He thought it was unworthy of our generosity to leave this small number excluded from the benefits of the grant, which was not of sufficient amount to invite increased immigration. It was a remarkable fact, that in this, the dearest country in Europe, the grant had always been less than in France, at least to every rank above that of a private soldier. In Russia and Austria, also, the governments had been more liberal than ours. In fact, the English scale was the lowest in Europe. While England gave 10,000l., what had France done? To be sure, the Poles had perhaps, greater claims on France. The French Government was, he believed, more responsible than ours—he hoped ours had no share in the responsibility—for the revolution which had brought ruin on these unhappy men, and driven them exiles from their native land. But France had given 100,000l.—once 160,000l., but never less than 100,000l., and even the small canton of Berne had given 4,000l. He maintained, that our Government had not come forward in the manner becoming our character and resources. He knew, that the presence of destitute strangers was a consequence and disadvantage of our position on the map; but that position had also its advantages—such as our being the outport of Transatlantic communication, and the trade and commerce which that position gave us. While we enjoyed those advantages, we ought not to grumble at the inconveniences, or scruple to assist those whom misfortune had driven to our shores. We ought to recollect, also, how much we owed to the fact of having been at different periods the refuge of strangers who had become the victims of their opinions. In early times the Flemings introduced manufactures, and at a later period we had derived considerable advantage from the persecuted French, whom the edict of Nantes drove from their native country. In fact, the persecuted of all nations had, at different times, come to us for protection, and enriched us by their industry. The particular facts of the case he was now urging on the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer were these—200 men were now living from day to day on the precarious relief afforded by public charity; and it was with deep regret he saw many honourable and high-minded men reduced to such a dependence for subsistence. He did not like to see senators, members of the Diet, men distinguished in the annals of their native country for their conduct in the Council or in the field, reduced to such a state as to become the subjects of puffing advertisements, and obliged to resort to the voluntary services of foreign singers for existence. He did not mean to cast any blame on those persons who undertook the labour of the exhibitions to which he alluded; they, he felt convinced, were actuated by none but the highest and purest motives, but he thought that such means must, to high-minded men, be a most painful mode of existence. He would, therefore, entreat his right hon. Friend to do something for these poor men. Suppose he only added a sum of only half the amount now proposed, which he thought would not be enough to induce any others to come over for shares. It should be recollected, that in the French Chambers ministers had formerly stated their intention to send no more of those unhappy men to our shores. He hoped, therefore, that nothing would induce his right hon. Friend to withhold the small relief he had asked for from any apprehension of fresh arrivals—a thing which he could render ineffectual by stipulating that no Pole should receive relief out of the original grant who had not resided above a year in this country. He was in nowise personally interested in the Polish cause; he was merely moved by the fate of two hundred unhappy men, who had been driven from their own country, deprived of all the comforts of life, and cast helpless and destitute on our shores without any help save the casual charity of the day. They had made every effort to obtain food by their labour; on railroads and public works, Colonels and others of high rank might be found working as common labourers, but being strangers, speaking a strange language, and having few facilities of obtaining employment, the great majority were left to wander starving about the streets. In the police reports accounts would be found of Poles taken in the act of sleeping under our porticos and at our hall doors and such other places of shelter as chance threw in their way. The state of our finances might be urged as a reason for withholding present relief, but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would give the national distress as a reason for refusing a grant of 5,000l. for so benevolent a purpose. Although our finances were not in the most flourishing state, grants were made for the support of the British Museum, and for other purposes connected with art and science; and while we were indulging in these luxuries, wholesome and beneficial luxuries he would admit, he did not think we should refrain from the higher luxury of assisting those unfortunate men in their present state of destitution. There was only one point more to which he would allude. Attempts had been made to prejudice the public mind against the Poles, by the fact of twenty or thirty misguided men having published placards and interfered at a late election. He did not mean to vindicate the conduct of those individuals, which all must concur in thinking highly improper; but surely that was no reason why 200 men, totally unconnected with that conduct, should be left to perish. He trusted, that however great and just might have been the irritation caused by this foolish conduct, that time sufficient had elapsed since its occurrence to erase it completely from the public mind. Under all these circumstances he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the enlargement of the grant.

said, that if the noble Lord had proposed a distinct vote, he (Mr. O'Connell) should have been exceedingly anxious to second him, but as that could not be done consistently with the usages of the House, he must only content himself with pressing on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accede o the enlargement of the vote. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, ought to be as chary of the public money as of that of individuals; but he could tell the right hon. Gentleman, that there was no portion of that public which would not hear of the increased grant with gladness. They were assembled there to represent every grade and variety of public opinion, but he believed there was no man on either side unrestrained by official duty who would be afraid to answer to his constituents for voting in favour of this grant. The only objection that could be urged to the proposed increase was, that it would be creating an inconvenient precedent by encouraging exiles for political opinions. Why the last century afforded several preceof that kind, and was Poland—the land to which the poet alluded in the bautiful lines—

"Sarmatia fell unwept without a crime."

and which lines, although poetical, were strictly true—Poland that fell a victim to the crimes and perfidy of others—was she to be excluded from relief? Neither need they look to the past as affording motives for making this grant. The future was pregnant with prospects which made it expedient that we should have Poland and the Poles on our side. From Gibraltar to the Persian Gulf events were approaching which made the alliance of a brave people a thing not to be despised. If we now refused this paltry sum of 5,000l., we should lose all the gratitude we had acquired by former grants. He did not wish to enter further into the matter, or to trench on disputable points. The present was not a disputable point—it was one that called for the exercise of one of our highest virtues—that of charity; and, if the grant did form a precedent, it was one of wisdom and generosity, and one that would be hailed with acclaim in every corner of the British empire.

said, that there never was a more painful duty imposed on an individual Member, than that of bringing back the House from the impulses of generosity and compassion to the considerations of right and of justice. He had, however, one cause for rejoicing, and that was, that he was not now called on to defend the withholding of the grant altogether. The question, he was happy to say, was not one of principle but of degree; and he was also rejoiced to say, that he now, for the fifth time, had had the honour of proposing the grant. Now, the point to which he wished to call the attention of the House, and which had been alluded to by his noble Friend, was, that when the grant was first solicited from Government the gentlemen who consulted Earl Spencer on the subject undertook that the extent of relief required should be for the Poles at that period actually in the country. They not only consented to this stipulation, but stated their determination themselves to resist any attempt at infraction. He did not wish to press this point more than it deserved; but he had a right to make the House acquainted with facts—facts which an hon. Gentleman present could attest. This was in 1834. Afterwards, in consequence of the events at Cracow, new calamities overtook the Poles, and a new class became exiles from their native land, and although these formed no part in the stipulation, the Government overlooked the fact and relieved them. The vote had not been decreased from its original amount, notwithstanding that the natural course of things must have greatly diminished the number of claimants; but the balance had been applied to the relief of the Cracow exiles. Among those who wished to leave the country, and who came recommended by the association, were given the entire sum allowed for one year's subsistence to assist them in emigration. From emigration and other causes the original number had greatly decreased. It was at first 485, but, in 1835, 116 emigrated. This, of course, caused a great reduction, and the whole balance was applied to the assistance of the rest. He did not wish to take any merit to himself in this transaction, he was merely the distributor of the national benevolence; but he defied any man to say, that he had not carried into effect the declaration of Parliament; or that, if he had committed any fault, it was on the side of generosity. What was it they were now called upon to do? Were they prepared to commence an interminable system of grants? No matter what brought political exiles here. Were they to pledge the country to provide for their wants? It was but justice, however, to say, that the unfortunate men deserved our warmest sympathy. No men could have acted with more prudence, more honesty, or more resignation than they had since their arrival in this country. Indeed, their valour in the field was only exceeded by their resignation under misfortunes. Therefore, it was not any want of sympathy that induced him to oppose the increase; but, because he knew, that if in 1838 they went beyond the principle originally proposed, they would not know where to stop. He would remind the House, too, of what had been the course with men who had much stronger claims on us than the Poles—he meant the Spanish exiles, the companions in arms of the Duke of Wellington, and who had fought side by side with our own soldiers. The grant for their relief, which in 1833 was 12,000l., in 1837 was only 3,000l.; in this case, although the same cause had been in operation, he did not call for any reduction, but merely opposed increasing it to 15,000l. There had been one observation made in passing, to which he would only give a passing reply. Allusion was made to the political objects to be served in assisting the Poles. He could only say, that he disclaimed any such feeling, and that whether the grant was 10,000l. or a greater amount, he wished it to be understood as given from motives of generosity, and without a view to any political consequences whatever. In conclusion, he must say that, having consulted his colleagues on the subject, it was his painful duty to rest contented with the grant as it now stood.

observed, that as the French Government had given positive assurances that there should be no further attempts to send the Poles out of that country, he thought the present was an occasion on which the national benevolence might be safely exercised. He must express his concurrence in the sentiments of his noble Friend, and his satisfaction at hearing the tribute to the good conduct of the Poles, which the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had so well expressed.

mourned for the decision to which the right hon. Gentleman had come, because he thought the reputation of the country was involved in it. He had listened with the utmost attention to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and he heard nothing in it to justify our withholding relief from those who were peri hing in our streets. This was no party or political question, but one of need and destitution—a destitution of the extent of which the House was most probably not aware. He had taken some pains to ascertain the facts, and he found the actual number excluded from participation in the grant to be 189. Of these seventeen were field officers—126 officers, and thirty-six soldiers, and ten the wives and children of soldiers. This was the exact number of persons who were depending on the casual bounty of the public, and of these some had been many days without food. The increase asked was a mere trifle. The apprehension of an increase of the grant being likely to induce more Poles to come to this country was groundless, more especially after the declaration of the French Minister, when he stated, that it was not the intention of the present government to send more Poles into England. This country, therefore, might, without danger, give free scope to its generosity. It was, in his opinion, a mistaken economy to refuse so small an addition to the grant. He would rather see the 5,000l. deducted from the expense of the coronation than refused on such an occasion as the present. We ought not to suffer those brave and much-enduring men, who fled from tyranny to our shores, to find there not an asylum, but a grave.

thought, that when the cause in which these men suffered, was considered—when the depth of their misery and the resignation with which they endured it was borne in mind—there could be no stronger grounds for a liberal grant of money than those which their claims possessed upon the sympathies of a generous public. He trusted, that the finances of the country were not so low as to render a refusal of the increase to this grant necessary. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see the propriety of acceding to the proposition.

would not do justice to his own feelings, if he did not cordially support the increase of this grant. He felt, that he could add nothing in favour of the proposition to the excellent observations made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, of whom it would always give him greater pleasure to speak in terms of praise than censure. In the injury that had been done to the high-minded and generous Poles, a blow had been stricken at all civilised Europe. They should not forget the hint which had been thrown out by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, namely, that it was an ennobling and a stirring sight—a sight calculated to excite a worthy emulation in every generous mind—to see these brave men still clinging to the cause of their prostrate country, even in her utmost desolation. A time might arrive when it might be necessary for us to adopt a course in which the co-operation of these brave men might be desirable. With respect to the increase to the grant, he was sure that the House would be unanimous in consenting to it.

said, that when he considered the state of the Poles—some of them refugees in England, some exiles in Siberia, and some of them strangers in their own home—he was happy to think, that England was no party to that revolt which reduced them to that condition, and was in no degree chargeable with any share in the injustice which blotted Poland as a country out of the map of Europe. England ought to be the asylum of the oppressed of every nation, and she would be found so. When the smallness of the sum was taken into consideration, and when he saw that all those who differed so widely upon other subjects were almost unanimous upon this, he did not think the additional grant would be refused. It was called for, not only by humanity, but by justice, being only a tardy discharge of the debt due by us for the assistance which Poland formerly rendered to England in 1650. Even though the grant should form a precedent, he did not think there would be any objection to its future adoption.

ad- mitted, that the sympathy of the House was in favour of the vote, and it was a sympathy which he would, by no means, endeavour to suppress. What he feared, however, in yielding to the influence of such sympathy was, that there might be in future, an indefinite increase made in votes of this nature. With respect to the opinion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, the hon. Gentleman should remember, that he himself, when this question was, on a former occasion, brought forward by Lord Dudley Stuart, objected to too great an outlay of public money. He would by no means say anything calculated to prejudice the cause of the Polish refugees; and he felt, that the general unanimity of the House was a matter for the serious consideration of the public. In pursuing the course which he did pursue, he was but discharging an arduous and painful duty. He hoped the House would give him credit for the motives with which he acted, for he felt, in his position, that in the disposal of the public money, he ought not to be actuated by any feeling as to the popularity of the claim; but whether the disposal of it in a particular way was or was not for the benefit of the public.

said, that after what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the promise given that the matter should be taken into consideration, he should withdraw his amendment.

represented a large community, and was sure, that not a pauper in Birmingham would oppose the increase of the grant.

objected to the amount, as totally insufficient for its purpose. If the revenue of the late Bishop were divided, it would allow 1,500l. for each Bishop (Montreal and Quebec), and this arrangement would, he had no doubt, give general satisfaction to the Canadian people. Canada had strong claims upon England; and he hoped, that in the most important of all concerns, that colony would not be neglected. They had encouraged English, Scotch, and Irish subjects to emigrate to the forests of Canada, and they should take care to provide them with that greatest of blessings—Christian instruction. The present mode of payment superinduced a system of pluralities which, he believed, Members at each side of the House were equally opposed to; but which were inseparable from this mode of payment. Even the Clergy reserves had not been directed to the purposes for which they were intended, or at least they had not been made available to that purpose. The day might come, when Canada would be enabled to support her own Church; but so long as England continued to support the Canadian Church, she ought to do so in a manner that would meet the present necessities of that Church. The sum they were now called upon to vote, was quite insufficient; and though he would not move an amendment, he had felt himself called upon to deliver his opinions to the House. He regretted, that a person more competent had not taken up the matter; but so long as he was in Parliament, he should take care of the interests of the Church, whether as a leader or a follower.

said the manner in which the clergy of Canada were formerly paid was founded in error. They had received their remuneration from the sum which was voted for the army extraordinary expenses, and this was of course without the cognizance of Parliament. The Government had long given attention to the subject. Her Majesty's Government, considering the state of matters in Canada, did not think it expedient that this country should pay for the religious instruction of the inhabitants of that colony. Canada was untaxed—it was a rich and flourishing community—and therefore it was unfair that the heavily taxed people of England should bear such a burthen as the hon. Member's motion would impose on them. There was likewise an arrangement entered into with the colony in the time of Lord Goderich's Government, that no further burthen of that description should be laid on this country. Besides, all the efforts to impose the, Established Church on the inhabitants of that country would be found ineffective. He denied the accuracy of the observation made by the hon. Gentleman, that a great number of emigrants had gone out to the Canadas on the faith of an understanding that the Government would act as he had stated in regard to the Established Church. Under these circumstances, he thought it better to refrain from any discussion on the subject.

said, the Church of England had been the curse of Ireland, and would be the curse of the Canadas if established there.

said, he had never heard so much nonsense as he did in the speech of the hon. Member who mooted the question on the subject of destitution in Canada. He considered the existence of a sinecure church a disgrace to Canada as well as it was to England; and he was of opinion that its existence, if affirmed would lead to results similar to those which had taken place in Ireland. He should oppose the motion.

said, that the hon. Member for Kilkenny was not right in stating that religious destitution did not exist in Canada. Every thing that transpired on the subject proved the contrary. He (Mr. Goulburn) thought, that there was a solemn obligation on the country to see a good and sufficient religious instruction was provided for her colonies: and where religious establishments were in their infancy, we were bound to succour and uphold them until they attained strength and maturity.

deprecated the observation made use of by the hon. Member for Greenock in regard to the Church of England. He also denied the truth of the assertion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that there was no spiritual destitution in Canada. The speech of the noble Lord (Howick) had given him much pain, inasmuch as it appeared to be of a piece with his recent remarks, equally objectionable, on another subject in which the Established Church was involved. It was a matter of serious regret to hear, day after day, a Minister of the Crown objecting to keep up that Church which he was sworn by virtue of his office to defend. The hon. Member concluded by supporting the motion.

said, it was highly improper and impolitic to try to establish a religion in Canada, in opposition to and contrary to the wishes and feelings of the people. He wished the Church of England to be maintained, and properly maintained, wherever people belonging to that sect were to be found in any country on the face of the globe; but were the people of England to be taxed, on the ground of there being spiritual destitution in Canada, when it was well known that the sum already afforded was fully adequate for the wants of the people of that country? He had paid some consideration to the subject, and had consulted books written upon it, and he was satisfied that the funds already afforded were sufficiently adequate for the wants of the Church of England in Canada. It might be very well for the hon. Gentleman opposite to wish to have more bishops, but for his own part he should prefer that the number should be fewer. It was a part of the principle of hon. Gentlemen, however, on the other (the Opposition) side of the House to wish to support the existing system, and to extend it; and the reason was evident, for wherever they created a new incumbency they created a Protestant advocate in the person of the incumbent. Their object was to increase ecclesiastical patronage, in order to increase and strengthen their own political views.

was sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down denominate the members of the Established Church as a sect, The great objection of his hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Mr. Pakington), with respect to this grant, was, not that it had been increased but diminished; yet the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Hobhouse) complained that too much encouragement had been already given to the Established Church in Canada. He would contend that in a colony, the people of which were of British origin, who spoke the same language, who had had imported to them the same laws, no link in the chain of connection was so strong as that which bound them to the same religion. He was perfectly ready to admit, that when a colony had arrived at that state of maturity, that she could support her Church she ought to do so, but that time as yet, had not arrived for Canada.

said, that the part of the vote to which he had the strongest objection was that in which it was proposed to pay 1,000l. to the Catholic bishop of Quebec, and 75l. to the Catholic bishop of Newfoundland. He did not know the bishop who was to receive the 1,000l., but he had the pleasure of being acquainted with the Bishop of Newfoundland, and a more pious, zealous, hard-working bishop he did not know than this seventy-pound man. The bishop who was to get the 1,000l. might be a very exemplary character, and a very worthy man, but he doubted much whether, in the performance of his duties, he excelled the poorly paid Bishop of Newfoundland in the ratio in which the allowance of the one exceeded that of the other. The hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) was always very indignant at talking of the Church as a sect; but all his ire was exhausted in condemnation of those who were guilty of such profanity, for let there be any proposal of granting money for the support of that Church, and instantly the good humoured countenance of the hon. Baronet assumed an additional smile of hilarity. And yet he (Mr. O'Connell) thought, that nothing tended more to defile religion itself, or to check the progress of the different creeds into which it was divided, than a course and grovelling cupidity. What was it that caused and palliated the Reformation but the enormous wealth and, as an inevitable consequence, the abused power of the Church? Indeed the violence of the overthrow of that Church and the rapid diffusion of the reformed religion bore in some districts a proportion mathematically corresponding to the number of acres which it possessed; and from that moment to the present, religion had not been better for the endowment of churches. Where all religions were on an equality, the professors of one creed respected those of another; but the supremacy of any one Church had ever, and must ever, create a reaction of anger and hatred on the part of those who differed from it. And what was the ground for preference? An Act of Parliament. He confessed, that he had not always the most profound respect for Acts of Parliament in civil affairs. Would any hon. Member contend that an Act of Parliament could sanction a wrong? Besides, he did not wish to palm on the hon. Gentlemen opposite his authority for any doctrine which he might advance; but he would just remind them, that a right rev. Prelate in what was significantly called "another place," had announced his determination to resist an Act of Parliament, not merely by passive means, but with all the excommunicating powers which belonged to him. And why should not a humble layman like himself share in the piety of the sanctified Bishop of Exeter. Well, if the hon. Gentleman opposite liked, he was wrong. 'T was not the Bishop of Exeter's speech, that he saw in the newspapers. 'Twas a libel that was published on that most meek and gentle Prelate, on him who was, above all, so little addicted to calumny. Well, but to return to the force of an Act of Parliament. He, for one, could not acknowledge its infallibility either in civil or religious matters, as it had not even the merit of admitting the right to exercise private judgment. The true way to deal with the religions in Canada was to have the Protestants pay their own clergy, the followers of John Knox to maintain the Presbyterian faith, and if the Catholics did not uphold those who were the ministers of their creed he was quite contented to have the State abandon them to starvation.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was quite in keeping with the monstrous invectives which he had, on all occasions, lately delivered against the Established Church. The hon. and learned Gentleman had dwelt much on his abhorrence of any connection between the State and the Established Church; but his sentiments were not shared by those who professed his religion! for he defied him to show an instance in which the Catholics had the power and refused to endow their Church. Like the other dissenters, they were against the establishment in England, where the members of the Church preponderated; but all alike, when they migrated to the colonies, claimed the support of the State for their different forms of worship. Then as to the demands of the clergy for money, being men, they must live, and they could not live without those means which the State afforded, in consideration of their devoting their lives to the service of religion. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, he had no respect for Acts of Parliament. He was not at all astonished at the case with which he made such a declaration. He was used to such language; and he not only broke Acts of Parliament himself but he taught others to break them. He had not read the report of the speech of the Bishop of Exeter, so that he could not say how far circumstances might justify his declaration, that he would resist the law; but he was prepared to bow to that law which endowed a particular Church, and which must be taken as the declaration of the nation, through its representatives, in favour of that religion.

said, the noble Lord had made a personal attack on him, which he, however, was quite prepared to answer in every point. The noble Lord was mistaken if he supposed, that he at all denied, that the Catholics abused wealth and power when their Church possessed both; and it was for the very reason that they did so, that he would intrust them with neither the one nor the other. He was as little inclined to deny, that there were some Catholic hypocrites; and it was quite possible, that a Catholic might be found who was bigot enough to carry a wooden Bible on the dickey of his carriage (there being no one within), and through his excessive Catholic ardour thus to canvass for votes. They were all of them but men. Others might wish to endow the Catholic Church, but unless the noble Lord quoted The Standard, he could not accuse him of having ever expressed an opinion in favour of establishing his Church.

I heard you say you would wish to have it endowed.

Never! He had recommended the purchase of glebes by the Catholic Church, just as the Catholic bishop of Clogher was now doing; but he had never advocated the connection of the Catholic Church with the State. If the noble Lord referred to his evidence, he then expressed not his own wish or desire, but the sentiments of the Catholic prelates then in London, who were willing to accede to such a measure for the purpose of adjusting the question then pending. But as to himself, he always stated, both there and elewhere, that he abhorred the very name of a state provision. He agreed with the noble Lord, that the clergy must be paid; but the question was, by whom. By those whose Church they served, or by those with whose Church they had nothing to do. Now, could anything in the abstract be more dishonest than, that to the clergyman of the noble Lord—who always voted against this country, and who treated himself with no great ceremony—he should be called on to give his money. Nothing could be more absurd or unjust than that he should be obliged to pay a clergyman who did not even perform his duty towards the noble Lord, for he did not teach him much sweetness or benevolence. In temporal matters the law, as he had already showed, was not on all occasions absolutely binding; but as to religion, he utterly denied, that Christianity derived any support from the law of the land; for how had it extended? Not only in defiance of the law, but subjected, in the persons of its believers to the cruelest tortures which the law could inflict. To force a Church on those whose conscience it did not bind might make hypocrites and martyrs, but no converts; and the demand for its support was nothing else but oppression, whether it was enforced by the bayonet at his breast, or the hand in his pocket.