Sitting of 10 December 1830

MINUTES.
A Member took the Oaths at the Table of the House.
The Committee appointed to inquire into the Election of Boroughbridge reported, that Sir C. WETHERELL, Knt. and MATTHIAS ATTWOOD, Esq., were duly elected for that Borough; and that the Petition of their Opponents was not frivolous or vexatious.
Bills. Mr. SEVERN brought in one to amend the Stage Coaches Act.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. R. PUSEY, accounts of all terminable Annuities forming part of the National Debt:—On the Motion of Mr. S. RICE, the sums of Money expended in building Londonderry Bridge, pursuant to the Act 54 Geo. 3rd, c 230.
Petitions presented. Against Negro Slavery, by Sir GEORGE ROBINSON, two from Dissenting Congregations in Northampton and Cherwell: —By Mr. ADEANE, two from Dissenting Congregations in Cambridgeshire:—By Sir W. INGILBY, from Holbeach, Spalding, and Gainsborough:— By Mr. ABEL SMITH, from Female Methodists near Lin-coln's-inn-Fields:—By Lord J. STUART, from Cardiff, and from a Parish in Wales:—By Mr. BEAUMONT, three from Hexham, and other places in Northumberland:—By Mr. HOPE, from Linlithgow:—By the Marquis of BLAND-KORD, from Dissenters of Langford:—By Mr. LONG WELLESLEY, Mr. R. GRANT, Colonel CRADDOCK, and the ATTORNEY GENERAL, from Dissenters of Bristol, Portsea, Thaxted, Nottingham, Paisley, and Edinburgh. For the repeal of the Malt and Hop Duties, by Mr. HODGES, from Wrotham and Staplehurst, Kent. By the same hon. Member, from Craubrook, Woodchurch, and Horsemonden, for a Reform in Parliament. By the Marquis of BLANDFORD, from Woodstock, with the same Prayer; and from Diss, for Relief. By Mr. OWEN O'CONNOR, from certain Freeholders of Galway, for the extension of the Elective Franchise; and from an individual, for a Repeal of the Union. By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Limerick, Knockmoy, and Youghall, with the same prayer; from parishes in the County of Sligo, against the Kildare-street Society; and from the Union of Middleton, for the abolition of Tithes. By Mr. O'GORMAN MAHON, from Kilfinora, against the Kildare-street Society.

LOCAL COURTS OF JUDICATURE.
Mr. Charles Russellpresented a Petition from Reading, praying that the bill now pending in the Lords for the establishment of Local Courts might be passed into a law. The petition was numerously signed, and would have been signed by every inhabitant in Reading if more time had been allowed. He cordially concurred in the prayer of the petition, and believed that the bill, if passed into a law, would do a great deal of good, by preventing delay, vexation, and expense in obtaining justice. It would be an especial benefit to the working and poorer classes, and should receive from him the warmest support when it came into that House.
Colonel Sibthorppresented a similar petition from Lincoln. The great expense at present of law proceedings was a serious injury to all the middle classes, particularly to tradesmen. He rejoiced that one whose talents he admired, and whose loss

971
to that House he deplored—he rejoiced that the noble and learned Lord meant to carry forward the reforms in the law which he had first proposed in that House.
Mr. O'Connellwas extremely anxious to call the attention of the petitioners to the fact, that although the principle of local judicature was excellent, and of the most ancient practice, yet in the details of the bill introduced into the other House. there would be found many objections, such as the complexity of its provisions, and the utter impossibility of one man combining all the duties imposed upon him by the bill. These things would in a great measure prevent the bill being beneficial, but he still approved of it as an experiment, though he would advise petitioners to be cautious how they wished to extend the operations of the system until they found its effects by experience.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that the petition was signed by several gentlemen, eminent in the profession of which the learned Gentleman near him (Mr. O'Connell) was so distinguished a member. An easy access to justice had been too long denied to the people; and he could not agree that it was better to delay still longer for the sake of such a measure as the learned Member might approve.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he well knew that legal reform had been too long delayed; and all that he desired was, that, when granted, it should be effectual. He did not wish to discourage the petitioners, but he must repeat, that they would not find the proposed measure so efficacious as they expected.

ASSESSED TAXES.
Colonel Sibthorppresented a Petition from Lincoln, praying for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes, complaining of them as unconstitutional and oppressive, and declaring that they ought not to be continued in the eighteenth year of peace. The hon. Member stated, that the petition was signed by 1,272 persons, including most of the principal inhabitants and tradesmen of the town. He concurred in the prayer of the petition, and would like very much to know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to do. He objected in particular to the tax on houses, and wished to see the collectors of these taxes diminished. If the hon. Alderman, who had given notice for a motion on the subject of these taxes, did not bring the subject under the con-
972
sideration of Parliament he would very soon after the recess.
Mr. Ellisthought it premature to support a petition by such observations as had fallen from the hon. Member, as it was well known that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was not then in the House, had the subject under his consideration.
Petition to be printed.

REFORM OF PARLIAMENT.
Sir W. Ingilbypresented a Petition from Gainsborough, praying for a Reform. The hon. Member observed, that this was almost the first from the county of Lincoln on this important subject, and would by no means be the last. He rejoiced to state, that the spirit of reform, now spreading through the country, was everyday becoming more and more apparent, as the necessity for it became more and more urgent. These petitions came from a numerous and independent body of the people, and. they especially prayed for the annihilation of the rotten boroughs, and for vote by ballot. He felt very great pleasure in presenting them to the House, and in cordially supporting their prayer.
Mr. Beaumontpresented a similar petition from North Shields.
Mr. Bellsaid, that the petition had not resulted from a public meeting, but had been got up privately. He objected to the petition, because one passage of it asserted, that if a rational reform were not granted, the people would take it by violence. That did not express the sentiments of the people of Northumberland, for the population of that county was peaceable, and not at all disposed to seek reform or improvement of any kind by measures of violence, or by any but the most legal and constitutional measures-In that statement he was sure that his hon. colleague would concur.
Mr. Beaumontsaid, that the passage did not allude to the people of Northumberland, but to the people of England in general. He would put one question to his hon. colleague. Did he or did he not believe that the people of North Shields were favourable to reform?
Petition to be printed.
Mr. Hodgesin presenting several Petitions from different parishes in the county of Kent, praying for Reform in Parliament, and a reduction of Taxation, said, that be quite agreed in the prayer

973
of these petitions, and he hoped that prayer would be granted, at least in part. With repect to the mode of reform, that was not the occasion to deliver his opinions, but hoping that he should not excite the angry feelings of any hon. Gentleman, in the same manner as the hon. and learned member for Waterford did last night, he must say, that he sincerely concurred in his admiration of the vote by ballot. Whatever reform his Majesty's Ministers might think proper to propose, they would not, he hoped, omit to introduce the ballot; without which the interests of the people could not be secured. He was happy to have it in his power to state, that the recent change in the Administration had operated most favourably on the minds of the people. He had received a letter that morning from a most respectable and valuable Magistrate of the county of Kent, in which he stated, that under the late Administration, when it became necessary, in consequence of the disturbances that had occurred, to swear in a number of Special Constables, he could get nobody to be sworn; but since the change in the Administration, the respectable inhabitants had come forward in great numbers, and were now as anxious to uphold the peace of the county as they were before to stand aloof. That was a most important fact; and he trusted that it would prove an additional inducement to his Majesty's Ministers, to bring forward measures to promote the benefit of the country.
An Hon. Member begged leave to address one word to the House on that part of the speech of the hon. member for Kent in which he stated, that several persons had refused to act, under the late Administration for the suppression of outrages. Was it fitting or proper that these gentlemen should consider themselves authorized to withhold their assistance under one particular Government, and afford it under another? He regretted that there should be any set of men in this country so neglectful of their duty; for, be their opinion what it might, it was their bounden duty to stand forward for the suppression of outrage and tumult. He hoped that those gentlemen who did thus improperly refuse to render their assistance, would now uphold the peace of the country with double vigilance and double perseverance; and by doubly watching over its interests, that they would endeavour, in some mea-
974
sure, to retrieve the character they had so nearly lost.
Sir Charles Wetherellexpressed his surprise at the statement of the hon. member for Kent, and he must beg leave to say, that those of his constituents who refused to be sworn in as Special Constables during the continuance of the late Administration, completely abandoned the duty which as Englishmen they owed to their country. He hoped that the hon. member for Kent would tell his constituents, that when a man is called upon to maintain the peace of any particular district, he is not to say, "I will maintain it under this set of Ministers, and I will not maintain it under that." He hoped that the hon. Member would tell them that they were violators of that principle which every man should act upon,—that they were defaulters in the payment of that debt which every man owed to his country — that the maintenance of the public peace was a duty—that they were to act like private individuals as they are, and not make themselves tools or partisans of any Government. He trusted that the House would not consider such a statement as any argument in favour of the measure of reform, for the repeal of the malt-tax, or for the redress of grievances. Such arguments were subversive of the Constitution. He could not sufficiently admire the presumption and impertinence of these persons, as if they were authorised to decline assisting in the preservation of the public peace, because one set of men or another set of men happened to be in Office. He hoped, however, that the constituents of the hon. member for Kent would henceforward do their duty, and that he would never again state in that House circumstances so disgraceful to his constituents.
Mr. Hodgesdid not mean to follow the course pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman, by reading his constituents a severe lecture. Instead of lecturing them, it would be better if he were to endeavour to confirm them in their present opinions. He trusted that the present Ministry would do their duty, and by that means effectually prevent disaffection and outrage. With respect to the conduct of the Magistrates in the county of Kent, he would take the liberty of referring to an Address, a Memorial sent to the late Prime Minister by the Grand Jury of the county of Kent. In that memorial, addressed to the Duke of Wellington, it was said,

975
"We feel, that in justice we ought not to suffer a moment to pass away without communicating to your Grace, the great and unprecedented distress which, we are enabled from our own present experience to state, prevails among all the peasantry to a degree not only dreadful to individuals, but also to an extent which, if not checked, must be attended with serious consequences to the national prosperity. In making this communication to your Grace, it is our only object to call the attention of the Government to the real state of the country, and in the hope that effectual measures may be taken to alleviate distresses which press so heavily and severely on all classes of society."
This memorial was signed by every gentleman on the Grand Jury, and was not unworthy of the attention of the House. Eleven out of the twenty-three Grand Jurymen were candidates for the honour of a seat in Parliament, and the remainder were gentlemen of the first respectability. If that memorial had been attended to, not one of the disgraceful scenes which had recently occurred would have taken place in Kent. In all probability, if the present Administration bad then been in power they never would have occurred.
Petition to lie upon the table.

PARLIAMENTARY GRANTS FOR EDUCATION—(IRELAND).
Mr. Owen O'Connorpresented Petitions against any further grant to the Kildare Street Society, for the Education of the Poor in Ireland, from Kilglass, Balla and Drum, Kilfinora, and the united parishes of Aglish, Ballyhear, and Breafy. The contents of all these petitions, the hon. Member said, were the same; they all complained of the various abuses which existed in the management of the Kildare Street Society. He considered these petitions well deserving of the attention of the House. He had often heard, that this Society had proved a great benefit to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, but he must confess, that he never met with any proof of that assertion. He trusted, that his Majesty's Ministers would take this subject into consideration, and adopt measures to make the grants, which are given exclusively to this Society, of advantage to all Ireland.
Sir Robert Batesonsaid, several petitions on this subject had been presented to the House, signed by bigotted and interested persons, which he had not thought it worth while to comment upon, although they contained allegations which it was in his power to disprove; but, when he saw
976
petitions of this nature presented by so respectable and worthy a Gentleman as he who introduced these to the notice of the House, he should not be fulfilling the duties which he owed to his constituents, and his country generally, if he did not stand up to protest against the doctrines contained in them. The hon. Member could not be aware of the general principles which governed the acts of that Society; and if he rightly understood the rule of conduct it pursued, he could not possibly object to the management of the grants bestowed upon the Society by Parliament. So far from being established for the encouragement of any particular religious persuasion — so far from its advocating any one particular cause, the only fault ever found with the Society, though he did not think it a fault—was, that it was too liberal in its religious principles. The Society had been grossly maligned, and an ignorant prejudice had been excited against it, by persons who had been hawking petitions about the country for signature. He knew no institution whatever that had been productive of so much good as the Kildare-place Society in instructing the lower orders of Ireland, and he must repel the charge of its schools not being open to every sect. He could most positively state, that the benefits of that institution were conferred in an equal degree on Catholics and on Protestants, and he conscientiously believed, that more Roman Catholic schoolmasters, and more Roman Catholic children, had been educated and brought up by that Society than Protestants. The strongest objection stated by the petitioners was, that the Scriptures were read in the Society's school without note or comment. Was there any Gentleman in the House who would stand up and object to the Bible being open to the perusal of the people? When hon. Gentlemen were somewhat fond of boasting of their liberal principles, which, by-the-bye, they did not, in these times, always act upon, was it not astonishing to hear Gentlemen declare, that the people, either of England or Ireland, ought not to be allowed to peruse the word of God without note or comment. He did not expect to hear such a declaration made in any place, but the House of Commons of England was the very last place in which he thought such a doctrine would be broached. He did not impute improper motives to the hon. Gentleman who pre-

977
sented these petitions; on the contrary, he merely stated the language of his constituents, as in duty bound. These petitions were, however, got up by bigoted and interested individuals, desirous of putting down this excellent institution, and were readily signed by a set of people who knew nothing of its principles—nothing of the manner in which the Society was conducted, who never read any of the books used by it, and who never were even within the walls of its schools. He hoped and trusted that the Parliament of the United Kingdom would protect that Society, and not diminish the grants, which confer benefit equally on Catholics and Protestants. As to the manner in which the funds are appropriated, there was no institution in the empire in which greater economy was practised, and in which less useless expense took place, than in the Kildare-place Society. Representing a county in the north of Ireland, and knowing a great deal of the principles of the people of the north of Ireland, the majority of whom were of the Presbyterian Church, he could take upon himself to state, that into schools in which the Bible was not read without note or comment, their children would not be allowed to enter. They wished their children to be instructed in the word of God, and made good Christians, as well as educated in the affairs of this life. The Kildare-street Society enjoyed the good wishes of all the Presbyterian clergy in the north of Ireland. He challenged any country in the world to produce a more useful institution. When persons were sent up to the central school, their religion was never inquired into, the majority of them were Catholics, and they taught the duties of a schoolmaster or school- mistress. They were remunerated, not in proportion to the number of children placed under their care, but in proportion to the progress the children made; to ascertain which, inspectors were appointed, who went about the school, and made their reports on the state of improvement in which they found the children. He most earnestly implored the House not to credit the asseverations contained in those petitions; they were not founded in fact, and he most earnestly implored those Gentlemen who might have taken up a prejudice against the charity, to pause before they took away from his poor countrymen the benefit conferred by this institution, He had
978
to apologize to the House for trespassing so long on its attention; perhaps the hon. and learned member for Waterford would wish to monopolize the consideration of the affairs of his country, and to exclude every other Irishman from discussing its interests; he was, however, as independent, and as much attached to Ireland, as the hon. and learned Member, who might more usefully direct the energies of his great mind to the improvement of his country, than by constantly harping on the Repeal of the Union, which would, in his opinion, amount to a total separation of the two countries. In conclusion, the hon. Baronet begged to apologise for having trespassed so long on the attention of the House.
Mr. O'Connellwas not to be tempted into following the hon. Baronet, the member for Londonderry, into a discussion on the merits of the Kildare-street Society — "sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." He merely wished to observe, that as to the utility of the Kildare-street Society, he differed from the hon. Baronet. He denied that the Society was popular in Ireland; on the contrary, it was one of the most unpopular that ever existed. It was not unpopular in the county which the hon. Member represented, but the inhabitants of that county entertained different opinions on most subjects from the inhabitants of other parts of Ireland. The Gentleman who last represented them lost his scat because he dared to vote in favour of Catholic Emancipation. He had no doubt that the Society was very well received by them. The hon. Baronet probably subscribed to it because he wished to encourage education. The Society professed a great deal, and unfortunately had not convinced him of the truth of its professions. Its acts, however, were contrary to its professions; and he had left it in consequence. But, he did not retire alone; on the very day on which he resigned, the noble President, the Duke of Leinster, Lord Cloncurry, and many other gentlemen resigned, and for the same reason. The Catholic clergy of Ireland condemned the Society. He did not mean to argue theological points, but the hon. Member had thought fit to introduce one, and he would not shrink, either in that House or in any other place, from defending the doctrines of the religion he professed. He objected to allowing the word of God to be placed

979
in the hands of Catholic children without note or comment; he did not object to its being so placed in the hands of Protestants; they had a right to use it in any shape they thought fit, and he should be the last man to interfere with the exercise of any such right. He objected, however, to any Protestant having it in his power to go to the children of Catholic parents, and impose on them a mode of instruction of which the parents did not approve. The Catholic clergy inculcated the principles by which the people wished to abide— the Protestants might have schools, as many as they pleased; all that the Catholics wanted was, that their children should be educated in the manner their parents thought proper. The hon. member for Londonderry seemed not to be aware of the fact, that a Select Committee of the House, which rigidly inquired into this very subject, ultimately agreed with the Catholics, and called on the House to make no further grants to the Kildare-street Society. The hon. Baronet seemed to think it a great blessing that Roman Catholic children should receive an education of which their parents did not approve, while the Protestant children should be educated in a manner of which their parents did approve; and both were to be educated together. Now, the Catholic clergy proposed, that they should be educated together, but that one day in the week should be set apart for religious education, on which the children of Catholics and Protestants should be instructed separately. He would put it to any man whether the Catholics had not a right to educate their children in such religious tenets as they pleased? He would appeal to the hon. member for Londonderry himself, whether they had not an equal right with the Protestants so to do? He was ready to admit that the Presbyterians wished their children to be educated in the manner practised by the Society. Well, let the Presbyterians be educated as they chose, the Catholics as they chose —that was all the latter required. The hon. Member had charged him with a species of inconsistency, and if he ever wished to interfere with the religious principles of any human being, he would allow that hon. Member to charge him with anything. He had never so interfered, or uttered a sentiment that tended to interference. He entertained a firm conviction that religion was an affair between
980
man and his God; and he who interfered on the subject might call himself a Christian, but other men would call him a blasphemer. He could bear, with the utmost complacency, the boasts of the Presbyterians, knowing that the world was greatly indebted to them for the liberties it possessed, and feeling, as he did, a high degree of respect for the independent members of that body. But let them be content to do by the Catholics as the Catholics would do by them — leave the latter to educate their children as they pleased.
Mr. Lefroydid not intend to delay the House by offering many observations on the subject. No man could regret more than he did, that the time of the House should be occupied by discussions of that nature. The hon. Baronet, however, was fully justified in making his observations relative to the Kildare-place Society, and he should himself be unworthy of his seat in that House if he did not declare that it was a most useful institution. He differed from the opinion of the hon. member for Waterford as to the popularity of the Society; and if the Government wished to preserve the Union, and the security of the two parts of the empire, it would encourage a system which gave education to 120,000 children, Catholics and Protestants.
Sir J. Newportobserved, that the Society was one which derived its support from grants of the public money, and that being the case, the proper time for discussing its merits would be when those grants should be next proposed. There could be no objection to the proceedings of the Society, so long as it was willing to afford education in such a manner as persons of different religious persuasions could approve of: the complaint against the Society was, that its principle necessarily excluded a considerable number of the people of Ireland from the benefits of that education, which the national grants were destined to promote.
Petition to lie on the Table.

SUPPLY—.BANK OF ENGLAND.
Lord Althorpmoved the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider further of the Supply to be granted to his Majesty.
Sir H. Parnellwished to ask a question of the noble Lord before the House went into a committee. The Charter of the Bank

981
of England would, the House was aware, expire in 1833, and he was desirous of receiving some information on the subject of its renewal. In the course of the last Session, an hon. Member of that House, the late Mr. Huskisson, gave notice of a motion, by which he proposed to draw the attention of the House to this important subject, but he was prevented from doing so by the temporary absence of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. This subject must now press with greater force on their attention, as the termination of the Charter was so nearly approaching. He did not now rise with a view to enter into an examination of the policy pursued by former Administrations with respect to this question. Their custom was, to make an arrangement, in the first instance, with the Bank of England, and then to come to Parliament for its sanction; thereby leaving the House hardly an opportunity to examine such arrangement. Now, he earnestly hoped to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this course would not be pursued on the present occasion, but that the House of Commons would be called on to institute a strict examination into all the circumstances connected with the banking-system of England, before they granted a renewal of the Charter, in order, on the one hand, that they might prevent the recurrence of those convulsions and those enormous losses which had been sustained by the present banking system, and on the other, to give to the country the great and immense benefit which would be derived from a sound system of banking. The subject was of the utmost importance, and he took the opportunity which now presented itself of procuring for himself and for the public some precise information relative to it. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would state to the House what course was intended to be followed on this occasion.
Lord Althorpsaid, he thought it would probably be found proper and fitting for the House to enter into an inquiry on this subject in the present Session. He had not positively made up his mind whether that inquiry should be instituted during this Session or in the next; but his impression was, that it would be desirable if it took place in the present. As to his right hon. friend's observation upon the course which former Governments had pursued with respect to the Bank, he
982
pledged himself to his right hon. friend, and to the House, that no such system should be now adopted. The question should be submitted to the House perfectly free from any private arrangement between the Government and the Bank. At the same time, Ministers would make up their minds as to what appeared to them right and proper to be done, but no pledge would be given, no engagement would be entered into. No man could attach more importance to the question than he did. He felt that it was most essential to place the whole banking system of the country on a sound footing, in order to secure the interests of the public.

EAST-INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER.
General Gascoynewished to know at what time it was intended to renew the committee which was appointed last Session to inquire into the state of the trade with India and China?
Lord Althorpsaid, it was not his intention to move for the renewal of that committee before the recess. The reason was, that the President of the Board of Control would not take his seat in that House until after Christmas, and it was necessary that he should be present when the committee was renewed.

REDUCTION OF SALARIES' COMMITTEE.
Mr. Phillpottssaid, he wished to make a few observations with reference to the select committee that was appointed last night. He observed that the noble Lord himself was on that committee, although he had understood that no person connected with the Administration was to be placed on it. Two members of the late Government were also appointed members of the committee. These Gentlemen were certainly placed in a very extraordinary situation; because, if they declared that the salaries were too large, they would thereby convict themselves of having, during the many years they held office, received enormous salaries—salaries greatly disproportioned to the duties performed by them. They would, therefore, be in some measure compelled to state that the salaries were not too great. He also observed that the names of several of those who last night expressed strongly their opinion that the salaries were not too large, were introduced on this committee; but not one of those individuals who entertained a very different opinion had been

983
placed on it. He had one other observation to make on this subject. He saw, on the Order-book, a notice given by an hon. Alderman (Wood) for a specific motion for the reduction of those salaries, which he proposed to bring on after the recess. How was it, he asked, that that hon. Alderman was not on this committee? As he meant to make a specific motion, he must have directed his attention to the subject, and therefore he was a proper person to be placed on the committee. He now asked the noble Lord, with the most perfect cordiality whether he had any objection to make this addition to the committee?
Lord Althorpsaid, he was quite ready to give the hon. Member an answer. His object was to place no person on the Committee who could be supposed to be under the influence of Government. With respect to the placing two of the late Ministers on the Committee, that was done for the purpose of arriving at details of official business, which could not be given by any other persons. And though he had been all his life politically opposed to them as Ministers, still there were no individuals on whose honour, fairness, and integrity, he would place greater reliance. If their salaries had been too high, the blame rested with the House, and not with them; and, therefore, it was proper that the whole subject should be investigated by a Committee, whose labours would be laid before the House, which could then decide on its recommendation. The hon. Member said, he was surprised that no person who spoke in favour of a reduction of salaries was placed on the Committee. It was strange, that he overlooked the hon. member for Porsetshire, who had been all his life anxious for a reduction of expenditure. The hon. Member also observed, that some Gentlemen who spoke last night unfavourably of a reduction of salaries, were named on the Committee. But, he could say, that he selected the Committee with the greatest care before the debate, and therefore what then passed could not have affected the nomination. With respect to the hon. Alderman, he had no objection to his being added to the Committee. He had quite forgotten that the hon. Alderman had given the notice alluded to. His great object was to frame the Committee so as to give perfect satisfaction to the country; and it would have been most absurd if Ministers intended any thing else.
Sir G. Warrenderexpressed his regret at not having seen the hon. member for Dorsetshire on the Committee that morning. Had he been present, he doubted not that he would have been appointed Chairman, —a situation for which his extensive experience peculiarly qualified him.
Sir R. Peeladmitted, that the Committee was very fairly formed. If individuals were not included who last night spoke in favour of reduction, it could only have been the result of chance, arising out of the manner in which the appointment of Committees was ordinarily arranged. The subject to be considered was an exceedingly delicate one. It would be very difficult to say what would be a sufficient remuneration for a Prime Minister, or a leader in the House of Commons, without inquiring into the private circumstances of the individual. With reference to the circumstances in which he was placed, he could not help thinking that the object of this inquiry would be much better served by omitting him (Sir R. Peel) and his right hon. friend. They were placed in a more painful situation than if they even were subject to the influence of the Government; because any honourable man in office would much rather agree to a reduction of his salary, than say that for many years he had been receiving more than the public ought to have paid. In his opinion, therefore, it would be more likely to afford satisfaction to the public, if those who had held office were merely called on to give their evidence. It would be much more agreeable to him to appear before the Committee as a witness, than to sit on it as a Judge; for if he gave his conscientious opinion that the salaries ought not to be lowered, it might be unjustly supposed that he was only vindicating the character and conduct of himself and of those who had been connected with him in office. If it were necessary that he should act on the Committee, he would not shrink from the performance of his duty; but he thought it would be better to omit his name and that of his right hon. friend. He begged leave again to state his willingness to give all the information in his power, to facilitate the inquiry; and to say, at the same time, that he thought the Committee was very fairly framed.
An hon. Member concurred in the opinion of the right hon. Baronet, that it would have been better if his name and that of his right hon. friend had been

985
omitted in forming the Committee. At the same time he gave to the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, full credit for the fairness with which the Committee was selected.

THE JEWS.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. Grant) whether he was prepared on an early day to bring forward a measure similar to that which he introduced last Session, for the relief of persons professing the Jewish religion?
Mr. R. Grantsaid, he had intimated on a former occasion that it was not his intention to drop this subject, and he would now state, for the information of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that on an early day, on Monday next, he would present a petition from individuals of the Jewish persuasion, and he would then state when he meant to bring the question forward which he was, at some period of the Session, fully pledged to do.

PROCESSION OF THE TRADES TO ST. JAMES'S PALACE.
Mr. Grove Pricesaid, that seeing the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his place, he was anxious to take the opportunity of putting a question to him on a subject of great constitutional importance. He could assure the noble Lord that his question did not arise from any spirit of hostility to him, or from any desire to embarrass the new Government. He would put the same question to the members of the late Government under similar circumstances. Neither was he disposed to put his question in the absence of his hon. and learned friend, the chief legal adviser of the Crown in that House, for' whom, on public and private grounds, he had a great esteem; and for whose consistency of public principle he had the highest respect,—a consistency which, he regretted to say, he had not seen in some others who held that situation before him; but he thought the subject was one so interesting in a constitutional point of view, that it ought not to be postponed. His question was, whether the Government of which the noble Lord formed a part, were aware of the intention of the large masses of the people who had accompanied the deputation to present the Address a few days ago to his Majesty, at his Palace of St. James's, to form the procession which had gone up? He wished to know whether this assem-
986
blage had the deliberate sanction of his Majesty's Ministers, or had been allowed to proceed with their tacit acquiescence. He was desirous to have an answer to this, because it was important to know whether the Government had sanctioned, or only connived at, that which he must say was clearly a violation of the Statute-law of the land. He was aware that it was held in a very high legal quarter that the assemblage to which he alluded was not illegal—and that it was even a highly constitutional assemblage. With every respect for the great legal authority to which he referred, he knew that the opinion of others, for whose great legal knowledge and acquirements those who were acquainted with them had the greatest respect, was very different. He would say, that some of the highest legal authorities in the country took a very different view of this matter as to the point of law. On this account he regretted that this subject had not been introduced by some Member of great eminence, skill, and legal knowledge, and possessing in consequence more weight with the House than he could pretend to. Humble as he was, he had no hesitation in saying that the procession to St. James's Palace, carrying up an Address to the Sovereign, was illegal. The Statute of which it was a violation, was the 13th of Charles 2nd. The necessity for the passing of such an Act at that time was obvious. The country was then smarting under the effects produced by tumultuous assemblages of persons met for the purposes of petitioning. It might be said, that the procession to which he referred had not been a tumultuous assemblage, but, according to the Statute he had quoted, and the clause of which he would read, it was not necessary that a tumult should take place to render the meeting illegal.
An hon. Member here rose to order,—
If the hon. Gentleman wished to ask a very plain question, as it appeared to be, he put it to him whether it would not be the better course to ask it at once, without occupying the time of the House at such length.
The Speakersaid, that the hon. Member who rose to order, was himself not quite in order.
Mr. Grove Pricesaid, he was anxious to explain the grounds on which he put the question. The clause of the Act of the 13th Charles 2nd, to which he begged to call the attention of the House, was to

987
this effect—that no person or persons whatsoever shall repair to his Majesty, or to both or either Houses of Parliament, on the pretence or for the purpose of presenting any Petition, Declaration, or Address, accompanied by any excessive— not tumultuous—but any excessive numbers; and that the number of persons accompanying the carrying up of any such Petition or Address shall not exceed ten, on pain of fine and imprisonment. The House were aware of the danger against which this Act was intended to guard; and most certainly, under that Act, the procession in question was illegal. It was no matter whether the meeting was tumultuous or not. He argued the question on principle; for if there were no tumult or inconvenience,—and he thought there were both, and that many peaceable and well-disposed persons were considerably alarmed and inconvenienced by such an assembly,—but supposing there were neither, he must still say that it made no difference in the principle for which he contended. There might be no tumult at one such assemblage, or at another, but the admission of the precedent would tend gradually to lead from shade to shade of disturbance, till at last the most serious evils might not only be apprehended, but be really produced by it. This was no new doctrine of his. It was the opinion pronounced by some of the highest legal authorities of which this country could boast. At the time of Lord George Gordon's mob, this Act of Charles 2nd was quoted by Lord Mansfield, who stated that under that Act any large assembly of persons, however peaceable in their demeanour, attending to present a Petition to the Sovereign, or to either House of Parliament, was illegal. This doctrine was acquiesced in by Judges Buller and Ashurst, and it was also clearly laid down by Mr. Justice Blackstone. It was also the doctrine of a writer who was not remarkable for his great attachment to royalty or the high prerogative of Kings. The meeting to which he referred was an assemblage of many thousands of persons, who went up for the purpose of paying a compliment to their Sovereign: but in the procession was introduced that banner, which had been the signal of more crime, bloodshed, rapine, and destruction than any other that had ever been raised in Europe [Cheers and laughter.] He cared not for the cheers of hon. Gentle-
988
men. He appealed to history, which was of much greater authority than their cheers, when he asserted that more scenes of horror, and cruelty, and destruction, had been committed under that banner, than any other that had been raised in Europe. He reported his hope that no defence would be set up for this assemblage on the ground that it had not been productive of any riot or tumult: that made no difference as to its legality. His objection was to the principle; and because he so objected, he wished to know from the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) how far the assemblage had received the direct sanction or the connivance of Ministers.
Lord Althorpbegged leave in answer to the question of the hon. and learned Member, to state the circumstances of the case as they had come to the knowledge of Government. Very soon after his noble friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department came into office, he was waited upon by a deputation from the trades' societies, who expressed the great disappointment that had been experienced by the bodies to which they belonged, at not having had an opportunity, after the preparations they had made, of testifying their loyal and dutiful attachment to his Majesty, as they expected to have done had he visited the City; and they added a wish that they might be permitted to present the Address they had prepared at one of the levees. To this his noble friend replied, that there could be no objection, but his noble friend did not understand that it was intended that the deputation should be accompanied by any procession such as that which had taken place, and it was only a day or two before the intended presentation that he learned that it was to be accompanied by the procession of the trades. As soon as that information reached him, he lost no time in consulting with the Magistrates of police and others whose duty it was to attend to the preservation of the peace of the metro-polis. From these gentlemen he learned, that the peace of the City would run less risk of being interrupted by allowing the procession to proceed peaceably, than by prohibiting its assemblage, and they added that if no order to disturb it were issued, they would be answerable for the preservation of the peace, for which they had made sufficient arrangements. The result was as had been predicted. The meeting

989
was most peaceable in its conduct from first to last. Under these circumstances, he must say, that he considered his noble friend acted with great prudence and sound sense in allowing the procession to proceed without interruption. He would at the same time admit that, according to the strict letter of the Act which the hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted, an offence had been committed in the assemblage of such a mass of persons to present an Address to the Sovereign, yet it would be unwise in Government to institute any prosecution for that offence. Such a course would be the most ill-advised and imprudent which any Government could adopt. When the people conducted themselves too with so much good order, it would have been most ill-judged to disturb them then, or to prosecute them afterwards for having assembled, even though such an assembly was, strictly speaking, illegal. At the same time he would admit the very great inconvenience of such assemblies on similar occasions, or of making this case a precedent for future processions for similar objects. It was well known that this Act had often been violated by processions with Addresses, without having any notice taken of their illegality; witness the presentation of addresses from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. [Mr. G. Price: 'These are permitted by Act of Parliament.'] Admitting that to be the case, he would still say in the general proposition of the hon. and learned Member he concurred, and that, according to the strict interpretation of the Act, such assemblies were illegal, though they had not unfrequently been permitted, and under the particular circumstances of the case, it would have been highly imprudent to disturb this one. The hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to the fact of this assemblage having had amongst their banners a tri-colour flag. He would admit with him that that flag had been the signal of much crime and of much bloodshed, but these characters did not belong to the tri-coloured flag of the present day; and if the assemblage of Wednesday had borne that flag, of which he had not heard until now, no doubt it was not out of any approval of the scenes which had formerly taken place under it, but from admiration of the great and glorious and successful struggle for liberty which had been made under it in France during the last days of July, That was
990
a feeling in which he, in common with the great mass of the people of this country, most cordially joined, and he owned that, with the admissions he had already made as to this meeting, he could not think its character worse, by bearing such a flag as an expression of their admiration of that glorious event.
Mr. Long Wellesleysaid, that the spirit of the Act which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to was not violated by the meeting; but that though its letter might not have been in strictness adhered to, his Majesty's Government had acted with great wisdom and prudence in allowing the procession to approach his Majesty without interruption in the way it had done; and he must own, that he was rather surprised at the hon. and learned Member quoting an Act, passed at such a period as the time of Charles 2nd, and now almost forgotten, with a view of applying its provisions to times like the present. If he recollected correctly, this Act was passed in the second year of the actual reign of Charles 2nd; and when hon. Members looked back to the spirit of those times, they would find that certain Acts of the same spirit were passed to render the proceedings of the Long Parliament more palatable to the Crown. But though the Act was, in strictness, still the law of the land, yet it was a law which, in the present very different tone and temper of the country, it would be neither wise nor prudent to enforce according to its strict letter. He thought, therefore, Ministers acted the part of sensible and prudent men in not restricting those ebullitions of loyalty on the part of the people, for which they had made such preparations, and which there was no reason to doubt would be expressed in any other than a peaceful and decorous manner. If Ministers had permitted his Majesty's residence to be approached by a tumultuous assembly, they would, no doubt, be held justly responsible to the country; but after what he had that evening heard of the character of the assembly, and after what he had heard in another place on the subject, he must say, that Ministers had acted with wisdom and sound discretion; and their conduct must raise them in the estimation of the country,—in the confidence of which he was happy to know they were gaining ground more and more every day. Before he sat down he would beg to say a word or two as to what fell from the hon.

991
and learned Member who had introduced this subject. The hon. and learned Member, with a want of that quickness of perception which he understood distinguished him elsewhere, had confounded two very important periods in the history of France, and had taken the tri-coloured flag of the present day, as a signal for the horrors which had occurred under it during the first Revolution. No two periods could be more different in the character of the events which distinguished them. For his part he execrated the horrors of the first Revolution as much as any man, but it would be a most unfounded attack on the conduct of those brave men who had immortalized themselves in the late Revolution, to look upon their national flag now as a signal for rapine, bloodshed, and destruction. From what he had recently seen in France, and from what he knew of many of those who were most conspicuous in the delivery of their country, he would say, that the crimes of the first Revolution had been in a great measure expiated by the glorious manner in which the second had been achieved. Let it be also considered, that if the flag of France was borne in a procession here, it was the flag of a nation whose Sovereign we had recognized, and whom, he trusted, we should long continue to call the firm ally of the king of England.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, there could be no doubt that a meeting, such as that assembled the other day for the purpose of going up with an Address to the Sovereign, was illegal. Such a meeting might be, as that was, quite peaceable, but still, an actual tumult was not necessary in order to render it illegal. The mobs which assembled under Lord George Gordon, professed that they met for the most peaceable purposes, but, nevertheless, all the authorities of that day, and ever since, had no doubt that they were illegal assemblies. Indeed, it was impossible to consider that an assemblage of 10,000 or 20,000 persons round the doors of Parliament, in times of public calamity, or in a period of great excitement, should not have some undue control on their proceedings, and on this ground such assemblages, however peaceable their professed and even real object might be, were very wisely prohibited. With respect to the case before the House, he was very glad to find that Government looked upon it rather as an exception to the general rule than the rule; for undoubtedly, if such assemblages
992
were to be permitted on the precedent of this, it might lead to serious evils, and certainly would cause very great public inconvenience. He owned he had heard now for the first time, but with great regret, that a tri-coloured flag had been borne amongst the banners of that procession. He heard it with the more regret, as, from the communication that had been made to him by the deputation that had waited upon him before he went out of office, he had understood that nothing of this kind was contemplated. Three persons from the trades' societies had waited upon him, acquainting him with the circumstances to which the noble Lord (Althorp) had already alluded in his statement of what occurred before the noble Lord now at the head of the Home Department. Those three individuals were not of any high rank in life, but he had received and treated them with a respect which he considered very justly due to the good sense and intelligence which they appeared to possess. They stated the disappointment experienced by the trades at the postponement of his Majesty's intended visit to the City, after the expensive preparations they had made in flags and banners to receive him, and they expressed a wish to be allowed to present their Addresses at the levee. He said, there could be no objection to that course, but it must be with the clear understanding that not many of their body should come up with the deputation. On that understanding they went away; and he had no doubt that a similar understanding was entered into with the noble Lord, his successor in office. As to the tri-coloured flag, he would admit that, as the flag of a country whose change of government we had acknowledged, and with which we were in perfect amity, it could not be considered as the representative of any crimes which in former times had been committed under it; but, at the same time, he should wish, that in a procession got up to compliment the Sovereign of this country, there should be no other flag introduced but our own national flags. He would have said the same last year, had the white flag been borne in any similar procession. Still he must hope that there was some mistake in this, and that a flag belonging to one of the trades which were of various colours was mistaken for the tri-colour, for he owned he could not have expected, after what had passed between him and the leaders of this, pro-

993
cession, that they would have sanctioned any thing of this kind.
Mr. Cornewallsaid, that he was in Pall Mall on the day in question, and saw the whole procession pass. He could not tell why, but there had been an impression on his mind, while the procession was passing, that he should see the tri-coloured flag among the banners; but it was not there; he could take upon himself to say, that there was no tri-coloured flag, and he should be ready even to depose to that fact in a Court of Justice.
Sir Robert Peelwas now more convinced that there must have been some mistake as to the flag being a tri-colour; but even if it were, it would be unfair to fix upon it as the act of those who managed the procession. In an assembly of 10,000 persons, it was impossible to guard against the introduction of such a flag, by one or two; and it would therefore be unjust to charge it as the act of the whole.
Lord John Russellsaid, since the right hon. Baronet viewed the question without any disposition to impute blame to his noble friend at the head of the Home Department, he was ready to admit with him, that, according to the strict letter of the Act, the procession was not legal, and that it ought not to be drawn into a precedent for any future procession on similar occasions, for he acknowledged that such a practice might give rise to serious evils. From the letter and spirit of the Statute, it was clearly illegal that large masses of the people should go up with Addresses, yet it was but justice to the individuals who were assembled on that occasion to say, that not only was their conduct harmless and inoffensive, but praiseworthy, for the perfect good order and decorum which they had observed throughout. Let it also be recollected, that this body did not go up to petition—to ask any thing of the Sovereign—but simply to present an Address expressive of their loyalty and dutiful attachment to his Majesty. As to whether they bore the tri-coloured flag or not, he could not say; but if they had, he could not look upon it as intended as any insult to our own national flag, to which the people of this country were greatly attached, as they were also to the person of the gracious Sovereign under whom they had the happiness to live. The flag, if introduced at all, must have been intended as a complimentary mode of expressing their admiration of the glorious
994
struggle which had so recently been made for liberty under that banner.
Sir Robert Peelwished to be understood as not giving any opinion as to the policy of permitting this procession; but he would fully admit that, under the circumstances in which the knowledge of it had reached the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, it would have been impolitic to proscribe the meeting. He had been long enough in office himself to know the cases of difficulty which often presented themselves to the Home Secretary, and he fully admitted the difficulty in which the noble Lord was placed when he heard of the intended procession at so very short a period before the day that it was to take place. No doubt, if sufficient notice had been given, the noble Lord would, as he ought, have prevented it; but with so little notice, and the preparations that had been made, it was, he admitted, acting with prudence to let it proceed undisturbed.
Mr. G. Lambsaid, that it was only the day before the intended procession that the Home Secretary was made acquainted with it, and that by having a placard brought to the office, noticing the intention of the trades to go up to the Palace. Under these circumstances, he thought it would have been the height of imprudence, not to say downright madness, to have prevented the procession, as it could not have been done without resorting to force. He would only add, with reference to what fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman, as to the conduct of the people, that their peaceable demeanour, after they had come up in the expectation of obtaining a sight of their Sovereign, and of receiving an answer to their Address, was entitled to great praise, and in the present period of excitement it more fully proved the loyalty and attachment to their Sovereign of the people of the metropolis. On the subject of the right of petitioning, he might be allowed to say a word. It was a right in which the strict letter of the law was every day violated without a word being said about it. For instance, petitions were presented to and received by that House, praying for reform and other changes, and yet by law no petition could be presented for any alteration in Church and State signed by more than twenty persons, unless it was signed by the Lord Mayor, or by the Magistrates in Quarter Sessions, or by some other potentates of that description.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.
Lord Althorpsaid, he should at present merely move "That it is the opinion of this committee, that a sum not exceeding: 100,000 l. be granted to his Majesty towards satisfying the Annuities and Pensions payable out of the Consolidated Fund or Civil List, deficient from the demise of the late King up to the 5th of January, 1831." As the House would have ample opportunity for investigating the subject immediately after the recess, he did not anticipate that any objection would be made to the present Motion, and should therefore sit down without offering any further observations.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, it was not his intention to oppose the proposition of the noble Lord, for although it was a departure from former precedents, existing circumstances sufficiently accounted for the deviation. On all other occasions it had been the first act of the Legislature, on the demise of the Crown, to make provision for the Civil List. He was not surprised at the proposed deviation from established custom, but could not help regretting it, as the precedent might possibly prove inconvenient hereafter. It appeared to be most for the interest of all parties, that the question should be brought to a conclusion as soon as circumstances would admit. Under this feeling, he repeated, he did not mean to give any opposition to the motion just made by the noble Lord.
Lord Althorpconcurred with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that it would have been more desirable to make an arrangement for the provision of the Civil List at the commencement of the Session, but the late changes having been effected so recently, it was out of the power of his Majesty's present Ministers to make themselves masters of the details in a manner which would enable them so soon to propose the Civil List on their own responsibility. Had they attempted to do so, they would not have acted consistently with their duty to the public. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to apprehend danger from the precedent, but all precedents were to be considered in connexion with the circumstances which induced them, and he had no hesitation in saying that the future recurrence of similar circumstances would warrant the adoption of a similar line of conduct.
Vote agreed to.
A Resolution, "That it is the opinion of this Committee, that a sum, not exceeding 750,000 l., be granted to his Majesty, towards defraying the interest on Exchequer-bills," was also adopted nem. con.
The House resumed, the report to be received on Monday.

REGENCY BILL.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee on the Regency Bill. On reading the first clause,
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonobjected to the wording of it, as excluding from the Throne all possible issue of the King, by any marriage after the death of the present Queen, in favour of the Princess Victoria. It was possible that her present Majesty might die, that the King might marry again, and have issue, and from the manner in which this clause was worded, bestowing the Regency on the Duchess of Kent, in case his Majesty should die without issue by his present Consort, it would postpone the claims of that issue to the right of the Princess Victoria. The hon. and learned Gentleman moved, as an Amendment, to substitute for the words "Leaving no issue by her present Majesty," the words, "Leaving no issue him surviving."
Sir Robert Peelthought there was no necessity for the Amendment. The Bill was intended only to apply to existing circumstances. Certainly it was possible that her Majesty might die, but before the King could complete another marriage he must come to Parliament. That would be time enough to provide for the case the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed. The present Bill was only to remove doubts as to who should exercise the Royal authority in one particular case, and therefore the Amendment was not necessary.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonadmitted, that the Act was intended to provide for a particular case, but as the first clause was of a general description, the Amendment that he proposed seemed necessary.
The Attorney General(Sir Thomas Denman) admitted the force of the hon. and learned Gentleman's observation. The Bill as it now stood implied a restriction which he understood was not intended. The best way of amending it, however, would be, to leave out the words "her present Majesty," making the enactment depend on his Majesty dying without issue.
Mr. O'Connelltook the same objection to the clause as the hon. and learned member for Kircudbright (Mr. Cutlar Ferguson), but he thought the best way of amending: it was that proposed by the Attorney General.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonagreed to the suggestion of the Attorney General.
Sir Robert Peelcautioned the House how they admitted the proposed alteration, for it would alter the whole principle of the Bill. The very intention of the Bill was to provide for the contingency of her present Majesty having no issue, and that alone. He would remind the House, that it would be very unadvisable to make any general measure without much consideration, for it was possible that marriages might be contracted which would be good in law, though not held valid by Parliament. If they meant to constitute a Regency for all possible cases, a different bill would be required.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonthought the other clauses might, without difficulty, be adapted to the proposed Amendment.
Lord Althorpsaw the difficulty which had been pointed out, but in general he agreed with the view taken of the Bill, and of the care required to alter it, by the right hon. Baronet. If it were necessary to alter the Bill, he should prefer the Amendment suggested by his hon. and learned friend, the Attorney General; but, at the same time, as the Bill was of so much importance, he hoped his hon. and learned friend would not press his Amendment till the Report was brought up.
Mr. Tennysonobserved, that it was a most grave and serious matter, for the Bill might be a Bill of Exclusion, and might regulate the succession. The Bill, however, contemplated only one contingency, and to that it ought to be confined.
Mr. O'Connellalso again contended, that the Bill, as it was worded, might be a Bill of Exclusion.
Sir M. W. Ridleythought the perfection of the Bill was, that it was strictly limited to the particular case; and should the case supposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman arrive, the King would have to come to Parliament to complete his marriage, and then the circumstance might be provided for.
The Attorney Generaldefended his proposed Amendment, and showed that all the other clause? of the Bill might be easily adapted to it. Of course, however, he
998
should defer to the wishes of his noble friend, and postpone his Amendment till the bringing up of the Report.
Sir Robert Peelentered his protest against introducing words into the Bill which would imply that any Queen Consort might be Regent.
After some further conversation, the consideration of the Amendment was postponed. Several of the following clauses were agreed to without amendment.
On the suggestion of Mr. O'Connell, the words "Roman Catholic" were substituted for the word "Papist" in the clause where it was necessarily introduced. The other clauses were agreed to without amendments. The Report was ordered to be received on Monday next.
[Mr. Phillpotts withdrew his motion for an Address for a copy of all communications which had taken place between the Lord Bishop of Exeter and his Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, respecting the said Bishop's holding the Rectory of Stanhope in commendam with the Sec of Exeter.]

CHURCH OF ENGLAND RESIDENTS AND NON-RESIDENTS.],
Mr. Long Wellesleysaid, that in rising to move for the returns which he should read at the conclusion of his observations, he was actuated by no feelings of hostility towards the Church, but by a sincere desire to render it as pure and useful as its best friends could wish. His object in moving for them was twofold. He wished in the first place to ascertain the number of clergymen who did not reside on their benefices, in order to devise some general measure to compel their residence—a consummation which was highly desirable, as he could state from his own personal experience that in all parishes where the clergymen were resident, the condition of the poor was much better than in those parishes where the clergymen were not resident. He wished in the next place, if the information obtained by these returns should warrant it, to found upon it a measure for the better payment of the working clergy, similar to that which a noble Lord had carried through the other House of Parliament, with equal credit to his head and his heart. The hon. Member then moved, for "a return of the annual separate estimated value of every Vicarage, Rectory, Living, or other clerical benefice in the gift of the Crown, with the name and description

999
of each benefice, and its value in the King's books, as contrasted with its actual value; a return, with the name and description of every Living on which there is no clerical residence whatever;—a return of those Livings upon which there is a suitable clerical residence, and whether such residence is or is not in repair, and to what purpose converted;—a return of the number of the parochial benefices in the gift of the Crown, the duties of which are performed by those to whom the benefices have been given, or by Curates, and whether those Curates be resident upon such benefice, and if non-resident, where residing;—a return of the income which each Curate derives bona fide from his Patron, Vicar, or other superior, for the annual performance of his professional duties."
Mr. Leadersuggested that these returns ought also to be made regarding the value of every benefice in Ireland.
Mr. Long Wellesleycould not agree to the suggestion, because he believed that a commission was now inquiring into the value and amount of Church property in Ireland.
Mr. Fylerhoped, that the returns would be demanded, not merely from the incumbents of all benefices in the gift of the Crown, but also from the incumbents of all churches throughout England.
Mr. Long Wellesleycould not agree to this suggestion, any more than he could to that which had been already made to him. He would candidly admit, that his reason for moving for these returns was his belief that there was ground of complaint as to the non-residence of the secular clergy. He had limited his inquiry to the Livings in the gift of the Crown, because he did not wish to give offence to the hierarchy, and because he had observed that inquiries which were very large in their nature, were not in general productive of any beneficial result. His object was, to collect a mass of information so condensed and specific in its nature that a practical measure could easily be founded upon it.
Returns ordered.

MINUTES.
The Royal Assent was given, by Commission, to the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Petitions presented. Fox the abolition of Slavery, by the Marquis of LANSDOWN, the Marquis of THOMOND, the Earl of ROSSLYN, and the Earl of ABERDEEN, from various Congregations of Dissenters in England, and from several places in Scotland. By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from the Catholics in the parish of St. Peter, Athlone, praying for a better appropriation of the Funds voted for Education in Ireland; from the working Curriers of Dublin, complaining of Distress, and praying for a Repeal of the Union; from the Inhabitants of the parish of St. Nicholas, Dublin, for a reduction of the Duty on Sea-borne Coal; from Corkaguinny, Kerry, praying for a continuance of the bounties on Fish; for Parliamentary Reform, from the Town Council and Inhabitants of the Royal Burgh of Arbroath; from the Merchants' Company of Ayr; from the Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Ayr; from the Incorporated Guilds of Stirling; and from the Magistrates and Town Council of Forfar:—By the Earl of RADNOR, from the Inhabitants of Perth.

DISTRESS.
The Earl of Radnorpresented a petition which had been voted at a most numerous meeting held of the Vestry of the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, in the month of June last, complaining of distress, and praying for a reduction of taxes, especially the taxes which pressed most severely upon the poorer orders of the community, such as the house and window taxes, and the taxes upon malt, sugar, &c. The petition further prayed, that the Church lands and tithes should be applied to defray the civil and military expenses of the State. The noble Lord remarked, that this petition was well worthy of the consideration and attention of their Lordships. It had been voted at a very numerous meeting, and it gave a frightful picture of the distress that prevailed in that parish, so far back as the month of June last. It stated that the parish contained 70,000 inhabitants and 7,000 houses; the whole rental amounted to 132,000 l. and the poor-rates to 34,000 l. a year. There was not one person in the parish who kept a carriage, and many of those who were obliged to pay to the poor-rates were compelled to deny themselves animal food. Since the meeting at which the petition was agreed to, the parish had been getting worse, and tradesmen who were in the habit of receiving 20 l. a week did not now receive 20s. He had been informed by the person who had handed this petition to him, that the most frightful state of distress, and consequent demoralization existed at present in that parish,— a demoralization, which was not owing to the want of the means of spiritual instruction afforded to the people, but, as his informant had stated, to the dreadful poverty in which they were sunk. He produced this petition in answer to the challenge of the noble Duke (Wellington) last evening, who then called upon him to make any statement which would show that an inquiry had been called for oh the part of his Majesty's late Government. Here was an instance of distress which existed in June last, long previous to the dissolution of the late Ministry. Several such instances had been mentioned to their Lordships last Session. It therefore appeared to him that it would be a mere farce if Ministers should thus shut their eyes to what was passing before them. They should have known the existence of such distress; and if they did not know of it, they should have inquired
958
about it; and if they were aware of its existence, and did not take any measures to remedy it, their conduct was still more deserving of reprobation. A responsible Government was a mere farce, if things, such as he had stated, which were passing within three miles of the house in which he was speaking, should not have been inquired into, and if no attention was given to the applications of the people for relief. That was his charge against the late Government.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas sure, that the noble Lord who had just sat down would have the candour to say, that when he stated) last night, that he would, if he had a seat in the other House, bring forward a motion for a committed of inquiry to ascertain whether it was fit to impeach the persons who had served his Majesty in the late Administration, — the noble Lord would surely have the candour to allow, that when he made that statement, he did not advert to the distress which existed in the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, or in any parish in the kingdom, or in all of them together. What the noble Lord then said was, that the country was in a difficult and dangerous situation—that the Government which succeeded the late Administration had found the country involved in a difficult and dangerous situation, and that the Members of the late Administration were responsible for that, and they ought to be impeached for it. He had said in answer to that statement at. the time, and he should now repeat it, that he called upon the noble Lord to bring forward a distinct charge against his Majesty's late Administration, and he should be ready to meet it, and defend his Majesty's late Government against whatever charge the noble Lord might think proper to prefer against them. The noble Lord now brought forward a petition from the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, and he made a statement, not founded on the petition, but upon the assertions of a nameless person, whose assertions he backed with his authority; and he then said, that his Majesty's late Government was responsible for the distress which existed in that parish in the month of June last. For himself he had stated before, and he would repeat it, that he never could, or would, make himself responsible for any act that was not his own, or for any thing which it was not his duty to see put to rights. He would

959
maintain that he had nothing to do with the management of the poor in the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, even if they were twenty times worse off and worse managed than had been stated. The King's Ministers were not responsible for the suffering or distress in that parish or this parish. They were not responsible for that which it was not their duty to set right. The noble Lords opposite, who had taken upon them the Government of the country, must see that they could do nothing in such a way as that. They might subscribe, and recommend his Majesty to subscribe, in such cases, but it would be found that the late Ministers did the same, and that his late Majesty subscribed as much as he could. It was not in the power of Ministers, and it would not be legal for them, to interfere in any other way in such matters. If the noble Lord could bring forward a distinct charge against his Majesty's late Ministers, he (the Duke of Wellington) should be ready at any time to meet it.
Earl Stanhopemaintained that the cause of the distress which prevailed now, was only to be found in the measures of that House, which had refused to inquire into the distresses of the people. That distress had existed for a long time, it existed throughout the country, and had been frequently, both by him and other noble Lords, brought under their Lordships' notice. The distress was not the consequence of local but general causes, and he was extremely sorry to find that the present Ministry had adopted the views of the late Ministry, and meant to refuse inquiry. He had been informed by a dignitary of the Established Church, resident in Sussex, that the resistance offered by the Ministry last night to the motion of the noble and learned Lord would occasion great disappointment and be most calamitous in its results. In his opinion he coincided, and would on no account take on himself the responsibility the Ministry had incurred by refusing to grant the inquiry moved for.
Lord Kingsaid, that no such preposterous charge had been preferred against the noble Duke by the noble Earl (Radnor), as that he, when Minister, should have superintended the management of the Poor-laws in any particular parish. What the noble Lord had said was, that the cause of timely relief not being afforded, was ascribable to the noble
960
Duke, who had put into the mouth of his Sovereign, at the beginning of the last Session, the statement that only "partial distress" existed. The disgust and irritation which that untoward language produced throughout the country compelled the Ministers to make those reductions of the taxes which they afterwards made, and which, in his conscience, he (Lord King) believed that they never intended at the beginning of that Session to make, or they would never have put into the mouth of the King such unfortunate and exasperating language,—language which was only paralleled by the strange and infatuated declaration which had expelled the noble Duke and his colleagues from power.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the noble Lord lay under a complete mistake as to the reduction which had been made in the taxes. That reduction was made in consequence of the repeated reductions of expenditure which had been effected in the course of three consecutive Sessions of Parliament, and in consequence of the great reduction, amounting actually to more than a million sterling, which had been made in the interest of the National Debt. That reduction in the interest of the National Debt was effected in the last Session of Parliament; but until it was completed, it was impossible for the Government to make any reductions in the taxes, nor could they decide which it was their duty to reduce; and that duty was not performed until the moment came for making the reductions.
Lord Kingdid not think that he was at all mistaken as to the cause which had compelled the late Ministers to effect such a reduction of the taxes. There was nothing of which people in such a situation as the late Ministers filled were so fond of as a large margin, and he was sure that the noble Duke would have kept the large margin if he could, and that he would have employed it against those "deplorable events" of which the noble Duke had spoken last night, if it had not been taken from him. He was convinced that the noble Duke would have kept the large margin if he could, and that, if he had remained in power, he would in that case have done something against those events which he had last night so much lamented.
The Earl of Rosslynsaid, it was extraordinary that the noble Lord should persist in an assertion which he must

961
know was contrary to the truth,—namely, that the late Ministers did not intend to reduce the taxes at the commencement of the last Session of Parliament. The fact was, that the details were then all prepared, and as soon as the reduction of the interest of the four-per-cents had been effected, the intended reductions in the taxes were made.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that the course which his Majesty's late Ministers had pursued, in doing every thing to prevent inquiry into the distresses of the people, had met with the reprobation of every well-wisher to the country. If an inquiry had been granted last Session, he was of opinion that the present disturbed state of the country would not have existed at this moment, and he would assert, that in that case the spirit of disaffection which existed amongst the great body of the people towards the Legislature of the country, for turning a deaf ear to their complaints, would not be in existence. Such he was certain would have been the good effects which we should now witness if the Legislature had then entered upon an inquiry into the distresses and grievances of the people. He denied that the present Ministers were taking the same course as that followed by the late Ministers, for they had already granted an inquiry into the state of the Poor-laws, which inquiry he firmly believed would be productive of great advantage to the country, and they had pledged themselves to apply their attention to the state of the country generally. He must say, that he had been quite convinced by the arguments used by the noble Earl (Grey) last night, against the expediency of the kind of inquiry which was then called for.
Earl Stanhope Earl Stanhope, in explanation, said, that the present Ministers were imitating their predecessors in refusing inquiry.
The Marquis of Clanricardesaid, that the question at issue last Session was, whether the distress was partial, as had been alleged by Ministers, or whether it was general, as it really was, and as every one out of doors believed it to be. Though he supported the Motion for inquiry last Session, he did not deem it at all inconsistent, under existing circumstances, to oppose the Motion made last night for inquiry. That Motion went to a full inquiry into every interest of the State, and it was made when Parliament was about to rise for the recess, when one
962
committee had been appointed and when the Government, far from denying the distress, admitted it, and had pledged itself to consider the subject. He was in hopes that in a few weeks the Government would redeem that pledge, but thinking the inquiry proposed last night much too extensive, he had voted against it.
The Earl of Radnorexplained. The difference between the late and the present Administration was this,—that the late Administration refused inquiry, and denied the existence of distress, while the present Administration admitted the existence of distress, and said that they would apply their minds to find a remedy for it, while, at the same time, they granted a committee of inquiry into the state of the Poor-laws. The noble Duke had said again to-night, that he (the Earl of Radnor) might bring a specific charge against the late Ministers if he chose. He, however, would repeat what he had said last night, that he should do no such thing; for that his only object in bringing such a charge would be, to remove the noble Duke and his colleagues from power, and that, fortunately, was already done. As to the intention of the late Ministers to reduce taxation, since the noble Duke and the noble Earl below him had declared that they had positive knowledge of such intention, independent of the cry of distress that was raised, he certainly, without any knowledge upon the subject, could not assert that no such intention existed. However, the general belief of the country was, that the Ministers were forced into those reductions by the cry that was raised in the other House; and if such intention existed, he could only say, that the deplorable prospect presented to them at the opening of the Session was the more remarkable. Besides, nothing could be more astonishing, with this view of the subject, than the lamentable exhibition which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made last Session—nearly all the financial measures except the Beer-bill having failed or been withdrawn: and if, therefore, the Ministers had really matured their plans, and could, nevertheless, make no better appearance than they did make, the country had another reason to rejoice at the removal of those Ministers.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he had voted against the committee last night, and against the committee proposed while he was in the Government for the

963
same reason,—namely, that he thought them both useless. Noble Lords might talk from this time till to-morrow, and still they could not deny that the late Administration had done all they could. Was the Beer bill nothing? Was the reduction of 3,000,000 l. of taxation nothing? He did think that the late Government was a little ill-used when these measures were forgotten. He repeated, that the late Ministers, seeing that they could reduce expenditure, and that they should be able to reduce the interest of the four-per-cents, had always determined to reduce taxation, and that the reductions they had made were not forced upon them, but had been all along contemplated by them. The measures which the noble Earl had mentioned as having been withdrawn, were those respecting the Spirit-duties and the Sugar-duties; but these merely effected a transfer, and not a reduction, of taxation. As to it not being known that reductions were intended, he begged to remind the noble Earl, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his financial statement as early as six weeks, he believed, after the meeting of Parliament. For this,—for allowing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take that course,—he was ready to take great blame to the Government, for he was convinced that many of the difficulties with which the Government had had to contend, arose from their permitting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come forward so early with his financial statement. He would take this opportunity of observing, that although he did not wish to take away any merit from the present Government,—indeed he was ready to give that Government all the assistance he could consistently with his sense of duty, and no man was less inclined to throw obstructions in its way than he was,—he would take this opportunity of observing, that the Poor-laws' Committee, which had been so often said to be a measure of the present Government, was actually consented to by him, as he was sure his noble friend who moved for that committee would admit. He thought this conversation very uncalled for, and would only repeat, that he was ready to meet any charge that might be brought against him.
Lord Wharncliffethought, that the case of the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch— which was a parish peculiarly situated— had nothing to do with the charge which the noble Earl (Radnor) had brought last
964
night against the late Government. Whatever might be the condition of such a parish, it would not make out the position of the noble Earl, that the late Ministers ought to be impeached. With regard to motions for committees for general inquiry, these were mere delusions: they were very good means in the hands of persons who desired to embarrass a Government, but even the persons who originated them never dreamed that they would come to anything. He thought, that the noble Duke might safely appeal to the acts of his Administration,—to the Test Act,—to the Catholic Relief Bill,— to the Beer Bill,—as proofs that he had done all he could. Though he had opposed the noble Duke where he had found it his duty to oppose him, he was ready to admit, that the noble Duke had done much, and that what he had done ought not to be forgotten. The noble Earl (Stanhope) at the Table said, that he himself could have done more. Yes, he knew that the noble Earl had a nostrum in his pocket; but allow him to tell the noble Earl, that the country would not take the medicine. The nostrum was merely an alteration in the currency, and it had been refuted over and over again in this, as well as in the other House of Parliament, until people were tired of exposing the mischiefs of it. He admitted that the present Administration had more power than the late Administration had to benefit the country; but he did not believe that the late Administration was inferior to the present in good intentions.
Petition to lie on the Table.

SLAVERY IN THE COLONIES.
Lord Napierpresented a petition against the continuance of Negro Slavery; and in doing so took the opportunity of referring to the proposition he had made on a former night, that a Committee of their Lordships should go out to the West-India Islands, in order to furnish the House with the best information upon the question of negro slavery, before they undertook to legislate upon it. Before he made that proposition he had had no communication whatever with anybody upon the subject. He had no West-India property, he never had had any, and he never expected to have any; but still he felt interested on the subject, from the knowledge of the colonies which his professional life had given him. Since he

965
made the proposition to which he now referred, he had had communications with different gentlemen connected with those places, and he found that they much approved of his plan. As there were several noble Lords who strongly supported the question of the manumission of slaves, no doubt, whenever the country called on them to undertake the duty of going out as a Committee of Inquiry, to examine into the subject, they would show their perfect readiness to obey the call. He had never once expressed his opinion on the matter, but he would now do so, and would state distinctly, that in his mind slavery in all its branches was a curse, and a heavy curse; but how to remove it was a question which their Lordships could never learn to answer properly in this country alone. Their Lordships must remember, that the colonies were composed of islands taken from other countries during the war, as well as of those which had long been in possession of this country; and he would defy their Lordships, by any regulation they might make here, to embrace all the different interests that existed in these various islands. It was impossible they could justly understand all these differences, unless they sent out a body of their own Members thither. He was ready, for one, to become a member of that committee; and he was satisfied, that when this appeal was made to those noble Lords to whom he had before alluded, they would come forward and show their readiness to give their services in favour of the cause they had so often advocated, or, if they did not, they must for ever after hold their peace.
Earl Stanhopedid not rise to oppose the motion for laying this petition on the Table, but merely to make a suggestion in accordance with that thrown out by the noble Lord who had just taken his seat. The suggestion was, that if the committee mentioned by the noble Lord should be appointed, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was of all others the most fitted to be sent out as its chairman. He made that proposal because, if he remembered rightly, that noble and learned Lord, in the very first speech which he made in that House, declared most solemnly, that one of the two questions which he considered to be of paramount importance was that of the abolition of slavery. It was not, therefore, improbable that the noble and learned Lord
966
might consider the going to the West Indies, in order to assist in the abolition of negro slavery, as one of the paramount duties of his new office. The noble and learned Lord had distinctly asserted the paradox which he (Earl Stanhope) had just mentioned. He would not enter into any argument as to the truth of that paradox, but would merely observe, that it was like saying, when the homestead was on fire it should be considered a paramount duty on the part of the farmer to hasten to extinguish the flames that threatened to burst out in a stack in a distant part of the farm.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, I am fully sensible, my Lords, as well from experience here as elsewhere, how very inconvenient a long, tiresome, and somewhat irregular discussion must always be,—and in spite, my Lords, even of the charms of the noble Earl's eloquence, I cannot help regretting the time we have lost in the late discussion. Your Lordships may he perfectly secure, therefore, that I shall not give rise to another such, but I am sure your Lordships will agree that I could not help rising, after the very pointed allusion which the noble Earl has made to me. The noble Earl has, in a very good-humoured manner, alluded to what he considers a most extraordinary paradox. [Hear! from Earl Stanhope.] Oh yes, my Lords, I am perfectly well aware that the noble Earl will always stand up for what he has once laid down, and that even after it has been proved to be absurd,—after every one else has admitted the absurdity of it,—the noble Earl will still stand up for it—ay, stand up and speak for it as often as your Lordships like, and perhaps a little oftener. However, my Lords, I have been called upon to explain a paradox which the noble Earl considers to be the most extraordinary possible, and which he thinks to be deserving of the reprobation of all wise men,—probably, because he feels that it is deserving of his own reprobation. The noble Earl says, that I have declared negro slavery to be a subject of paramount importance to this country; and he says, that to make such a declaration is as ridiculous as to say that we ought to go abroad to prevent a distant misfortune when our house is on fire at home. Now, my Lords, it is very possible that I may have been unfortunate in the choice of ah expression; that I may have selected an

967
extraordinary, an ill-adapted, an unnecessarily strong—nay, an extravagant epithet; but that, ray Lords, is a mishap that, befalls all men at times, and especially when speaking about subjects upon which their feelings and their conviction are most strong; nay, my Lords, this even happens sometimes to the noble Earl himself, who, however chaste his eloquence undoubtedly is, does sometimes indulge in the use of epithets, which, if one considers them very closely, do not always appear the most appropriate. However, my Lords, what I meant when I said that this subject was one of paramount importance to the country, was this,—I meant, that let our distresses be ever so great, let the disturbances which prevail at home be ever so much to be deplored, still it is the province of a wise, and, permit me to add, of a just Government, to fulfil the duty of justice rather than of mercy; and I call that a subject of paramount importance which involves the fulfilment of the sacred duty of justice—a duty that is never to be evaded, and the non-performance of which can never be excused by any condition of unhappiness, no matter how great, at home. Well, my Lords, so much for the use of the epithet which has scandalized the correct and critical judgment of the noble Earl. Then, my Lords, the noble Earl went on in a most facetious manner to contend, that I, and that I only, ought to be chairman of a committee which I have learnt to night, for the first time, that your Lordships are about to appoint, and to despatch upon a voyage to the West-India Islands. How this committee is to be constituted we have not heard. I hope it is not to consist of the present Ministers, nor do I wish so ill to the noble Lords near me,—the ex-ministers,—as to desire that they should be sent on such a mission: but, my Lords, if you will take the authority of the noble Earl, be the committee constituted as it may, I am the only fit person to be chairman of it. Now, my Lords, far be it from me to presume to say, that the noble Earl is not quite right in this matter; only your Lordships will, I am sure, see that it is my duty to suggest to you that I might be missed at home. It is not unlikely, my Lords, that the suitors in Chancery might object to the course proposed by the noble Earl; they might be unreasonable enough to think, that although their houses would not be on
968
fire, yet they might be altogether dismantled while I was voyaging to the Indies, and that although they would stand in no great degree of danger of being burned, yet they might happen to starve during the absence of the Lord Chancellor on such an expedition. This, my Lords, might be the view which the Chancery suitors would take of the matter; and as it is obvious that there is nothing too unreasonable for them to be guilty of, after having committed the offence of differing from the noble Earl, it is not improbable that they may borrow from the noble Earl himself those excellent observations which the noble Earl has made tonight about paradoxes. However, if the noble Earl thinks that I am worthy to be consulted in the matter—if, by what he has said, the noble Earl meant to ask my opinion as to the propriety of my being chairman of such a committee, I will tell him candidly that I cannot yet satisfy him upon that point. Whether I go or stay will depend very much upon who are to go with me. I must inquire into that first; and, to begin, let me ask the noble Earl if he intends to make one of the party;—let me ask the noble Earl whether he will go with me, and, if he will, whether I may calculate upon the pleasure of hearing seven or eight speeches from him, upon the same subject,—they must be upon the same subject in the space of four-and-twenty hours; and whether the noble Earl will promise, that they shall all of them be as entertaining and as instructive as three or four speeches made upon the presentation of a petition, but having no connexion whatever with the subject of that petition? I wish to know, before I decide, whether I am to enjoy the pleasure of such intellectual amusements. I wish to know whether the noble Earl will take care to get himself embarked in the same bottom as myself, for that is essential, as I am sure your Lordships will see. I wish to know and to be assured as to these facts, and I therefore put it to the noble Earl whether he is ready to give me security,—such security as may be approved by two Masters in Chancery,—and enter into recognizances that he will go in the same ship with me, and undertake to debate everything that occurs on the voyage, or that does not occur on the voyage, but may happen to suggest itself to the noble Earl,—whether the noble Earl will thus debate, and whether, moreover, he will carry on that

969
debate in that feeble voice of which he complained last night [cries of "No, no," from Earl Stanhope]. I beg the noble Earl's pardon; he certainly said last night, that "he raised his feeble voice, and wished to express forcibly;" such were the noble Earl's epithets; it is not for me to say whether the noble Earl in his speech attended to that definition which an eminent critic has given of fine writing, and which the noble Earl will probably see, is equally applicable to fine speaking,—namely, "apt words in apt places:" it is not for me, my Lords, to say whether the noble Earl attended to this definition, or whether he put the epithets in the wrong places, fixing "feeble" where "forcible" ought to have been, and "forcible" where "feeble" would have been more appropriate—it is not, I say, my Lords, for me to pronounce on this matter, but such were most assuredly the epithets of the noble Earl; and as he has been so hypercritical upon one of my epithets, he cannot surely complain of my also turning critic upon his. Well, then, my Lords, as I was saying,— will the noble Earl give me good and sufficient security that he will embark himself in the same ship with myself,—I will not insist upon his fixing his birth in the same cabin;—that he will speak during the voyage such speeches as he speaks here, with the same iteration, in the same feeble tone, and with the same agreeable absence of reasoning and argument? Will the noble Earl, I say, secure to me well and sufficiently, and legally, these advantages,—all these advantages, for I will abate none of them? If the noble Lord will, and will inform me also who the others are who are to go with us—how we are to voyage, and what we are to do when we reach the end of our voyage,— then, and not till then, for then only shall I be in possession of all the circumstances of the case,—then, I say, I will, like a good and just Judge, decide whether I will go or stay. I am sure your Lordships will see that I should ill become the high judicial office which I fill, if I were to give judgment in such a case before the noble Earl has satisfied me on these points, for until then I shall not have learned all the facts of the matter before me; and, without being informed of these, it is quite impossible that I can give a sound and satisfactory decision.
Petition to lie on the Table,