wished to ask his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade a question relative to the commerce of the country. Negotiations had been pending some time between the Government of this country and that of Naples respecting the high duty imposed by this Government on Neapolitan oil in consequence of the high duty imposed by the Neapolitan Government on fish imported from our colonies. In order to do further injury to our commerce, the Neapolitan Government had recently confided the monopoly of brimstone to a French company. He rose to ask his right hon. Friend whether he was in possession of a copy of the decree by which that monopoly was established, and if he was, whether he would have any objection to lay it on the table?

said, that his noble friend, in putting a question to him, had endeavoured to raise an argument. He did not, however, agree with him as to his argument; for what had been done by the Government of Naples as to the sulphur, had nothing whatever to do with the oil question. The decree of the Neapolitan Government on the subject of sulphur was directed quite as much against the French Government as against ours. With respect to the question which his noble Friend had put to him, he had to reply, that it was only two or three days ago that he was officially made acquainted with the fact that the Neapolitan Government had entered into the unwise proceeding of raising sulphur in Sicily under a monopoly. As soon as he should receive an official copy of the contract which that Government had made, he would lay it on the table of the House. He had already seen a copy of it which had been privately furnished him; and he had submitted it to the law officers of the Crown for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Neapolitan Government could enter into such a contract, conformably to the treaties into which it had previously entered with us. If it could not, there was an end to the question; if it could, we could only try what we could effect by good offices.

rose for the purpose of bringing under the consideration of the House what he hoped would prove a final and satisfactory settlement on the subject of pensions, and he approached that question on the present occasion with a deep feeling of interest and anxiety, and with a fervent hope that the House would accede unanimously to the resolutions with which he intended to conclude. The different turns which the debate took on the Pension List at the time when it occurred were too fresh in the memory of the House to require him to detail them at length and were besides set out in the report at present upon the table. It was therefore only necessary for him to state, that in the month of December last a committee was appointed to inquire into this subject, a committee which included the names of several gentlemen who were accustomed to take a strict and economical view of the pensions on the civil list, and who formed collectively a tribunal that was perfectly impartial and independent of all control. When he said that the committee was impartial, he did not mean to deny, that it was constituted of gentlemen of one particular view in politics, but that had been no fault of his, for he had been anxious to secure the services of several hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they, having opposed the inquiry altogether, felt that they should be acting inconsistently if they sat upon the committee which was to conduct that inquiry, and therefore declined to become members of it. That determination upon their part deprived him of the services of several gentlemen on whose authority both the House and himself would have placed great reliance. The Committee, however, had met and sat 35 days. It was attended by the great bulk of the Members appointed to serve on it, and he rejoiced that in consequence of a recent regulation of the House, not only the attendance of members, but also the different votes which they had given, were exhibited in the report; indeed, he might say, that the report was agreed to unanimously, for 16 Members were present when it was agreed to, and, looking at the names of the members who were absent and at the votes which they had given on the different divisions at which they had been present, he had no hesitation in saying, that had they been present, they also would have agreed in the report with the same unanimity as those did who were present. He thought also that when the House read over the names of the members who agreed to the report, it would be of opinion that the public was fairly represented in that committee. He must now inform the House, that as soon as the committee was appointed, he had addressed to every individual on the pension list a circular letter, stating that he should be happy to receive from them any communication with which they might please to honour him as to the origin of their pensions, and as to the necessity for the continuance of them. He had made this as a private communication, because he felt that he had no right, as the House had determined to afford an inquiry to place any limit upon that inquiry. He believed, that there was not one individual to whom that circular was addressed who did not consider it as written with a view to do justice to them on the one hand, and to satisfy the just expectations of the public on the other. Early in the month of February it was thought necessary, with a view of facilitating the business of the committee, to classify the pensions. The first question which the committee had to consider was, whether they should call for a justification of those pensions which appeared to have been granted as rewards for services. On this there were several divisions, but not on the merits of the cases, but as to the resolution to which the committee should come—namely, whether they should put a pension in class No. 1 where those pensions were put on which no doubt then existed, but which were to be open to further evidence, or in class No. 2, where those pensions were placed which were expressly reserved for inquiry at a future time. After having completed the first branch of the inquiry, the committee resumed the examination of the pensions reserved for further consideration, and went through them with the utmost industry and attention. Indeed, he must take the liberty of saying on behalf of the committee that nothing could have been more industrious or sedulous than their discharge of the very delicate duties intrusted to them. Having gone through the whole list, they proceeded to classify the pensions according to the system detailed in page 13, of the report under the heads of the services to which they were referable, distinguishing army, navy, and judicial pensions, as well as those connected with the departments of the civil service, with literature and the arts, with private services rendered the Royal family, with the exercise of the royal bounty and charity, with compensations awarded for forfeited estates, and with miscellaneous matters not included in those designations. It was true that some pensions could not be strictly said to have been granted in return for the services mentioned above, but they bore more or less relation to them. He believed he might say, that the classification having been made, the committee had acted most fairly and correctly in the investigation of the individual cases. They had considered all the services rendered by the pensioner himself and his family which could be taken as justifying the pensions, and he must say with great pride that the list of services contained in the appendix did the greatest honour to those connected with the various branches of the public service, and even if no other result had flowed from the inquiry (though it had most important and useful results), it would at least have produced a valuable memorial of the merits of public servants, which could not be unacceptable either to the House or the public. He could refer, if it would not be improper to occupy too long the attention of the committee, to various classes of services, which he could wish to see brought before the public. He had pleasure in saying, now that the inquiry was completed, that nothing had passed to cause him to regret in the slightest degree the step he had taken in proposing it. On the contrary, he might appeal to those Members of the Committee who had conducted the examination, who were the least disposed to approve of the pension list, to say whether many of the objections they originally entertained to it had not been removed in the progress of the inquiry, and whether the suspicion of abuse that had existed was not, to the honour of the pensioners themselves and of the various Governments who had administered this branch of the Royal prerogative, materially lessened, and in the pensions of recent date entirely removed. If such had been the result, if a branch of the public expenditure to which suspicion, jealousy, and reproach formerly attached, had been cleared from these imputations by a free and honest examination, surely the service thus rendered was most imporant to the public, and to the individuals themselves, who had been subjected to great and unmerited reproach. He should not occupy the attention of the Committee, more especially as he hoped there would be no difference of opinion on this subject, with any prolonged examination of the various cases, but, he could not avoid referring to one or two in order to show the benefits that had resulted from the inquiry. There was no part of the subject which had attracted more censure than the pensions given to foreigners, inasmuch as that was thought to be a diversion of the public funds from their legitimate use. If anything could add to the suspicion and reproach thus engendered, it would be the circumstance of the foreigner being a lady. There were two foreign ladies on the list, relative to whose claims the public had no opportunity of judging before the inquiry was instituted, who bore the illustrious name of Biron. It had been found in this case that the grant of the pension, so far from affording ground for reproach, merited the warmest approbation. The ladies were daughters of the late Marèchal Biron. When the celebrated Lord Rodney, a short time before he proceeded to his command in the West Indies, was residing at Paris, being in circumstances of great pecuniary embarrassment, he was arrested for debt, and thereby prevented from discharging his professional duties. Marèchal Biron, hearing of the fact, and feeling that it would be unworthy of a great nation to deprive a gallant officer, though an enemy, of the opportunity of performing his duty to his country, stepped forward and paid the amount of the debt. Lord Rodney was thus allowed to return to this country, where he was appointed to a command in the West Indies, and shortly afterward met the French fleet in that memorable battle by which he so much signalized himself, and achieved so great a triumph for Britain. Many years after this, when the calamities of the French revolution had passed, the family of Marèchal Biron were residing, poor and defenceless, in London. When his Majesty George the 3rd. was informed of their condition, the Monarch sent for them, and acquainted them that he felt England owed a debt of obligation to Marèchal Biron, and granted the pension. He need not say that a pension more honourably merited as the tribute of a nation's gratitude for services done to the country over which the donor ruled could not possibly exist. Thus it turned out that a pension than which none might appear more open to censure had been found worthy of the greatest praise. Of the various communications laid before the committee there were many which did the greatest honour to those who had made them, and none more so than the letter he should now take the liberty of reading, which would be found in the sixth page. It was from the daughter of General Carey, who fell while commanding the troops of his Majesty, in the West Indies. The pension, he would merely premise, was one of those which might seem most open to objection, and respecting which there was no document in any public office that could give the wished-for information. It was as follows:—

"Vienna January 11, 1838.

"Sir,—Living, on account of the smallness of my income, in the most retired manner at the above place, I have nothing to offer in justification of the liberty I take in addressing you but the information I have received through the medium of the newspapers, that all of that despised and degraded class called pensioners are desired to send to you, Sir, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, an account of their several claims to the pensions they have hitherto received. Taking it then for granted that I am rightly informed, I beg your patience to the enforced recital. My father the hon. General Lucius Ferdinand Carey, commanded at the taking of the Island of St. Lucia from the French, in the year 1780, and died of his wounds on the day of its capture.

"The pension which was granted to his daughters was not obtained through the favour of any Minister, but was given by the voice of Parliament, and the consent of our ever-respected Sovereign George the 3rd.; it consisted of 80l. each, and was bestowed as some small remuneration for the incalculable evils which fell upon a family of infant daughters by the loss of a father just as he became able to provide for them—by the loss of a father's protection and all the comforts of a father's house; nor did the wide-spreading evil end here; the neglected, almost as if (by high and rich connections) unacknowledged, children, in process of time became patronless young women without friends, protector, or introduction; and, to make the measure of their affliction quite full, were deprived of their rank as viscount's daughters by the premature death of their parent, and left to wander about the world in helpless degradation, and something nearly allied to want. I must not, however, suffer this melancholy enumeration to make me forget that which I must ever remember with gratitude—viz., that this pension, which in these dear times furnishes me with little more than daily bread, and obliges me, to obtain that, to live in banishment, was yet the means of procuring me that religious and solid education adapted to my fortunes, which has enabled me to bear up against all the sorrows of them. I have, indeed, enjoyed it long; perhaps the gentlemen of the committee will think too long; but that has been the will of God, and not my fault; and it is true that, as it is my only resource, I should be glad to retain it, if I can be allowed so to do with honour and without reproach, and to receive it with that dignified thankfulness with which the daughter of an usefully brave British officer may accept a national testimony of her father's deserts; but if this cannot be, and his services are considered as having been long remunerated, why then, Sir, I can cheerfully resign that which I shall hope may lessen the distress of some younger and weaker child of affliction; and being, by God's blessing, able, both in body and mind, to seek my own subsistence in the education of the children of some more fortunate family, as I was obliged to do in Mr. Pitt's time, when the pensions were at times four, five, or six quarters in arrears, I may, perhaps, find an answer to the quarterly question of my mind, whether such wages as I should then receive for my honest service, were not more honourable than the degrading reception of a pension so grudgingly bestowed. Leaving this weighty matter, under your sanction, in the hands and choice of the gentlemen of the committee, I beg leave to subscribe myself, Sir, your most obedient humble servant,

"LAVINIA MATILDA CAREY MORTIMER,

"Aged 67."

Would any one deny, that this letter furnished a beautiful proof how nobly the daughter of a British officer could assert her claim to the bounty of the nation—how nobly and proudly she could speak of his services? This was not the only commendable letter that had proceeded from some who, before the inquiry, were considered to belong to a class of degraded persons; and the publication of these documents in the report, was well calculated to rescue them from unmerited reproach. A similar letter had been received from the widow of the late gallant Sir Home Popham, admirable for the calm and dispassionate, though earnest manner, in which it referred to his services. The letter concluded in these words:—

"I do not undervalue, by any means, the pecuniary advantages of the pension; with my family and my wants that were impossible; have I not, ere this, borne heavier privations? and for my country! I have. But I do value high, and above all, the touching testimony to the merits and to the memory of Sir Home Popham borne in the continuance of that pension by a grateful country, ministered by a Royal hand to his widow, and that because he was as true an officer as ever left a widow in a nation's care."

He might multiply instances in which the publicity given to services hitherto not generally known, would dispel the delusion that existed on this subject more, perhaps, than on any other question which had engaged the public attention. It was not merely in the naval or military professions that brilliant services had been performed which fully entitled those who rendered them to the public gratitude, for in the civil departments of administration, pensions had been earned by services as important as any that had been performed on the field of battle. He had alluded, on a former occasion, and he could not avoid doing so again, to the case of his lately deceased friend, Colonel Stewart, who was not more distinguished for his military than for his civil services, and who might be said to have perished in the service of his country as truly as if he had died in battle. The acknowledgment of the public gratitude, in the shape of a pension to his surviving daughter, was not more just than in the case of pensions connected with the names of Wellington, Hill, Beresford, and Lynedoch. Services performed in the humbler branches of administration were not to be overlooked more than the great actions of those who had filled a high place in the eye of their country and the world. Of this class, were those of Mr. Cumming, of the India Board, and Colonel Edwards, of the Colonial-office, who also might be said to have perished in the public service. Such, too, were those of the rev. Mr. Proctor, mentioned at page 83, to whose widow a pension had been granted. The Forest of Dean was an extraparochial district, and had been left without a provision for the religious and moral instruction of the inhabitants. Mr. Proctor devoted much of his time and labour to an unrequited discharge of professional duty among them, as was stated with great beauty and simplicity by his widow whose letter would be found in the report. To the care of the inhabitants of the forest he sacrificed his health and time, and this pension was given to his widow as a tribute to his merits. Nothing could dispel more effectually than these cases the suspicion of public or private corruption, or prove more satisfactorily that the administration of the Royal bounty had been, on the whole, equitable and becoming; and, therefore, he said, that the publication of their details would be a service to the pensioners and the public. He had stated, when doubts were expressed as to the course that might be taken by the committee, that if he could imagine the consequence of appointing it would be the recommendation of any act of injustice, he would be as adverse to it as any one could be; but that he had confidence that a Committee of that House would conduct the inquiry, not only with strict fidelity to the public, but with the greatest sympathy and consideration for all parties concerned. He must say, that the result of the examination had fully confirmed those anticipations. It had been insinuated with regard to those pensions that had been abandoned by their holders, that there was something disingenuous in the reference made to them in the Report. It had been said, that Lord Auckland, Mr. Drummond, and Lord Elphinstone, who resigned their pensions on being appointed to the offices they now filled, had, in point of fact, only done so under the pressure of the examination of the Committee. Never had there been a greater misstatement, to use no stronger term. Lord Auckland had resigned his pension on his appointment to the office of President of the Board of Trade, formerly filled by him; Mr. Drummond had given up his when appointed to his situation in the Irish Government; and Lord Elphinstone had abandoned his when he was made governor of Madras. Others had subsequently surrendered their pensions. But he must say he thought it would not be just or generous to say of the individuals who had thus surrendered, that what they did was done under apprehension of this examination. He knew, that previously many persons holding pensions were withheld from surrendering by the apprehension, lest if they did so they might be considered as throwing discredit on the motives of those who did not. But when the Committee was appointed, it was immediately felt that Parliament having sanctioned the principle of inquiry, there no longer existed any reason why they should not surrender, which they accordingly did. This was undoubtedly the reason of surrender with some. Another point to which he wished to call attention was this:—The Committee had considered with respect to a certain class of pensions, that although no case might be made out for the withdrawal of the pension, yet the circumstances of the parties made the continuance of the charge of their pensions on the public no longer necessary. These pensions had been originally conferred, not for services, but out of the royal bounty, in consideration of the impoverished circumstances in which the parties were then involved, and which no longer existed. The Committee thought, that where such was the case the pension should cease and determine. And it was only right to observe, that many persons had acted on this principle. Thus, Lord Sidmouth, on becoming entitled by bequest to a large property, immediately resigned the pension he enjoyed. On the same principle the late Lord Farnborough, Mr. Moore, Mr. Marsden, and Mr. Charles Bathurst, had surrendered their pensions. The same had been done by several others, and among the rest the Duchess of Newcastle had some years ago voluntarily parted with her pension. Another class was that of pensions which the Committee recommended should be suspended during the continuance of the present circumstances of the holders, but they thought, that the contingent reversion of those pensions—contingent upon the event of a change of those circumstances, that was to say—should be preserved to the parties, but that only on the responsibility of Government and if absolutely necessary. The third class was the reverse of the former, and comprehended many persons to whom the Committee were of opinion the existing pensions should be continued for the present, but in which the term of the original grant should be limited to another, and generally a shorter period. The last class was one through which the Committee had gone with great reluctance, as it comprised those cases in which they thought it expedient that the pensions should altogether cease. But the class was not a numerous one. Indeed, there were but very few names on it. The groundwork on which these parties were thus classed was, that their pensions should hereafter cease, and undoubtedly he could have wished, and the same was the feeling of the Committee, that the result of the examination had been not only to limit the class, but to dispense with it altogether. But if, under all the circumstances, the Committee had abstained from making this recommendation to the House, they would not have possessed any claim to the confidence either of the House or of the public, and their report, without this portion of it, instead of having afforded any grounds for the settlement of the question, would only have provided new elements of reproach, that which they called a settlement of the question being in reality no such thing. Before he sat down he thought he ought to state to the house what had taken him and the Committee wholly by surprise—he meant the state of the law respecting pensions. The law was, that the Crown was debarred from making grants of pensions which should be binding on their successors to the throne. This was enacted by a statute of Anne, But that statute did not extend to Scotland and Ireland, and, consequently, the Crown had been accustomed to exert the power of granting pensions by patent, payable out of the Irish and Scotch revenues—in Ireland to a large extent, in Scotland to a small extent. These grants the Committee, to their surprise, found were not only binding on the Crown, but every way valid in point of law. For when they first discovered the fact, they took the joint opinion of the law officers of the Crown, both of England, Ireland, and Scotland, and thence ascertained the law to have been at the time of these grants as he had stated. Now, with respect to this, the Committee could not bring into question the existing law, and therefore they concluded that pensions founded on patent should be respected, and they would not go further into the examination of them. He wished now to press upon the House the consideration of what would be the practical working of the new arrangements recommended by the Committee in the savings which would be gained on the whole Pension list at the end of a certain period of years. The House would find this statement at the beginning of the report, and he had every reason to believe it correct, on the authority of Mr. Finlaison, a gentleman who was employed to calculate the Government annuities. Taking into account new pensions that might be granted, the maximum of saving would amount in the month of June of the year 1839 to 4,935l. per annum; in 1844 the savings, or decrease per annum of the pensions below the present amount, to 34,334l.; in 1849, to 67,295l.,; in 1854, to 90,904l., and the savings in twenty years from this time, or 1858, would amount to 104,874l. per annum on the amount in 1839. The pension list of that period would be 106,023l. less in amount than at present, and 130,523l. less than the Pension-list in 1830. The whole charge in 1858 would not exceed 34,877l. This, he must beg it to be observed, was the maximum amount of the savings, and that amount was given owing to the great difficulty of arriving at precision, in consequence of the ages of the parties being unknown. And while on this point he must beg to throw from himself on the Committee the responsibility of having instituted the inquiry respecting ages of parties, against which so much had been said and written. He was innocent of this charge, especially so far as referred fo the cases of ladies. He threw from himself therefore the responsibility of this step to which he only agreed when he found from the chairman of the Committee that it was essential to the whole investigation that this inquiry should take place. He could assure the House that they had found extraordinary difficulty in arriving at these ages. Some cases presented the most startling anomalies. In one case the age of the pensioner was represented as considerably less than the number of years during which the party had been in receipt of the pension. Such were the difficulties they had to contend with in the returns of ages: but it was not merely in these returns that such difficulties were found; for the gentlemen who made up these returns had stated to him that cases of a similar nature occurred in the office of the commissioners for the purchase of Government annuities. A lady desirous of purchasing had given her age as forty—no, thirty-nine, for thirty-nine he believed was the more popular age than forty—on which the clerk said, "Four years ago you gave your age as thirty-nine." She said, "I know that; but though I know that if set down as thirty-nine I shall give more, yet the public will gain so much the more, and at all events it is no business of yours." In point of fact, however, the age was of no great consequence to the public, the death of the parties being the important element. But he could not set down without referring to the recommendations of the Committee at the conclusion of the report. These he thought were of considerable importance, and they were agreed to unanimously by the Committee, and as frankly adopted by Government. They would prove, he hoped, additional checks and safeguards on the expenditure in pensions. The first recommendation was very important, but its importance could only be fully estimated by one who had served on the Committee. The recommendation was, that in case of all future civil list pensions, the warrant, or instrument of appointment, should contain on the face of it the cause for which the pension was conferred, What could be more simple than to state on the face of the warrant the grounds on which the pension was granted? And if that principle had been proceeded on in regard to all the old pensions, as it had been in the cases of perhaps some half dozen, much of the obloquy with which the pension list and pensioners had been branded would never have arisen; and if a Committee had sat to examine into the subject, they would have accomplished the object in as many hours as they lately spent days. The second recommendation was, that where pensions were granted for services to persons other than the individual by whom the services were rendered, care should be taken, if these pensions were granted for younger lives, that the amount of the pension should be reduced so as to prevent any undue increase of charge to the public. The next recommendation was, that where pensions were bonâ fide gifts of the royal bounty in relief of distress, not in reward of services or of literary or scientific merits, such pensions should be granted with the distinct understanding that they should cease when the circumstances of the parties no longer required their continuance. The next recommendation was not important in point of money, but possessed considerable constitutional importance. That recommendation which was the fourth, said that for the future the mere combination of poverty and a peerage should not without service form the groundwork of a pension. He thought it was important to the honour and credit of the Peers that this should be acted upon; for in his opinion nothing could be more detrimental to the influence of the peerage than any appearance of the Crown's acting upon the principle that the combination of poverty with hereditary rank constituted a claim to a pension. At the same time the Committee thought it would be most unjust to deprive the peerage of any of the ordinary inducements to public services which all other classes were entitled to claim; but they did not think it fitting to place the Peers in a situation to which the usage is attached that merely hereditary rank if held with a reduced fortune should give a claim to a public pension. That was the opinion of the Committee, and in that opinion Her Majesty's Government entirely coincided. The fifth resolution merely extended to Scotland and Ireland, what had been already done in England, with respect to limiting the re-grant of civil list pensions. Lastly the Committee recommended that all pensions to be granted should be held liable to deduction or suspension, in the event of the parties being appointed to office in the public service, thus rendering the continuance of the pensions unnecessary either for a time or permanently. This had been done in some cases of pensions submitted to the Committee. He did not say, that it ought to be done in all those cases; but they were all held liable to the application of that principle. He should only advert to one point more. Now that this inquiry was complete, he thought he might say, without presumption, that the Government had endeavoured to procure for the Committee whatever they might require, and that no effort had been employed on their part to create delusion or to check the Committee in the full exercise of their discretion. He would say that the Government had done all for the Committee they could do. The Committee had recommended that the question should be finally settled by placing on the consolidated fund all pensions which might be regranted subsequent to this examination. The Committee had made this recommendation, because they did not think it rested with them to grant or regrant any pensions, but that they ought to be granted by funds set apart for that purpose by Parliament, but distributed at the discretion of the Crown. All, then, that the House had to decide was whether, on the information which he had given from the report, they were prepared to grant her Majesty a sufficient sum to enable her to regrant these pensions. But he must entreat the House and the public, if they wished to obtain full information on the subject, to turn to the report and the appendix. They had heard remarks put forth tending to create great distrust and jealousy of the proceedings of this Committee. He would entreat them therefore to compare the allegations which had been made on the subject of the pension list with the report of the Committee, and see whether or not on public grounds they were not justified in making this examination, and whether the result was not such as must be satisfactory to all parties. He moved "That it is expedient that provision be made out of the consolidated fund to defray the charge of pensions granted prior to the accession of her Majesty."

found, that in all previous inquiries of this kind the pensions granted on the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, were always made the first branch of inquiry. In 1689 an investigation of this kind took place, in which it appeared that the Bishop of Exeter had a pension of 30l. a-year on those revenues; the Earl of Bath 3,000l. a-year; Sir Peter Killigrew the same sum. In 1694 the pension list amounted to 5,630l. altogether. He was quite aware that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he laid on the table the bill for the better administration of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall which he had promised, would have an opportunity of clearing up that mystery which had often been mentioned in that House as hanging over those revenues; he was aware of this, and he presumed that his right hon. Friend intended to put off till that opportunity the supplying this omission in his present speech.

It was no omission, the Committee declined entering on that subject.

thought hon. Members ought to have had the report in their hands, at least a sufficient time to allow the paper to dry. He had not had half an hour to make himself master of the recommendations of the Committee, and to look for the different claims of the different classes of pensioners on whose cases they were about to resolve, If any hon. Member would support him, he would move the adjournment of the further consideration of this matter until such a day as might be suitable.

, in excusing himself for not having attended the Committee, said, that shortly after they had commenced their sittings he was taken ill and confined to bed for a fortnight, and that, on recovering, he would have resumed his attendance, but that he did not wish to vote for a report of which he could have known nothing, and which was then prepared.

begged to say, without entering into a discussion on the merits of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he still retained all the opinions which he had before expressed upon the subject. He thought it would have been infinitely better, as they were about effectually to prevent any future abuse, and place the Pension List upon a new footing, had the principle of secession hitherto pursued on the demise of the Crown been adhered to. Even though that principle had not been adopted, he thought it would have been better, when the opportunity presented itself of revising those grants, that the inquiry should have been conducted by the Crown, as likely to be conducted with more justice and consideration than it could possibly be by a Committee. He had not the slightest doubt that this Committee had faithfully and honestly discharged its obligations to the country, while it dispassionately and fairly considered individual claims. His objection was not so much to the proceedings of the Committee as to the original constitution of it. There were various reasons which would make him distrust individual claims; but if he entered upon that question, he would be liable to the objection he was urging against the Committee. He was bound to say, however, that he could not understand the grounds upon which, in some instances, the pensions had been continued, and in others discontinued. He was afraid that such a consequence would inevitably flow from the circumstance, that while in some cases the number of Gentlemen, on the Committee, for and against, being equally balanced, it remained with the chairman to decide; in others there was a large majority, although they might be cases perfectly analogous. Thus, as it appeared to him, former decisions were at variance with decisions subsequently come to. He must say, therefore, that he could not acquiesce in the withdrawal of those pensions. He did not feel himself at liberty to enter into the particulars of those cases; at the same time, were he to do so, it would not be with any desire to make any charge against the Committee. The consequence he had referred to was, he conceived, almost inevitable in dealing with delicate questions of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman, in the conclusion of his speech, said, that the parties receiving pensions, would still look to the Crown as the authority by which they so received them. Now, if the Committee had thought proper to continue every pension on the list, surely no one could say, that it was the Crown which had decided that they should be granted. Had the inquiry been conducted by the Treasury, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer as an adviser of the Crown would have had the power to recommend the continuance of pensions, in all which cases, no doubt, the Crown would have granted them, yet the party receiving the pension would still have to acknowledge that it was to the liberality of the Crown it owed the continuance of it. In this case it was very different. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for instance, advised a certain pension to be continued, it would be, or might be, overruled by the Committee, contrary to his sense of justice, or at least of enlarged liberality. On the other hand, those parties whose pensions were withdrawn, must feel that they were not withdrawn by the deliberate act of the Crown, but by the House of Commons, or rather a portion of the House of Commons, overruling the opinion of the Minister of the Crown. He therefore could not concur in the proposal; and he was very much afraid that the opinion of the pensioners would, inevitably be, that their claims had been confirmed or rejected, not by the authority or will of the Crown, but according as their several cases happened to make a favourable or unfavourable impression on the Committee.

having upon all former occasions given his support to propositions for the appointment of a Committee of this kind, now felt bound to state, that the result of the inquiry confirmed his opinion as to the propriety of instituting such an investigation. He was now more strongly convinced than ever, that the investigation in every sense of the word was most correct and proper, not only as regarded the public but the pensioners themselves. He thought, that the report and the appendix would have a powerful effect in disabusing the public mind as to the manner in which these pensions had been given. It was certainly satisfactory to hear, that the right hon. Baronet did not accuse the Committee of any wilful injustice. All that the right hon. Baronet said was, that he thought the investigation would perhaps have been conducted with more justice by the Treasury than it could possibly be by a Committee of the House of Commons. He (Mr. Sandford) wished that circumstances would have permitted the Committee to have placed their report in the hands of the House for a longer time before the present discussion arose; but that was impossible. He would only add, that the Committee had endeavoured as far as possible to carry out the principle upon which it was appointed, and so to conduct the inquiry as to do at once full justice to the public, and to the parties whose names were found upon the Pension-list. It was not without regret, that one single pension had been removed, and it was certainly very gratifying to him, and, he believed, to the other Members of the Committee also, to find upon minute investigation that the great mass of persons whose names were upon the list had a strong claim for the pensions they received.

rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the various commissions that have been issued since 1830 to the present time, or period, at which the above return may be dated. When he looked to the incomplete returns before the House, so unsatisfactory to the public, and so difficult to comprehend, and in which there was no just grounds assigned for the several commissions to which they referred, he felt, that in moving for a Select Committee, he was only discharging a public duty. Commission after commission, had been extended at an expense to the country of upwards of 2,000,000l. With regard to the record commission, which had been appointed in 1800, and which, in itself, has cost nearly 1,000,000l., they were still in the same darkness and difficulty as to what additional amount would be required for taking care of those records. [Lord J. Russell: "That Committee has expired."] In 1836, he moved for returns, which were granted, but full of mistakes. In 1837, others were granted, correcting, in some degree, those mistakes, which were principally omissions. Amongst those returns, he found the tithe commission, which was, he believed, still in force. The expense of it he found to be, "as far as could be made up in the office," 3,496l. 8s. ld., including sums paid to the assistant-commissioners on account. With respect to the county-rate commission, the return had been undefined and unsettled. There had been no return as to the commission respecting the two Houses of Parliament. With respect to the commission of public works, Ireland, there had been no account or detail of any expense whatever given. The commission, on the state of religious instruction in Ireland, cost 43,031l. 7s. 9d., and yet he would beg to ask, whether the state of religious instruction was better now than when that commission had been appointed? He would contend, that it was not. The whole was a direct job, unsatisfactory in its details, and what was worse, it was to this hour unsettled. From the commission on the fees, and emoluments of public offices, no return, no account, no explanation, had been given. The inquiry into the state of revenue and expenditure in Ireland, cost 2,186l. 13s. 7d. The tithe commission, which, as he had already noticed, cost 3,496l. 8s. 1d., was still incomplete. He should like to know what had been done. The commission respecting municipal corporation inquiry in Scotland had cost 5,042l., though the Commissioners had acted gratuitously—an example which he should like to see followed by other Commissioners. The commission of education in Ireland cost 140,454l. 1s. 7d.; but of this only 114,204l. 7s. 4d. had been paid. He wished to know why the difference had not been paid. Looking at the whole of these commissions, from some of which no return had been made, and from others no satisfactory return, he had a right to call on the Government, to grant a committee of inquiry. The municipal boundary commission had cost above 21,000l., though it had turned out a total failure after all. The total amount of the expenditure of these commissions, not including the record commission, which, of itself, had cost nearly 1,000,000l., nor the expense of the registering barristers, nor the Poor-law inquiry, with its brutal adjunct of placing superintendents, as they were called, over the poor of the country, was not less than 3,000,000l. taken out of the pockets of the people, and this expenditure, let him add, was incurred by a Government, which had come into office with promises of economy and retrenchment in their mouths. He would leave it to the country to decide, how those promises had been fulfilled, and how the Government had redeemed its pledges. What he sought by his motion was, to have a clear and satisfactory return of the expenses of all these commissions, and not such brief and garbled statements as had been already made. As he knew, that such a committee as he wished, could not be conveniently appointed this session, he should feel satisfied, if the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would consent to its appointment at an early period next Session. The hon. and gallant Member concluded, by moving, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the various commissions issued since the year 1830, distinguishing those which had expired, and those which had been abandoned, and also those still in existence, for the purpose of ascertaining the expense of each, and the result of their inquiries, and also the reasons for which any such commissions had been discontinued.

could not accede to the motion of the hon. and gallant Member. There was not a single item of expenditure on commissions that had not by necessity been brought under the consideration of Parliament, and no money had been granted for those purposes, without the sanction of the House, either by a special act, or by the ordinary estimates of the year. The present was not a suitable time to discuss the merits of those commissions, and he trusted, that the House would not hold out the least hope of encouragement to the motion of the gallant Member, either now, or at any future time.

rose to call the attention of the House to the partial distribution of the grant. In his opinion, either power should be given to raise money by assessment, or the grant ought to be increased; or indeed both ought to be done, for without it national education in Ireland could not be effectually promoted, and the House would not do its duty to that country until a good school was established in every parish. At the same time, if there were a large proportion of both Protestants and Catholics in a parish who refused to unite in a system of education, he did not say that any assistance should be given to them. He hoped he had enabled the House to judge that this money had not been distributed according to the local wants of particular districts; that the grant ought to be increased, and also that a united education should be the basis of any system adopted in Ireland, so that those who might conscientiously hold different views from those of the board should not be excluded from its range and benefits.

was not prepared to increase the grant, though he wished to see the sums already voted appropriated with the greatest benefit to the country. He objected to the whole proceedings of the board, who, in his opinion, looked more to the quantity than the quality of education introduced, and thought that a better system ought to be established.

confessed, that the statements of both his hon. Friends who had just spoken, appeared to him a little affected, for the former complained of the number of grants which had been already made as not sufficient, whilst the hon. Member for Wicklow seemed to think there had been too much money voted for this purpose already, and deprecated the grant of more to be applied in the same direction. With respect to the expense of the establishment in Dublin, the greater part had been incurred in fitting up school rooms and training masters, a point of material consequence, as the want of proper teachers was so much felt in establishing the system of education that was to be adopted. With respect to raising money by assessment, by the regulations laid down in the letters of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, it was expressly stated that local funds should be raised before any aid should be granted. When complaint, therefore, was made of the state of education in any district, it would, he thought, be found that the complainants had been deficient in the requisites laid down by the regulations on which the board was bound to act. As to altering the system itself, that was a large question on which Parliament might at some future time be required to give its serious consideration, both as to this country and as to Ireland, and also whether it should be made to depend on local contributions or not. The acrimony and hostility with which the board in Ireland was at first regarded, was daily decreasing; and he had no doubt, that the more its operations were known and watched, the more would it be said to meet the beneficent views of Parliament, in establishing a system of religious instruction to all classes, to which no difference of religious persuasion should form a necessary bar, and upon which the social condition of Ireland so much depended for improvement.

having moved a vote of 8,928l. for the Roman Catholic College (Maynooth), for the year ending 31st. of March 1839,

opposed the grant, as exclusively applied to one religious persuasion. He disclaimed any intention to give offence to the Roman Catholics, some of whom he was happy in reckoning among his friends, but he thought that it was inconsistent with the Protestant religion of this country to vote a sum for the support of a religion opposed to that which was established here. In the then thin state of the House, however, he would not divide upon it.

said, that this grant had caused much excitement in England, and he had no doubt that if the estimates had been brought forward at a different period of the year the opinion of the counties in England against the grant would have been made manifest. He should consider it a dereliction of his duty, however, if he did not state, that his hostility to the grant had been increased since the last opportunity he had of addressing the Committee upon this subject. An election had since passed, and the conduct of the gentlemen educated at Maynooth, the Roman Catholic priests, had been such as to show the necessity of some amendment in the system of education pursued in that college. Instead of being the promoters of peace and harmony and good will, they were only the instigators of revolt and tumult. He himself, had been the subject of attack, and his political conduct had been canvassed for five or six weeks before, and also after the election in every chapel but one. He would not, however, be deterred; and although his gallant Friend would not divide the House upon it, he trusted that her Majesty's Government would at an early period of the next session give an opportunity of sifting the whole matter.

considered that this was an institution subversive of morality and good faith; and surely before the grant was agreed to, an inquiry ought to be set on foot. He knew that there had been an inquiry in the year 1826, but great changes had taken place since that time, and they ought to compare the declaration made by the friends and advocates of the Catholics before the Emancipation and Reform Acts had passed, with the sentiments now openly put forward and generally adopted. Many petitions from the people of England had been, night after night, laid upon the table of that House, calling upon them to make an inquiry into the system on which the college of Maynooth was conducted, and these petitions ought to be attended to. The estimates also ought to have been brought forward at an earlier period of the Session, when Irish Members capable of giving expression to their sentiments were present. In vain had the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer been asked in the spring to fix an early day for the discussion of the Irish estimates, but to-night, seeing those (the Opposition) benches empty, he had hurried them on, when they were not expected, postponing the militia estimates; and he (Colonel Verner) considered this as an unfair and unjustifiable substitution. If the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln should not move, that this grant should be withdrawn, he felt it to be his duty to make such a motion.

said, that it was not competent to the hon. and gallant Member to make the motion to which he had alluded in the Committee of supply; for they could not enter into such a question. They might vote against the grant, but they could not obtain a committee to inquire into the general subject. With regard to the complaint that the Irish estimates were improperly taken out of order, he begged to deny that such was the case. The estimates were all numbered, and were taken according to their regular course, and the complaint was entirely without foundation. If hon. Members had desired that the question should be considered more at large, it was quite within the powers of any one of them to move for a committee at any period of the Session. They seemed, indeed, to be aware of this fact; for one hon. Gentleman had already made a motion to that effect. It was true that the house was counted out on the day on which the subject came on for investigation; but the only inference which could be drawn from that fact was, that the motion was not agreeable to the House, as indeed it could not be, when it was made the vehicle for a general attack upon the Catholic clergy of Ireland. In reference to the grant, it was one of old standing, and not one which it was sought to introduce now for the first time. It had been established by Mr. Pitt on the recommendation of Edmund Burke, and it had been besides supported by men of all parties, and by men of the greatest weight in Ireland and in this country. The hon. and gallant Member had said, that in the college of Maynooth, principles subversive of morality and good faith were inculcated in the minds of the pupils. He denied, however, that such was the fact, and he must state, that he had seen men who had come from that college as highly educated and endowed, and as useful in the discharge of the duties of their respective situations, as those who had been educated at any other colleges. If hon. Gentlemen really wished the question of the grant to be fairly discussed, it was in their power, and it was their duty to give a notice by which the matter might be brought fairly under discussion, and if they did not give such a notice he was entitled to retort upon them, and to say, that they were afraid to bring the matter forward because they knew that public opinion was against them. The mere striking off this vote would not have any effect in putting down Maynooth, which seemed to be, in fact, the object of those who opposed it. The college would be taken up and supported by others, besides the Government, and the only effect which would be produced by such a course would be to create a dislike to its promoters in all those who had been educated at the college, who were in the course of education there, or who hoped to obtain their admission to it.

thought the really advisable course would be to grant a committee to inquire into the state of education at Maynooth, and he thought the very fact stated by the right hon. Gentleman that the grant was recommended by Burke, and established by Pitt, was a sufficient ground for adopting this recommendation. He hoped that the hon. and gallant Member would not persist at present in calling upon the House to reject this grant, and at the same time he suggested that measures should be taken as early as possible to cause the inquiry to which he had alluded to be made.

observed, that the way to judge of Maynooth was to look at the conduct of the priesthood. He defied the hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches to point out any Protestant clergyman who had ever been guilty of such outrageous conduct as that which had been recently exhibited by a Roman Catholic clergyman who had received his education at that seminary. The gallant Colonel then proceeded to read an extract from a speech made by the Rev. M. Doyle, as chairman of an anti-tithe dinner, given to him on a Sunday, at Kilkenny, by 150 persons. In that speech he declared his determination to oppose any Tithe Bill which did not go to the entire abolition of tithes, and said, that if the present Tithe Bill were passed, he would agitate the rent-charge. Yes, he would follow the advice of Lord Anglesey, and would "agitate, agitate, agitate." A magistrate, of the name of Hawkshaw, was present at that dinner, and heard that speech. He wished to ask the noble Lord opposite whether he had struck, or intended to strike, the name of that magistrate out of the commission of the peace, for hearing such a speech.

had not heard that the "Battle of the Diamond" was one of the toasts given at the dinner to which the hon. and gallant Colonel alluded. The worthy magistrate, whose presence at an anti-tithe meeting seemed to excite the indignation of the hon. and gallant Colonel, had not given that toast, or any toast like it, and all that he had done was, to sit by whilst the Rev. M. Doyle was making his speech. He was sorry that the three gallant Colonels opposite, the Church militant he supposed of that House, had not the courage to divide against this grant; for if they had had such courage he should certainly have divided with them, for this grant was most decidedly against the voluntary principle which, in matters of religion, he should always uphold. They only talked—they would not divide. [The three gallant Colonels conversed together for a short time]. Now there is a council of war holding, and let us see what the results will be. Oh! these gallant Colonels! I must venture a parody against them.

"Three colonels in three different counties born— Did Lincoln, Sligo, and Armagh adorn; The first in gravity of face surpassed— In grace the second—sobriety the last. The force of Nature could no further go; To beard the first she shaved the other two."

It was, however, but a paltry return for their giving a million to the Protestant clergy of Ireland to refuse so paltry a grant as 8,900l. for the education of the Roman Catholic clergy of that country.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin boasted of having given 1,000,000l. to the Protestant clergy of Ireland. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman be kind enough to inform the House of the amount of the sum which he had been instrumental in withholding from them? He objected to the grant then before the House, because it contravened and stultified the main principle on which the Established Church of England in Ireland was founded.

felt that it was not incumbent upon him to defend the origin of a grant which was recommended by Mr. Burke, established by Mr. Pitt, sanctioned by Mr. Perceval, and dignified by the Royal Protestant assent of George 3rd. The grant now proposed was scanty and penurious, and he thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would feel extremely indignant, if a similar spirit of parsimony was extended towards the Protestant universities of the country. He would not, however, propose to extend this grant at present, for he feared that such a proposition would tend to increase that spirit of religious animosity which he was most anxious to allay. He only proposed to make the grant of former years, which was a most paltry and parsimonious provision for the priesthood of so extensive a country as Ireland; and still more so, for a priesthood invested with such immense responsibility as that which fell on the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. They had recently granted 900,000l. to the Protestant clergy of that country. Could they now be so ungracious as to refuse 8,900l. for the education of their Roman Catholic brethren? If they were to be always talking of the objectionable doctrines taught at Maynooth, they must not be surprised if they sometimes heard of the not very satisfactory doctrines which had recently become fashionable at Oxford, A book had been published lately, which certainly would be likely to make disciples of a new school, and which he was given to understand proceeded from that university. It was a work called "The Remains of the Reverend R. H. Froude," and was published, he believed, by Mr. Newman, who was the principal of one of the colleges in Oxford. Mr. Fronde said,

had never heard a speech more cruelly unjust than that made by the noble Lord. Even if Roman Catholic principles were inculcated in the University of Oxford, that fact had properly no relation to the question; but he had no hesitation in characterizing the assertion as a mere vulgar calumny. If the noble Lord would read the preface of the book he had quoted, he would find that the editor expressly guarded himself against being supposed to entertain the opinions of the author, and stated, that he gave it to the world as the singular production of a remarkable mind.

said the only question was, whether the Catholic clergy were to be educated or not? for if they were, it was better they should be educated at home than abroad.

said, he should vote in support of the grant, on the ground that the diffusion of education everywhere, but especially in Ireland, was the best mode of supporting and advancing the progress of Protestantism.

observed, that hon. Gentlemen should bear in mind that the greatest part of the Colleges of Oxford had been erected by the Roman Catholics as well as most of the Churches throughout the country. He really thought that in fairness, it scarcely became those who came into possession of splendid edifices ready built for them to grudge to the Roman Catholics who raised them, so paltry a sum, so inadequate a retribution if he might so express himself, as the grant then proposed to Maynooth College.

said, that looking altogether to the expenses in which the retention of the Canadas had involved this country, he submitted it to the House whether it were worth while to retain a colony which had proved so expensive and unprofitable an acquisition. They had only to look to the vast sums which had been sunk fruitlessly in canals, and to the folly of enforcing a trade in timber with that country when a much better quality could be obtained in European ports, to feel the force of this observation. He was convinced that the annual expense of this Colony to England was not less than 2,500,000l. How much better would it be to apply this sum to a reduction of the general taxation of this country. In his mind they should seek the earliest opportunity, consistently with the claims of individuals, to effect a peaceable separation.

rose to direct the attention of the House to the present state of Canada with reference to the constitution of the Special Council. That council, as appeared by a document which had been recently laid upon their table, consisted of five persons. Now, in one of the earliest clauses of the act of Parliament which passed this Session, it was stated, that the Governor-general should have authority to appoint such special councillors as he might think proper, without specifying any particular number; and the noble Lord opposite, in introducing the bill, said that no particular number of special councillors should be appointed by the bill, but that five should constitute a quorum; and in a subsequent clause it was enacted that no act should be valid unless it was introduced by the Governor-general himself in the presence of five at least of the Special Council. In the instructions sent out to the Governor-general, he was authorized to appoint such individuals as he pleased to select for the post of Special Councillors, the number not being less than five. The Governor-general had done exactly what he (Sir E. Sugden) had anticipated, for, although the act of Parliament did not say, that there should be more than five of these Councillors appointed, yet the inference was irresistible that there should be more than that number; because, if there were to be five at least present when the Governor in order to make their proceedings valid, surely this supposed that the body itself should be composed of more than five. He had taken the opportunity of stating his opinion on this point to a member of the Government. If his opinion were a correct one, there could be no doubt that the acts of the Council would be void, on the ground of irregularity in the formation of that body, contrary to the terms of the act, and it was certain that advantage would be taken of this objection by persons in the Colony who might be affected by the acts of the Council. As he was on his legs, he could not avoid saying a word or two with respect to the parties appointed by Lord Durham as his council. When the House heard of the authority given by the act relating to Canada to the Governor-general to appoint a Special and Executive Council, no member doubted that the object was, and indeed the whole context of the act bore out that meaning, that these bodies might exercise some control over the acts of the Governor-general himself. In the Executive Council the Governor-general was to have the initiative of every measure, But was it not a mockery to talk of any control being exercised over the Governor-general by a body selected from his own military staff, or by members chosen from his own household? When the noble Lord dissolved the Special Council appointed by Sir John Colborne, he assigned as his reason that his object was to take the whole responsibility on himself of all the measures which he might deem it necessary to originate. Sir John Colborne construed the act differently, for besides his Executive Council he appointed a Special Council, consisting of twenty-one, eleven of whom were Canadians. This body exercised a power analogous to that of a Legislative body, and passed several important measures. When the Earl of Durham thought fit to dissolve that body, he appointed the Executive Council, consisting of only five members, selected as he had already described; Mr. Buller was one of the five so named. He had been one of the Special Council, but was afterwards named as one of the Executive. Now, what control could he be likely to exercise over the acts of the Governor-general? Did any one doubt that if he ventured to assert an opinion of his own at variance with that of the Governor-general, he would not be allowed to continue a member of the Council. He had no wish to allude to the acts of my Lord Durham by anything like severity of comment, as he was aware that any doubt as to the legality of his conduct there would tend to weaken his authority; but he thought that Parliament having suspended the whole constitution of Canada, to place the whole power in the hands of one individual, they ought to look with a vigilant eye on his acts, and of all things take care that the Council to assist him should be legally constituted. He had not heard that any opposition had been made in Canada to any of the parties appointed to the Council, but he felt that objections might be made to the constitution of the Council by parties who might be affected by its acts. It was not his intention to submit any motion on the subject. He threw it out as a matter for the consideration of the Government. If they concurred with him in his view of the point, it would be for them to decide whether they should not pass a short hill to cure the defect. If they differed from him in the construction of the act, he would reserve to himself the right of introducing the subject on a future occasion.

thought if the right hon. Gentleman had been strongly impressed with a sense of the inexpediency of weakening the authority of the Governor-general at this time, he would have spared some of the observations he addressed to the House. The right hon. Gentleman had again stated his opinion as to the illegality of the way in which the Special Council had been constituted by Lord Durham; and said, that it was not legally constituted because it did not consist of more than five members. Of course, any observation of the right hon. Gentleman, if it had much weight in it, would not have failed to have had weight on the minds of others; but he must say, he had not heard that opinion supported by any other person than the right hon. Gentleman himself. It appeared to him (Lord John Russell) that the fact of five members only being appointed could not well affect the legality of the proceeding, because the act only said, that not less than five should be present at any council. [Sir E. Sugden: Five at least.] Yes, that five at least should be present. The course which Lord Durham had taken, was one at which five persons had been present. Others, indeed, might think that Lord Durham ought to have appointed more than five; but supposing five to have been appointed, and five to have been present at the special council that had been held, he could not conceive how it could be a point of objection to the constitution of that council, that there had not also been two or more absent members appointed, but who had never attended or taken any part in the council. He could not well understand how a man could say, "It is very true the Governor-general was present, and the five Members required by the Act were present; but then I object to the legality of the council, because there were not two or three useless absent members belonging to it who had never taken any share in their proceedings." It did not appear to him, in point of reason, that that objection could be entertained. The right hon. Gentleman next found fault with the composition of the Special Council. He had told the right hon. Gen- tleman before, that he thought it probable, that the persons who would be appointed members would not be Canadians, but persons connected by office or military appointments with Lord Durham. That had been the case. The persons appointed were persons so connected with the Governor-general. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was not right in inferring that because that was not the case with Sir John Colborne's administration, and was the case with Lord Durham's administration, therefore either one or the other must be wrong in the course he had taken. Because it was quite competent for Sir John Colborne to call together any number of Canadians, and for the purpose which he had in view, yet it might be quite as proper and wise of Lord Durham to call other persons to his council for different purposes, and to be effected in a different manner. It was expressly understood, when orders were sent to the Colony for Sir John Colborne to appoint a council, that it was by no means incumbent on Lord Durham to appoint the same persons to the Special Council. An inference might be drawn from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman that he supposed a wide difference of opinion had existed between Sir John Colborne and Lord Durham. [Sir E. Sugden: I had no intention to imply any such thing.] He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say so. He begged to state, that no difference of opinion had existed between those two parties. During the short time Lord Durham had yet acted in Canada, Sir John Colborne had given him the utmost assistance and counsel that he was capable of rendering, and Lord Durham had derived the greatest advantage from the representations he had received from Sir John Colborne; and, indeed, the intercourse between the Governor-general and the very distinguished officer whom he succeeded had been of the most satisfactory kind both to Lord Durham himself and to the Government at home. With respect to the larger question of the policy of those appointments, it was one which might be debated on another occasion. But he could not exclude from his consideration, whenever that question should come to be debated, the manner in which those appointments had been looked upon in the province of Canada itself. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to think that the opinion of the Canadians was much to be attended to in this country. Now, the opinion of Lord Durham, expressed before he left this country, was that which he thought, any man of sense and decision would be expected to entertain, namely, that, the success of his mission would depend very much on the manner in which the Special Council might be received in Canada. "Because (said Lord Durham) if these dissensions, which have been carried on so long and with so much animosity, have made every person in Canada either of one party or the other, I shall not be able to find any person who is not suspected by those of the opposite party, unless it be those who are called the 'moderates,' and who not being attached to either party makes them disliked by both. In that case, therefore, I should think it more expedient to appoint persons who are not connected with Canada at all, than to expose my Government to suspicion and to hatred, either by one party or the other in Canada." The inspiring confidence in his Government among the people of Canada of different origin and denomination was in itself a very considerable point in the matter which he was to carry on. It should be recollected, that the commission on which Lord Durham went out, was in the first place to preserve an important province to the empire of the mother country, and in the second place to lay the foundation of lasting peace and harmony among the various inhabitants of that Colony. Was it not important, then, in order to take away all ground of distrust, or apprehension of failure, that the measures of his Government should be attended with the assent, approbation, and confidence of both the British and French Canadians? He should, therefore, whenever the question came to be decided in estimating whether Lord Durham was or was not right in the appointment of persons totally unconnected with Canada, consider that it was a very great element in the decision to which Parliament might come in respect to that question, whether or not Lord Durham's measures had been favourably viewed by those among whom he was sent to administer public affairs. He must say, that it was at least very satisfactory to the Government at home to find from the various letters and accounts received, that both the British inhabitants and the French Canadians were disposed to receive with favour, and to look with confidence to the administration of the nobleman who had been sent by her Majesty to restore peace and harmony among them. With regard to the rest, the right hon. Gentleman would consider it a want of courtesy towards him if he again repeated, that though receiving dispatches from time to time from the Government of Canada, it was quite impossible for the Government at home to enter into an explanation of the reasons for each particular measure and a justification of each particular step, until that Administration had gone considerably further, and until those measures had been prepared and carried into effect, which, he confidently believed, would result in retaining that Colony to the British Crown, and in restoring peace among its inhabitants. Those were the great objects to be obtained; and although there might be persons in this country who did not look to those objects, he must say, that those in Canada who were attached to the British Crown were the persons most interested in this matter, and, therefore, most to be regarded. They felt, that it was a vital question to them, in the first place, not to be exposed to civil war, and, in the second place, not to have those harassing and vexatious dissensions continued which had so very long distracted that province. It was to them a question of vital interest; while to us it was rather a matter of mere speculation; though even in this country, he thought, it ought rather to be an object of desire that Lord Durham should succeed, than that we should oppose, by any hostility, impediments to his success.

thought it right to say something about the doubt expressed by Sir E. Sugden respecting the formation of the Special Council. He could not participate in that doubt. It seemed to him, that there being five members of the Special Council, and all being present, no reasonable doubt could exist of the validity of the acts of that Council. By the second clause of the act such and so many special councillors were to be appointed as her Majesty and the Governor-general should please. No number was specified. When they came to the following section then it was said, that five at least should be present when any act was done. What was the meaning of that? Why, that at least there should be five councillors appointed, Five were appointed in the manner specified by the act; the condition, therefore, was performed, and, in his humble opinion, there was no reasonable doubt, that the acts of that council were valid.

deplored the crimes, that had been committed against the Canadians. A greater crime never was perpetrated than when the British Legislature took away from the House of Representatives in Canada the command of the purse of the Canadian people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Sugden) had talked a great deal of constitutional principle, but where was his love of constitutional principle when the House of Commons was robbing the Canadians of the first principle of the Constitution, planted by the British Legislature in Canada—namely, the right over the public purse? The friends of liberty in Canada had, at first, everything in their own power, and might have insured success if they had managed well. But for their own folly, wickedness, and crime, they would have decidedly prevailed. The moment, however, that Papineau and the rest shed blood, and broke out into rebellion by forming military companies, in spite of the executive power, at that instant they lost the support of every man who looked to obtaining the freedom of any people by constitutional means, and they deserved the greatest misfortune, that could fall upon them; they deserved the greatest of all misfortunes—that of putting their country into the power of despotism. It was a despotism; Lord Durham was a despot. The question then remained, how had Lord Durham conducted himself with such despotic power? He acknowledged, that having a high esteem for that nobleman's character, he was afraid he would have sacrificed it in the vain attempt to conciliate parties in Canada. His delight, however, could hardly be expressed at that noble Lord's success, hitherto, for that noble Lord had conciliated all parties there. Every letter that arrived expressed the satisfaction of the people of Canada at his proceedings. The noble Lord had acted with a degree of perfect impartiality between the French-born, and the British-born, Canadians, and between all sects of Christians; and they were all unanimous in their expressions of regard for him. One of the first things, that made the noble Lord popular was, the abolition of that very council of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken. The last of his acts was signally admirable for its humanity. Governor Arthur had been gorging himself with the blood of those poor wretches, who—[Oh! Oh!]. Yes! he did gorge himself with the blood of his victims, and there were many people in this country, who would have encouraged him in going on with that blood-shedding system. But Lord Durham most properly interfered. He put out of the country all those men who had taken a guilty part in carrying on the insurrection, and he had kept in banishment those who, having taken a less active part in the rebellion, had fled. That act had been followed up exceedingly well, and the whole conduct which Lord Durham's government had hitherto adopted was an earnest of his desire to establish permanent peace in that country without depriving the people of any portion of their rights longer than was absolutely necessary to enable him to restore harmony among them. He trusted, that the noble Lord would speedily accomplish his object, and would then return to this country with a higher character than even that with which he left it. The noble Lord seemed to have been attacked not only here, but elsewhere, with a determination of purpose most extraordinary. First impressions had been taken up against him with the greatest avidity, and there appeared to be a disposition to run him down. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite complained, that in the selection of his council the noble Earl had acted illegally. First, he said, the persons chosen were the noble Lord's dependents. Now, what could be the mighty independence of any council in the appointment of the Crown, and removable by the Crown at pleasure? Then, forsooth, there must be five councillors at least, and, therefore, it was argued, that there must be more than five; that five was not five, but must be six or seven. That was legal arithmetic. It was a compliment to be paid to one of great legal knowledge to find out a mare's nest like that. For his part, he could not compliment the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon his arithmetical discovery especially as from that very doubt might arise another insurrection? for those who were striving for freedom in Canada might say, "Oh! we will not obey these new laws, for the late Lord Chancellor of Ire- land has said, that all the acts of Lord Durham are perfectly illegal, and that five is not five." He had felt it necessary to say thus much, for he perceived, that there was a perpetual running fire opened against Lord Durham, and that he was attacked by all species of political adversaries; but, he believed, that the gratification which that noble Lord would feel at having pacified Canada and preserved his own reputation would abundantly recompense him for all these attacks.

, having paid considerable attention not only to the particular act referred to, but to many other acts of Parliament relating to Canada, could not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that the proceedings of the Special Council would be at all invalidated in consequence of five members only constituting that council. There was one observation which fell from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin to which he wished to advert. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that the act of Parliament had conferred on Lord Durham powers of despotism. Now, if such an opinion were to go forth in Canada it would be calculated to do immense mischief. There were parties in that province who would be most ready to persuade Lord Durham, that he did possess those powers. But he begged to express his decided opinion, that the act did not confer any despotic power on the Governor-general. The utmost it conferred was a legislative power to the Governor-general in Council, which was previously possessed by the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly. It would be ruinous to have it supposed, that the power it conferred was despotic.

, in consequence of a word which had dropped from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin respecting the conduct of Governor Arthur, wished to make one observation. He should be sorry, that it should be understood, that Sir George Arthur had at all been anxious in any case to enforce the extreme execution of the law where circumstances did not make it, not only justifiable, but absolutely necessary.