Commons Sitting of 15 May 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Foreign Enlistment Repeal; General Turnpike Act Amendment.—Read a second time:—Oaths' Abolition.

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.
Mr. William Milespresented a Petition from Bath, praying that in the Great Western Railway Bill a clause might be introduced prohibiting Sunday travelling on it. The hon. Member supported the petition, and gave notice of his intention to move a clause to that effect.
Mr. Pottersaid, this was a most absurd petition. The subscribers to it might as well try to suppress Sunday eating. Besides, if such a prohibition were too rigidly enforced, people might be prevented from going to Church on Sundays.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that the petition did not express the sentiments of the people of Bath. Of the subscribers to this preposterous petition the first nineteen were clergymen of the Church of England.
Mr. Sinclairobserved, that the extraordinary and lamentable thing was, that such a petition should be necessary.
Sir Oswald Mosleysaw nothing either extraordinary or ridiculous in the petition. All that the parties wanted was to secure to the labourers on the rail-road the same opportunity for enjoying the holy rest of the Sabbath which other poor persons enjoyed.
Mr. Plumptresupported the petition. He was acquainted with a rail-way which passed near a town and the noise on it was extremely great.
Mr. Harveysaid, that Acts of Parliament were not the most effective possible method of impressing the people with a moral tone of feeling. Example would do a great deal more towards bringing about so desirable a result than anything else, and of this there was unfortunately but too little. The other day, when at a country church, he saw a Bishop come to preach a charity sermon in a splendid coach, drawn by horses, the brass on whose harness was in much greater quantity than was contained in the pockets of all the poor people who were standing round. There was not much in this of the primitive simplicity of the Apostles, who taught the early gospel. Parliamentary morality would never be found to answer.
Mr. Hardysaid, the object of the petitioners was to put an end to the disgraceful system which now prevaile of making people work at the engines on Sundays. It was most unjust that these poor people should alone of their class be debarred from the holy rest of the Sabbath.
The Attorney Generaldeprecated all such discussions on private petitions.
Mr. Philip Howardsaid, that as only three men were employed at these engines, it might be very possible so to arrange the journeys as to enable them to have time to attend to divine service.
Petition laid on the Table.

KERRY ELECTION.
Mr. Shawbegged to be indulged for a few moments on a matter personal to himself, which also, in some degree, involved the character of the House. He saw the hon. and learned Member for Dublin in his place, and would take this opportunity of alluding to a contradiction given by the hon. Member to a statement which he (Mr. Shaw) had made. It would be in the recollection
1130
of the House, that in a discussion, before the recess, the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had challenged him (Mr. Shaw) to adduce a single instance—
Mr. O'Connellinterposed: I speak to order. If the hon. and learned Gentleman means to make a Motion, that is one thing; if he means to put a question that is another; but if it be a question, then he has no right to make a speech. Which is he going to do.
Mr. Shaw:I am not about to make a motion, to ask a question, or to make a speech; but I have already begged, and I hope I shall receive, the indulgence of the House for a few moments to make an explanation in a matter personal to myself. It will be in the recollection of the House, that on the occasion to which I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman challenged me to adduce a single instance of violence or breach of the law having occurred in the county of Kerry in connexion with the recent election there; that in reply I said that I had heard on good authority and believed, that shortly before the election the hon. and learned Gentleman had gone to a person of the name of Murphy, a Roman Catholic trader in the town of Killarney, and asked him whether he intended to vote for the Knight of Kerry, that Murphy said he did, and that the hon. and learned Member answered, "If you do, I'll have across or mark put upon your door," and threatened him with the consequences; and that shortly after Murphy's house was violently attacked, and his person assaulted; upon which the House cannot forget the solemn manner in which the hon. Gentleman stepped forward and called God to witness that from beginning to end the whole story was false. The Mirror of Parliament thus reports the hon. and learned Gentleman:—"Mr. O'Connell rose, and advancing towards the centre of the floor, said—'I declare most solemnly, in the presence of that God who is to judge me, the whole story is totally false." The authority upon which I made the statement was that of the Earl of Kenmare, the Lieutenant of the county, a distinguished nobleman, differing from me in politics and religion, and with whom I have no other connexion than joining in that just esteem with which he his universally regarded in Ireland. Immediately after what had occurred in this House, thinking it possible that Lord Kenmare or myself might have been mis-

1131
taken or misled, I felt it my duty to communicate with his Lordship, in order that I might either withdraw or corroborate the statement I had made, and the result of that communication has been, that I am furnished by Lord Kenmare with the fullest corroboration of what I had previously stated. Lord Kenmare has sent me a statement of it, written by Mr. Murphy himself, bearing testimony at the same time to the high character of Mr. Murphy, who is a Roman Catholic, and the most eminent and extensive trader in the town of Killarney, offers to verify his written account by affidavit, or in any other manner that may be required of him, and I will shortly read it to the House. The letter is signed "David William Murphy," and addressed to the "Earl of Kenmare;" it commences by stating the unwillingness of Mr. Murphy to have his name brought before the public, but that in compliance with the wish of Lord Kenmare, he proceeds to detail what occurred between himself and Mr. O'Connell, on the 6th of January last, in the following words;—"Having been told by Mr. Charles O'Connell, Mr. O'Connell's son-in-law, that Mr. O'Connell would be glad to see me at Finn's hotel, I went, and found with him several of his friends and near relatives. He spoke for some time on the election politics of the county, and after some remarks on the Knight of Kerry, asked me if it was possible I intended (as he heard) to vole for him (the Knight.) I answered that I did. He said—'What, you? I will have a black streak put on your door, and none shall dare to enter it, and if that has no effect, your car shan't pass through Milltown or Killerglin, and in Cahirciveen you shan't have as much room as you could let it down in.' This conversation occurred in presence of his own very near relatives, and was publicly spoken of by some of them that same night. On the evening of the clay on which the election for the borough of Tralee closed (Saturday, January 10,) an infuriated mob made a violent attack on my house, and broke my windows, assaulted myself, and were it not for the timely interference of a Magistrate, with some soldiers who happened to have been stationed here at the time, would have gone to extremities which it would have been impossible to check. I may further add, that amongst the persons attacking my house was one with ignited
1132
straw. These facts, my Lord, can be substantiated by several others than myself and are in this county quite notorious." If this written statement, investigated and verified by Lord Kenmare, wanted further proof, I have seen since a Gentleman who was on the spot at the time; I have received various letters on the subject; some have been handed me by hon. Members in this House, English and Irish, all corroborating to the utmost Mr. Murphy's account, and also that the circumstances are perfectly notorious in the neighbourhood. It is not my desire, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has attributed to me, to make any speech on this occasion, nor any attack on him, beyond a simple statement of the facts. I will abstain from making a single observation on the case, further than to express a hope that I have completely justified my original statement, and I leave it to the hon. and learned Member to justify, if he can, his unqualified and solemn asseveration that the whole story from beginning to end was false. [Cheers.]
Mr. O'Connellsaid, it was easy to see from that cheer—that party cheer—what was the object of the right hon. and learned Member. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman made a charge of this nature before against him, he had gone across the House, and asked him what was the name of this Murphy, and he (Mr. Shaw) told him he did not know. It was found afterwards, and David was inserted in the Mirror of Parliament, although David had never been used in that House. The learned Recorder had spoken only of a man named Murphy, without using his Christian name. He did not know at the time what Murphy could have been meant. But by the insertion of the name "David" in the report, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had quite changed the venue of his story. It was quite a different thing. Before it was stated that he (Mr. O'Connell) went to the House of a man, and on his saying he would vote for the Knight of Kerry, that he (Mr. O'Connell) had declared that he would mark his door with a white cross, and threatened him with the consequences. Now it appeared, on the contrary, that a man came to him about something else, and that then he said something to him about a white cross or a black streak. At the time he spoke he knew nothing about this matter; he had no recollection of the conversation,

1133
and if he had known that it related to David Murphy, he should have laughed at it. He was not in Kerry for ten days before the attack on David Murphy's house was made. Why, David Murphy was a tenant of his; he had the standing for his carts at Cahirciveen from him. Murphy's brother was an agent for the election of his nephew at the time. He remembered, in a conversation, that he had with David Murphy in the drawing-room of the inn, Murphy said to him that Mullins had better look to himself, for his father had died without assets, and owed him money, and that Mr. Mullens must now pay him or he would not vote for him. He then jokingly observed to Murphy, that if Mullins paid the debt, and Murphy voted for him afterwards, he would be bribed. He did not know what he might have said about the Knight of Kerry; he was then canvassing against him with all his might, and he had done it successfully. But it was an idle jocular conversation, from which he anticipated no consequences, and from which none did result. He should not have remembered even so much of this conversation if after the trial which had taken place on account of the attack on Murphy's house, which he saw in the newspaper, he had not written to Kerry to inquire about the matter. He was in Dublin engaged about his own election when the attack on Murphy's house was made. There was nothing serious in it, as had been stated: a couple of windows were broken, and the assault on himself was so trifling that it could hardly be proved. It was only taking him by the collar, or something of that kind It originated in his striking a little girl who was going past his shop-door, crying, "No Knight;" he gave her a slap on the cheek, which nearly knocked her down, and her friends it was that broke the glass. He saw, too, in the Tralee paper, that David Murphy, on his cross-examination, was asked why he voted against Morgan John O'Connell, the nephew of his old friend, to which he replied, that the contest was not with Morgan John, or he would have plumped for him. As to Lord Kenmare, there was no man under such a compliment to him. He had done the noble Lord a service equivalent to giving him 40,000 l., and his Lordship had certainly treated him with unqualified ingratitude. In violation of his promise he had given his support to the Knight of
1134
Kerry, and, disappointed in his electioneering projects, he had entered into an holy alliance with the learned Recorder to annoy and accuse him. The question, however, was, now altogether different, even as reported by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the Mirror of Parliament. The transaction first alluded to was totally different from the present, and if the question was now put to him as it was formerly, he should meet it with as solemn a contradiction. He apologized to the House for trespassing so long on them, and wished the right hon. and learned Gentleman joy of his occupation.
Mr. Shaw,in explanation, stated, that as to the name of David, he immediately discovered it by reference to a letter, and mentioned it to at least twenty persons, that the parties to the assault on Murphy had pleaded guilty, and now were under sentence of some months' imprisonment; and with respect to the hon. Gentleman's statement, that Lord Kenmare had promised not to take any part against his nephew, he (Mr. Shaw) was authorized to state, that Lord Kenmare had never made a promise to that effect. He also observed, that there could be no cross-examination, as the accused pleaded guilty, and were sentenced to some months' imprisonment. He also denied that he had reported either his own or the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech.
Mr. O'Connellpositively denied the truth of Lord Kenmare's disclaimer, and said he could prove it. He stated also that there was a cross-examination, Murphy and two others having given evidence before the prisoners pleaded guilty.
Mr. Morgan J. O'Connellstated he had in his possession a letter from Lord Kenmare, dated the 27th of December, in which he stated, "It is not my intention to take any part in the election." He added, in reference to the charge of intimidation, that the majority of the electors in Killarney voted for the Knight of Kerry.
Subject dropped.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.

LOWER CANADA.
Mr. Roebuckreferred to his Motion on the paper for "A Copy of a Dispatch from the right hon. Thomas Spring Rice to Lord Aylmer, authorising him to pay the officers of the

1135
Civil Government of Canada certain monies, not appropriated to that purpose by the Legislature of Canada," and said, he wished to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer founded upon it. That question referred to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman when he held the office of Secretary for the Colonies, just after the retirement, of Lord Stanley. He was sorry that he must, upon this occasion, charge the right hon. Gentleman with a bleach of those engagements and promises which he made to the Canada agents when they were in this country. The gist of the complaint was, that the right hon. Gentleman had been guilty of a breach of faith in sending out instructions to Lord Aylmer to pay the sum of 31,000 l. to certain officers of the Government in Canada, after having promised to him (Mr. Roebuck) and to two deputies from Lower Canada, that he would not do so, but would wait to see what steps were taken by the Canadian Legislature on the subject of the Civil List. The reason he urged for this course was, that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) wished for a fair trial, having only just entered upon the arduous duties of his office. The undertaking on the part of the right hon. Gentleman was entered into by him on one Sunday, and on the next Sunday the right hon. Gentleman had sent off a dispatch to Lord Aylmer, in direct contravention of his own engagement. This, he contended, was not acting in a straightforward, manly, or even honest manner; and it could not be justified by any plea of the urgent necessity of the case. He complained that he and the two delegates had been deceived and imposed upon, and that if Lord Aylmer had paid the money out of the Colonial funds he was liable to an action; if, on the other hand, he had paid it out of the military chest, and it came before the House in the Committee of Supply, he (Mr. Roebuck) would strenuously oppose the grant. He concluded by asking the question, whether the right hon. Gentleman had authorised Lord Aylmer to pay 31,000 l. either out of the military chest or out of the funds of the colony?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas not sorry that he had not interfered with the hon. Gentleman in the course he had thought proper to pursue. It was a question affecting his personal honour as well as his conduct as a public man, and therefore he was naturally anxious to give it a
1136
direct and immediate reply. He, however, protested against the great inconvenience of having questions of importance, personal and public, thus brought forward without notice. It was an irregularity which, if adopted generally, must prevent justice being done to any subject, and altogether impede the public business. The question the hon. Member had introduced was one of those which, on grounds personal and public, ought not to be lightly disposed of at a casual discussion; and if without personal and public inconvenience he could have remained silent, he should have been well entitled to decline answering the question until the documents which the hon. Member himself had moved for, and which it was to be presumed were of great importance to the consideration of the subject, had been laid upon the Table. The hon. and learned Gentleman had charged him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) with a violation of private honour—with a violation of official duty; and therefore he trusted the House would indulge him with its attention for a very few moments, whilst he offered a few observations, observations not made with a view to raise any debate upon a subject which, in its present shape, could not lead to any practical result, but for the purpose of indignantly refuting and repudiating the charges which the hon. Member had made against his private honour and public character. The facts of the case in question were very simple, and he felt considerable surprise that the hon. Gentleman had not stated and urged these charges when, on a previous occasion, he had adverted to the proceedings, an occasion upon which he thought he had fully answered the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman, however, had not done so, but had chosen for his own purposes, under a notice for papers, to bring forward those charges on the present occasion which, by anticipation, he had already answered. If the hon. Gentleman would turn to the debate which took place on the occasion of his presentation of a petition on the subject of Canadian affairs, he would find that he, voluntarily and uncalled-for by him, went through the whole facts of the case, upon which the hon. Member became entitled to a reply, of which right he availed himself; and if there had been that neglect of public duty, that abandonment of private and honourable engagement, it was then open to the hon. Gentleman to

1137
have made the attack, provided he had felt that in truth he was justly exposed to it. It was true that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) saw the two deputies that came to this country from Lower Canada; he did so with the knowledge and at the request of the members of the Committee then sitting upon Canadian affairs; there was no concealment whatever of the part he had taken. He had then only been recently appointed to the Colonial Office, under circumstances to him most painful, for they involved between himself and a noble individual, whom he should ever regard with respect and friendship, a separation on public grounds. Meeting that Committee, therefore, nearly at the close of their inquiry, he had thought it right, under the circumstances in which he was then placed, to put a question to them as to whether or not it would be expedient that he should see the Canadian deputation; and in answer it was stated to him most distinctly by the Committee, that it was expedient that he should see and communicate with the individuals composing that deputation. He accordingly met the deputation without reserve and without suspicion, and with a candour and frankness on his part, unwilling that a moment should be lost; and he met them without any other individual being present, except the hon. and learned Member for Bath. He did not seek any friend to accompany him on that occasion, because he thought and hoped he was dealing with individuals who were incapable of misrepresentation. He told the deputies that having just come into office, he was naturally not fully acquainted with the particulars of their case; but it was not the fact that he asked them for a fair trial. That phrase was of more recent origin than the interview in question; and he was satisfied that he did not use it. But he addressed them in language to this effect:—"I am called upon in the midst of a session to decide this mighty question, on which perhaps depends the connexion between Great Britain and her North American colonies. I wish for time to decide upon the course I shall take." Such was his language, and he put it to the House to say, whether there was any thing in it unfit for a discreet man to have uttered. The answer was in a fair spirit; for it was acknowledged that it was but reasonable to allow him time. The discussion was then entered upon, being
1138
carried on partly in French and partly in English, he observing at the outset that he considered the interview as private and confidential, but that if the result was an amicable understanding he should be glad of it. He told them that he had the greatest confidence in them, or he should have requested a friend, naming particularly his hon. Friend, the Member for Taunton, to be present. Would the House believe, that after this a regular minute of this confidential conversation was made, that he never saw it, that it contained statements not consistent with the facts, that it was laid before the House of Assembly of Canada, in an official shape, for the purpose of bringing a charge against him? The hon. and learned Member was a party to the whole proceeding.—[Mr. Roebuck: "I did not communicate the conversation to the House of Assembly."]—But the hon. Member was present at the whole of that conversation; and yet, knowing what he therefore did of its nature, and notwithstanding the statement he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made on the 9th of March, the hon. Member had thought proper to single him out for attack, and impeach his honour, under cover of asking a question. This he did without notice, and contrary to the pledge he gave upon the occasion in question. But the hon. Member's conduct was all of a piece; for, on a former occasion, the hon. Member made a charge, against the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, upon unreported evidence, and he now brought forward a charge against him, upon the import of a private and confidential communication. He would explain to the House what he had really said on the occasion in question, and he trusted the House would bear with him while he did so. It was perfectly true, as the hon. Member had stated, that in reply to a question, he had informed the hon. Member that only two courses were before him, and that he was not disposed to take either. The one course was the persevering in the Bill of his noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire, the effect of which would have been to break an engagement entered into with Canada, by a former Act of Parliament, and thereby allow this country the right to appropriate the revenues of the Civil List of Canada, and the second course was, to direct the payment of the salaries of the Colonial officers, then two years in arrear,

1139
out of the sums unappropriated by the Canadian Legislature, in the same manner as the Earl of Dalhousie had directed some years ago. With regard to the first course open to him, he was not prepared, from the state of his information, to have recourse to a measure so strong as the violation of an agreement, and the setting aside the provisions of an Act of Parliament, and he declared to the Deputies, that in reference to the position in which he stood, and in the absence of further information, he could not take that course. At the same time he observed that he should not consider himself precluded from doing so, if he should eventually think it a fair course, but he would not assent to it except at the last moment. On the second point—namely, ordering the payment, as Lord Dalhousie had done, he censured it in the presence of the Deputies, and had not since adopted it. What he had done, he had stated in his observations to the House, on the 9th of March last, to which he should now refer. 'He told the gentlemen composing the deputation, Messrs. Morein and Viger, that he was not prepared to proceed with Lord Stanley's Bill, and he felt, however it might be right to make concessions to Canada, yet he was of opinion that great caution in the proceeding was required, and the hon. Gentleman must recollect that he told him he would not say that it might not be expedient, at some future time, to have such a Bill; at that period he only asked for time. He stated this to the gentlemen whom he had mentioned, and who, though not officially recognized as agents from Canada, were deputed by the Assembly, and had much influence in its affairs. At the time the report was made, there were two years' supplies due; and he intimated that, if the Legislative Assembly would pass an unconditional Supply Bill for those years, he would go earnestly to work, and enter into the whole question, with the view of devising such measures, and preparing such instructions, as he thought might meet the necessity of the case. He told those gentlemen what he proposed, and they said they thought it would be satisfactory to the Legislative Assembly of Canada.* It was under that impression, that he and the deputation parted. He had previously told them
* Hansard (third series) vol. xxvi. p 690.
1140
also, that he would not have recourse to the plan heretofore adopted by Lord Dalhousie. The course which he had taken, however, had been (as he had stated on the 9th of March last) this—"Two years' income were due to the Government officers throughout Canada: those individuals, high and low, had been deprived of all payments during that period. Their distress was in many instances most urgent; many of the public servants were under the necessity of raising money on disadvantageous terms, and some were thus subject to extreme pressure and distress. The Canadian money was in the hands of the Receiver-General, and there was the utmost confidence entertained that in November, at the meeting of the Assembly, a Bill would be passed for the appropriation of that money. Parliament not being sitting at the time, it was thought advisable to give directions that if there were officers of the Government in a state requiring relief, and having two years' arrears then due, there being every confidence that the money would be repaid in the following month of November, that an advance should be made, not out of any Canadian funds, but out of the extraordinary resources of this country, in order to meet their necessities." * He thought this afforded a most triumphant answer to the charge of the breach of an agreement, or the abandonment of any pledge given to Messrs. Morein and Viger. The course he had pursued was not in violation of any pledge or agreement. On the 9th of March, the hon. and learned Member for Bath might have reproached him with a violation of an agreement, as well as he could now, but he then chose to withhold the attack, and now he made it without notice, without evidence, and, in short, in the absence of everything which constituted the elements of full and fair inquiry, and attacked him under most disadvantageous circumstances, when none of the documents which could explain the transaction, were before the House. The hon. Gentleman had asked whether the payments had been made out of Colonial funds. His answer was, that they were not made out of Colonial funds, and that fact was well known to the hon. Member at the time he put the question; but the hon. Member made the inquiry, in order to raise an unfair discussion, at a
* Hansard, (third series) vol. xxvi. p. 693.

1141
period when every well wisher to the two countries would desire to avoid such a discussion. The hon. Gentleman had put him in a position in which he could not, consistently with his own feelings of honour and of public duty, refuse to give the hon. Gentleman an answer; when, under any other than a state of such compulsion, he should have said merely that no question could at the present time be more improper, more unfair, or ill-advised. Could the hon. Gentleman find an authority which could support him in the betrayal and misrepresentation of a private conversation, which the hon. Gentleman himself acknowledged to be private, and which was stated to be private and confidential, and that it was so declared by him in the very document which the Canadian Deputies laid before the Assembly, of which they were distinguished members. He cared not if every word he uttered were known, as far as himself was concerned. His only wish for considering it private was, lest improperly divulging it, it should occasion mischief. Was the making it known done for the purpose of mischief. What good end could it answer? The hon. Gentleman had been told that every document he desired was open to his inspection, and if he had wished an honest and fair conclusion to be come to, he might have brought such documents as he thought fit before the House, and thus have had a foundation for his charge. If the hon. Member's now raising this discussion, implied a singular political conscience, as regarded the future interests of Canada, his oblivion of private obligations implied a peculiar personal conscience as respected his own character. He should regret extremely if the strength of his feelings had, on this occasion, impelled him to say more than was fit and necessary in his own vindication. But it must be remembered, that the hon. Gentleman had accused him of having deceived him, of not having taken an honest, open, manly part; and the hon. Member contrasted (he hoped the contrast would be understood by the House) his own open, manly conduct, with the tortuous course the hon. Member imputed to him. The hon. Member need not much complain, therefore, if charged in the face of his colleagues, the Representatives of the people, with having deceived him and others in his official capacity—he repelled an accusation so unjust with some warmth,
1142
and by stating to the House all the facts of the case. If the hon. Gentleman had been successful, he should not have envied him his advantage, for if political success was only to be attained by such means, others might pursue it, he would not. He believed, however, that no permanent success was to be obtained, although temporary exultation sometimes might be won, by the betrayal of those high obligations which bound men of honour. In strictness he might have objected to the course taken by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, but he had waived the strict rules of the House to discharge the duty of vindicating himself from an imputation as unjust as it was harsh.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that he had been accused by the right hon. Gentleman with the betrayal of a private and confidential communication. He most solemnly denied the imputation, for so far from being a party to divulging that private communication, he had now in his possession an apology from the delegates of Lower Canada to him for having taken a step which they believed they were driven to, by the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. For the divulging it an apology had been made to him (Mr. Roebuck). The minute of the conversation had been sent by the deputation to him at a time when he was so dangerously ill as to be obliged to leave the country and go abroad, and he returned it with these observations—that the document, so far as he could say, contained a correct statement of what had taken place at the interview with the right hon. Gentleman, but that no possible use ought to be made, or could be made, of it. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, and ask how he came so quickly to accuse him of divulging it? That document had been laid before the House of Assembly by others—it was published in all the Canadian newspapers, and was brought over in them to him (Mr. Roebuck) in common with the rest of the whole world, and when thus made matter of common information and publicity, he had every right to speak of that which all the world knew. But the right hon. Gentleman asked why he had not made the statement before. Why, the way he put the matter was by asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he had done so and so. Having given the right hon. Gentleman notice of the questions, he had of course put them.

1143
The conversation was before the House, and he told the right hon. Gentleman how he meant to introduce the subject. The right hon. Gentleman said, very well, and that he was glad it should be so introduced. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer: That conversation was on the 9th of March.] Yes, and then I stated to the right hon. Gentleman the form of the questions I meant to put. He begged to repeat that the conversation which took place before him and the delegates, was first published in the Canadian Assembly, that it afterwards appeared in a printed form, and could the right hon. Gentleman accuse him of having divulged the conversation, when it appeared in all the North American newspapers? The right hon. Gentleman denied having broken any pledge made to the Canadian delegates. He would say most solemnly, that he believed the breach of the pledge complained of, was committed by the right hon. Gentleman, for the right hon. Gentleman promised he would not do what he had done, except in the last extremity. That extremity was, if the House of Assembly refused the payment of the officers' salaries. They had not refused; and the House of Assembly had no opportunity of a fair trial. With respect to Lord Dalhousie, what he had done was to appropriate the money in the military chest, and a portion of the revenues of Lower Canada, which were under the control of the King, and not under that of the Legislative Assembly.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in his premises. It was true the term "military chest" might have been used, but there was a distinction in the nature of the funds designated by that term. The fact was, that Lord Dalhousie had made his payments out of the national revenues belonging to the Canadas, while he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made them by advances out of British funds, to be repaid when the House of Assembly had done that which was confidently expected from them.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that was precisely the point upon which he was at issue with the right hon. Gentleman. He contended that Lord Dalhousie paid the sums out of monies under the control of Government, but for which the Government was answerable to Parliament, and that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had done
1144
precisely the same thing. He had taken monies not under the control of the House of Assembly, contrary to the agreement, and that was the breach of which he complained. Much as the right hon. Gentleman had said of the obligation, morally and politically, to preserve engagements inviolate—solemn as had been the right hon. Gentleman's appeal—he felt that obligation quite as strongly as the right hon. Gentleman. But if the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to adopt that course which he had condemned, except in case of the last extremity, he had broken his pledge. When he brought forward this charge—he would not say charge, because he asked the question—and if he had made a charge, he should have commenced by the solemn assertion that the right hon. Gentleman had adopted that course. On the contrary, he had inquired from the right hon. Gentleman if such was the case. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer: I deny it.] That was the point at issue between them. In conclusion, he hoped the House would believe that the solemn obligations of honour were by him felt as stringent and as strong as by the right hon. Gentleman who had expatiated on them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if the hon. Member would bring bring forward his charge as he now stated it, when he had the documents necessary to its decision before the House, he should be prepared to show him and the House, that the appropriation formerly made by Lord Dalhousie, and that made by him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) were quite different in their nature and character. He should have great pleasure, if the hon. Member would move for those papers at the conclusion of the evening, in consenting to their production; but he hoped that in the present state of public business, the House would see that nothing could be more injudicious than to sanction a course of the present description—a course which, without those documents, could lead to no result. The hon. Member had justified himself from the imputation of being a party to divulging the confidential communication, but he had no right to have used that document on the present occasion.
Mr. Humesaid, that two questions had been put to the right hon. Gentleman, both of which he had answered in the negative, denying that he had done either

1145
of the two things imputed to him. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would state to the House what he really had done in this matter. First, let the hon. Gentleman state what precisely had been the course pursued by Lord Dalhousie, and then what had recently been done by Lord Aylmer, in pursuance of the right hon. Gentleman's directions, for otherwise he (Mr. Hume) and the House could not understand the question upon which his hon. Friend, the Member for Bath, and the right hon. Gentleman were at issue.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the hon. Member for Middlesex would find the difference in the two cases much better from the documents when brought forward, than by any answer that at present could be given.
Mr. Humewould ask hon. Gentlemen if any one of them, even after this long discussion, knew what the right hon. Gentleman had really done? The hon. Member for Bath said he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had done one thing, and the right hon. Gentleman said he had done another. The present discussion was one of the greatest importance to the country, and it was necessary to know whether the Governor of Canada had appropriated the money without any directions. The subject was of the deepest interest particularly when the state of Canada was considered. The charge against the hon. Member for Bath was extremely improper, as there was no violation of confidence on his part. When the delegates left the right hon. Gentleman, in order to justify themselves they thought it necessary to note down the private conversation that had taken place. They communicated that to the House of Assembly, so that there could be no violation of confidence or misrepresentation on the part of the hon. Member for Bath. The accusation of the right hon. Gentleman was, that his (Mr. Hume's) hon. Friend had betrayed a confidential conversation. Now this was a serious charge to be brought against any individual; but the question was, had it any foundation in fact? Finding that Lower Canada was in a state of great excitement, the delegates on their return felt it their duty to lay the minutes of what had passed between them and the right hon. Gentleman before the House of Assembly; and because the House of Assembly thought fit to have those minutes
1146
published, the whole blame of the matter was cast upon his hon. Friend. But was this fair, or was it just, to lay at the door of one party the wrong done by another? The fact was, that the charge against the right hon. Gentleman had long been before the whole world; and that being the case, where was the objection to its being mentioned now? It was true that the subject might have been postponed; but, without going further into the matter, he (Mr. Hume) wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman upon what authority Lord Aylmer paid the money alluded to, and how that payment differed from the course which Lord Dalhousie had previously taken? There was very great misconception abroad respecting the matter, and if it could be removed by a simple explanation so much the better.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that his explanation should be very plain and simple, for it should consist in quoting what it was he addressed to the House on this subject on the 9th of March last. The right hon. Gentleman then read the following quotation.—"It would be in the recollection of the House, that Lord Dalhousie directed certain public expenses to be paid out of Canadian revenues, unsanctioned by any Legislative authority. That proceeding was disapproved of by the Committee of 1828, and it was alleged, that he had since acted contrary to the opinion expressed in that Report. He begged to say, that he had done no such thing. In what he did he acted under the advice, and upon the responsibility of, all his Colleagues. Two years' income were due to the Government officers throughout Canada: those individuals, high and low, had been deprived of all payments during that period. Their distress was, in many cases, most urgent: many of the public servants were under the necessity of raising money on disadvantageous terms, and some were thus subject to extreme pressure and distress. The Canadian money was in the hands of the Receiver-General, and there was the utmost confidence entertained that, in November, at the meeting of the Assembly, a Bill would be passed for the appropriation of that money. Parliament not being sitting at the time, it was thought advisable to give directions, that if there were officers of the Government in a state requiring relief, and having two years' arrears then due, there being

1147
every confidence that the money would be repaid in the following month of November, that an advance should be made not out of any Canadian funds, but out of the extraordinary resources of this country, in order to meet their necessities. In doing this, he trusted he did no more than the House of Commons would be ready to sanction."* That was his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) statement on the 9th of March. The only suggestion he had to make to hon. Gentlemen was, whether, taking all circumstances into account, and in the absence of having read the documents now on the Table, it would not be better to proceed at once to public business, and not carry on this discussion further.
Mr. Laboucheremust express the astonishment which he felt at finding that two Gentlemen whom he so highly respected, as the two delegates alluded to, could have been concerned in such a transaction as that of divulging the confidential conversation which had passed between them and his right hon. Friend. He could not help saying that, in his opinion, they were not justified in what they had done.
Mr. Humeasked, whether it was the intention of Government to ask for any vote in order to make good this money; because, if so, that would afford an opportunity for discussing the whole matter?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that there was no vote in the Estimates for such a purpose; nor did he think it necessary, because he felt every confidence, that when the whole of the facts were perfectly made known to the House of Assembly, they would instantly agree to a vote to refund the money.
Conversation dropped.
The House went into a Committee of,

SUPPLY-REGISTRATION BARRISTERS.
On the first Resolution, that 22.700 l. should be granted to his Majesty, to defray the allowances and expenses of the Revising Barristers under the Reform Bill,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he wished to take this opportunity to express a hope that when the Bill for amending the Registration Act should be brought forward, a provision would be made to enable the Government to pay the revising Barristers in some mode
* Hansard, vol. xxvi. p. 693.
1148
different from that of a vote in a Committee of Supply. This was very desirable, inasmuch as the Revising Barristers were often put to great expense in the discharge of their duties, which, according to the present mode of paying them, was not refunded till a long time afterwards.
Mr. Jervisthought that something should be done to lessen the charge which the country now sustained under the Registration system. The charge was much more than adequate to the duties performed.
Mr. Humebegged to suggest whether, instead of employing 60 or 70 Revising Barristers, differing materially in the degrees of their qualifications for the duties they had to perform, it would not be better to employ five or six able and intelligent men to go through the country and do all the business.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhoped, as his noble Friend, the Secretary of state for the Home Department, was not present, the hon. Gentleman would not introduce a discussion on this subject.
The Resolution agreed to.

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES.
On the question, that the sum of 130,000 l. should be granted to his Majesty, to defray the charges of the Civil Contingencies,
Mr. Humewished to ask a question respecting the expenditure at Constantinople. He was desirous to know, whether it was the intention of the present Government to proceed with the survey ordered by the former Government, with a view to the erection of a palace for the Ambassador at Pera, and whether there was any vote or charge for that purpose in the estimates.
Mr. Francis Baringsaid, that there was no intention to place any expense under that head in these estimates. There was reason to believe that a palace for the Ambassador was not at present required.
Mr. Humenext referred to a charge of 1,213 l. for legal fees on the appointment of Envoys Extraordinary and Secretaries of Embassy and Legation. He wished to know the nature of these fees, because it appeared a monstrous absurdity that the Government should charge fees on the employment of its own servants. Some means ought to-be adopted to get rid of these fees.
Mr. F. Baringsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman would wait until next year, he hoped he would not have reason to complain of this charge. He perfectly agreed with the hon. Gentleman that it was a monstrous absurdity that the public should be called upon to pay with one hand what it received with the other, and he hoped the system would soon be put a stop to.
Mr. Humesaid, he had mentioned the matter, because it was a question involving a sum of 295,000 l. He was aware that a part of these fees, came back, but it was after a loss of 50 per cent. He was glad to hear that it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to alter the practice. He should recommend the hon. Gentleman to put one or two searching-Members upon a Committee to inquire into the subject, and he would find that that would greatly relieve him of the difficulty. If his own hands were at liberty, he should be happy to be one of such a Committee. He knew that many had a dislike to see these fees meddled with because many of them were paid to the great men about the Court.
Mr. Humeobserved an item of 4,000 l. paid to Sir George Shee: he wished to know what services that Gentleman had rendered to entitle him to this sum.
Mr. F. Baringsaid, that Sir George Shee had been appointed to an embassy, and after preparing his outfit, his appointment was rescinded on the dissolution of Lord Melbourne's Cabinet; this sum was to defray the expenses he had been put to on that occasion, and had no reference whatever to any salary.
Mr. Hume,that expense then was one of the consequences of the experiment lately made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) to carry on the Government of the country against the wishes of the people. As the days of common sense were now coming, he hoped the present Government would follow the example set them by their opponents, and not suffer themselves to be surrounded and impeded by men in office adverse to their own principles. He wished the noble Lord, the Secretray for Foreign Affairs were present, that he might have asked him whether he was going on in the old track, or whether he had determined that this country should be represented in foreign courts by persons entertaining feelings corresponding with the feelings of the Government at home? The hon.
1150
Gentleman was then understood to express his entire approval of the appointment of Lord Heytesbury to the Governor-Generalship of India having been rescinded. He thought it a wise step, and hoped it would be adopted in other instances.
Sir Samuel Whalleythought, that the expense incurred by the displacing of Sir George Shee would be found to be the smallest expense that the late experiment of the right hon. Baronet had occasioned to the country. He gave notice to his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he should move for a return of all the expenses that had been incurred in consequence of the recent changes of the. Government.
Dr. Bowringknew from personal experience that at this moment a great number of individuals who were representing England in foreign countries did not represent the reform principles of this country. Our Representatives abroad ought to appear to the eyes of strangers as the Representatives of the people appeared to the eyes of their constituents here,—that was, as persons appointed not only to carry out their own views of reform in this country, but to bring those views into practical operation elsewhere. He rejoiced that the Government had lately set aside an individual because that individual did not represent their principles, and he hoped the Administration, to whom he wished to give every sort of efficiency, would be worthily represented in every other court in Europe.
Sir Thomas Fremantlewas understood to say that although the Whig Government did not on a former occasion remove our foreign Ambassadors immediately on coming into office, yet it proceeded gradually in making changes, so that when the late Government succeeded them, our foreign Ambassadors were almost all connected with the Whigs.
Mr. Roebuckreferred to an item for the expenses of the tours undertaken by the Governor and Bishop of Barbadoes: and said, that as to the latter, especially, they were services performed for the spiritual benefit of the colonies, and the expenses of which ought to be paid by them.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, he was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Bath call them "services:" they were nothing more than mere parties of pleasure; the Bishop took the King's frigate to visit his relations, and then he came upon this country for

1151
"spiritual benefits" conferred upon colonies.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas understood to vindicate the present Government from any blame on that account.
Mr. Cobbettsaid he cast no imputation upon his Majesty's Government, his observation was only with a view to correct those abuses, and curtail those expenses. He (Mr. Cobbett) knew the difficulty they had to encounter, in the want of a Parliament to back them in making retrenchments which ought to be made: he hoped, however, they would find such a Parliament.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that if the colonies wanted Bishops, why did they not keep them? They had got Bishops in England, and quite enough, he was sure, and therefore they sent them to the colonies; the colonies did not like them, and this country was obliged to pay them.
Mr. Humesaid, the principle of allowing passage-money, rested on this; that when individuals were appointed to foreign offices, and the salary did not begin till their arrival at the station, it was very fair that all their expenses should be paid to carry them there. But when a noble Lord was appointed, and the day he arrives receives a thousand pounds down, why should they adopt the principle of paying the expenses of carrying him round the coast. The practice had prevailed in the East-India Company, that the salary was continued though all expenses—all the charges of contingent expenses—were repaid, and the Governor, charged all his travelling expenses to the Company. No alteration was made till the expenses became so enormous, that the Court of Directors very properly took the matter up. Upon principle, they ought not to suffer anything of this kind, and he would put it to the Government to consider that in future. They ought not to make any grants but on principle (for it was of principle that he was speaking; and whether it were 1l. or 1000 l. they ought to act on principle) and when they made an appointment, they ought not to pay one shilling expenses when the salary commenced immediately. In a country oppressed like this the granting of that money was very improper, and he, (Mr. Hume) wished the people to see that there was no sanction whatever for the payment of those expenses, and that if they did not act on principle they ought not to act at all. He wished to ask
1152
this question.—Were any of the English Bishops paid for their expenses during their removals?
Dr. Bowringsuggested that these estimates should be made up in a very different manner. There was the sum of 14,504 l. "for Commissioners,"—no information was given as to the number of the Commissioners; and, if any Member should desire to have any information with respect to particulars, he would have to look at all the particular reports, or to the names of every particular commission. It was perfectly impossible in the present state of those accounts to come down to that House prepared to discuss the question in all its bearings. He, (Dr. Bowring) should suggest that every part of those estimates should be attached to the department to which they belonged.
Mr. Tookesaid, it was singular that when the whole time of any public officer was devoted to the public service, that for any particular services he should come upon the country with additional demands upon the public money.
Mr. Humeremarked that there was an item of 3,345 l. for the expenses of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, he thought that there were salaries very large appropriated to such individuals. And that it was encouraging a state of expenditure very much above what it ought to be, the best way of supporting Royalty was to make no demands not absolutely necessary for its dignity. There was a charge of from 70 l. to 80 l. per-annum, for the Almonry office which he thought quite unnecessary when the only duties performed were, once a-year, the distributing the King's bounty to a few old men and women.
Mr. Cobbettobserved that the aristocracy of this country were very humble; when they could not get much, they were contented with little. The Americans had Ambassadors far superior to any that this country had sent out, at an expense much less than that which the Duke of Wellington put into his pocket every year. Several of those charges ought to be upon the Civil List. It was absolutely necessary that they should have a cheap Government; and they were in a state when a change of some sort or other must take place, and therefore they should begin by appointing a cheap Government
Mr. Roebuckasked a question relative

1153
to the charges for the expenses of the Commission for settling the North American Boundary Line.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it could not be expected that the King of the Netherlands (to whom the question had been referred for arbitration) could take any share in the expenses since he had no interest, whatever in the settlement of the question.
Mr. Cobbettrose to express his dissatisfaction at the charges inserted in the estimate for the expenses of "Commissions for inquiring into the State of the Law," the causes of agricultural distress were the frequent alteration of the laws. They were everlastingly altering the laws, when, in America, the laws were made good at first, there was no "Commission," and they were the same as ever. With respect, especially to the alteration of the punishment for horse-stealing; he was of opinion that it had a very bad effect upon the agricultural system, and that horse-stealing had increased to a very great degree. He was quite sick of hearing them talk about "Commissioners to inquire into the law."
Mr. Ewartdiffered from the hon. Member for Oldham who had said, that the crime had increased since the alteration of the law; such was not the fact, and he was borne out in that, by reference to the returns of assizes. If the hon. Member (Mr. Cobbett) had attended to those returns he would have come to a similar conclusion. And as to Commissioners to inquire into the state of the laws, it was necessary that the laws should be universally known, so that persons should not transgress them by being ignorant of their existence. For example the Dorchester labourers were transported for the transgression of a law, of the existence of which he, (Mr. Ewart) verily believed they were ignorant.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he thought no benefit could arise to the laws of the country from such a discussion.
Mr. Cobbettwas not satisfied with the item he observed for "pensions to Spanish subjects in England," what services had they rendered this country? If the Parliament was to be charitable, he, should like to give the money to poor men and women in England. Why should they be so very charitable to the Spanish people? when there were so many at
1154
home. He, believed that not one of them had rendered any real service to the country. He should be ashamed of himself if he had suffered that vote to pass silently, they ought at least to have some account of the "services" rendered. Then there was 1,500 l. to be paid to Dr. Babbage for his machine, and "884 l. to Dr. M'Culloch for his services in completing a mineralogical survey of Scotland." Well now, what did they know about this "mineralogical survey?" And yet they were to pay this money to Peter M'Culloch. It was incumbent upon the Ministers to examine into this, and it was for the public benefit, to restrain such an unprincipled waste and squandering of public money.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he could give an answer to the hon. Member. With respect to the names of those who had received that bounty, their names belonged not to Spain, but to Europe, but specially for services rendered to this country, to England, and he for one would never consent to proclaim those names to foreign powers, and thus throw a difficulty in their way of returning home. With respect to the sum voted to Mr. Babbage, the hon. Gentleman the other day received some explanation in justification of a most distinguished scientific discovery. Mr. Babbage did not receive a single farthing of that money; he was engaged in a subject of the greatest possible scientific interest, and he applied to the Government on the subject, not to pay him anything, but to suffer his expenses to be paid upon the publication of the invention. It was proposed to him that some of his instruments should become the property of the country, and it had gone abroad that this was putting money into Mr. Babbage's pocket. Upon the third point, there was no individual connected with the prosecution of that survey alluded to, for whom he felt a higher respect than for Dr. M'Culloch, the mineralogical surveyor; the survey was undertaken by the former Government, and the present Ministry had carried it on since. If, however, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobbett) thought that there were no beneficial results to be attained by the acquisition of scientifical knowledge, he and the hon. Gentleman were so completely at difference that he despaired of effecting any agreement.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that after all, he

1155
thought it would not be improper for his hon. friend the Member for Oldham to call for a Report on the present state of the machine with respect to its final completion, because he, (Mr. Warbtirton) was under some apprehensions himself upon that subject lest the Gentleman, who had produced the invention, greatly desirous to bring his machine to as great a degree of accuracy as possible, and successive improvements occurring to himself, should go on, step by step, and be led on to greater expense than would be proper. He thought it therefore desirable that the Treasury should call for a Report.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
Viscount Howickrose, and said, the hon. Member for Middlesex was aware, that the calling out of the Militia was attended always with great objections. That it was attended with a very great inconvenience and expense. The mere calling out of the militia, independent of the Staff expenses, was attended with an expenditure of never less than 100,000 l., frequently as high as 150,000 l., and in addition to that, the ballot of the militia cost a sum varying according to the number of vacancies that occurred, from 10,000 l. to 40,000 l. If the ballot took place this year when there had been none for four years, the whole establishment would have had to be called out, and the ballot would have cost at least 40,000 l. But, further, it was perfectly well known to hon. Members, that the ballot for militia at all times, and especially in times of peace, was a subject of great hardship to the poorer classes, because it operated not like a common tax, but as a poll tax, which was by far the hardest and most unjust of all taxes. It was to avoid the necessity of that tax that the corps of yeomanry were formed; and the yeomanry as he (Lord Howick) believed, were not so extravagant in their amount; because, as the House would recollect, a few years ago, Lord Lansdowne reduced all those corps of yeomanry, which within a certain time had not been called out; and therefore, it was only for those corps which were actually required that any expense was incurred. The greatest pains had been taken to remove unnecessary expenditure. He thought it hardly necessary to say more on this point. An hon. Member had said, that in other countries yeomanry of that description were maintained without
1156
expense. But that was not the case here. The National Guard of France was considered as a very great burthen upon the people, and though different names were employed in various countries, the military service was always felt to be very burthen-some, as in Germany and Belgium. He believed that there was no means of keeping up a force equal to that which was adopted with reference to this country, without great expense, and, he confessed, that he considered it of very great advantage to have a body of that kind kept up; a body of persons who, though they might receive pay when actually employed by the public, did not, in fact, receive as much in pay as it cost them to serve.—With respect to what had been observed by the hon. Member for Oldham, certainly nothing was further from the intention of Government than to keep up a force for tyrannical purposes; and he(Lord Howick) must observe this, that when the hon. Member for Oldham pronounced his favorite declamations against the New Poor Law Bill, and affirmed that the yeomanry were rendered necessary from the operation of that Act, he begged to call to the hon. Member's recollection that the most serious disturbances which had ever occurred in this country, were produced by those abuses in the Poor Laws, against which the Act of last Session was directed.
Mr. Scholefieldsaid, that if it ever should be necessary to use the yeomanry, the consequences would be such as he would not attempt to describe; he thought that the old voluntary system called into service in former times was far preferable to the present one. The yeomanry were generally of a class superior to the lower sort of persons, and therefore much more anxious to ride over them than to meet their demands in a fair and proper way. [Cries of "No! no!"]
Mr. Warddiffered from the hon. Member for Birmingham, he (Mr. Ward) considered the yeomanry corps was the most effectual, most constitutional force that could be employed in this country. The allowances were not in any way adequate to them, when actually called out into service; 3s. 4d. for each man and horse, and only this when actually in service; and as to the constitution, he (Mr. Ward) said, they were composed of the very same individuals who would be sworn in as special constables in the event

1157
of a disturbance taking place; namely, substantial yeomen. As to party spirit, he had seen, it was true, Reformer and Radical, Whig and Tory, all united together, so far as the keeping up good order, acting together for the preservation of peace, the enforcement of the law, and the maintenance of harmony in the country. As to its efficiency, it was in the power of Government to augment its efficiency or to diminish it. He was for a more vigorous inspection, and was highly desirous that it should take place; but then they must recollect that this was a force which was constantly dormant except at the moment when it was wanted in the hour of danger. It was a force which never appeared; which formed an additional weight upon the country, and, incase of tumult, always ready to act in concert with the civil power. He thought, therefore, that the vote was perfectly unexceptionable, and that it should not meet with opposition.
Mr. Cobbettdisclaimed any intention to impute tyrannical motives to the Government, but the noble Lord was mistaken as to the origin of the disturbances which arose from the distresses of the poor, and those were produced by their hard treatment, and especially by the system of hired overseers.
Sir C. Dalbiachad always considered the Yeomanry Corps as the natural protectors of the country, and one of the natural means of preserving its internal tranquillity, and he had therefore always regretted their reduction by Lord Lansdowne.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, that he entertained views upon this subject very different from those of most of the gentlemen by whom he was surrounded. He objected to any establishment of yeomanry whatever, on the ground, first of their inefficiency, and next of their unconstitutionality. There was no military men who would not admit that they were far inferior to the regular troops of the line for putting down any actual disturbances; and it was therefore injudicious to keep up an inefficient, while you could have a perfectly efficient, force. But it was also unconstitutional to select any body of citizens for temporary periods and temporary purposes, and arm them with deadly weapons against their fellow-countrymen. What he desired to see was this: that the regular troops should never be employed except in defending the country from
1158
foreign invasion; for it was monstrous to send out any body of Englishmen to draw the sword against any other body of the same nation; and next to this to see the civil power alone invoked for the suppression of any tumult, that it might be done pacifically and without bloodshed. He was therefore for decreasing the standing army as well as the yeomanry, and increasing on the other hand the constabulary and the preventive police. If they wanted a proof of how useless it was to attempt to keep a country in content by military and yeomanry, they need only look to the sister country, Ireland, where both existed in the greatest force, and discontent was increased rather than diminished by their presence. Good government was a better pacificator of the turbulent than either; and in this conviction he should give his vote for the reduction proposed by his hon. Friend.
Mr. Estcourtstated it to be his impression that if the Government were not prepared to maintain a large constabulary force in the country, at an enormous expense, it would be utterly impossible to maintain the public peace, unless by keeping up the yeomanry corps.
Mr. Charles Pelhamrose to give a flat contradiction to the assertion of the Member for Birmingham, that the yeomanry were merely political partizans, having commanded a corp of yeomanry for some time.
Captain Pechellexpressed his satisfaction with the yeomanry corps of Sussex.
Mr. Humewas determined to press his Amendment to a division.
The Committee divided on the Amendment, Ayes 17; Noes 77; Majority 60.
Resolution agreed to; the House resumed.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL.
The Order of the Day having been read for taking into further consideration the Report of the Imprisonment for Debt Bill,
The Attorney-General,although he deprecated the taking of further evidence on the subject, moved that the Bill be referred to the consideration of a Select Committee. The object was, to discuss the merits of the Bill, and make it as complete as possible.
Mr. Freshfieldobserved, that the Insolvent Debtor's Court was not a permanent Court, and that, unless revived by Act of

1159
Parliament, it would expire in the Session of next year. He trusted that, in that case, care would be taken to give the judges of that Court the compensation to which they would be entitled.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that although he could not make any pledge on the subject, there could be no doubt that if the Court were abolished the judges would be properly compensated.
Mr. Carruthers,urged the necessity of hearing further evidence, because there were various objections to which the Bill was at present liable.
The Solicitor-Generalconcurred with his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, in thinking that it would be quite unnecessary to have any further evidence.
Mr. Hawesstated, that the opinions of both wholesale and retail dealers in the Borough, which he had the honour to represent, were now as favourable to the measure as they had formerly been unfavourable.
The Motion agreed to, and a Select Committee appointed.