Sitting of 14 December 1831

MINUTES.
New Member. THOMAS WALLACE Esq., for Drogheda.
Bill. Brought in, by Lord Viscount DUNCANNOS, to authorize the application of part of the Land Revenues of the Crown, for the repair and improvement of Buckingham Palace.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. WEYLAND, the number of Brewers and Retail Beer-shops Licensed under the Beer Act:—On the Motion of Mr. D. W. HARVEY, the number of Persons admitted to the Freedom of those Boroughs which send Members to Parliament, since the year 1821, with the amount of the Fees paid on their admission:—On the Motion of Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE, the number of rated Householders in the Parishes included in the Metropolitan Police Bill:—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, the number of Sinecure Offices executed by Deputy in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and all Fees and Emoluments attached to them, with Reversions, Joint Appointments, and Appointments for Lives, and those held during pleasure.
Petitions presented. By Mr. HENEAGE, from the city of Lincoln, in favour of a better system of Parliamentary Representation. By Mr. WARBURTON, from James Hitchens, Surgeon of Lincoln, for facilitating Anatomical Studies. By Mr. SHAW, from the Protestant Freemen of Galway, and from the Catholic Magistrates and Burgesses of that place, for the preservation of them peculiar Franchise attached to Galway; and from the Free Burgesses of
214
Galway, for the Repeal of the Stamp-duty on the admission of Freemen to Corporations; and complaining of an addition made to the last Annual Indemnity Act. By Sir RICHARD MUSGRAVE, from the Inhabitants of Dungarvon cappoquin, and other places, praying that the Ordnance Survey of certain parts of Ireland may be extended to Wexford. By Mr. PROTHEROE, from Thomas Howell, for the repeal of the Window Tax.

REFORM—EXPLANATIONS.
The Marquis of Chandossaid, that he had observed in a morning paper some observations attributed to the hon. and gallant Member near him (Colonel Sibthorp) referring to him. Amongst other expressions was this—"He would not stop to characterize the noble Marquis's conduct." He wished to know whether the hon. and gallant Member had uttered that language, and whether these words were intended to apply personally to him?
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that being thus called upon, he felt bound to give a clear explanation. He had no hesitation in saying, that the words of the newspaper were never used by him, although he considered that he had some right to complain that the noble Marquis had irregularly anticipated him in respect of a clause in the Reform Bill, and he had felt some regret in consequence. He was, however, happy to understand that there was no occasion to persevere in the motion, as the provision which they both had the same intention to propose was inserted in the present Bill.
The Marquis of Chandosfelt, that the explanation of the hon. and gallant Member was completely satisfactory, as he had denied using the words ascribed to him.

REFORM.
Mr. Charles Dundaspresented a Petition from Richmond, Yorkshire, in favour of a Reform in the Commons House of Parliament.
Lord Morpethobserved, that this petition which was signed by 5,000 persons proved, that the disposition in favour of Reform was not confined to the manufacturing classes in Yorkshire, but was equally strong amongst the agricultural community, and he therefore regretted that the right hon. Gentleman, the member for Aldeburgh was not present, that he might make him aware of the fact. He wished to take this opportunity of adverting to a statement which was reported to have been made in that House by the hon. member for Preston (Mr. Hunt). The hon. Member was reported to have said, that the Whig Government Paper in Leeds had excited the populace to shed his (Mr. Hunt's) blood. Nobody in that House

215
had thought it necessary seriously to refute such a charge; but the Editors of the Leeds Mercury, which he presumed was the paper alluded to, had written to him (Lord Morpeth), requesting him distinctly to contradict this statement. The Journal in question was one of considerable circulation, and most respectably conducted. He had accordingly to satisfy himself whether the statement of the hon. Member were correct, looked through the copies of the paper published at the period alluded to by the hon. member for Preston, and he was perfectly satisfied that the Editors were quite innocent of the dark design attributed to them by the hon. Member. The Editors of the Leeds Mercury opposed the hon. member for Preston on public grounds, and they were incapable he believed, of resorting to any mode of warfare inconsistent with fair political discussion.
Mr. Stricklandsaid, that knowing the severe and unjust imputations which the hon. member for Preston sometimes made, he had doubted the fact the moment the hon. member for Preston made the statement; and his impression was confirmed upon looking through the numbers of the newspaper which were published at the period referred to. He was acquainted with the editors, who were persons of strict honour—had always endeavoured by their writings to maintain peace and goodwill, and who could not, he was sure, on this or any other occasion, have been guilty of so foul a crime as had been imputed to them.
Mr. Huntsaid, that the newspaper in question spoke of "cracking his skull," and he wished to ask the hon. members for Yorkshire whether that could have been done without shedding his blood. The article to which he referred had appeared in the Leeds Mercury the week before he had entered Leeds. He had been invited to visit that place by some gentlemen who were of the same opinion as himself, that the working classes were by no means unanimous in their approbation of the Reform Bill brought in by the Ministers. A meeting took place in consequence, and he was about putting the question, "that all those who were of opinion that the Reform Bill of his Majesty's Ministers was calculated to work general good do hold up their hands," when Mr. Baines interfered; the question was, however, put, and probably about a dozen hands were raised in its support. He had then said "Let all those who have no confidence in Ministers hold
216
up their hands;" instantly there were 10,000 hands held up, that was the feeling among the working classes, and it was from his having proved this to be the case, that he had excited the enmity of the editor of the paper in question, and most assuredly he would not retract the expression he had used, as he believed it to be well deserved.
Lord Morpethsaid, the words "cracking skulls" might have been mentioned in the paper in question; but that did not prove, that the editor recommended any one to make the attempt on the hon. member for Preston.
Mr. Hunt: Will you take upon you to say that no such words are used?
Lord Morpeth: I cannot say the words are not used, but I do venture to say, that no such words are used for the purpose of exciting the people against you.
Petition to be printed.

ESSEX PETITION.
Mr. Western Mr. Western rose to present a Petition in favour of the Ministerial Measure of Parliamentary Reform from the Nobility, Gentry, Freeholders, and other the inhabitants of the county of Essex. The petition was the result of a public meeting, composed, he acknowledged, exclusively of the friends of the Bill, and assembled under peculiar circumstances, the High Sheriff having thought proper to decline calling the meeting, although a requisition had been presented to him, signed by nearly 1,600 persons of respectability. He was not aware how or where the Sheriff's authority was defined, but the practice had usually been, for the Sheriffs to convene their respective counties when requested so to do by a number of influential persons resident within them. He begged it to be understood, that he made no complaint of the conduct of the High Sheriff, who assigned as his reasons for not calling the county together, that there had been already two county meetings during the year, besides a contested election, which had sufficiently manifested the sentiments of the freeholders, and there was, therefore, no occasion for a third meeting, which in times of excitement had better be avoided. This reasoning on the part of the Sheriff was not applicable to existing circumstances, for since the last meeting, important events had taken place. The Reform Bill had been rejected by the House of Lords, which rendered it necessary that the people should universally declare their sentiments with regard to that disastrous event. It was a period of hopes and fears,

217
of conflicting opinions, and much excitement, and the requisitionists, therefore, thought they ought to assemble and declare their sentiments by an Address to the Throne, and petitions to the two Houses of Parliament. When that opportunity was denied them by the refusal of the High Sheriff to convene a county meeting, they had no other resource to prove that no change of opinions had taken place in their minds, as had been asserted, than to call such meeting under the sanction of a certain number of Magistrates. The meeting accordingly took place, and was respectably, although not very numerously attended for the Conservative Reform party, as they called themselves, having given out they did not, mean to attend, many of the supporters of Reform, in the more distant parts of the country, consequently did not come to the meeting, which was therefore composed of part of the Reformers only. Of course the resolutions proposed were unanimously carried, and were embodied in the petition he held in his hands. The petitioners expressed themselves in strong language with regard to the decision of the House of Lords in rejecting the Reform Bill—language in which, however, he completely coincided, for he thought with the petitioners, that the conduct of their Lordships was extraordinary and calamitous. The majority of the Peers were decidedly opposed to public opinion, and such a position in one branch of the Legislature was fraught with dangerous consequences: the events that had occurred since their decision, would be remembered with pain, and their effects for a long time deplored. By their rejection of the Bill they had completely played into the hands of democrats and demagogues who had not failed to profit by the advantage given them. The meeting was decidedly of opinion, that no measure of Reform less efficient and comprehensive than the late Bill would be satisfactory to the people in general, or adequately restore their just and legitimate rights in electing the Members of the Commons House of Parliament. In that opinion he most fully concurred, and should not be satisfied with any measure less comprehensive than the Bill which had been lost. He believed the Bill which had been now introduced was of that character, and therefore he was determined to support it. He wished, however, not to pledge himself to all the details, some of which he did not consider as amendments upon the former Bill, except, they were considered as the
218
means of conciliation, and in that point of view they were highly desirable. The petition he had the honour of requesting might be brought up, was signed by the Chairman only, on behalf of the meeting, in consequence of the length of the discussion by the introduction of a variety of extraneous topics, so that at the conclusion of the meeting there was no time or opportunity to adopt the usual course.
The petition read; it was signed by Sir Thomas Barrett Lennard, on behalf of the county of Essex.
Mr. Long Wellesleysupported the petition, and felt satisfied, that in giving his vote in favour of the new Reform Bill, he was in no degree departing from the pledge which he had given to his constituents.
Mr. Huntsaid, he must call the attention of the House to a remark that had fallen from the hon. Member who had presented the petition, and who had said, that he regretted the conduct of the House of Lords, in throwing out the Reform Bill, because they had played into the hands of democrats and demagogues. The Bill, at least, had given no such handle to radical demagogues or radical democrats, though it would to Whig demagogues and Whig democrats.
Mr. George Dawsonsaid, he had been requested by several gentlemen of the county of Essex, to state to the House, that this petition was not the petition of the county, but only that of the 600 or 700 individuals who had attended the meeting. He did not wish to depreciate the petition more than it deserved, for he was ready to acknowledge, that amongst the number who did attend, were many very respectable persons, and he was glad to observe the tone of moderation with which the petition had been introduced, arising, no doubt, from the consciousness of the hon. Members, that it was not a declaration of the sentiments of the county at large, and that the inhabitants had not responded to the call which had been made upon them. There had been great skill and industry employed in getting up the meeting, and even a public breakfast provided, but only 300 or at most 400 persons attended, to the mortification of those who had planned a trap baited with all the delicacies of the season, for the advocates of the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. Taking these circumstances into consideration, he did not think the petition entitled to the weight that was generally attached to county

219
petitions. Moreover, as it had been declared to be the petition of the friends of the Bill, if the county of Essex, which contained 300,000 inhabitants, could muster only 600 friends of the Bill, it was not a very clear manifestation of the feelings of the county at large in favour of Reform. As to the High Sheriff, he thought that gentleman had exercised a very sound discretion in declining to convene the county, after a former meeting on the same question, and the thinness of the meeting showed, that his refusal had not disappointed the county. He thought, also, that the High Sheriff had much reason to congratulate himself on not being present at a meeting where the Established Church was held up to execration and obloquy. He alluded particularly to the language made use of by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Daniel W. Harvey); that hon. Gentleman was a Dissenter, and might not be greatly attached to the Church of England, but he understood the attack he had made upon it, was so gross as even to excite a feeling of abhorrence in the auditors. He trusted, that the detestation then manifested would be re-echoed throughout the kingdom. It was time, that Gentlemen should see, that under the colour of Reform, an attack was to be made upon all our established institutions, and more particularly on the Church. He trusted that those hon. Members who were attached to that venerable establishment, would be prepared to act as the advocates of its rights, and if no check was put to the propagation of similar sentiments to those uttered by the hon. Member, who, he believed spoke with sincerity, then an occasion would arrive for seriously defending the Church sooner than many hon. Members expected.
Mr. Daniel W. Harveywas convinced, that in making these statements, the right hon. member for Harwich (Mr. Dawson), was merely reporting facts that had been conveyed to him. But if the right hon. Gentleman meant to assert that his observations had been received with execration, by the persons present at the Essex Meeting, he would say, in return, that this statement was as erroneous as that which referred to the numbers present. The right hon. Member only did him justice in asserting, that he sincerely believed the opinions he uttered. It was the opinion of the best friends of the Established Church, in that House, and out of that House, and he would second it by voice and
220
vote, that the religious and political institutions of the country ought to be disconnected. The prevailing sentiment at the Essex meeting was one of deep regret, that the conduct of the Bishops, in the decision of the House of Lords on the Reform Bill, had strengthened a feeling of hostility to the Church. The right hon. Gentleman had rated those who attended the meeting at between 600 and 700 persons; whereas there were at least 1,000 or 1,200; and one reason why the attendance was so limited was, that the county felt satisfied in the declaration of Ministers, that the Bill which they intended to bring forward, should be as efficient as the Bill of last session. Was it to be concluded, that all who did not attend the meeting were Anti-reformers? The truth was, that the county was unanimous for Reform, and he doubted whether an opponent of the measure could be found, beyond the Corporation of Harwich, which had such solid reasons for opposition. Those who were called Anti-reformers showed no want of tact upon this occasion, for they issued a counter address on the morning of the meeting, in which they set forth the necessity of Reform, arising out of the state of the public mind, in terms to which no reformer at that meeting would have refused to subscribe. His principal object in rising was, not to repel an attack, for he believed the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to make one, but simply to assure the House, he had not been heard with execration, but the same feeling was manifested there as was general throughout the country, and that was, a feeling of deep regret, that certain Members of the other House should have given the real enemies of the Church such a prodigious advantage.
Mr. Lennardwas surprised at the statement made by the right hon. member for Harwich. He had hoped that the lesson the right hon. Gentleman had received at the Sussex meeting, would have prevented his future interference with counties with which he had no connexion. He regretted, however, as the right hon. Member would persist in interfering, that he had not been present at the Essex meeting, for he was sure the hon. member for Colchester had much underrated the Members present. In his opinion at least 2,000 persons attended the meeting in question. The weight to be attached to it was not, however, to be derived from the numbers present, but from the circumstances that called it together. The requisition had been signed by between 1,500

221
and 1,600 of the most respectable persons in Essex, and there would have been an overwhelming display of numerical force, had it not been expected that the Resolutions would pass without opposition. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to remarks which had been uttered at that meeting, relating to the Established Church. The allusion could not apply to him, but he suspected that the right hon. Gentleman had received his information as to what had been said respecting the Established Church, from an incorrect source. Perhaps he had derived it from the reports in the London papers, which, on this occasion, were not distinguished by their usual accuracy. He said this, because he knew it to be the case with what he had said himself at that meeting, as well as the reports given of what other Gentlemen had said on the occasion. With respect to the Church, he must say, as a friend to that establishment, that there would be no safety for it, unless some of its own friends undertook a revision of its laws and condition. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, what was the moral to be drawn from the feeling which had been exhibited towards the Church at the different Reform meetings which had lately taken place throughout the country? Was it not evident, that the Legislature must shortly turn its attention towards such methods as would allay the angry feelings which now prevailed towards the Church, and endeavour to conciliate the people? This was a measure which must be undertaken by Ministers, and he did hope, that so soon as they had leisure for so important a task, the opportunity would not be lost. With respect to the petition now before the House, he trusted he might be permitted to bear his testimony to the strong feeling in favour of Reform which pervaded the whole county of Essex. This petition was adopted in the full confidence that the measure of Reform to be brought forward would be found as efficient as the last. He was happy to say, the petitioners would not be disappointed. He was of the same opinion as his hon. friend, with regard to the new Bill, and while it was calculated to conciliate many opponents, it was, in all material points, quite as efficient as the last measure.
Mr. Westerntrusted the House would permit him to make a few observations, in reference to the remarks which had been made by the right hon. member for Harwich (Mr. Dawson), who, although not
222
present, had confounded the sentiments of the meeting with those expressed by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. D. W. Harvey). Such a mode of inference was unfair, and the meeting at large ought not to be considered responsible for individual opinions. The House, he trusted, would look to the petition as the index of the opinions of the meeting. Certainly many observations were made at the meeting not relevant to the question of Reform. The hon. member for Colchester had delivered opinions upon several most important questions, in none of which he agreed, and he was conscious the feelings of the meeting were not with the hon. Member. If he thought otherwise, if he believed the opinions of the freeholders of Essex were so different from his own on these subjects, he should no longer desire to represent that county.
Mr. Wellesleycould assure the right hon. Gentleman, the member for Harwich, that the members for the county of Essex had no need of profuse expense to keep the reforming interest together. As a proof of the spirit that prevailed on the subject of Reform, he must adduce the fact, that his colleague and himself had been returned free of all expense at the last election; and a balance of the subscription still remained in hand. With respect to the public breakfast which the hon. Member had been so severe upon, it had been given chiefly to his tenants, as a mark of his attention. No exertions were made by Reformers to get up the meeting, but great exertions were made by their opponents to prevent it. It was no less singular than true, that though a variety of influential places in the county were held by persons who did all in their power to traverse the views of Ministers and their supporters, the feeling in favour of Reform was still general and strong.
Petition to be printed.

POST OFFICE TAX ON NEWSPAPERS.
On the Motion by Lord Althorp, that the House should resolve itself into a, Committee on the Lottery Ticket Bill.
Sir Richard Vyvyanbegged to take that opportunity to ask the Secretary of the Treasury certain questions relative to the management of the Post-office. It appeared from certain statements which had recently got into circulation, that a tax was levied at the Post-office, by what authority he knew not, on all Newspapers sent from abroad, and on all British papers

223
sent out of the country. The price of a Paris paper to any person residing in London was 10 l. a-year. Now it was well known that the price of that paper in Paris was little more than 3l. He wished to know whether the extra 7l. charged to the English subscriber, went into the coffers of the Post-office, or into those of the Post-office Clerks, and if into those of the latter, by what authority, parliamentary or otherwise? There was also a tax imposed in the same quarter, by whose authority he knew not, on British papers imported into our colonies, This was a serious injury to the revenue at home, and also to our colonists abroad. He wished to know by what authority both the tax on foreign papers imported into this country, and the tax on British papers exported to our own colonies, was imposed?
Mr. Spring Ricewas not prepared with an answer to these questions at present, but would be to-morrow. He admitted the subject was of much importance, and he would have it investigated.
Bill committed; Report to be received to-morrow.

TITHES (IRELAND).
Mr. Humesaid, that in consequence of a Return having been ordered on a former evening on the motion of the hon. member for the University of Oxford (Sir Robert Inglis), respecting the Tithes which were the property of Laymen in Ireland, he wished, in order that the Returns might be complete, to obtain a similar Return respecting the Tithes which were in the hands of Churchmen in that country. He therefore begged leave to move, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this House, a Return, by the Registrar in each diocese in Ireland, of the number of parishes, the tithes of which, or a modus, are in whole or in part the property of, and paid to the use of any Bishop or person in Holy Orders, specifying the name of such Bishop or person in Holy Orders, and the amount of the income which he has derived from tithes, or from a modus, from each such parish or extra parochial place, on the average of the last three years on account of tithes and modus, stating, if under the Tithe Composition Act, or not; distinguishing whether the tithes be rectorial or vicarial, and the amount levied on arable and pasture land, respectively."
Mr. Goulburnsaid, this was a most
224
tremendous Motion, and if it were agreed to he knew not how it could be executed.
Mr. Humesaid, there was no other novelty in the Motion than that it distinguished the arable from the pasture land, a distinction he was ready to expunge, if there was any objection to it.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he did not understand the objections of the right hon. Gentleman to lie so much to the information called for, as to the means of obtaining it, and he was also of opinion, that there would be the utmost difficulty in procuring it, particularly with the nice distinctions required.
Sir Richard Vyvyandeclared himself equally hostile to the motion of his hon. friend the member for Oxford, and to the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex. But as the motion of his hon. friend had been granted, he did not see how the other Motion could be resisted. Both attacked the rights of property. It was not, however, surprising that the hon. member for Middlesex should press for this Return, because he had always avowed, that he considered the property of the Church national property. He held different opinions. He looked upon Church property as the property either of individuals or of Corporations, and if the House demanded these Returns, it might with equal justice demand from every Gentleman in that House the amount of the rents which he received for his estate. Indeed many estates were held on the same tenure; if therefore the property of the Church of England belonged to the State, so also did that part of the Church property which had been purchased by individuals as well as that which had been granted to noble families in the time of Henry 8th; rather than see the principle acknowledged, that tithes were national property, he would prefer seeing his hon. friend's order cancelled, and the question now before them withdrawn.
Mr. Humesaid, all he wanted was, to have both Motions put upon the same footing; if the hon. Member would give notice of his intention to withdraw his motion, he (Mr. Hume) would most likely follow his example.
Sir Charles Wetherellalso objected to the Motion, but was not surprised, that the hon. member for Middlesex had made it, considering the doctrines which he had propagated so sedulously regarding Church property being national property. If the object of the hon. Member's Motion was to

225
form a kind of schedule to facilitate the carrying of that point, he would at once say, the House could not concur with him.
Mr. Humesaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had put a construction upon his Motion which the words would not bear, but if the object of his Motion necessarily was, to despoil one class of persons, the motion of the hon. member for Oxford was open to the same objections. He was not in the House when that motion was made, but on seeing it he thought it quite right to have the whole view of the case before them.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, he must protest against the insinuations that the motion he had made was unfairly
carried, or that it could be attended with any danger to the Church establishment. He had moved for the same Return in April, 1830, and then had no idea there were objections to it; but on the re-assembling of Parliament, as he had found no Return had been made to his former motion, he had renewed it, when he understood there were difficulties which prevented such a Return being made out. No objection, however, had then been urged to its principles. On that occasion he had stated, that he had objections to the interference of the House with property of any kind, but as invidious attempts had been made to drag the clerical holders of tithes before the public, he wished to have the same measure of justice dealt out to the lay holders. His object had been limited to that point, and to ascertain if the lay-holders possessed any stipend which ought to belong to the clergy.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, that it was impossible that any Return could be made either to the motion of the hon. member for Oxford, or to that of the hon. member for Middlesex. To whom was either order to be addressed?—by whom was it to be obeyed? They might as well ask every Gentleman in Ireland to tell them the amount of the rents of his estate, as every lay or Church impropriator to tell them the amount of his tithes. Besides, what authority had they to compel such a Return from either Church or lay impropriator? They might order every lawyer in Ireland to tell them the amount of his fees, but by what authority could they obtain an answer to such an order? He thought it advisable that the hon. member for Oxford should move, that his order be rescinded, and then he thought that the hon. member for Middlesex would not object to withdraw his Motion. At the
226
same time, he wished for the information as much as the hon. Members themselves, for he was satisfied, the more the state of Church property was investigated, the less reason would there be found for the exaggerated accounts that had gone abroad respecting its property.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he entirely acquiesced in the very sensible and judicious view of this question which had been taken by the Solicitor-General for Ireland. If the motion of his hon. friend, the member for the University of Oxford, was persevered in, for a Return from the lay impropriators, that furnished a sufficient precedent for a Return of tithes held by the clergy; but there were strong objections to publish the names of the clerical holders of tithes in the present excited state of the public mind. As the Secretary of State for Ireland had given notice of a motion relating to tithes, perhaps the whole question had better be left in his hands. At all events, he should recommend his hon. friend to give notice to have his order cancelled, and he had no doubt the hon. member for Middlesex would withdraw that before the House.
Mr. Shawsaid, if these Motions were persevered in, he should make a similar motion with respect to England, for surely Church property in each ought to be placed upon an equal footing.
Mr. Sheildid not see what good ground of objection existed to the Motions. Returns had been already made from 1,191 clergymen who had made composition for their tithes, and the amount for which the composition was made; and he did not see why Returns should be refused from those parishes where no such composition had been made. Why such objections were made when they had obtained Returns from all the Irish Bishops, except three, he could not imagine. These Returns, too, be it recollected, gave the actual amount of these sees. When they had lately got so much insight into the temporal affairs of the Irish Church, he was surprised that such impediments were now started to their obtaining more complete ones, especially as the Irish Primate himself had allowed that it was advisable such Returns should be furnished, to convince the public that the revenues of the Church had been much exaggerated.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, there was a great difference between the Returns now sought for, and those made pursuant to Act of Parliament. Under the Tithe Composition

227
Act, the amount was registered, and there could be no difficulty in obtaining it in each case.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, he did not see why the hon. member for Middlesex had coupled their Motions together; however, he was ready to give notice that his should be rescinded.
Mr. Humesaid, the whole proceeding only shewed, that the hon. member for Oxford could meddle with the Church without any question, while the hon. member for Middlesex was forbidden to do so. He would therefore postpone his Motion, and when the hon. Member gave notice of the discharge of his, he (Mr. Hume) would be prepared to shew the necessity for the Return he required. At all events, three preceding Parliaments had sanctioned the principle of such a Return.
Motion withdrawn, and Sir Robert Inglis gave notice, that he would move to have his order rescinded.

COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
Mr. Robinson Mr. Robinson moved for Copies of all the Treaties relative to Trade and Navigation entered into between Great Britain and other States; also specifying those States with which no such Treaties were entered into.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that the Return would be very voluminous, and not necessary: almost all these treaties were already before the House, and nearly all of them published in a more commodious shape than they would be under the Order of the House. If the hon. Member only wished for one or two particular treaties, there would be no objection to grant them, but the Return to the Motion, as it now stood, would occasion a great deal of unnecessary expense.
Mr. Humesaid, on a late occasion a treaty nearly two centuries old had been produced to them, and the House were told then proceedings must be founded upon such a document as that, of which the existence was not previously known. He had at that time declared it as his opinion, that it was advisable that a complete List of the Treaties in force should be made out, or that there should be some authorized means of reference to them which would obviate the inconvenience of an almost obsolete treaty being brought forward unexpectedly for the purpose of influencing their judgment.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, he had no wish to create expense, or cause unnecessary trouble,
228
but he was not aware where he could obtain the information he required His Motion did not refer to political treaties but to those merely connected with commerce and navigation, and he thought it of importance to know with what States we had such treaties, particularly as we seemed to be going on a system as if no treaties were necessary, or as if they intended everything to find its own level. However, he would not press his Motion.
Motion withdrawn.