Sitting of 28 February 1831

MINUTES.
Mr. ELLICE moved for a New Writ for the Shire of Nairn, in the room of the Hon. Geo. Campbell, who, since his election, had accepted the office of Groom of the Bedchamber.
Mr. WYNN brought up the Array Mutiny Bill, which was read a first time.
The Bankrupt Acts Amendment Bill was read a second time.
On the Motion of Mr. HUNT, a Select Committee was appointed to examine the Petitions for Reform, to distinguish those which prayed for Vote by Ballot, and to report the same to the House.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. PHILLPOTTS, the Customs Duty paid at Sidney Creek, within the Port of Gloucester, in the three years ended on 5th January, 1831; distinguishing each year, and the quantities and species of Roods for which the duties were paid, and whether such duties were paid for goods carried coast ways, or to foreign parts; also, the total amount of the Salaries paid, and Expenses incurred, for the establishment of the Custom House at Sidney Creek, for the three years ended on 5th January, 1831; distinguishing each year, the number of Officers belonging to the establishment, and the estimated average number of hours per day, during which each Officer was actually employed in the discharge of his duty.
Petitions presented. In favour of Parliamentary Reform, by Mr. BELL, from Hexham, and other places in the County of Northumberland:—By Mr. L. HODGES, from the East Division of Kent, and from the Parish of Bethel: —By Mr. BURKE, from Exeter, and other places in Devonshire: — By Mr. WILKS, from Long Sutton:—By Lord EBRINGTON, from Newton Abbott, and from Shebbeare:—By Mr. STRUTT, from the Borough of Derby:— By Mr. MTLDMAY, from the Corporation of the City of Winchester:—By Mr. EGERTON, from the Town of Mac-clesficld:—By Sir G. GREVILLE, from the Borough of Warwick:—By Mr. WILBRAHAM, from the Town of Nantwich, in the County of Chester:—By Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, from Basingstoke:—By Mr. JONES, from the Borough and County of Caernarvon:—By Sir F. BLAKE, from Berwick-upon-Tweed:—By Sir R. PEEL, from the Royal Burgh of Banff:—By Mr. L. LEE, from Hminster and Hindon:—By Mr. ADEANE, from Wisbeach, St. Mary, Isle of Ely, Milbourne, the Parish of Fording, and other places in the County of Cambridge:—By Mr. RIM-BOLD, from Great Yarmouth:—By Sir M. W. RIDLEY, from Barnard Castle:—By Sir R. BATESON, from Londonderry:—By Mr. JONES, from Carmarthen:—By Lord ALTHORP, from the County of Pembroke:—By Mr. G. LAMP, from Melbourne:—By Mr. J. WOOD, from the City of York, and from a Society at Birmingham:— By Mr. LONG WELLESLET, from the County of Essex:—By Mr. MABERLY, from Croydon and Abingdon:—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Walter Honeywood Yates, Esq.:—By Sir T. ACLAND, from Plymouth:—By Mr. Alderman WOOD, from the Householders of the Ward of Cripple-
1006
gate:— By Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN, from the parish of St. Dunstan, Stepney:—By Sir J. GRAHAM, from Leith, Lanark, and Monmouth:—By Mr. HUNT, from the Parish of Christchurch—also, for a Repeal of the Corn Laws; from Haslington, Lancashire; Somerton, Somersetshire; Yeovil, Somersetshire; Bury St. Edmond's; London; Ashford-in-the-Water; Thane, in Oxfordshire; Macclesfield, Cheshire; from Chorley; Oldham Road, and other places near Manchester:—By Lord NUGENT, from Aylesbury, and two other places in Buckinghamshire:—By Mr. C. GRANT, from Inverness and Peebles:—By Mr. BAIN-BRIDGK, from Taunton. Against Reform, by sir R. PEEL, from the Hector, Curate, Churchwardens, and others, of the parish of Micklemarsh, in the County of Southampton. The Petitioners deprecated Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot. Complaining of Distress in Ireland, and praying for Relief, by Mr. JOHN SMITH, from the Inhabitants of Erris.

MR. O'CONNELL AND THE IRISH GOVERNMENT.
Mr. O'Connellrose to present a Petition from Leighlin-bridge, for a Repeal of the Legislative Union. He would take advantage of that occasion to ask the right hon. Secretary for Ireland a question, with reference to a declaration of his on a former occasion—namely, that he (Mr. O'Connell) had, through his friends, offered to enter into a compromise with the Irish Government, with a view to averting the penal results of a then pending prosecution. But before he formally asked the right hon. Gentleman whether and on what grounds he had made this declaration, he begged leave to say, that he had authorised no person on his behalf to offer any terms of compromise, and that no such compromise was proffered to his knowledge. Some persons had told him, on the other hand, that they felt themselves authorised to say that, the Government would very gladly enter into such a compromise with him; but after the unqualified denial in that House of the right hon. Gentleman, he believed that such was not the fact. Having made this preliminary declaration, in fairness to himself and the right hon. Gentleman, he begged leave then to distinctly ask him, whether any persons had proffered such a compromise on his behalf? and if so, he asked him to state their names to the House. There could be no delicacy in disclosing their names, because, if they were accredited agents, he—on the supposition the principal—asked for publicity; and if they were not his agents, it was but common justice to hold them up as impostors.
Mr. Stanleyfelt no hesitation in giving the hon. Member all the information in his power. When, on a former occasion, he was asked by a noble Marquis (Chandos), whether the Irish Government had

1007
entered into a compromise with the hon. Member, by which the prosecution against him would be abandoned, though the question came upon him somewhat by surprise, he stated—what he then most distinctly repeated—that the Irish Government had not only not entered into such a compromise themselves, but would not, and had moreover refused to hold any negotiations with those persons who had proffered such a compromise on the part of the hon. Member. He on that occasion had also stated, and then would repeat, that a letter had been laid before him by one or two friends of the hon. Member, the purport of which was, to induce the Irish Government, on certain specified grounds, to forego the prosecution pending against the hon. Member. He would then go further, and inform the House, that the document to which he alluded was in the hand-writing of the hon. Member's son-in-law, and was enclosed in a letter to Mr. Bennett, the hon. Member's professional and private friend, written by the hon. Member's own son. The purport of this letter was moreover declared to him to be dictated by the hon. Member himself, and he had reason to believe that such was the fact. Then, with respect to the individuals who had laid this letter before him, with a view, but in vain, of inducing the Irish Government to compromise the prosecution then pending against the hon. Member, he was authorised to declare their names, and they were the Earl of Glengall and Mr. Bennett. That noble Lord and Mr. Bennett, he repeated, waited on him, and laid before him a letter written, as he had before stated, by the hon. Member's son-in-law, the purport of which was declared to be dictated by the hon. Member himself, and enclosed in a note to Mr. Bennett from the hon. Member's own son, for the purpose of inducing the law authorities in Ireland to abandon the prosecution, on certain terms of compromise with the hon. Member. The answer was, that no such compromise would be for a moment entertained by the Irish Government, and that the law must take its course. And for the truth of these facts, he referred the hon. Member to Mr. Bennett and to the Earl of Glengall. He hoped he had given the hon. Member's question a most explicit answer.
Mr. O'Connellcould not but admit that his question had been auswered most
1008
satisfactorily by the right hon. Gentleman. He was glad that the proposition of a compromise was thus traced to Mr. Bennett and the Earl of Glengall. With respect to that noble Lord's interference, all he could say was, that it was without his knowledge, for he had had no communication with Lord Glengall on the subject whatever. With respect to Mr. Bennett, the case stood thus:—That gentleman had written to him (Mr. O'Connell) from London, three letters, stating that an individual, not an actual member of the Government, was authorised by certain persons in office to make propositions of great personal advantage to himself, with a view of bringing about a compromise between him and the Irish law authorities. His answer was, that he should first hear upon what terms the Government would dictate the compromise, so far as it referred to its intentions towards Ireland; and that for himself he would not enter into any compromise. He moreover desired that Mr. Bennett should not write to him again on this point of personal compromise. Mr. Bennett's last letter was written on the 6th of January; from which day till the 5th of February he had no communication, nor even then but through his son, to whom Mr. Bennett addressed himself, stating as his reason,— "Your father having refused to listen to any compromise, I address myself to you." On receipt of this letter, he certainly, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, did dictate to his son-in-law the terms on which, alone he would enter into a compromise, and the declaration, in his son-in-law's hand-writing, was enclosed in a letter of his son to Mr. Bennett. But what did his son say in this note to Mr. Bennett? Why "that my father has been so much deceived and deluded by the present Administration, that he will not enter into any negotiation with any of its members, till it first consents to abandon the prosecution against him without any equivocation." And his son added, that "as it may not be exactly conformable with the dignity of the Irish Government to formally abandon the prosecution, my father will not insist on a formal abandonment." His son then specified the terms on which alone he would consent to a compromise,—namely, first, that the prosecution should be unequivocally withdrawn, and, secondly, that the Irish Government should state what measures of relief were intended towards Ireland. He added,

1009
that as the benefit and prosperity of Ireland was the end of all his (Mr. O'Connell's) endeavours in that House and elsewhere, and as the measure for a Repeal of the Union was regarded by him only as a means towards that end, he should consent to relinquish the agitation of that question, if the measures of the Government tended to the benefit and prosperity of Ireland. This was all the compromise proffered on his part. The hon. Member proceeded to say, that he could not deny that the Government had entered into no compromise with him with respect to the prosecutions against him—none whatever; but neither had he entered into any with the Government. He was as free as ever to advocate those political opinions which rendered him obnoxious in the eyes of the present Administration; therefore, as no compromise had originated from him, or from the Irish law authorities, he was warranted to say, that it must have sprung up between them both. Then as to the prosecution still pending against him, the matter stood thus:—There were originally thirty-one counts, in two indictments, entered against him; seventeen under common-law, charging him with "fraud, conspiracy and sedition," and fourteen charging him with the violation of a Statute, (10th George 4th,) which empowered the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland to suppress, by proclamation, meetings tending to a breach of the peace. The former—the seventeen common-law-counts—had been, without solicitation on his part, abandoned by the Irish Government; and he was warranted to conclude, that they were so because they could not be maintained. With respect to the fourteen other counts, —to those charging him with defying a proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant,— he had demurred; and he, and seven other gentlemen, also charged with the same misdemeanour, having sworn that they had not committed the offence alleged against them, and by so doing could not plead guilty to the charge (as had been stated elsewhere) he had withdrawn his plea of demurrer; and there the matter at present rested. He would not say, that the Attorney General in Ireland might not, on the first day of next Term, mark judgment against him, but he maintained, that that judgment could not be declared against him till his Writ of Error had been argued, first before the twelve Judges in Ireland, and, if necessary, be-
1010
fore the House of Lords here. And here he thought, it right to state, that as the seven gentlemen associated with him in the indictment had acted on his suggestion as a lawyer, he, and he only, should be liable to all the legal consequences. It might be asked, why he had given up his chance of acquittal by a Jury? His answer, he little expected, after the sneers and laughter with which his declarations were usually received in that House, would receive much credit or sympathy, but as it was the truth, he would state it. It was, because he dreaded the consequences to the peace of his country by the excitement which the trial would inevitably have produced, that he waived his chance of acquittal. He knew that all business would be at a perfect stand-still in Dublin during the five or six days the trial would last; — he knew that the trades of Dublin would have escorted him with craped banners to the number of 30,000; that at least 2,000 respectable inhabitants of that city would have attended him each day to the Courts; and above all, that processions, including thousands upon thousands of an excited multitude, from all the counties adjoining Dublin, and even extending to Wicklow, Meath, Kilkenny, Roscommon, and Cavan, would have filled the streets, anxious for the result; and because, knowing all this, and devoted as he was to the political regeneration of Ireland, he would not consent that, that regeneration should be purchased even at the risk of shedding a single drop of human blood [The hon. Member was interrupted at this point of his speech by a voice from the gallery pronouncing with great emphasis of tone, "That's a lie." The individual who gave utterance to it was immediately taken into custody.] The hon. Member repeated that he had entered into no compromise with the Irish Government, nor had it entered into any compromise with him.
Mr. Stanleyappealed to the House whether the statement of the hon. Member had not fully borne him out in his declaration of that and a former evening, namely, that the Irish Government would not listen to any compromise whatever with the hon. Member, and that the proposal for such a compromise emanated from the friends of the hon. Member himself. The hon. Member admitted that he had dictated certain terms of compromise to his son-in-law, and that these terms, thus

1011
dictated by himself, and in the hand-writing of his son-in-law, were enclosed by his own son in a letter to Mr. Bennett; and he admitted, that the Irish Government, before whom he (Mr. Stanley) had informed the House, Mr. Bennett and Lord Glengall had laid these documents with a view to inducing a compromise of the prosecution pending against the hon. Member had refused to enter into any compromise whatever with him; and by these admissions had borne out his (Mr. Stanley's) statement to the letter. Whether these individuals were authorized or not by the hon. Member, or acted with or without| his knowledge, was best known to himself, and affected not his (Mr. Stanley's) declaration. With regard to the prosecution, he would appeal to the House whether the hon. Member had not admitted the whole point in dispute between them. He would appeal to the House whether the fact on this point was not as he had stated it,—namely, that the indictment against the hon. and learned member for Waterford, being divided into two parts, for though it was one indictment in point of form, it was substantially two indictments, the first fourteen counts of it charged him and his confederates with having held meetings in defiance of a proclamation, to which an Act of Parliament had given all the force and sanction of law, and the last seventeen charged them with having entered into a conspiracy to hold them together. If he had misrepresented the facts of the case, and he thought that he could not be charged with misrepresenting them, even by the hon. and learned member for Waterford, he was open to correction; but he believed that both in the first fourteen and in the last sixteen counts of the indictment, the hon. and learned member for Waterford and his confederates were charged with distinct misdemeanours. The hon. and learned member for Waterford, when he was first informed that this indictment against him was in preparation, put forth the boldest declamations against it that ever came even from his lips. He said, first of all, that the proceedings of the Government were illegal —that the Law-Officers were acting wrongly—that they did not know what they were about—and that, when the Government brought its work to a conclusion, he would overwhelm it, for its ignorance, with scorn and confusion. What Was the result of this his first ebullition
1012
of folly and violence? Why, that when three-and-twenty gentlemen were empanelled as Grand Jurors, the learned Judge who addressed them, told them in terms as plain as any which the language could afford, that if they believed the facts to be such as the witnesses had sworn in their depositions, they must, in point of law, find a bill against the hon. and learned member for Waterford and his confederates. What then were the proceedings of the hon. and learned Member? He said, "I'll demur to the first fourteen counts of the indictment;" in other words, he admitted the facts which we alleged against him, and said, "Oh, you are completely wrong in law." Well, the Crown joined with him in demurrer, and then the hon. and learned Gentleman, in spite of all his legal quirks and astuteness, saw that there was good reason to withdraw his demurrer. Yes, the hon. and learned Gentleman, in spite of his contemptuous declaration, that he would teach law to the officers of the Crown,—a declaration which had as much courtesy in it as any other declaration of the hon. and learned Gentleman,—finding his case in law to be most defective, went upon another and a different tack, and endeavoured to join issue with the Crown on the facts. Before he put in his demurrer, the hon. and learned Member had threatened to overwhelm the Government with every species of scorn and raillery for its undertaking the prosecution against him. That was his first proceeding; then finding himself mistaken in his law, he wished to try his fortune on his facts; and then, finding that he was no better off on the facts that on the law of the case, he withdrew his pleas, and, oh lamentable conclusion to such magnificent vauntings! suffered judgment to pass against him for a misdemeanour. This being the case, what advantage could the Crown have derived from proceeding against the hon. and learned Member and his confederates on the sixteen other counts, which charged him with a different species of misdemeanour arising out of that which was substantially the same offence? The hon. and learned Member had told the House, that he had given up nothing to the Crown, and that the Crown in return had given up nothing to him. It was true, that the Crown had given nothing up to him, and for this plain reason,—that the Crown, in obtaining judgment against him on the first fourteen counts, had gained its ob-

1013
ject. The Government wished to avoid taking any measure which could bear the slightest appearance of personal persecution,—a mode of proceeding at all times to be deprecated, and therefore it had carefully abstained from pushing the prosecution against the hon. and learned Member and his associates any further than the point which it had already gained. The hon. and learned member for Waterford had said, that he did not expect to get much credit in that House for any assertion which he might make. With all the respect due to that hon. and learned Member, he must say, that that was a confession which he did not anticipate that hon. and learned Member would make. But when the hon. and learned Member said, that his only reason for shrinking from a trial by jury was, that he was unwilling to excite agitation in Ireland, did he expect to find any man in that House,—did he expect to find any man in the whole country, who recollect-a word of the thousand-and-one speeches which he had made at public meetings, or of the innumerable letters which he had circulated throughout Ireland, that would give him credit for a desire not to create agitation in the country? He felt that it was very difficult for him, called forward as he had been on this occasion, to enter into a discussion of the motives which impelled the hon. and learned Member to make such a declaration. He knew them not—more than that, he envied them not. He trusted that the House, if he had been betrayed into the use of any expressions which were inconsistent with its dignity or his own character,—which were not fit for him to use, or for them to hear [cries of "No, no"],—would make allowance for the occasion which called them forth. He was speaking under the correction of the Chair; but when the hon. and learned Gentleman was telling the House of his extraordinary anxiety that the public mind of Ireland should not be excited,—when he was proclaiming the intensity of his desire that there should be no agitation in Dublin,—when he was asserting that he was afraid of the violence of the people, whom he had himself been stimulating for years,—when he was declaring that he was fearful of the effects of his Own agitation,—he could not believe that after such an exhibition, the hon. and learned Member would get credit for his assertion, that he had refused to go to a
1014
trial before his country from a wish to allay or even to avoid agitation. He had a number of the speeches of the hon. and learned member for Waterford then with him in the House, but he could not find, that on all the occasions, or rather on any one of the occasions, on which the hon. and learned Gentleman had addressed his countrymen on the subject of the Repeal of the Union, he had treated it with that calm temperance of debate which was necessary to carry his point with the well-informed part of them, or had abstained from that indignant virulence which was certain to rouse the dangerous passions of the uninformed portion of them. Here were one or two of the passages, to which he (Mr. Stanley) was alluding, and to which he wished to call the attention of the House, because they illustrated, in a very extraordinary degree the desire which the hon. and learned Gentleman had to prevent any agitation,—any violation of the public peace in Ireland. [The hon. and learned Gentleman here read an extract from a speech of Mr. O'Connell, in Ireland, holding up to the admiration of the people of that country the endeavours of the people of Belgium and Poland to separate themselves from the sway of Holland and Russia respectively. In Ireland, he said, slavery still predominated: he hoped, however, to see the day, and that not far distant, when Ireland would be free. He looked upon her triumph as secure, because it would be bloodless.] Now, would the hon. and learned Member tell him that the example of Belgium and Poland was not, in that speech, held up to the imitation of Ireland, and that a Repeal of the Union between England and Ireland ought to be considered on the same footing as that between Belgium and Holland, or that between Poland and Russia? The hon. and learned Member then proceeded to tell his hearers—"We have surrendered our freedom—we are pitiful slaves, serfs who deserve only contempt and a blow: Irish negroes, whose very groans are the property of the English slave-owners." Were these, he would ask, the terms of calm and temperate debate? Was this the language of an individual anxious to prevent excitement? Was this the mode in which the legislative union between the two countries was to be dissolved, on the friendly footing upon which the hon. and learned Member professed his wish to dis-

1015
solve it? He did not know what the feelings of the hon. and learned Member were; whatever they might be, he, for one, did not envy them. He could hardly believe that the hon. and learned Member was in earnest when he said, after using such language, that he was not desirous to promote excitement. As to his own conduct, as Secretary for Ireland, he should be ready to enter into an examination of it, whenever the hon. and learned Member should carry into execution the threat which he had made, of bringing it under the consideration of the Mouse. The hon. and learned Member had threatened to call him to hold up his hand, like another Polignac, at the bar of that House, for his nefarious conduct in Ireland. The threat was, however, qualified with this provision, that he would not do this until he had a reformed Parliament. Let him wait but for a short month or two, and he would have a reformed Parliament. Then, when the hon. and learned Member had his reformed Parliament, he should be most ready to meet him before the assembled Representatives of the people, and to answer any charges which he might prefer against him. He could not, however, sit down on the present occasion without alluding to another instance of the hon. and learned Member's mode of avoiding excitement. He alluded to the extraordinary letter which the hon. and learned Gentleman had recently written to the Hurlers of Kilkenny. He called on the hon. and learned Gentleman to explain what that body is, which is known to the Constitution as the Hurlers of Kilkenny? [Here the right hon. Secretary read an extract from the letter. It was to this effect; —"When he had last addressed the Hurlers, he had advised them to desist from their proceedings, lest they should assume the appearance of tumult. He was happy to find that they had taken his advice. [Perhaps, said Mr. Stanley, there were other motives.] Now he could address them once more. Now was their time, not for meeting tumultuously, but for acting peaceably, and securing the return of his hon. friend, Colonel Butler, by constitutional agitation. Such of them as had votes should give them to Colonel Butler; such of them as had not votes, should use their influence over those who had;—in short, they ought to leave no means of constitutional agitation untried."] Who,
1016
he would ask, formed this body of Hurlers? Did not the hon. and learned Member know that it was a body of men who had kept the country for some time in confusion? Did not he know, that it was a body whose proceedings he had denounced as illegal and dangerous to the public peace? Did he not know, that it was the same body of men who, in his strong expressions, were palsying his arms and paralysing his efforts by their misconduct? And, knowing all this, did he deem it to be a constitutional course to call on such a body to use not their votes, but their influence, in obtaining votes, for his friend Colonel Butler? He felt that he owed an apology to the House for going into this subject on the present occasion. He could assure the House that he should not have entered upon it if the hon. and learned Member had not taken credit to himself for a desire to preserve tranquillity, and to avoid excitement in Ireland. So extraordinary an assertion had led him involuntarily into a course which did not, indeed, belong to the subject in hand, but into which he had been obliged to enter, in order to show, that though the hon. and learned member for Waterford now dreaded the effect of his own system, that system had not been to keep down, but to create agitation and excitement in the bosoms of the people of Ireland.
The Petition was brought up.
The Speakersaid,—I have to inform the House that a person is now in custody for the outrage which has just been committed.
Mr. O'Connell Mr. O'Connell, in moving that this petition be read, observed, that he wished to take notice of the speech of the right hon. Secretary of Ireland, which though it was triumphant in manner, and full of assertions of self-praise, appeared to him to be destitute of any rational foundation. He called the especial attention of the House to this fact, that the right hon. Secretary had not contradicted any part of his statement about the legal arrangements. The right hon. Secretary had said, that the Government had given up nothing in giving up the indictment against him for conspiring to hold illegal meetings, inasmuch as it had gained a conviction against him upon the indictment for holding meetings in defiance of a proclamation sanctioned by act of Parliament. Did the hon. Secretary, when he made that assertion, know, that that indictment was varied by charges of fraud,

1017
and by charges of sedition committed at meetings, and committed in speeches alleged to have been uttered with the express intent of bringing Government into contempt, and the Constitution into disregard? Had the right hon. Secretary even denied that there was moral guilt in that part of the indictment? So much for that part of the right hon. Secretary's speech. Now for another. He had never uttered a wish that there should be no agitation in Ireland. He desired that there should be agitation in England for Parliamentary Reform, in Ireland for the Repeal of the Union. If there had been no agitation on the subject of Reform in England, would not that subject still have continued to slumber in that House, with paltry minorities of fourteen or fifteen Members? It was agitation, constitutional agitation, which had produced such promising prospects of Reform in England; and it was the same species of agitation which he trusted would convince the House of the necessity of repealing the Union, and of restoring to Ireland thereby the means of maintaining its inhabitants in peace and plenty. He had been denounced in the House that day; he had been denounced in it often enough before. Other Secretaries for Ireland had taunted him with being an agitator. The echoes of their words had reached him across the waters, even when they had taunted him with greater virulence—and he did not impute virulence to the right hon. Secretary opposite—than any which had been displayed on the present occasion; and yet he had lived to see the day, when those very men had brought in, with their own hands, the very measure for which he had excited the agitation in Ireland, which they had so loudly and so indignantly condemned. But the right hon. Secretary now stood up in the House with an air of innocence, and just as if he and the Government of Ireland had not created all the agitation of which he complained. He would take that opportunity of informing the country, that oppression more gross and more tyrannical had never been exercised in any country than that which the right hon. Secretary had exercised in Ireland. The right hon. Secretary had professed his readiness to answer him upon that charge before a reformed Parliament. He took the right hon. Secretary at that pledge; and if he should ever see a reformed Parliament, which he was afraid he should not, he would, come what might of it, put the
1018
right hon. Secretary on his defence before it. If he should have the honour of a seat in that reformed Parliament—and in such a Parliament he should think it an honour to have a seat,—he would bring under its notice the unconstitutional letter which the right hon. Secretary had written to the magistracy of Ireland. Even in the midst of all the misery by which they were surrounded, the people of Ireland had enjoyed many a long and loud laugh at the states-man-like wisdom which had dictated, and the grammatical accuracy which pervaded, that extraordinary epistle. What did the House think that that epistle called upon the magistracy to do? Nothing more than to disperse a meeting, even before it had committed any thing which could be construed into a crime. The right hon. Secretary accused him of creating excitement in Ireland. He, in return, accused the right hon. Secretary of creating it. He did not wish for that crisis which some of the Government Papers were calling for. He wished for no crisis. He knew well, that if the people of Ireland avoided all appeals to force and bloodshed, that democratic spirit, of which he had hailed with rapture the appearance in Belgium and Poland— and may to morrow's sun bring us tidings of defeat to Russian despotism! which he adored in the mountains of Switzerland,— which he trusted to see before long enlivening the green mountains of his own native land,—which had produced, or speedily would produce, Reform in England,—he knew well, he said, that, that democratic spirit which had produced such glorious effects in all other parts of Europe, would produce in Ireland equal rights and equal privileges with those enjoyed in England, if the people would only take his advice. He would repeat the words "if the people would only take his advice,"—that is, if they would only agitate constitutionally, and bring forward their claims firmly, manfully, and peaceably, untarnished by crime, and unaccompanied by outrage. On this point then he stood triumphant. [Peels of laughter for some minutes.] "Laugh, Gentlemen, laugh," said Mr. O'Connell, with great vehemence of tone and gesture, "but mind that your laughter be not mistaken. I say, that I stand on this point triumphant. Mark the right hon. Secretary. He has spoken, he has spoken out, he has shown no deficiency of zeal, no deficiency of spirit; and yet has he shown that in any of the many multitudes which

1019
have met on this subject in Ireland, there has been offered any particle of violence to any one individual? Has he shown that any assault has been committed on any Magistrate, or any person in any part of Ireland? That they may have violated the law, in respect of its technicalities under the late Act, may be true; that they have been guilty of agitation, may be likewise true; but have the people of Ireland been guilty of any breach of the peace in their discussions on the Repeal of the Union? Have they been guilty of any violation of the spirit of the law? I say,—and I say boldly,—that they have not; and so say ing, have I not a right to say, that on this part of the case I stand triumphant?" The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to say, that when any person came to their meetings to discuss the question of the propriety of repealing the Union, he was heard with patience — his argument was not interrupted: when it was concluded it was answered, and then the party found himself in a minority, generally of one, but sometimes of three or four. The right hon. Secretary had told the House of what he (Mr. O'Connell) had not done. He would beg leave to tell the right hon. Secretary of what he (Mr. Stanley) had done. The Marquis of Anglesey arrived in Ireland almost unnoticed. Shortly afterwards, he (Mr. O'Connell) went to Dublin. The people of Dublin thought proper to pay so humble an individual as himself a compliment on his arrival. [a laugh.] Gentlemen might taunt him there as they pleased; but did they think that any taunt which they could direct against him there would ever prevent him from discharging his duty to his warm-hearted countrymen? He could assure hon. Gentlemen, that they could not do him a greater kindness with his countrymen than to receive with cheers, as they generally did, any point, however slight, that was made against him, and to receive any thing which he said in reply to it with shouts, and taunts, and laughter, almost bordering on insult. Well, the Marquis of Anglesey went to Ireland. The people received him without the slightest compliment. They met him (Mr. O'Connell) otherwise. What was their return for it? A proclamation, founded on that Statute which enables a Lord Lieutenant to put an end to all discussion in Ireland,—which enables him to substitute his own will for law,—which enables him to suppress all associations,—which enables him to put
1020
an end to all societies for improvement, all societies for education, all societies for charity,—which enables him, in a word, to say,
"Sic volo, sic jubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas."
That is a base Act of Parliament, and we are slaves who are obliged to obey it. It was an Act of Parliament, which was given us in vile disport along with the Emancipation Act, as if the House had been determined to convince the people of Ireland that it could not even confer a benefit upon them without accompanying it by an insult and an injury. Yes, it acted as if it were throwing a bone to a dog, which it detested, but which it was obliged to feed. The Lord Lieutenant issued his proclamation against the trades of Dublin, and prohibited them from meeting with their emblems and banners. What then? The trades gave up their intended meeting, and though they were much irritated, went, 100,000 of them, to his house in Merrion-square, and then separated, after cheering him, with as much decorum as any assembly,—ay, even as this House ever separates. That was the first proclamation. It was an act of despotism. The right hon. Secretary had avowed himself the adviser of a proclamation founded on a law, which all his party, when it was passed, stigmatized as a despotic law; "and if any man," said the hon. Gentleman, "had issued such a proclamation in England, I should despise you, Gentlemen of England, if you did not immediately call for its repeal. Did you submit quietly to it, I should hold you base and degenerate, and unworthy of your sturdy forefathers, who knew what was due to themselves, and were not afraid to die in maintaining it." What came next? Oh! that which convinced him that the late Administration was more benevolently disposed than the present to the people of Ireland. The late Administration issued proclamations against their associations, but did they in consequence cease to hold them? When they persisted in holding them, did the late Government come forward with prosecutions to destroy the Irish people? Oh! no; the late Government—anti-Irish, anti-Catholic as it was—did no such thing; it was reserved for the Whigs, the base, persecuting Whigs, whose professions he had been accustomed to scorn, even before he had become acquainted with their practice. But to return. After the Duke of Northumberland had suppressed by his

1021
proclamation the first meetings which were held for the Repeal of the Union, a number of gentlemen determined to meet and discuss the subject at a public breakfast. They did so for weeks. A second proclamation was issued against them, but the breakfasts continued, and the Duke of Northumberland instituted no prosecutions. But as soon as the Whigs came into power, and the Marquis of Anglesey arrived in Ireland, he discharged another proclamation against the breakfasts. Now, he put it to the House, whether, if the question of the Repeal of the Union were to be quietly and calmly discussed, it would be better to have the discussion after dinner, when any thing that was impassioned was likely to be addressed with greater effect to excited feelings, or after tea and coffee in a morning, when the reason was cool, and the blood in a state of quiescence? To put down these breakfasts, out came an extraordinary proclamation, signed by the ex-Member for Preston, who dared to call the people of Dublin a rabble. A rabble! Would he venture to call the people of Preston by that name? Now, any one that could pay 2s. had a right to attend these breakfasts. Davy Mac Leary, who hated a papist as he hated the devil, was a constant attendant at them, and along with him came many of those men whom the former dissensions of Ireland had separated from its best friends. The breakfasts, he repeated, went on, the cause which he had at heart was flourishing, and to put it down, out came another proclamation, founded on the most despotic Act that was ever registered in a Statute-book. "You talk to me here," said Mr. O'Connell, "of the Constitution in Ireland. Where is it? You have put it down. Would you allow your Constitution to be put down here in the same way, Gentlemen of England? We are dissatisfied with its being put down among us; and then comes forward the right hon. Secretary, and taunts me with being an agitator. Yes, he taunts me with being an agitator,—he, who by his oppression has caused all the agitation of Ireland. Though the people of Ireland are slaves, they are not yet such base and abject slaves as not to resist oppression by all the means which the law allows them. The right hon. Secretary issued a proclamation, I repeat, against us, and wrote at the same time a letter to the magistracy, as illegal as a letter could be, and on which
1022
I shall have occasion to say more on some future opportunity. In the mean time, the farmers in the county of Kilkenny, most of whom are respectable and substantial men, began to hold meetings. They took upon themselves the title of 'hurlers,' and assembled in great numbers. Two or three gentlemen, who, like myself, are opposed to such unions went to them, and prevailed upon them to disperse. Meetings for similar objects were spreading through the country—they had spread into the counties of Wexford and Carlow, and even further. I then wrote a letter to them, advising the discontinuance of such meetings. I told them that their meetings in themselves were not illegal; but that they would become illegal as soon as they were held in such numbers as would excite fear that a breach of the peace was likely to take place. I said to them, that I would not have a Repeal of the Union unless it could be effected by peaceable means, and I told them, that I would give up my advocacy of that great question, unless they gave up their meetings. How it was I know not; but this I do know, that my name was used by a gentleman who addressed the people on behalf of the Government, to prevail on them to disperse. I admit that other measures were also employed; but my name was certainly used as a means to keep the people quiet. And now one of the right hon. Secretary's accusations against me is, that I have addressed these same people in this language,—'I advised you to desist when I thought that you were going to break the law. Now that you have a constitutional meeting, at which you can agitate, I advise you who have votes, to give your votes to my friend Colonel Butler, who is a friend to Ireland, and an advocate for a Repeal of the Union, and you who have not votes, to use your influence over those who have." Is there any thing morally wrong in asking these men to exercise their influence over their friends and relations who are in possession of voles? Sure I am, that the right hon. Secretary would not be loth or sorry to exercise his influence over any Lord who happened to be master of a number of votes in that county, to employ them all in behalf of Colonel Butler's opponent. I said to the Hurlers, "Let the expenses of Colonel Butler be paid;" and I said this, because I knew that every one of these Hurlers was able to contribute something

1023
to defray them. Thus much in reply to the observations of the right hon. Secretary on my letter to the Hurlers of Kilkenny. The moment these meetings took place, we determined to found another association, to preserve the right of free discussion, and to put an end to all illegal associations. Before we had done any thing at this association, out came another proclamation against us. Again I repeat it, the proclamation was an act of despotism. Is not the Sedition Law in existence? Is not the Libel Law still in operation? Are not these sufficient to check our proceedings, if we act illegally? Is not the House aware, that at all our meetings two Government Reporters were always present? Did not I take care that they should always have the best places to hear or speak, and room enough to write down without interruption any thing and every thing that we said? If we were seditious, why did the Government not produce the evidence which was in its power to convict us of sedition? Why did it not recur to the ordinary law of the country, instead of recurring to this despotic act? But out came, after all this, a third proclamation, and then I am told that I excite agitation. I say to the right hon. Secretary 'De te fabula narratur.' You, who have turned your will into law,—you who have shut the door against discussion,—you impute to me the effects of your own excitement. I shall have another opportunity of speaking upon this subject, and therefore I shall not say a word more upon it at present. The right hon. Secretary has quoted extracts from two speeches of mine. I don't know whether both are accurate; one of them indeed I know to be so? and I will, for the sake of argument, admit them both to be so. What have I said in them which any honest man can find fault with? I spoke of the slavery of Ireland. I said her people were slaves. I ask whether that country is not in a state of slavery, in which the will of one man forms the law of all? If I am mistaken in that point, then the people of Ireland are not slaves; but if I am right in it, then they are slaves, and they would be base and degraded slaves indeed if they hugged their chains in quiet, and did not sometimes dash them at their oppressors. I said in the course of one of those speeches, that I rejoiced in the success of the Belgians. I repeat that sentiment here. Fraud and force were never employed to consummate a more
1024
heterogeneous union than that which existed between Holland and Belgium. I rejoice with my whole heart that the Poles have repudiated their forced union with Russia. I am glad, too, that in Switzerland the spirit of democracy has proved itself indomitable. But when I told the people of Ireland how I gloried in the triumphs of these different nations, I told them, that the road through which those nations had achieved them was not the road which they ought to take. I told them, that their case was different: I knew that I had a difficult task to perform, for I had to teach Government its duty to the people, and I had to teach the people how to obtain its rights from Government. I wished to restore Ireland to her proper rank among the nations of the earth. Will any man tell me that there is any other country in the world, of such exuberant fertility, in which there are so many starving individuals,—that there is any other country in the world in which there is so rich a Church, and so little relief rendered by it to the poor? I tell you, that with Ireland you have not at present a union. You do not give her either the same laws, or the same privileges, or the same advantages which you enjoy yourselves. Yes, your very laws for the two countries are not the same. You have not for England the same bankrupt laws which you have imposed on Ireland—you have not the same laws that we have for the security, cither of person or of property, and, above all, you have not the same jury-law that we have. And that, by the bye, brings me to the consideration of a point, a most important point, indeed, in my case against the Government, which I had almost forgotten. The right hon. Secretary had a Jury struck against me and my confederates, as he is pleased to call my friends, by the deputy clerk of the Crown, who took the first hundred names which stood in the book. In that number were twenty four Aldermen, twenty-three sheriffs, several Peers, one Admiral, and other persons of that description. One of the persons whom the Crown Solicitor struck off the panel was Mr. Alderman M'Kennie. Any person who knows any thing of Ireland knows well the character of that gentleman. Another person who was struck off by the Crown Solicitor was Mr. Arthur Guinness, the Governor of the Bank of Ireland. Both these persons differed ss from me

1025
on the question of the Repeal of the Union, but they were men of known integrity and impartiality. Would that have been done in England? No, for there the Jury would have been drawn by ballot. And here, again, I have to declare, that the late Administration, anti-Irish and anti-Catholic as it has been represented, was more kindly disposed to Ireland than the present. Had they remained in office, we too in Ireland should have had the advantage of forming our juries by ballot. I speak on that point advisedly, for I was consulted professionally as to the details of the measure." The hon. Member then proceeded to say, that he had now followed the right hon. Secretary through every point of his speech. The hon. Secretary had, however, omitted to notice any of the questions which he (Mr. O'Connell) had originally put to him. Had he stated a single case of violence done either to person or property by the anti-Unionists? There had been some violence of talk, but the people of Ireland, slaves though they were, were not yet gagged; and all that their enemies could charge against them at present was, that they had spoken. Oppressed as they were, they were struggling peaceably and constitutionally for their right to free and open discussion, and to the same constitutional liberty as the people of England enjoyed. He might not succeed in getting it for them; but he knew that he was in the situation of those who in former times had struggled for the liberties of their country, and his heart told him, and its decision was confirmed by the approbation of his countrymen, that he had struggled sincerely, and honestly, and earnestly, and he still hoped successfully, in that cause which he had deep in his heart—the cause of the people of Ireland. He yet trusted that their cause would finally triumph.
Lord Althorpsaid, he thought that no man who had read the speeches of the hon. and learned member for Waterford could doubt, that they were calculated to excite sedition. He did not know whether he was to attribute it to the hon. and learned Member's skill in legal subtilties, or to the hon. and learned Member's custom in his profession of looking only to the letter of Acts of Parliament; but whether it was to these, or to something else, that the fact was to be attributed, still the hon. and learned Member's speech
1026
had put beyond doubt the fact that he thought, that if he could break the letter of the law with impunity, he could succeed in persuading that House and the country that it was not his object to produce tumult and confusion by a violation of the law. The hon. and learned Member had said, that the agitation in Ireland had been caused by the Government proclamations. Now, did the hon. and learned Member mean to assert, that there was no agitation before those proclamations issued? He had always thought that the hon. and learned Member had made it his boast and his pride, that he was the author of that agitation. It was, as the hon. and learned Member well knew, to put down meetings called for the express and avowed purpose of increasing agitation, that the proclamations had been issued. What then could the hon. and learned Gentleman mean by saying that the proclamations had caused the agitation? Let him entreat the House to consider in what a condition the Government in Ireland would have found itself if these meetings had been allowed. The hon. and learned Member might call those meetings breakfasts, or he might call them any thing else he pleased, but every man of common sense and common honesty knew well enough, that to call the meetings by such titles was a mere evasion, —a shift, to effect that under one name which had been forbidden by the law under another. The breakfasts, or the meetings, let them be called as the hon. and learned Member pleased,—were means by which it was endeavoured to evade and violate the law. It would be unnecessary for him to go into the details of this case. His right hon. friend (Mr. Stanley) had put it, with all the circumstances connected with it, fairly before the House, and all the reply which the hon. and learned member for Waterford had been able to make was, that his right hon. friend had not pointed out one single act of outrage committed at these meetings. But was it within the bounds of faith,—not to say of credulity— to believe, that if such meetings had not been suppressed, and if the hon. and learned Member had been allowed to pursue such conduct, and to make such speeches, any other consequences could have resulted except outrage and sedition? The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them, that the "Hurlers" were a respectable body of men; and vet the hon.

1027
and learned Member had acknowledged in the same breath, that they were persons who went about the country to procure a reduction of tithes, and to commit other unlawful acts. If such conduct as the hon. and learned Member had attributed to the "Hurlers" were not illegal, he should be glad to know what the hon. and learned Member called illegal. And yet these were the persons whom the hon. and learned Member exhorted to use their influence at an election! Did the hon. and learned Member suppose that any one could mistake what was meant by the "influence" of such men? "Influence" here meant "force;" it meant intimidation, and nothing else; nor could any one attach any other meaning to the word; for of what influence, but the influence of force, were the "Hurlers" possessed? But he felt that he was unnecessarily trespassing upon the time of the House. The House had heard the case; they had heard the hon. and learned Member's defence; and he left it to the House and the country to judge whether the language and the conduct of the hon. and learned Member had been calculated to prevent sedition and outrage in Ireland.
The Petition was read: on the question that it be printed,
O'Gorman Mahonsaid, that he had one or two observations to make upon this subject, and assured the House that they should be but one or two. He could not, however, remain silent, conceiving the matter to be of great importance. Every portion of this Debate would be looked to with the greatest interest by the people of Ireland. He would not go through the details of the case on either side. It appeared, however, that a negotiation had been entered into; but although many hon. Members had come down in the hope of learning by whom that negotiation had been commenced, the House was still in the dark upon the point. All that they knew was, that certain persons, professing that they were authorized by the Government, had proposed an arrangement with the hon. and learned member for Waterford; but the Government denied that they had given such authority to any one. In fact, both parties seemed alike anxious to deny having commenced the negotiation. The hon. and learned member for Waterford, too, had said, that when he withdrew his plea to certain counts, the Government declined prose-
1028
cuting on the others, but that there had been no compromise on either side; and that the thing sprung up suddenly. The whole transaction reminded him of an absurd scene in an old play, where Adam was brought upon the stage in boots and spurs, for the purpose of being created. Then again it appeared, that the charge to which the hon. and learned Member had pleaded "Not Guilty," which plea he had withdrawn, was merely a charge of having committed a breach of a certain statute, not a charge of moral guilt, and that the penalty of the offence was three months' imprisonment. With regard to what had fallen from the noble Lord (Althorp), he must say, that the noble Lord's reasoning had surprised him much. The noble Lord had inferred, that because the meetings were peaceable while they were held, they would have produced outrage and sedition if they had not been put clown. He could not understand this reasoning. He admitted to the noble Lord that the meetings were evasions of the law; but if ever an evasion of the law were justifiable, this evasion was. It was an unjust and tyrannical law, and it was evaded by the people of Ireland, between whom and this country there was no real union, either of interests, or sympathies, or good laws. He could not help saying, that this cry of sedition against the meetings in Ireland came with a very bad grace from the noble Lord, who had said not long ago, that he saw no harm in a tri-coloured flag; that he was glad the tri-coloured flag had been reared; and he hoped it would prosper. He repeated, that to call these meetings seditious,— meetings at which there was no flag at all, much less a tri-coloured flag,—was in very bad taste on the part of the noble Lord. They might as well say, that because there was a mace upon the Table, some hon. Member might seize upon it, and use it for the purposes of assault upon others. He had heard with great dissatisfaction what had been said about abandoning the question of the Repeal of the Union. The Union had been effected by bad, vicious, and unconstitutional means: it had been carried against the consent of the people, and against the opinion of many of the most eminent men in the British Parliament; and it had brought upon a happy and contented people innumerable mischiefs. That the people of Ireland had set their hearts upon

1029
a Repeal of the Union, was a fact as indisputable as that hon. Members were sitting in that House. Thousands had met in Ireland to carry the Repeal of the Union; thousands would still meet for the same purpose; and so far from blaming the hon. and learned member for Waterford, for having agitated that question, it was his greatest pride and boast that his name also was linked with the agitation of it. As long as he lived he would never cease agitating the question.
Mr. Stanleywould not detain the House one moment. He merely rose for the purpose of setting the hon. member for Clare right as to a matter of fact. The hon. member for Clare had said, that the hon. and learned member for Waterford had only withdrawn his plea to an indictment for an offence which subjected him to three months' imprisonment. Now this was not the fact.
Mr. O'Connell.— No, no; the hon. member for Clare is quite mistaken.
Mr. S. Ricewould not prolong the discussion for many minutes. He was bound to believe the hon. member for Clare, and the, hon. and learned member for Water-ford to be sincere in their opinions which they had expressed upon the Repeal of the Union; and if they were sincere in those opinions, no doubt they had a right to the expression of them. What, however, he entreated of those hon. Members was, that if they were sincere, they would not content themselves with incidental discussions like the present, but come forward manfully to such a regular discussion of it, as, he must say, notwithstanding their sincerity, they had hitherto appeared to shrink from. He would not yield to either of those hon. Members in devotion to Ireland. He trusted, that during the many years he had served her, he had never shown Luke warmness when her interests were to be advanced. And if he could persuade himself that the measure for which those hon. Members clamoured so loudly would be advantageous to Ireland, he would agitate the question with the best agitator of them all. Let him entreat the hon. Members to take the opinion of the House and of the country fairly upon the question. Let them do this for the benefit of the people of Ireland. The hon. member for Clare had said, that the people of Ireland were happy before the Union. He, however, had read the history of his country very differently.
1030
Before the Union, Ireland had a most imperfect sketch of a Constitution,—which governed by corruption, and which had led to bloodshed,—but there had been no happiness in it—at least, none that he had ever been able to discover. Let the hon. Member, however, bring the subject fairly before the House, and then this point also might be settled. He must say—and he spoke the sentiments of many besides his own—that to flinch from a fair trial of the question bespoke want of truth and justice in the cause. It was complained, that the Government would not allow this question to be discussed at meetings in Ireland; but if the hon. Members wished to discuss it fairly, had they not an opportunity of doing so, where the Government could not prevent them? Was not the Imperial Parliament a better arena for the discussion of such a question than a room in a tavern or the hustings? And were not the Members of the Imperial Parliament a better audience than the Hurlers of the county of Kilkenny? Let him entreat the hon. Members to fix the day—to bring their forces into the field, and to fight the battle fairly. Let this be done—let such a debate be opened,—and he had no doubt that every rational man would come out of it with the conviction that the continuation of the Union was essential to the happiness both of Ireland and of England; and that the Repeal of the Union implied misery, ruin, bloodshed, separation, and the establishment of a republic of the worst and vilest character. In conclusion, let him once more call upon the hon. Members to prove their sincerity, by coming forward to a discussion of this question.
The Petition to be printed.

EVESHAM DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
The Marquis of Chandosrose to postpone the second reading of this Bill till Monday next. If he had understood the noble Lord (Althorp) rightly the other night, the noble Lord had promised to give way to him in order, that this measure, which was one of the greatest importance, might be brought on at an early hour. He trusted that the noble Lord would make good his promise on Monday next.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the noble Lord was quite mistaken with regard to what had fallen from him the other night. He could not concur with the noble Lord in thinking that this was a measure of very

1031
great importance; and he could not promise that the state of the public business would enable him to give the noble Lord precedence.
The Marquis of Chandossaid, that he had put off this Bill the other night at the noble Lord's request, until this day. He had now his witnesses in town, and he must say, that he thought he was very hardly dealt with. However, he now gave notice, that he would certainly bring on the second reading of the Bill on Monday next, no matter at how late an hour it might come to his turn to move it. He would put it off no longer.
Motion agreed to.

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS.
On Sir J. Grahammoving that the Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Committee of Supply be read,
Mr. Littletonobserved, that there were yet many petitions on the subject of Parliamentary Reform to be presented, notwithstanding the kindness of the Speaker in sitting on Saturday. Now, consistently with the course which had been pursued on similar occasions, he supposed that the House would receive these petitions before the subject of Reform was introduced by the Ministers. The noble Lord (J. Russell) was to bring forward the measure of Reform to-morrow, and he rose now for the purpose of reminding hon. Members of the difficulty of getting the Petitions received in time.
Mr. Benetthad a petition to present from the county of Wilts, and, therefore, urged the propriety of receiving such petitions to-night.
Colonel Daviesobserved, that there were no less than twenty-seven Orders of the Day, and thirteen Motions on the paper,—and he put it to hon. Members, whether they would stop the public business by devoting the night to the reception of petitions.
Mr. Benettwas surprised at this objection from such a quarter. He had some petitions to present, one of which he held in his hand, and he should move, as an Amendment to the Motion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), "That this Petition be brought up."
Mr. John Woodrose to second the Amendment. It was well known, that this morning's post had brought numbers of petitions on this subject, which ought to be presented. He came down to the
1032
House at a quarter to ten o'clock, but finding that there were already thirty names on the Speaker's list, he had declined to put his down.
An hon. Member gave notice, that he should take an early opportunity of moving that a Committee be appointed to receive petitions, since, without some such arrangement, it would be quite impossible to get through the public business.
Mr. Littletonthought it highly improper, that petitions on such a subject should be received except in a full House.
Mr. Calcraftconsidered the subject of Reform the most important that could occupy the House and the country at present. He thought it inexpedient for the House to hear the statement which was proposed to be made to-morrow, of the intentions of his Majesty's Ministers on that important question, before it should have heard the prayers of the people on the same subject. If the petitions should be deferred until to-morrow, their presentation would occupy so much time, that the motion of the noble Lord could not conveniently be brought on. Should even discussions arise upon them that night, so that all could not be presented, the few that might remain would not take up so much time, as to interfere with the noble Lord's important motion. He thought the House ought to deviate on that occasion from its ordinary rules.
Lord John Russellagreed with the hon. member for Wareham, that it was expedient that all the petitions on the subject of Reform should be presented before the measure of Reform, contemplated by his Majesty's Ministers, was submitted to the House. He wished that there should be a proper understanding as to the hour in which his motion would be brought forward, and, therefore, he took that opportunity of mentioning, that he should propose it at six o'clock.
General Gascoynemust infer, from what had been said upon the other side of the House, that the noble Lord anticipated the rejection of his Bill to-morrow night. As regarded the petitions, he would recommend that the same mode should be adopted for their reception as had been adopted respecting the petitions on the Catholic Question. Before he sat down, he wished to call the attention of the House to what he had heard respecting a person who had been guilty of extremely disorderly conduct in the Gallery,

1033
which seemed to have been passed by entirely without notice. It did not become the dignity of the House to allow the member for Waterford to be insulted with impunity. He(General Gascoyne)had had the honour of sitting in that House for nearly thirty years, and in all that time he had never witnessed so insulting a breach of its privileges [cries of "Move, move!"]. It was not for him to make any motion on the subject. It was the duty of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to take the opinion of the House upon the Breach of Privilege as soon as it was communicated to him. As the noble Lord had not done so, he (General Gascoyne) would take the sense of the House upon the subject, as he saw no reason that it should so much depart from the usual course on such occasions, as to allow so gross an insult to pass without notice.
The Speakersaid, it is always important that I should set an hon. Member right when I perceive him to be in error. On this occasion it is the more necessary that I should set the hon. and gallant Member right, as, if there has been any error in the omission of which he complains, the fault must be attributed to me more than to any one else. When I made the communication to the House, that the person who had violated its privileges was in custody, the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) came to me, and inquired whether it was the proper course to bring the individual to the bar? I thought it more becoming the dignity of the House, that, whilst its business was going on, the offending person should be kept in custody; and that, after the House had gone through its own business, then the individual in custody should be brought to the Bar, to be dealt with as the House may think proper. The hon. and gallant Member must be aware, that a person being in custody by the order of the House cannot be liberated until he shall have received its judgment.
General Gascoyneexplained, that having heard nothing further than that the insult had been committed, and had been communicated to the House, he thought it his duty to call attention to it.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that when there was before the House so much important business, it was to be regretted that two or three hours should be lost in unnecessary discussions. As he understood the noble
1034
Lord to say, that the public business would not be seriously impeded by the presentation of the petitions on Reform, he (Sir It. Peel) did not think that any inconvenient precedent could be established by their being received. It would be inconvenient to all parties, that those petitions should be presented before the motion of the noble Lord to-morrow night, as their reception would put back the motion till a late hour. It was, at the same time, desirable to all parties, that the motion should not be brought forward, before the petitions on the subject had been heard. He would, therefore, give his voice in favour of their being presented immediately. For his own part, he was quite disinterested in the matter, as he had but two petitions to present, and of these, one was in favour of Reform, and the other against it.
Mr. Huntsaid, he had several petitions to present on the subject of Parliamentary Reform; but as he did not expect that they would have been received until after the conclusion of the business, he had left them at home. If the House resolved to receive the petitions, however, he must go after those he had to present. He was sure the public was more anxious with respect to this subject than any other proceeding the House could be employed in, and he was therefore anxious that the petitions should be received that night.
Mr. W. Duncombesaid, that as it appeared to be the general wish of the House that the Reform petitions should be received, he hoped those hon. Members who had given notice of motions would consent to withdraw them. He trusted if those petitions were received, however, that Members presenting them would confine themselves to the subject of Reform. In conclusion, he wished to ask the noble Lord, if the Reform petitions were not received, what public business he would propose to go on with?
Lord Althorpreplied, that his right hon. friend (Sir James Graham) would move, that the Resolution of the Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates should be brought up. In accordance with what appeared to be the general wish of the House, however, he thought it was better to continue receiving the Reform petitions.
Sir Robert Peelhoped, that it would be understood that the rule was relaxed only as regarded Reform Petitions; and that no others would be brought up.

1035
It was then moved and carried, that the Petition be brought up. Mr. Benett accordingly brought up the Petition, which was from Wiltshire, praying for Reform and Vote by Ballot.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
Mr. Littletonsaid, he had several Petitions to present from Staffordshire, and four of those petitions came from places the inhabitants of which prayed that they might have the elective franchise extended to them, and the right of returning Members to represent them in Parliament. Those petitions were signed by Whigs and Tories, poor and rich, and by persons of all classes and conditions. The first of those petitions was from the township of Bilston, in the parish of Wolverhampton. There were 50,000 inhabitants in the parish, and 10,000 in the township. The next petition was from the town of Dudley, containing a population of 25,000. It was nominally situated in the county of Worcester, but was imbedded in Staffordshire. The fourth of those petitions was from the town and warren of Walsall, containing 15,000 inhabitants. It was not wonderful that the inhabitants of the south-west part of the county of Stafford, containing a population of 150,000, or 200,000, should be anxious for Representatives, for there was no borough situated in that part of the county, and those persons could be said to have no other Representatives than the county Members. Another of the petitions which he had to present came from the Staffordshire Potteries, situated in the northern part of the county, and connected with which there was a population of 65,000. The last petition he had to present was from Burton-upon-Trent, and it was in favour of general Reform. The county of Stafford, he considered, had a fair claim to an increased number of Representatives. It contained 400,000 inhabitants, and, setting aside the metropolitan counties, it ranked as the third, so far as regarded commercial and manufacturing skill, and employments connected with machinery. With the exception of the Members for Tamworth, and the county members, this great county had no Representatives. The hon. Member concluded by observing, that he stated these facts for general information, and should reserve himself on the general question till the measure of his Majesty's Ministers was brought for-
1036
ward. The hon. Member concluded by presenting the petitions.
Sir J. Wrottesleyexpressed his entire concurrence in the prayer of the petitions, and also in the observations which had fallen from his hon. Colleague in presenting them.—Petitions to be printed.

PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the time was then conic when it would be proper to advert to an occurrence of the early part of the evening. He had not thought it proper to make any suggestion during the progress of public business, conceiving it better that the proceedings of the House should not be interrupted. But as the House had then gone through its business, it was time to take some notice of what had passed. The person who had committed the offence was in the custody of the officers of the House; and he meant to propose, if that were the opinion of the House, that he should be called to the bur, reprimanded and discharged. The insult to the House had been so gross, that he could hardly conceive that the person who committed it was in his right senses. That he should be reprimanded, however, would be necessary to the dignity of the House, and that was the proposition he should submit to consideration. The noble Lord concluded by moving that—Jacobs should be called to the bar of the House, reprimanded and discharged.
An hon. Member wished that it might be ascertained by what means that individual had entered the House.
Motion agreed to, and the person brought to the bar.
The Speaker: What is your name?— Alexander Jacob was the answer.
The Speaker: Have you anything to state to the House as an apology for your misconduct?
Alexander Jacobdemanded that that justice which every British subject had a right to expect should be done to him. He could assure the Speaker and the honourable Members, that he was brought to the House by his business, and in coming there he was not guided by any improper motive, nor did he contemplate doing anything that was prejudicial to his country. He thought he had a right to enter the Gallery as an individual, and he conceived that the hon. Member could not expect that he should remain silent and—[order!]
The Speaker: I wish to warn you, that you may not increase your offence by pursuing such a course as that you have now entered upon.—
Alexander Jacobhad seriously considered the course he had to pursue, and did not need any warning to make him serious. Me was proceeding to make some further observations on the language of the hon. member for Waterford, when
The Speakeragain called him to order. Alexander Jacob meant to apologise, but if he were out of order in explaining—
The Speakertold him, he was not brought to the bar to justify his conduct. If he had any apology to offer to the House he might make it.
Alexander Jacobwished to apologise for his conduct, and humbly begged pardon for what he had done.
The Speakertold him to withdraw.
Lord Althorpsaid, that Mr. Jacob had made something like an apology, but that apology was not satisfactory. It was not sufficient to justify the course he had at first proposed. He must be called on to make a more humble apology before the House could consent to discharge him. He would therefore move, that Alexander Jacob, for his offence to that House, should be committed to Newgate, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly.
Mr. O'Connelltrusted he might be pardoned for interposing in the case. He was aware that the insult had not been offered to him individually, but to the House, and for that Mr. Jacob had readily-asked pardon. He thought that there was something in his manner, though whether it was accidental or not he did not know, which, perhaps, made his conduct rather his misfortune than his fault. He seemed to labour under some influence, either temporary of the day or permanent, which entitled him to the pity of the House. Was what the individual had been guilty of unexampled? Had it never occurred before? He hoped that mercy would be shown in this case as had been shown in others, which would not violate the dignity of the House. There was in the man a strange obliquity of intellect to make him guilty of such an outrage. Whether the obliquity were permanent or occasional, it would merit forgiveness. He had expressed his contrition—he had asked pardon—and what
1038
more abject could he perform? By that, he submitted, the dignity of the House was sufficiently vindicated, and there was no occasion to inflict a higher punishment than the reprimand at first proposed. He would therefore move, as an Amendment on the noble Lord's Motion, that Alexander Jacob be brought to the bar, be reprimanded, and discharged.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanseconded the Amendment.
Sir Robert Peelrose to support the proposition of the noble Lord. He could conceive the feelings which animated the hon. and learned Gentleman if the offence were personal, but the offence was against the privileges of the House. If there was that obliquity of intellect suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, which might be suspected, and which would wipe out the offence, it was at least proper that the House should have time to inquire into that. He did not wish to look at what was stated at the bar as any aggravation of the offence, but the individual had stated, that he was connected with some mercantile transactions, and that they brought him to the House. That did not betray any obliquity of intellect. If there was a cause of a temporary nature for that obliquity, he could not admit that as an excuse. There was a necessity to vindicate the rights and privileges of that House, and teach those who came to the House intoxicated—for that was the temporary obliquity the hon. Member referred to — that the House would never admit that as an excuse. There was some danger that the offence might be frequently committed; for that was not the first time that the privileges of the House had been violated. Within the last two years, he had seen papers thrown from the Gallery into the House concerning the subject under discussion at the moment. Then the House had adopted the same course proposed by the noble Lord; it had not been contented with an apology, and had placed the individual in custody till next day, when his apology was accepted. He considered that course proper on this occasion, and he hoped the House would not be contented by merely reprimanding the individual. He hoped that it would adopt the proposition of the noble Lord, and defer the discussion till another day.
An hon. Member, who spoke before, wished it to be ascertained by what

1039
means the individual had obtained access to the House.
Mr. C. W. Wynnentirely concurred with his right hon. friend, and thought the offence was unfit to be passed over, if the House passed it over, it would seem as if it were inviting a repetition of the offence.
Lord Althorpsaid, considering; the facility that was then afforded to violating the Orders of the House, it seemed to him necessary, if they intended to preserve freedom in their debates, not to pass over the case. The hon. and learned Gentleman properly defended the man, as he was the person more immediately offended, but he must see, that to vindicate the dignity of the House, it was necessary that some further punishment should be inflicted.
The Amendment negatived without a division, and the original Motion carried nem.con. The Speaker was ordered to issue his warrant to commit Alexander Jacob to Newgate.

SUPPLY — INSPECTOR-GENERAL, OF MARINES,
On the Motion of Sir James Graham, the Report of the Committee of Supply was brought up.
On, the Motion that it be read a second time,
Mr. Humerose to state, that some misunderstanding existed as to the observations of the right hon. Baronet on a former evening relative to Sir James Cock-burn. The right hon. Baronet then stated, that this Gentleman, as Paymaster of Marines, had both civil and military duties to perform—that his civil duties ceased, and his military duties continued. He was informed that this was not correct; that Sir James Cockburn had never performed any military duties whatever. He never had inspected the Marines, or been present at any parade for the purpose of inspecting them—the Inspector of Marines was, therefore, a new appointment. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet would state what were the military duties of Sir James Cockburn. The Marine Corps, he believed, from what had come to his knowledge, felt most deeply the appointment of this gentleman. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would not persevere in throwing a stigma on the Marine Corps, than which none was less deserving of it.
Sir James Grahamsaid, it was true that
1040
he had, on a former occasion, stated that Sir James Cockburn had discharged both civil and military duties. His civil duties had ceased when the office of Paymaster was abolished, but he was also Inspector of Marines. Since he held the office of Paymaster, he had only the rank of Major; but he had inspected the barracks of the Marines—he had inspected their accoutrements—he had inspected their clothing —and he had never visited an out port that he had not attended a parade. He knew, too, that Sir James Cockburn possessed, in a great degree, the confidence of his (Sir James Graham's) predecessor, and that noble Lord relied on Sir James's reports for his knowledge of the discipline of the corps. That noble Lord had also had many opportunities of knowing Sir James Cockburn's merit. When it was necessary to put an end to the office of Paymaster, it became a question how the Adjutant-general's duties should be discharged? He understood that something which had fallen from him before had given offence to that gallant officer, which, as he meant it not, he much regretted. What he said was, that the present Adjutant-general was, from age and infirmities, inadequate to the discharge of the accumulated duties which he would have to perform in fulfilling his own and those of the Paymaster. Entertaining that opinion, he thought it was necessary to superannuate that officer. He had the highest opinion of General Campbell, whose public services he prized very much, and it was only on account of his great age that he was not capable of discharging his duties. As it was necessary to superannuate the Adjutant-general, the question he had to consider was, which was the cheapest and best arrangement he could make? He had stated on a former evening, that his Majesty had been pleased to give Sir James Cockburn the rank of Major-general; and as he was thus restored to his military rank, the best arrangement that could be made was, to appoint him Inspector-general of Marines, that he might discharge the duties of the Adjutant-general and the military duties he had discharged as Paymaster. He still retained the opinion, that with a view to the discipline of the corps, this was the best arrangement which could be made. His hon. friend stated, that this arrangement cast a stigma on a corps which he readily admitted was

1041
a most useful and gallant body of men. Where all were brave it was invidious to distinguish; but certainly the Marines were amongst the bravest of the brave, and had ever been distinguished for their gallantry and their faithfulness. He was, however, disposed to persevere in his appointment, unless the sense of the House should be against him, as it was his deliberate opinion, that the appointment of Major-general Cockburn was advisable. The deputy Adjutant-general had, heretofore, been selected from the corps, and he proposed that that office should be preserved for the Marine officers. By that means he thought he might get rid of the difficulty. He had never had any acquaintance with Sir James Cockburn till he had accepted office; but he was bound to say, that since he had known him, he was induced to believe that it would conduce to the good of the service to make Sir James Cockburn Inspector-general of Marines. If the arrangement which he proposed was satisfactory, he should think that he had done what was due to the Marine corps, and what was due to economy.

EXCLUSION OF WARRANT (NAVAL) OFFICERS FROM COURT.
Mr. Humewished now to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to a subject which had given great pain, and he would say offence, to a large body of meritorious officers in the Navy. He meant that regulation by which warrant officers in the Navy were not allowed to appear at his Majesty's levees. In this class were included Surgeons, Masters, and Pursers; but he confined himself at present to the first named. He had always been of opinion, that it was of great importance to the naval service to raise the character of surgeons employed in that branch of our national force. They were now a much superior body of men, in point of qualifications, to what they were formerly; yet, let a man be ever so well qualified as a surgeon, he was excluded from appearing at Court at levees. This he thought an extremely unfair distinction, for the surgeons of the Navy ought to be placed on terms of equality with surgeons in the Army.
Sir J. Grahamdid not dispute the right of the House of Commons to discuss any subject it might think proper; but certainly that which the hon. Member had now introduced was the last, in his opi-
1042
nion, which it ought to take up. It was one which properly belonged to the consideration of the Lord Chamberlain. If it were the object to prevent levees from being too crowded, he did not know where the line could be better drawn, with respect to the Navy, than between officers who held commissions and those who did not. He deprecated the use of the word stigma, as applying to any portion of the service, when nothing of the kind could be intended.
Mr. Humesaid, there was an inconsistency in the regulation, for a man who was excluded one day as a naval Surgeon, and his name was struck off the list, might be presented at Court the next day, and a case of the kind had actually occurred.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that in that case the party would have to send his card a few days previously to the Lord Chamberlain, and he would exercise his discretion with respect to his admission.
Colonel Davies Colonel Davies, referring to the previous subject of discussion, deprecated the promotion of an officer of the Army over the heads of so many most deserving officers of Marines.
Lord Hothamregretted, that the manner in which the right hon. Baronet had treated the subject was not calculated to remove the pain created by what he considered an undue preference of one branch of the service to another. If the officer who was superannuated was now too old for any increase in his duties, was it not too much to say, in effect, that there was no other officer in the Marines qualified to fill his place? It was quite unfair to that most deserving corps that they should be deprived of the only office of distinction within their reach. No set of men in the public service had been distinguished more than the Marines, and they ought not, after hard duty in every part of the world, to be deprived of their fair chance of promotion.

HALF-PAY IN CIVIL OFFCES.
Mr. Robert Gordonrose to ask his right hon. friend, the first Lord of the Admiralty, on what ground it was, that the Lords of the Admiralty were permitted to hold their half-pay at the moment they were receiving salaries as members of the Board? In the Army, a regulation prohibited any person holding a civil situation and receiving half-pay at the same time. He should be glad to know why this regulation

1043
did not apply to the Navy; and if it did not, why the lower grades—such as half-pay Captains and Lieutenants—were not permitted to obtain the same advantage? He also wished to know whether the salary of the Secretary of the Admiralty was or was not independent of his half-pay?
Sir James Graham Sir James Graham, in reply, said, that the peculiar circumstances under which an officer of the army could retain his half-pay, together with the salary of a civil officer, were regulated by an express Act of Parliament; but the Navy was now, and always had been, placed on a different footing. In that service it was customary for his Majesty to regulate, by an Order in Council, the officers which were or were not to hold their half-pay with a civil allowance; and he (Sir James Graham) had thought it his duty to recommend the four Lords of the Admiralty as entitled to that indulgence. While, however, he considered that the Lords of the Admiralty were entitled to this exception, from the peculiar nature of their duties, and the smallness of their remuneration, he had, at the same time, thought, that the salary of the Secretary of the Admiralty was sufficient without such an allowance; and the House would see, from the estimates laid on the Table, that his Majesty's Government had also reduced that salary from 3,000 l. to 2,500 l. The salary of a Lord of the Admiralty was 1,000 l. a year. If a Vice-admiral, his half-pay would be about 700 l. Now the House would at once sec the hardship which a rigid adherence to the rule would inflict, when they found that a Vice-admiral might, as a Lord of the Admiralty, be compelled to attend seven hours a day for ten months in the year; and, after all, if his half-pay was taken away, the reward for the additional service would be only 300 l. a year. With regard to the half-pay of Lieutenants and Captains, he could only say, that as each exception depended on its own particular merits, if any officer thought himself aggrieved by losing his half-pay when he accepted a civil situation, he could memorialize the Admiralty; and his case, if it was found deserving attention, would be laid before the Council.
Sir George Clerkexpressed himself happy to hear that this question of allowing the Lords of the Admiralty to hold their half-pay with their salary, which was so much agitated last year, had met with the concurrence of those who were then disposed to think it inexpedient.
Sir George Warrenderhad always been of opinion, that it was bad policy to underpay public servants, and he was glad to find that his opinions were acknowledged by the gentlemen now in power.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that the principle of taking away the half-pay of an officer, when he accepted a civil situation, would, if carried into effect, be productive of great hardship both in the Army and the Navy. An hon. friend of his, the late Surveyor-general of the Ordnance, and who possessed a regiment, bestowed on him for long and tried service, would, under such circumstances, have been very hardly treated had he been compelled to resign it on accepting office.
Mr. Huntthought, although hon. Members were so unanimous on the subject of officers receiving those double allowances, that their opinions would be different if they had to pay for their generosity in the shape of a Property-tax, and that they would then join with the present tax-payers in voting them unnecessary. What he rose for, however, was to ask the right hon. Baronet, whether there was any truth in the report that the hon. Captain Grey was appointed to the command of a frigate, called the Actœon, several months before she was off the stocks? He begged also to ask, if this was a customary practice in the Navy.
Sir James Grahamrepeated what he stated before, that the appointment of Captain Grey to the Actœon was made by Lord Melville in the month of November last, and before the present Government came into office. The Actœon was a vessel built in pursuance of the plans of Sir Robert Seppings, and he believed that Captain Grey was appointed to her at the express desire of Sir Robert Seppings, who wished this talented and deserving young officer to have the command of her; and that Lord Melville complied with that wish, from a desire to give a proof of his friendship for the noble Earl, the father of Captain Grey. Appointments of this kind were, he believed, by no means unprecedented.
Sir George Cockburnthought it right to say, that the service was frequently benefitted, rather than injured, by appointments of this description, which furnished great facilities for the collection of the crew. The Actœon, he believed, was now ready for sea, although three months had not elapsed since the appointment took place.

1045
The Report read a second time and Resolutions agreed to, and leave given to bring in a Bill in conformity with the Resolutions.

EXCISE ACTS—PRINTED CALICOES.
Lord Althorp Lord Althorp, in moving that the House go into a Committee on the Excise Acts, said, his object in doing so thus early was to state definitively what the Government intended to propose with respect to the duty on Printed Calicoes. He adopted this course in order to put an end to the suspense which prevailed in the trade with respect to the amount of the duty to be taken, and the time drawbacks were to be allowed. Great objections had, he admitted, been taken to the original proposition but after repeated discussions, and much consideration of all the bearings of the question, he was happy to say, that an arrangement had been come to with the gentlemen engaged in the trade, which he hoped would prove satisfactory. He admitted freely that the tax on printed calicoes was an impolitic one; but he thought the tax on raw cotton a good deal less so than one on the manufactured article, although he conceived it to be the duty of any Finance Minister of this country to get rid of it as soon as the circumstances of the country would allow him. The mode of taking the duty on raw cotton at present was by a charge of six per cent ad valorem. Now, he proposed to take the duty off printed calicoes, and lay a duty of five-eighths of a penny per pound on raw cotton. He had originally proposed a duty of one penny; but, in compliance with the wishes of the trade, he now consented to throw off three-eighths from that proposition. This duty was, however, not to be levied on Colonial cotton, which he left unaltered. He had paused a good deal with respect to the question of drawback on the stock on hand, but after the best consideration he had been able to give the subject, he had come to the conclusion, that the only way to do justice to the public, and at the same time to preserve the interests of the Government, was to take the duty off printed calicoes immediately, and allow the drawback for three months. He knew well that some loss would be sustained by the manufacturers, but it was impossible to avoid it. They heard every day that the taking off a tax was not always attended with the lowering of the price of an article,
1046
and as the price was not expected, therefore, to fall immediately, the loss would not be so great as some persons apprehended.
Mr. Goulburndid not rise to object to the noble Lord's proposition, but. as it was stated by the noble Lord, when he brought forward the Budget, that the loss from the repeal of the: tax on printed calicoes would amount to 500,000 l., and that he would be unable to make good that loss without a duty of one penny per lb. on raw cotton, he wished to know, now that the noble Lord had reduced that duty to five-eighths of a penny, how the sum was to be made up, when even the increased tax on colonial cotton was also to be deducted from the anticipated amount? He did not object to the arrangement of the noble Lord; but when he saw how very small a surplus of revenue was provided for the year, he certainly felt anxious to know how the deficiency produced by this change, which he took to be 250,000 l., was to be made good. It was true, that there were two hundred millions of pounds weight of cotton imported, and that the duty on that would be 500,000 l., but then, by the duty of six per cent to be repealed, there would be a loss of 250,000 l. With respect to the system of drawbacks, he knew it was extremely difficult to deal with it; but he confessed he saw much to object to in the plan of allowing the drawback for three months on the export of calicoes already printed. At the present moment, the law allowed an unlimited period for the export of printed calicoes, but if the drawback was to be allowed for three months, no longer than three months, he thought it would be very easy for persons engaged in the trade to print calicoes, and obtain the drawback, in the same manner as if it had been printed before the alteration. He did not, in fact, understand at present how frauds on the revenue were to be prevented.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanwas not opposed to the slight increase of duty on the raw material, but he objected to the term of three months for claiming the drawbacks. The necessities of the trade required six months, and he thought that the wishes of men in business should be attended to. There was another point, however, relative to the stock on hand, which he thought worthy of attention. He knew from the best authority, that the quantity of printed calicoes

1047
in England at the present moment was equal to the whole of one year's home consumption, and therefore, if the duty was taken off, without making them any allowance, he might fairly calculate the loss of the holders of these calicoes at 500,000 l. It was, indeed, plain, that if a large quantity of goods were thrown upon the market without paying any duty, that there must be a loss equal to that duty, on all the goods on hand which had paid it. But it was not the calico printers, nor the merchants who would suffer most; the retail dealers were the persons who would be most affected. He knew, indeed, twenty- two persons engaged in the country trade, whose stocks amounted to 160,000 l., and whose loss would amount, to 38,000 l. by taking off the duty. It might happen, that some of these individuals were not in prosperous circumstances, and a loss which the most opulent could ill bear, would ruin them. Such parties were well entitled to compensation. Why should any man in a small way of business lose 30 l., 40 l., 50 l., or 60 l., by a change in the measures of the Government? One of its own servants, who was to suffer such a loss by a change beneficial to the whole people, would demand a compensation, and he would find advocates in that House to talk of his vested rights. These retail traders were already exposed to heavy losses: by the changes in the seasons, and by public mournings they had suffered very severely; by the change in the currency the prices of all their goods had fallen after they had bought them, and thus, therefore, this was not the time when the retail trader could bear additional losses. He had occasion lately to inquire into the state of trade, in consequence of a motion with respect to the Assessed Taxes, and he found that in one, the most leading street in the Metropolis— he need not name it—there were 300houses, and yet there had been 178 failures in the course of five years. He entreated the noble Lord to review his decision with respect to the drawbacks.
Mr. A. Campbellwas enabled to say, on the part of the calico-printers of Glasgow, that if sufficient time were allowed for the drawback duty on the stock on hand, the noble Lord's measure would be beneficial to the trade: but if sufficient time were not thus allowed, serious injury to many in the trade would be the consequence.
Mr. Wilson Pattenhoped that the
1048
noble Lord would come to some definite final arrangement with respect to the duty, as, at present, the trade was at a standstill, and would be so till Ministers had decided one way or another.
Lord Stanleywas glad that he was enabled—having attended several deputations of the Manchester cotton manufacturers which waited on the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to say, that, as a whole, the noble Lord's measure was satisfactory to himself and his constituents. The abolition of the duty on printed calicoes they received as a great boon, and he had communications in writing from the trade, to say, that they regarded the whole measure with approbation, though they wished the noble Lord could have dispensed with the additional tax. He trusted, however, that five-eighths of a penny duty on raw cotton would be only a temporary tax, to be wholly dispensed with when the revenue was more flourishing.
Sir R. Peelshould have much preferred a duty on the printed calicoes to the noble Lord's tax on the raw material, even though the tax were to be but a temporary one, because the encouragement just now bestowed in France and America, on the manufacture of cotton, should make us very wary as to the imposition of any new impediments in the way of our own domestic manufactures of that article. This was not, however, the point to which he then wished to particularly direct the attention of the House, with reference to the noble Lord's proposed reduction and substitution of duty. The noble Lord had not informed them how he meant to make good the deficiency which would accrue to the revenue from his change from an ad valorem duty of six per cent on the manufactured article, to a duty of five-eighths of a penny on the raw cotton. That loss would be, as he should presently show, not less than 250,000 l.; and when this sum was added to the defalcation which would ensue from the repeal of the duties on coals and candles, there would remain a total loss to the revenue of 1,200,000 l., which he knew not how the noble Lord could compensate. Then, let them consider how his proposed drawback duty would also affect the revenue. That drawback was to be in force three months,—that is to say, that though the five-eighths of a penny duty on raw cotton was nominally to commence from the present day, the revenue would be at a certain loss for three months, without any

1049
counterbalancing advantage. Now, that the amount of this loss would be very considerable was evident from the sum paid as drawback allowance last year. The ad valorem duty last year amounted to 1,942,000 l.; the drawback allowance on exports to 1,390,000 l.; leaving a clear nett revenue of 552,000 l. Supposing, then, that exports of printed calicoes for the ensuing three months, during which the drawback allowance was to be in force, would be only one-fourth of the amount of last year, it was plain they would be much more, inasmuch as the drawback for a limited period must operate as a stimulus to the exports during that period. There would be an actual loss to the revenue this year of 347,500 l. Again he must say, he knew not how the noble Lord proposed to make good the deficiency from the revenue which his measure would occasion.
Lord Althorpbegged leave to say, in answer to the hon. Alderman (Waithman) opposite, that he did not extend the period for allowing the drawback beyond three months, because on inquiry he learned, that that time would be sufficient for disposing of the stock of printed calicoes now on hand. With respect to the observations of the right hon. Baronet who had just addressed the House, all he had to say was, that he was not unaware that his drawback allowance would occasion a certain temporary loss to the revenue; but, besides that the loss would be but temporary, he was sure it would be much less than the right hon. Baronet estimated. To extend the period of the allowance would be, pro tanto, equivalent to a repeal of the tax altogether,—a repeal which the revenue could not at present admit of. He therefore felt himself bound to have it in force but for a short definite period, hoping, that though at the outset the revenue would be a loser, it would ultimately be considerably a gainer from the increased consumption of manufactured cottons. But, the right hon. Baronet asked, how are we to make good the loss in this year to the revenue from the change? In answer, he must remind the right hon. Baronet, that when he submitted his financial statements, some ten or twelve days ago, to the House, he laid down the probable loss to the revenue from his reductions at the highest possible rate,—that is, he estimated it from the consumption of last year, without at all taking credit for the
1050
increased consumption, and thence increased revenue, consequent upon a reduced duty on the articles he proposed for reduction. Now, if the probable amount of increased consumption of printed calicoes, consequent upon a reduced duty, were taken into account, it would be seen, that the right hon. Baronet had much over rated the loss which the revenue would experience, even this year, from his proposed measure, while the revenue must, in the face of the matter, be a gainer henceforward. Then it must also be recollected, that when stating the losses to the revenue which his relief to the general consumer of the articles, the duty on which he proposed to reduce would occasion, he took credit for a new revenue of 1,200,000 l. from a one-half per cent transfer tax; and that, having abandoned that, he felt himself compelled to relinquish his intended reduction of duty on tobacco and glass, from which reduction there would have ensued a loss to the revenue of 1,400,000 l., that is, 200,000 l. more than his transfer duty would have furnished him. Then, with respect to the cotton duty now under consideration, he maintained, that the rated duty on the raw article would be much more productive to the revenue than the ad valorem duty for which he substituted it; besides that, the cost of collection would be saved; and he, therefore, was warranted to take credit for this increase, the rather, as he was confident that the right hon. Baronet's estimate of loss from the drawback during three months would be found in the sequel to be much too high. He was aware, however, that he ran a slight hazard from his proposed reduction, but he trusted that if the House would go with him the whole length of his plan, it would be found, that while the revenue would be the gainer ultimately, the general comfort and prosperity of all classes would be essentially promoted.
Mr. Goulburncould not see what advantage could accrue from a rated duty which the present ad valorem one did not possess. It could not be one of certainty, for nothing was easier to estimate than the ad valorem amount on the 214,000,0001 b. of cotton which this country annually imported, exclusive of the produce of our East India colonies.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonregretted very much that the noble. Lord had not allowed a drawback on the export of the manufactured cottons on hand, with an

1051
option to the holder to pay half the duty should he retain his stock for home consumption. As the noble Lord had not consented to the propositions of the London dealers, he was sorry to say, that he could not express the same satisfaction with the measure, as the member for Lancashire. He had no objection to offer to the principle of the five-eighths of a penny duty on the raw article.
Mr. P. Thomsonbegged leave to remind the right hon. Baronet (Sir It. Peel) opposite, that when he talked of the necessity of our guarding against the consequences to our domestic cotton manufactures, which the anxiety of the French to encourage such a manufacture would point out, that there was a tax of 1¼d. on all raw cotton entering France, which, when we took into account our superiority in machinery, fuel, &c, would be found much more than proportionate to his noble friend's five-eighths of a penny duty. He was more apprehensive of the United States than of France, particularly as to coarse cottons, but he did not think that even the Americans would injure us. Then as to the assertion of the right hon. member for Armagh (Mr. Goulburn), that the ad valorem duty must be as productive as the proposed rated duty, it was sufficient to say, that the ad valorem duty was but six per cent—that is, three-eighths of a penny per pound, while the rated duty would be five-eighths of a penny on the same amount of imports, not to say anything of the 30,000 l. a-year that would be saved by the collection of the latter form of duty. The right hon. Member assumed also, that the quantity of East-India cotton imported was greater than it actually was. He calculated on an addition to the revenue from an increased consumption of cotton which last year was 238,000,000lb s. A considerable sum also would be saved by saving the drawbacks on soap and starch. Taking into account all circumstances, he did not think that the loss to the revenue would exceed 130,000 l.
Mr. Whitmorewas happy to hear it admitted, that this tax was one which ought to be removed whenever the improvement of the revenue would permit. At the same time he regretted that the noble Lord should find it necessary to propose an additional duty on the raw material, which he for one would not assent to, but in the hope that it would only be temporary.
The House then went into Committee.
Lord Althorpproposed a Resolution, that the duties of Excise now payable on Printed Calicoes, &c, and the drawback on the exportation thereof, do cease and determine. It was not usual to state the time when they would determine in the present stage of the measure. It was usually fixed in the Bill.
Mr. Humerejoiced in the course now taken on the subject by the noble Lord opposite, and did not participate in the fears of those who apprehended a great defalcation of the revenue. He was sure that the duty on raw cotton would be only temporary. He thought that the manner in which the stock in hand was to be treated, was a very great hardship on the holders, and he hoped the noble Lord would find means of giving them relief before the Bill passed. He concurred, however, on the whole, in approbation of the measure then in progress.
Mr. Bernalwished that that noble Lord would grant a drawback or allowance to the retail dealers for their stocks on hand; otherwise, many of those persons, who could ill afford it, would suffer great losses, and might be ruined. In his opinion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not surrender one iota of the manliness of his character, if he had yielded to the representations made to him on this subject.
Mr. J. Woodrejoiced that the duty had been taken off the printed calicoes, and regretted that any duty had been laid on the raw article. The merchants were inclined to feel satisfied with this tax, because they understood that it was to be only temporary. Like other hon. Members, however, he must regret that an allowance was not made for the stock in hand. By not doing that, some persons would lose 5,000 1. or 10,000 l., which was a fortune.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanmentioned several houses which would suffer materially from not having the drawback allowed on the stock in hand. He hoped that the noble Lord would do something to assist them. He wished to know whether the noble Lord had made up his mind to adhere to his present proposition.
Lord Althorpsaid, that on the best consideration, he was determined to stand by that which he had already proposed, namely, to allow a drawback for three months on goods printed for exportation since January, 1830. He believed that

1053
goods made for the home market might be exported to save the loss, and he was sure that if he made any allowance for the stock in band, he should open the door to an immense deal of fraud.
Mr. Robinsonconcurred in the proposition of the noble Lord, and stated, that he thought it would be wise, in order to prevent clamour, if the House would lay down some certain rule as to allowing drawbacks when duties were remitted.
Mr. Goulburnsuggested, that as there was no duty whatever on printed cottons in Ireland, the dealers of Manchester would be induced to ship their goods to an immense amount at Liverpool, and so transport them, by means of steam-boats, to Dublin, on the chance of a sale in the sister kingdom during the three months which would elapse before the allowance of a drawback was to be discontinued, or bring them back to dispose of in the English market. The parties would gain the drawback, which would cover their expenses, and allow them a handsome profit. He had always thought this duty on printed cottons highly objectionable; but the question was, what other duty would they find more eligible to substitute? and that question he candidly confessed, it was not in his power to answer. He wished to know when the remission of the duty was to commence?
Lord Althorpreplied immediately.
Mr. Spring Ricesupported the Resolutions, on the ground that a permanent grievance was worse than a temporary inconvenience, which would be amply counterbalanced by the benefit that would hereafter accrue from the policy of Government.
Lord Althorpadmitted, that some inconveniences would result from the change, but not to the extent supposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He took that opportunity to state, that it was not his intention to abandon the Timber Duties with their proposed alterations; on the contrary, he would bring the subject, before the House on Friday, if there should be time after the discussion of the Colonial Trade Bill, already appointed for that day.
Resolutions agreed to, and the House resumed.

TAX ON STEAM VESSELS.
Mr. B. Hoymoved, that there be laid before the House a return of the number of steam-vessels
1054
employed between the Isle of Wight and the coast of Hampshire, during the last year. The number of steam-boats employed there was very great, and to make the tax equal, it ought to be laid on sailing-vessels, as well as steam-boats. Between the Isle of Wight and Southampton, 50,000 persons passed annually. He believed that the tax would be a serious impediment to that traffic, and though he did not mean vexatiously to oppose the Motion, he did hope that the noble Lord would give up the tax.
Mr. H. Hughesseconded the Motion.
An hon. Member inquired if any Gentleman connected with the Government could inform him whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to lay his proposed tax upon the steam-vessels or upon the passengers?
Mr. S. Ricesaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend that the tax should be imposed upon the passengers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would take an early opportunity of detailing the plan by which he proposed to levy the tax on steam-navigation.
Motion agreed to.

MINUTES.
The London Approaches Bill was read a second time.
Petitions presented. In favour of Reform, and of Vote by Ballot, by the Karl of RADNOR, from Bridgewater, Gisborough, Kilbynce, and Marlborough:—By Karl SPENCER, from Leicester and Lincoln:—By Lord SALTOUN, from Inverary:— By Lord DURHAM, from Northam, Gateshead Hill, Durham, and from Sunderland:—By Earl MORLEY, from Plymouth:—By the Duke of DEVON-SHIRE, from a Parish in the County of Waterford:—By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Wells, and other places: — By the Karl of GLENGALL, from a Parish in the County of Limerick:—By Earl CAWDOR, from Cacrmarthen:— By Karl GREY, from Uxbridge, Leith, and Lanark:—By Lord KING, from the County Palatine of Lancaster, Great and Little Bolton, Christchurch, Caithness, Selkirk, Bannockburn, Northampton, Radford, Leslie, Fife, Barn-staple, and from Brighton:—By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from Banff, Londonderry, Dumfries, Kircudbright, and other places. Against Slavery, by the Archbishop of YORK, from several places in Yorkshire:—By Lord KENYON, from Carmarthen:—By Lord DACRE, from Ashton-under-Lyne, and other places. By the Marquis of CLANRICARDE, from Galway, for an extension of the Franchise. By the Earl of GLENGALL, from parishes in Kilkenny, for a Repeal of the Union.

NEW POLICE.
Lord Wharncliffepresented a Petition from the Parish of St. George, Hanover-square, complaining of the expense of the New Police. The petitioners did not complain of the nature of the force, nor of the manner in which it was conducted, but they thought it very hard that they should have to pay so very largely for a security, it costing them 10,000 l. per annum, from which others derived as much benefit as they did; under the old watch system, these expenses were 6,500 l., and now they were 17,500 l.
Viscount Melbournesaid, he was glad to find that there was no objection to the nature or conduct of the police force. It was evident that an efficient force could not be procured at the same expense which an inefficient one cost, and it could never, he hoped, be considered a wise economy to starve a service which so effectually preserved domestic peace and the security of property. The police must of necessity be more burthen some in the rich parishes than in the poor; but the question in reality was, did it or did it not benefit those on whom the expense fell? At the same time he assured the noble Lord that every care would be taken to keep down the charges, and to make the service as effective as possible at the least expense.
Lord Wharncliffedid not see why the parish of St. George should have to pay for the wants of others; it was quite sufficient that it should be chargeable for the maintenance of its own security. The expense of the watch did not exceed 3½d. in the pound, while that of the police was 11½d.
Earl Rosslynwished to know, how 11 d. in the pound could be charged, while the
1000
Act of Parliament only gave a right to levy 8d.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, the charge was not made on the parish rate, but on the full value of the property; and it was levied, not by the valuation of the parishioners, but according to a demand made on the parish by the Commissioners of Police. The Act of Parliament determined the whole sum should be charged on the poor-rates, and by that contrivance property was compelled to pay the sum imposed; and, in fact, those who could pay were obliged to pay for those who could not.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, the parish of St. George had no right to complain. Before the establishment of the police force there was security only in particular places, but at present there was a general security, and those who benefitted by it must pay for it.

DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
Lord Dacrepresented a Petition from Erris, in the County Mayo, setting forth the great Distress which prevailed in that part of the County, and calling for immediate relief.
Lord Teynhamcalled the attention of Government to the state of misery, and of almost starvation, which prevailed in a part of Mayo and Galway; and said, that it was the duty of the Government to afford some immediate relief.
Earl Greysaid, the Irish Government was already informed on the subject, and had given notice of its intention to afford relief, and no doubt could be entertained of its anxiety to do so.
Lord Teynhamrepeated, that immediate attention was necessary; for, though the noblemen and gentlemen of Mayo had exerted themselves as much as possible, all they could do was insufficient without the aid of the Government.
The Marquis of Lansdownassured the noble Lord, that the distress of the part of the country alluded to had not escaped the attention of the Irish Government; and those who knew the character of the noble Marquis at the head of it, could rely on the promptitude and benevolence of his exertions. He had only further to say, that it would be well if public attention was less forcibly drawn to the means which Government was disposed to employ to afford relief in cases like the present, for it was evident that, if expectations were

1001
too highly raised, its views might, in some degree, be counteracted, and the suffering of the people extended.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
The Lord Chancellorpresented a Petition from the County of Devon, in favour of Reform, the tenor of which, he said, was moderate, as it only prayed for a correction of the Representative system of the country. He trusted, that there was no person prepared to oppose a petition of this nature, as, however reasonable the objections to the other demands of Reform might be, he that could say, that the Representation of the country was perfection, and could not be improved, was fitter for a museum or a menagerie than to be a Member of the Legislature. He had, also, to present a Petition, numerously and respectably signed, from Liverpool, which contained a recommendation of a nature more questionable than that suggested in the last, and in which he could not state that he was disposed to acquiesce. The petitioners recommended the adoption of the Vote by Ballot, but, though he could not agree with them, he was far from doing what he had been misrepresented to have done; namely, treating the feeling of the people on this subject with contempt. He was aware that the public opinion in favour of the Ballot was growing stronger every day, and he treated those who held it with the deference they were entitled to. He was still unconvinced on the subject, and he believed that a Ballot would be nothing like the effectual remedy which the proposers of it expected.—Petitions to be laid on the Table.

TITHES, EXPENSES, AND LITIGATION.
Lord Kingpresented a Petition from Grey-stock, praying for an Amendment of the Tithe-system. The petitioners complained, that they had been for thirty years involved in litigation with their Rector, and that they had lost many thousand pounds in endeavouring to support their ancient customs and moduses; that they had been dragged into all the Courts at Westminster, and into the Ecclesiastical Courts at York and Carlisle; that at one time forty or fifty suits were pending against different persons; and that, although the Earl of Eldon and Lord Lyndhurst had decided in favour of the petitioners on the subject of moduses, still the Rector persevered in opposition to their decisions.
1002
He would, with their Lordships' permission, read an extract from the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the laws relating to real property. The Commissioners say—
"On the still more important subject of tithes, we propose at present to consider of a limitation for them in the hands of the laity only. We hope to suggest some improvements in law, by which tithes, in the hands of the ecclesiastics, may remain equally valuable to them, and be rendered less productive of vexation to the laity. We are deeply impressed with the conviction that the property of the Church should be held sacred, and that the clergy should be protected in the enjoyment of their possessions and rights; but we conceive that the clergy might derive benefit from regulations that might lessen the litigation to which the claim to tithes now too frequently gives rise, and might rescue this species of property from the odium which, on this account, is sometimes unjustly cast upon it. We should venture to bring forward any propositions on this subject only after the most mature consideration, and after an ample opportunity had been afforded to those most immediately interested to give an opinion as to their probable tendency. With this view we have submitted certain questions respecting tithes and other ecclesiastical property to the right reverend the Bishops, and we delay proposing any alteration in the law upon this subject, until we shall have been favoured with the answers of such of them as may be pleased to communicate their opinions to us. We feel reluctance to propose any new rule affecting the property of the Church without their previous sanction.
"We are fully prepared to say, that in our opinion, the right to impropriate tithes in the hands of the laity ought to be regulated by the same principles as the right to any other species of lay property. For this purpose, they are not to be distinguished from common of pasture, estovers, rent-charges, or any other profit issuing out of land. They are in commerce, and they ought to be subject to the same rules of limitation and prescription by which other property is governed. The law has been settled otherwise. There is no statute of limitations applicable to the right to appropriate tithes; and, contrary to the general principles of jurisprudence, by the practice of the Courts, every thing has been presumed to disturb enjoyment and to stir up controversy. In a parish where the rectory is impropriate, it can be proved, that no tithes have been paid for a certain portion of land, and no claim has been made for them during two hundred years: the lay rector may have conveyed the tithes to the owner of the land. The presumption of a court of justice under these circumstances might be expected to be

1003
that he has done so, and that the deed has been lost: this is not like the presumption of a lost grant of an casement which we have ventured to censure. Upon sound principles of reasoning, the legitimate inference from the premises is, that there was a grant by which the tithes were severed from the rectory. Though the existence of an Act of Parliament has been presumed against the Crown to protect a much shorter period of enjoyment, it has been held, that such a grant cannot be presumed from non-payment against the lay-impropriator; and that, unless evidence be given of the grant having existed, tithes must still be paid to him. Long enjoyment, which strengthens all other titles, weakens this; and here the longer that the claimant has been out of possession, he has the better chance to recover."
If the Lord Chief Justice had been in his place, he should have taken the opportunity of asking that noble and learned Lord, whether he intended to bring in a bill relating to tithes, which he was understood to have in contemplation, as there was a learned Gentleman in the other House who had a measure prepared on that subject, which he had delayed only on the supposition that the Chief Justice was about to introduce a bill relating to the subject.
Earl Greysaid, that no man could be more fully convinced than he was, that great inconveniences arose from the tithe-system, and that a speedy remedy was necessary. He did not rise, however, to discuss the question, but merely to answer the question which the noble Lord was desirous to ask of the Lord Chief Justice if he had been present. That noble and learned Lord had intimated his intention to bring in a bill for the purpose to which the noble Lord alluded. As it related, in part, to Crown property, it was necessary to apply for his Majesty's consent, and as soon as that consent should have been obtained, he had no doubt that the noble and learned Lord would be prepared to introduce his measure.
The Petition to lie on the Table.

DISTRESS IN THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS.
Lord Teynhamrose to submit a Motion which he thought necessary from the present circumstances of the country. He was happy that order was restored, but still it was to be lamented that much distress existed. That distress was necessarily attended with many deplorable circumstances, and gave rise to
1004
many crimes. Amongst the causes which deteriorated the condition of the peasantry, the malt and hop duties had hitherto a principal and injurious effect. The petitions which had been presented for the last two Sessions proved the general existence of the distress. In another House it was usual to print such petitions. The object of his present Motion was, to found upon the petitions presented to their Lordships, a proceeding which might lead to an alleviation of the misery which was too prevalent. He meant to move for a classification of the petitions which had been presented for the last two years, complaining of agricultural distress, stating the names of the counties or places from which such petitions came, the number of signatures which each contained, the prayer of the petition, and other particulars. He called for this classification with the view that Resolutions might be founded upon the petitions, such as the circumstances of the case required.
Earl Greysaid, that this Motion appeared to him a most extraordinary one; and the mode which the noble Lord had adopted for introducing it, no less extraordinary. He admitted that the distress which prevailed deserved all the attention which could be bestowed upon it; but he was glad that the condition of the people was improving. The noble Lord had referred to a practice in the House of Commons, which he (Earl Grey) should be sorry to see adopted in their Lordships' House. It was the practice in the House of Commons to print petitions, at great inconvenience and expense to the country, and he thought that that example ought rather to be avoided than followed. He knew of no similar duty being imposed upon the Officers of the House of Commons, but he was certain that no such duty devolved upon the Clerks of that House, as to classify these petitions, to which they must devote a portion of time which would be impossible, consistently with their other duties. The noble Lord could at any time refer to these petitions, in the library of the House, or he could have them produced upon the Table for any occasion for which he required them; but this Motion, if not altogether impossible to be complied with, would at least occasion such an expense and waste of time, that he was sure their Lordships would not consent to it. He believed, that in the instance of the Catholic Relief

1005
Bill a list was made out, by Order of the House, stating what petitions were for, and what against the measure. That was the only precedent, and it would not answer the purpose which the noble Lord had in view. He was not inclined to consent to the Motion.
Lord Teynhamsaid, that as it appeared the Motion was attended with greater difficulty than he had supposed, he would withdraw it, and he hoped that, in calling the attention of their Lordships to the petitions, he had done all that he ought.
Motion withdrawn.