Commons Sitting of 11 March 1817

PETITIONS RELATING TO REFORM, &c.
Sir W. Gearypresented a petition from the freeholders and inhabitants of the county of Kent, praying for Reform.
Sir E. Knatchbullsaid, that the petition was presented as that of the county of Kent, and as expressive of the sentiments

969
of the county. He believed that it expressed the sentiments of the majority of the meeting at which it was voted, but he denied that it expressed the sentiments of the county, or could be received as the petition of the county. The high sheriff had signed it in the name of the meeting; but he could only sign for himself—he could not sign for others; and this petition, therefore, could not be received, except as the petition of the individual whose signature it bore.
The Speakersaid, there were only two modes in which petitions could be viewed as coming before the House. They must either come from individuals, assemblies of individuals, or corporate bodies. If they came from corporate bodies, and were signed in the name of the corporation, and sealed with its seal, they were considered as the prayer of the corporation. If they came from individuals, or meetings of individuals, they were to be considered only as the petitions of the persons whose signatures they bore. They could not, when signed by one in the name of the rest, be considered as the prayer of the whole.
Sir W. Gearysaid, that the manner in which the petition was signed, arose from a misconception that it would be taken as the petition of the county if signed by the sheriff in county court: it would otherwise have been most numerously signed.
Mr. Calcraftwas sensible, after what had been said, that the forms of the House precluded the petition from being received as any thing else than the petition of the high sheriff who signed it; but he hoped that, as it was substantially the petition of the meeting, though signed in their names, it would have all the weight which such an origin could give it. The hon. baronet had allowed that it expressed the sentiments of the meeting. That meeting was most respectable—it was numerously attended—it was called with due notice—the requisition was most respectably signed. In consequence of the address to be voted to the Prince Regent, which was a part of the business of the day, the hon. baronet had it in his power to have assembled a greater number of his friends to oppose the petition. The hon. baronet might have exerted all his influence. He was well supported in his opposition by a young man, who displayed great abilities on the occasion, and he might have had the assistance of some demagogues.
Sir E. Knatchbullsaid, that he had not
970
opposed the petition. He neither attended when it was discussed, nor offered it any opposition whatever. The chair had rightly decided, that the petition could only be received as the petition of the high sheriff. Though the high sheriff had signed it, however, as he conceived at the time his official duty demanded, he (sir E. K.) was convinced that he neither concurred in the sentiments of the petition, nor would have signed it in his own name.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, that had it not been thought sufficient that the high sheriff should sign the petition in the name of the meeting, there would have been no difficulty in obtaining numerous and respectable signatures. The hon. baronet had wished even to take away from the petition the advantage of its one signature, by saying that the high sheriff had signed it contrary to his own sentiments. He did not know intimately the sentiments of the sheriff; but he never heard that they were opposed to the petition, and could attest that he seemed perfectly willing to sign it in the name of the meeting.
Sir W. Gearywas of opinion that the petition spoke the sense of the county; for it was known that the meeting had been convened after a sufficient notice, and that the petition had been agreed to by a great majority. He could not, therefore, imagine that the opinion of the county could be collected in a fairer way. A case similar to the present had occurred at the beginning of the session. A petition had been presented from the county of Cornwall, signed by the sheriff, and afterwards another signed by a number of the freeholders. He was glad this conversation had taken place, that the rule of the House with regard to petitions might be known.
The Speakersaid, that the House would not only see the importance of the rule that had been laid down, but the importance of diffusing a knowledge of it. Petitions could only be received as the petitions of those whose names they bore. When there was only one signature, as in the present case, the House remained entirely in the dark as to the sentiments of the meeting from which the application was said to proceed.
Sir C. Moncksaid, that the object of sir E. Knatchbull was evidently to do as much injury as possible to the petition. That hon. baronet had, however, said that the sheriff, in his private capacity, was hostile to the sentiments of the petition: if this were true, it was clear that the

971
sheriff would not have put his name to such a petition, but from a persuasion that it spoke the sense of the county meeting.
Mr. Lushingtonsaid, the petition undoubtedly spoke the sense of the meeting at Maidstone, but from what he knew of Kent, it did not speak the sense of the county at large.
Mr. Ponsonbysaid, that nobody could expect that those who visited the treasury, and were the friends of the hon. secretary to the treasury, would sign petitions for retrenchment and reform. This meeting was said not to combine the respectability, or to express the sentiments of the county, when it voted the petition now before the House. He would ask, did this meeting do nothing else that expressed the sentiments of the county? Were the other acts of the meeting not the acts of the county? Did the address to the Prince Regent not contain the sentiments of the county? Did the vote of thanks to the marquess of Camden not express their sentiments? Were not these two acts done by the same meeting with whom this petition originated, and at the same time? How, then, could they be said to express the feelings and sentiments of the county, while this petition did not?
Ordered to lie on the table.

MOTION RESPECTING FEES IN COURTS OF JUSTICE.
Sir John Newport,on rising to make his motion respecting the fees in courts of justice, said, that it was now three 3'ears since he had first submitted to the House the necessity of that species of inquiry into courts of justice, which was warranted by the practice of parliament in its earliest and best times, and which was peculiarly necessary to protect the public against the increase of fees, and to secure the due administration of justice. On that occasion he had not been supported by his majesty's ministers. Three cabinet ministers present at that time divided against him. His motion was, however, sanctioned by the House by a majority of one vote. He had been accused at that time by one of the ministers as having not made out any ground for his motion; by another as a visionary and a dreamer, for no abuses, he was told, did exist. The vote of the House for commissions to inquire into this subject was on June 20, 1814, and it was not till the 9th of February following that either of the commissions was appointed. The House had not been fairly
972
dealt with in this delay, and still less in the appointment of the commissioners, for, out of five of the commissioners, two were masters in chancery, though the abuses alleged to exist were in their department; for an hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Stephen) now no longer in the House, though he objected to the motion then proposed, said, that if abuses were alleged to exist in his own department, he would give his vote for the measure, and that allegation having afterwards been made, he actually gave his vote in favour of the motion, which happened to decide its success. The reports of the commissioners which were before the House, showed that he (sir J. N.) was not a visionary. By the report of the commission on the English chancery, defective as it was, abuses of considerable magnitude had been discovered. He had also the testimony of the lord chancellor himself, who, in April 1815, about nine months after his motion for commissions, recognized that erroneous practices existed in the bankrupt department, and considerably curtailed the fees there taken. This error, it was to be observed, was not discovered till after his motion, and so far the public had been gainers by it. In support of his opinion he referred to the report of the 18th of April 1732* at which period an inquiry into the subject had been instituted by parliament. It was his intention to submit to the House two propositions, involving the general principle on which the inquiry ought at present to be regulated, and then referring the reports of the commissioners to a committee above stairs for their opinion, as to the best mode of carrying the suggestions in the reports into effect. He must observe, that there were many omissions in the reports on the table. Among others there was no statement of the aggregate amount of fees any where. Without this, no judgment could be formed whether or not the fees were upon the whole disproportioned to the service performed or inadequate to the just reward of that service. When on a former occasion this subject was taken into consideration by the House, the hon. member for Norwich complained of the abuse on the part of the officers of courts of justice in taking fees to expedite judgment. It was distinctly denied by another hon. member that any such practice ever exist-
* See New Parl. Hist. Vol. 8, 1072.

973
ed. An hon. and learned friend of his, however, expressed his astonishment at this denial, asserted that the practice was common, and represented the violation to which it led of that equality in the dispensation of justice to which all men were entitled. In the report on the table, all detailed account of these expedition fees was omitted. They were stated indeed to exist, but the statement was made in such a manner, with such a salvo for the practice, and with such doubts as to the expediency of abolishing them, as to render the whole subject still more worthy the attentive consideration of parliament. [The right hon. baronet here read a passage from the report to the above effect.] It would seem that the old maxim, that justice was not to be sold, was no longer to be acted on. The augmentation of the duties on stamps had nearly closed the avenues of justice against the poor, and if the very ministers of justice were to be allowed to make these demands on suitors, the effect must be utterly to debar from legal redress all persons who were unable to disburse large sums in the maintenance of their rights. It had always been the pride of this country, that within her courts of justice there was no respect of persons; but if the poor were prevented from entering, the evil was just as great to them as if the utmost partiality prevailed in the inside. If he had been correctly informed, he had not, when he formerly called the attention of the House to the subject, had in contemplation a tenth part of the grievances which actually existed. With respect to the commissions on the subject, however onerous; it was satisfactory to think that the public had derived, and were likely to derive great advantage from their investigations; and he felt the highest gratification in having been the humble instrument of bringing under the view of parliament transactions, which poisoned the source of justice and utterly prevented the poor man from obtaining it. The right hon. baronet concluded with moving the following Resolutions: 1. "That fees payable on law proceedings are to be considered as direct taxes levied on the suitor to defray the charge of the offices to which they are incident, and should be fixed in their rate, moderate in their amount, and duly proportionate to the service performed, and, as far as may be possible, carried over to a common fund for the general support of the whole establishment of those offices. 2. That the im-
§
974
mense increase of taxation on law proceedings, which has resulted during later years, from the increased necessities of the state, imposes forcibly on the legislature an augmented duty of guarding the body of the people, who may become suitors in courts of law or equity, against the payment of any rate of fee which shall exceed a fair compensation for the service performed or preclude the easy attainment of justice equally by rich and poor. 3. That the several reports presented from the commissioners appointed by royal commissions, in consequence of an address of this House, to examine into the state of the courts of justice of England, Scotland, and Ireland, be referred to a committee of twenty-one members, who shall be directed to report their opinion as to the matters therein contained, and the best mode of carrying into effect any regulations which the said committee may deem advisable respecting the officers of the said courts of justice; and that the said committee shall have power to report thereon from time time as they may deem expedient."
The first resolution being put,
Lord Castlereagh,while he admitted that the right hon. baronet had brought this important subject under the consideration of parliament very fairly, clearly, and temperately, complained that he had not fully stated the grounds on which his motion with respect to it had, on a former occasion, been opposed. If he recollected rightly, the reason why his Majesty's ministers had formerly opposed the right hon. baronet's motion was, that no grounds had been laid for an inquiry into the English court of chancery, although they admitted that ample grounds had been laid for an inquiry into the Irish court of chancery, to which latter inquiry they stated, that they had no objection. Although he admitted to the right hon. baronet, that such inquiries as those which had been instituted on the right hon. baronet's suggestion, frequently brought out information that might prove useful, yet it certainly was the reverse of economy to institute such inquiries for the mere purpose of fishing, in the expectation that some information or other might possibly be the result of their labours. They were attended with considerable expense to the public. The inquiry already (he did not mean to say that an equivalent benefit might not be derived from it) had cost a considerable sum. Propositions, therefore, of that na-

975
ture, ought not lightly to be entertained by the House, or without distinct grounds for expecting that the result would be attended with considerable national benefit. Notwithstanding these considerations, however, parliament had thought proper to extend the inquiry to the court of chancery in England, and that inquiry was still in progress. But hitherto the investigation of this subject by the several commissions was very incomplete. Only two reports had been laid on the table respecting the law offices in Ireland, one respecting those offices in Scotland, and one respecting them in England, forming, upon the whole, a result very short of the intention of the address to the Crown on the subject. In his opinion, it would be very unwise for that House to enter on the consideration of this very technical and difficult and complicated question, until it should be ascertained, that it was not the intention of government, or of the distinguished individuals at the head of the respective courts, to apply such remedy to the evils pointed out in the reports as might be calculated to remove them. This could not be suddenly accomplished. The lord chancellor had immediately, on the presentation of the report, put an end to all those fees, personal to himself, on which there could be the slightest doubt or question, as well as to those of a similar description paid to all officers of his court holding their situations during pleasure; and the noble and learned lord was now engaged with the master of the rolls in investigating the more elaborate parts of the subject to which the report of the commissioners referred. Little conversant as the house necessarily was with such questions, he was anxious that they should not commit their character in undertaking the examination of them, until they saw the whole scope of the inquiry by the commissioners, as affecting not only the courts of chancery, but all the other courts; for each court had principles of regulation, to which no general rule could by possibility be made applicable. With respect to the other branch of the subject, that of the constitution of judicial offices, it was a question which was certainly open to discussion. It could, however, never be in the contemplation of the right hon. baronet to leave the chief judges on the existing salaries, after striking off from them all the other means of fair emolument which they had hitherto possessed [Sir J. Newport observed across the table, that he had said
976
nothing on the subject.] To inquiry into the other part of the subject, on which he had already dwelt, his objections were, however, by much the most strong. He had read the reports of the commissioners on the table, and was persuaded that it required great professional knowledge thoroughly to understand them. For himself he owned that there were parts of them of which he could make neither head nor tail; and he was persuaded that had it not been that two of those commissioners were masters in chancery (gentlemen, he understood, although he had not the pleasure of knowing them, of great learning and ability) the report must necessarily have been most insufficient. With respect to the practice alluded to by the right hon. baronet of paying fees for the expedition of judgment, he had no objection whatever to its being put down, if that could be done. The subject was distinctly noticed in the report, and the abolition of the fees recommended. The noble lord urged the right hon. baronet to withdraw his motion, on which, if that was not done, he should feel it his duty to move the previous question.
Mr. Webberdid not perceive any necessity for the appointment of a new committee, as the former reports were as full as time and circumstances could permit. It was more advisable to wait for all the reports of the existing commissions, before the House proceeded to any ulterior measures, as they would thereby have the whole case before them in a connected shape.
Mr. Ponsonbycontended, that the noble lord's memory had failed him, as to the nature of the opposition made by ministers to his right hon. friend's motion, which had been nevertheless carried for the appointment of the commissions, the reports from which were now on the table. His majesty's ministers had opposed every part of the proposition; and it had been carried by one vote, in consequence of an hon. and learned gentleman, no longer a member of that House (Mr. Stephen) having declared, that if his right hon. friend could show and abuse in the office to which, as a master of chancery, he belonged, he would support the motion, and he had very honourably done so on such an abuse having been pointed out to him. With respect to the expense of such commissions, that very much depended on the facilities afforded them, or withheld, by government and persons in authority. As to the objection made by the noble lord

977
to the appointment of a committee to take into consideration the reports on the table because those reports were incomplete, he was far from thinking it a sound one. He doubted whether it would not be a wiser plan to take the matter up deliberately and in detail, as the reports from the commissioners might be from time to time presented rather than to wait until they should be so accumulated as to protract the termination of the labours of the committee to an almost indefinite period. The noble lord recommended that the subject should be left to government, and to the heads of the courts. He (Mr. P.) had known reports of similar commissions lie on the table of that House a long time, unnoticed by a minister of the Crown, or a head of the department to which they referred; nor was he very sanguine as to a more favourable result on the present occasion. If the noble lord would state any reasonable but specific time which, in his opinion, ought to elapse before the House, took any step on the subject, in order to give government, and the distinguished individuals at the head of the courts, an opportunity of taking up the subject, he, for one, would request his right hon. friend to withdraw his motion; but not otherwise. If the noble lord would not name any time, he must excuse him for saying, that his present opposition was evidently only a device for getting rid of the matter altogether.
Mr. Leslie Fostercontended for the propriety and advantage of committing the investigation in the court of chancery to the lord chancellor only, and in support of this opinion, he instanced the case of the commission appointed, in lord Hardwicke's time, for a purpose similar to that contemplated by the first motion of the right hon. baronet, when the report was made to the king in chancery, and in less than three years every abuse notified in it was corrected. There never had been so complete a clearance of the avenues of a court of justice. He had no doubt that, on the face of the report, there might be some instances of increase of fees and irregularity of practice; but in all the really important affairs of the court he was persuaded there was little ground for complaint. For the last seventy years there had not been one increase of fees, nor one abuse in the master's office; none in the register's office; in the six clerks office a few, but those small; in the sworn clerks office none since 1740; no increase in the
978
examiners of the court; none in the master of the reports; and none in the register of affidavits office. In this enumeration he had set forth the whole machine which substantially did the business of the court. He was far from saying that the report did not deserve consideration; but the question was, how the matter should be taken into hand? and he thought the same course should be pursued as before, and believed it must finally come to this. If a committee, formed of professional men, were to sit every day till the end of the session, their undertaking would be little less laborious than that of the former committee. He knew this by experience, as he had himself sat upon the commission in Ireland. He had then found the difficulty of the subject, and he was persuaded that a committee of the House was more likely to take up insulated points and to do harm, than to effect any real service. It would be by far the best mode to submit the whole to the lord chancellor, and if there were any points which be might not like to venture on, they might be made the object of a supplemental act. He was aware it might be urged, that this was calling the chancellor to be judge in his own cause, and that many of the fees of the court appertained to himself. At least this would be no objection as far as the fees of others were concerned; and, with respect to his own, it was to be expected, that the consideration of his own interest would, with so exalted a character, be an additional motive for the exercise of impartiality. It appeared by the report that not one of the lord chancellor's fees had been increased; and the report stated, that they were all ancient and legal. The right hon. baronet seemed to think otherwise as to the office of secretary of bankruptcies; but that had been lately regulated, and the lord chancellor had himself voluntarily relinquished 1.000 l. a year to those who transacted a great share of the business. On these grounds he thought it would conduce to the public good, to put the reformation called for into the hands of the only competent authority, and he could assure the House that he would never support any undue delay.
Sir J. Newportshortly replied, that he would forbear to press his motion, if the noble lord would name a certain time for the settlement of the business. However, he thought it unfair to refer to the lord chancellor the revision of office, in the

979
gains of which he himself participated. It had been said, that the lord chancellor had relinquished 1,000 l., a year; but when had fie relinquished it? After the commission had been instituted! The office of secretary of bankruptcies had been discharged sometimes by one person and sometimes by another, and no regular appointment had been made till the inquiry took place. The noble lord had alleged that it was inconvenient to adopt general principles which might be controverted by the language of some subsequent report; but it was impossible that the principle contained in the first resolution could ever be impugned. The second resolution stated, that the immense charges on all proceedings at law imposed a binding duty on the legislature to examine into the charges made by the officers of the courts of justice, for the purpose of preventing abuses. The stamps imposed on law proceedings were the most fatal tax ever proposed, and had the effect of shutting up every avenue to justice. The noble lord was afraid of encouraging litigation, if the stamps should be abandoned; but if they were continued, the poor man was denied justice altogether. The load of law taxes had induced thousands to relinquish altogether their legal demands, because they could not pay the duties of the suit. No tax that could be devised could be half so injurious as this; not even a tax on the necessaries of life. If, by such a tax as that, an individual were prevented from purchasing a whole loaf, he might purchase perhaps half a one; but no man could obtain justice by halves, or pay for half a writ, if unable to discharge the stamp for the whole. The legislature should be called on to abandon these duties, which closed the courts of justice against every poor man, taught him to look for irregular means of redress and destroyed the proudest boast of England—that her courts of law were open to the poor as well as to the rich. He would not, however, press his motion, if the noble lord would name a certain day; but if the matter was to be delayed indefinitely, he must now take the sense of the House.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, it was impossible to name a certain day on such a complicated subject; but it was open to the right hon. baronet to apply to the House again, if he thought the interval which might take place too long.
The House then divided; For the motion, 16; against it, 63.

IRISH PEACE PRESERVATION BILL.
Mr. Peelrose to ask for leave to bring in a bill to amend an act of the 54th of the king, for enabling the lord lieutenant of Ireland to appoint superintending magistrates and constables in those districts of Ireland which might unhappily become the scene of disturbance. The object of that bill was to supply a deficiency severely felt in Ireland in the civil power, and to introduce something like an effective police, instead of having recourse on every occasion to the cumbrous, though powerful instrument, of a standing army. The measure might probably, at first, seem liable to some objections, if applicable to this country, but the House were to balance between expedients: and if it were found less expensive and more effective than a large military force, he trusted the House would not prevent its being carried into operation. In introducing this measure to the House, he should not enter into a detail of the expense that would be saved by it. The employment of the soldiery, the charge of erecting barracks, and a great variety of other items, formed, however, a considerable aggregate of expense, under the existing system. The best disciplined soldiers, it should also be observed, if obliged to disperse themselves over the country, in small parties, as they were now compelled to do, in search of offenders, would very soon become lax and careless in the performance of their duty. He would leave entirely out of the question, the idea of men who had been employed in putting down the greatest military despotism that ever existed—who perhaps wore on their breasts the proud reward of their honourable services—being; now placed in the humiliating situation of seizing private stills, and apprehending trifling offenders. In the year 1814, when he brought forward the measure which he; now wished to amend, he proposed that the lord lieutenant in council should have the power of placing, in disturbed districts magistrates specially appointed, and constables to assist them in preserving the peace. This measure met with the almost unanimous approbation of the House and it was particularly approved of by the right hon. baronet opposite (sir J. Newport), whom, although he had often differed from the Irish government in opinion, he had ever found desirous, when measures were proposed for the benefit of that country, of which he was a native, and to which he did honour, to give them

981
every assistance in his power, instead of throwing obstacles in the way of their accomplishments. The act of 1814 had been carried into execution in six instances. In three instances, in the county of Tipperary, and once, respectively, in the counties of Louth, Clare, and Cavan. It was found to have a most beneficial effect. The lowest orders of the people applied to the magistrates to settle disputes between them and their employers, and the advantage was so great, that the farmers had frequently expressed their opinion, that the peace and tranquillity which reigned in those districts where the law was acted on, was cheaply purchased by the sum they paid to support the establishment. Under that act, the whole expense was to be defrayed by the disturbed districts. This provision was introduced because it gave those who lived in those districts a direct interest in preserving the peace. This mode of proceeding would operate very well in some parts of Ireland; but others were so poor and exhausted, that they were unable to bear the expense, and, therefore, it was found impossible to carry it into effect in those districts. In those places, where the land-owners did not reside—where, in consequence, insubordination was very general—there, although the greatest necessity existed for rendering the act operative, it could not be done, because, in those districts, the least possible means of supporting the expense existed. There was a certain district in the county of Donnegal, where illicit distillation was carried on systematically—where the laws were openly violated—and those who broke them were defended by large bodies of men—to that district it had been found necessary to send a special magistrate, escorted by a party of 50 dragoons. It was to provide against the recurrence of cases of this kind—to render it unnecessary, as far as possible, to employ the military force—that he now asked for leave to amend the act of 1814; the alterations he meant to propose in which, would, he conceived, have the effect of creating a proper civil force. As the law at present stood, it was necessary on the appointment of a certain number of peace officers, to create a superintendant magistrate. If a neighbouring district became disturbed, and constables were appointed to protect the peace, they could not be directed by the magistrate who had already been created, and who was acting near the spot—it was neces-
982
sary to appoint another superintendant magistrate for the newly disturbed district. To prevent this accumulation of magistrates, he should propose, that different bodies of constables belonging to different districts, should be allowed to act under the same magistrate. He should next propose, that the lord lieutenant and council should have the power of apportioning what part of the expense incurred by a disturbed district should be paid by the inhabitants, and what should come out of the public funds. He did not mean that the lord lieutenant and council should have authority to remit the whole expense; but, where great distress appeared to prevail, they ought, in his opinion, to have the power of removing such portion of it as circumstances might warrant. The last amendment would direct, that in all cases where the act was introduced, an account should be laid before parliament of the expense to be defrayed by the public, and also of the appointments, made under it.—The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to combat such objections as, he thought, might be urged against the bill. If it were said, that it would be better not to pay constables to preserve the peace, but to leave it, as was the case in this country, to the population in general to exert themselves to keep the peace, he should answer, that such a system could not, at present, be effectual, and in that statement he would be borne out by every gentleman connected with Ireland; in which country the introduction of a police at all was comparative modern—not, he believed, of more than thirty or forty years standing. The expense might possibly be objected to. The House would recollect the discussion on the military establishment for Ireland, which took place last session. There was a tolerably unanimous impression, at that time, that the force proposed was by no means too great. It was with great satisfaction he now stated, not only that it was not found necessary to extend to Ireland the Habeas Corpus suspension bill, or the bill for preventing seditious meetings, but that a very considerable reduction was proposed to be made in the military force employed there. The army in that country at present amounted to 25,000 men: these would be reduced to 22,000. There were now seven brigades of ordnance, which would be reduced from 400 to 200 guns. Thus a great expense would be removed, and,

983
what was infinitely more important, a foundation would be laid for inspiring the people with an habitual obedience to the law, and, when that frame of mind was once introduced amongst them, government might dispense with the less constitutional mode of enforcing the law, which it was now so frequently necessary to resort to. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to amend the act 54 Geo. 3d, c. 131, to provide for the better execution of the laws in Ireland, by appointing superintending magistrates and additional constables in certain cases."
Sir J. Newportknew not how to reply to the compliments which the right hon. gentleman had paid him. He had but one claim to his good opinion—that of acting conscientiously, and that claim, he hoped, he should never forfeit. He approved highly of the bill now proposed: it was perfectly constitutional. He had never, for a moment, doubted, that the best boon the House could bestow on Ireland, was a police, established on an efficient footing, instead of resorting to that military force, which was too much employed in that country, and which had outraged the feelings of its population to such a degree, as would render it a matter of great difficulty to return to the spot from which they had set out. This principle, if pursued further, would place Ireland in a state of military tutelage—than which no situation could be more revolting to the feelings of humanity.
Mr. Carew, Mr. Chichester, and Mr. V. Fitzgerald, severally expressed their approbation of the proposed measure. Leave was then given to bring in the bill.