Debated an11 Prarraingst fn Vittliamcd. 1. REPEAL OF THE MALT-TAX.
On Tuesday, a number of petitions for the repeal of the Malt-tax were presented to the House of Commons by Sir C. FUIRELt, 1,0Id NORREYS, Lord DARLINGTON, Air. HODGES, Mr. Prereerie, Mr. GORING, Mr. CURT :1S, Mr. COI:Et:TT, and the .1Iarqu:s CITANDoS. A Member on the Opposition side of the House, in allusion to reports in circulation as to the thte of the great question of the night, expressed a hope that those gentlemen who had pledged themselves to their con- stituents to vote for the repeal of the Malt-tax would take warning by the fate of Sir George Murray !
The Marquis of CIIANDOS then brought forward his notion. He began by declaring, that he was very far indeed from desiring to em- barrass his 'Majesty's Government ; but he felt that the tsx was most
injurious :mei oppressive to the country, and especially to the ngrictil. Wrists; and havineb pledged himself to bring the subject before the House, nothing under lemma' should prevent him from redeeming his pledge. The :Marquis gave a brief history of the net. It was first imposed in the reign of William the Third : it etas then 4s. a quarter ; and had been gradually raised, until, in 1804, it reached Zias. fq.: it was DOW '2.8s. 8d. a quarter. This duty was so oppressive as to encourage the use of ardent spirits, in preference to the national beverege, beer. The consequence had been an elm ming increase of crime and innnor:i1ity in the country. By removing the Malt-duty, private breweries would be reestablished in the dwellings of the poor, and the gin-shops und beer-houses would be abandoned. He thought that the ugriculteral interest might justly complain of the little relief that had been extended to it ill the remissions of taxation that had been made within the last few years. It was now proposed to remove some local burdens ; but this would give exceedingly small relieE A farmer holding 230 acres of arable land would be benefited to the ex- tent of 701. or 80/. per annum by the removal of the duty on malt ; but the abolition of county-rates would be a saving of only fl. a year to him. It was melancholy to see the change that had taken place in the habits of the farmer. Formerly lie brewed a wholesome and nutritive beverage in his own house, for the use of his family and the labourers on his farm: now, he and his family were too often com- pelled to drink at the pump, or out of the ditch. The fact could not be concealed, that every year the farmer approached nearer to utter ruin—to the misery of the workhouse. This state of things was such ns no Government could suffer to prevail. He firmly believed that the repeal of the Malt-tax would give the necessary relief. Lord Chandos then alluded to the enormous profits which he said were en- grossed by the masters. In some way or another, nearly three mil- lions sterling paid by the country found its way into the pockets of individuals, the greater part of which ought to be paid into the Exche- quer. Ile found upon inquiry, that the quality of the beer now brewed in London was very inferior to what it was formerly. In another way, too, the Malt-tax was injurious. The farmers were deterred from feeding cattle on the refuse barley, by the fear of coming within the Excise-laws. In Buckinghamshire, many respectable graziers fed their cattle for the Smithfield market upon oil-cake, the most expensive article that could be procured for the purpose, because they were afraid to use the cheaper and more wholesome food of refuse barley wetted with water, and which might be pronounced malting by the Excise. In a variety of ways the repeal of the Malt-duty would be of essential relief; and whatever might be the fate of his motion, he should at least have the satisfaction of having attempted to do them this great service, and of giving the country gentlemen of England an opportu- nity of redeeming the distinct pledges, the solemn promises, they had made to their constituents, of voting to abolish, the tax on malt. To find a substitute for the duty was not his business : as the late Mr. Tierney said, it was his duty to find fault with taxes, not to put them on ; and, recollecting the injury which Sir William Ingilby had done himself last year by setting trp for a Chancellor of the Exchequer,-- the loss of his seat being the consequence of his indiscretion and buf- foonery,—he felt considerable reluetanee at proposing new taxes in the place of the one he wished to reireeL On this point, however, he had only to apply himself to the proposition mad., last year by the now President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Alexander Baring. He perfectly concurred in the opinion then expressed by Me. Baring as to the means of making up the deficiency which would be occasioned in the revenue by the repeal of the Malt-tax. He thought that by imposing certain duties on raw spirits. foreign wines, and other articles connected with. the Excise, they would find the means of meeting the deficiency, not trespassing on the com- forts of the lower orders of the community, but throwing on the higher classes
more distinctly and fairly their sbare of the general burden. He for one would most cheerfully and willingly bear a greater burden, could he but feel assured
that by so doing he afforded relief to the farmer, the labourer, and a great por- tion of the people of this country. it was quite impossible that the peeple could go on with the present expeuses of the country; It was quite impossible
that they could go on with the present amount of local taxation, altering as it did every year—sometimes increasing, sometimes diminishing—without receiv- ing some help and assistance from that House, not in the shape of the reduction
of small taxes, not in the shape of trilling and unimportant alterations, but in the shape of one hold and den-idol measure of relief. He thought he might venture to say that the one they looked to with the greatest hope and anxiety, was the reduction of the duty on malt.
The course he intended to pursue u-as to move a resolution declaring the expediency of totally abolishing the duty ; and if that resolution should be carried, he would then bring in a bill in which the time and mode of carrying the resolution into effect should be laid down. In this way, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would experience the least inconvenience. Lord Chandos concluded by moving, " That it is ex- pedient that the present duties upon Malt shall altogether cease and determine."
Major HANDLEY cordially seconded the motion. He was confident that Ministers, although they bed the advantage of the counsels of the Members for Kent and Essex, could not be aware of the extreme dise tress of the farmers. If they were, they would not have insulted them with the mockery of relief intimated in the Speech from the Throne In 1821, when the price of wheat was 54s. 5d. a quarter, a Committee of the House had declared it impossible for the farmer to exist on the profits of his farm. The average price of wheat was now 408. 4d. a quarter ; but in Lincolnshire it was not so high, for he had himself viathin a week sold some of his best wheat for :37s. a quarter. The consumption of malt had remained stationary. from 1821 to 1831, tak- ing the increase of population into account ; while the use of sugar, tea, and coffee had increased enormously. He attributed the difference to the pernicious effects of the Malt-duty. Major Handley repeated aseeral of the arguments of Lord Chandos in reference to the immorul influence of the tax. With respect te the financial part of the pies- tion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would hardly expect him to rouse the bees by meddling with the hive, unless he had a portion of the honey. At the same time, he did not approve of Mr. Tierney's. doctrine, as greeted by Lord Chandos, but was willing to submit to a substitute for the tux he proposed to repeal. He had recorded his vote in favour of Mr. Robinson's motion for a Property. tax. He was also prepared to support a tax on the transfer of Stock, which had been proposed by Lord Althorp, and for the abandonment of which no good reason was ever offered.
He wanted to know why he, 'purchasing WOOL worth of land, was to pay a heavy stamp-duty, while if he sold 50,001. worth of stock, he had to pay no- thing but his broker's commission ! They had heard a good deal of a breach of public faith : he should like to ask whether it was no breach of public faith to require the value of three quarters of wheat to pinehase that quantity of debt, which could here been purchaser! with one gum ter when it was originally con- tracmd ? Considering taxation as an insurance paid 1w property for its protec- tion, and seeing as lie did, that some of the interests of the country were on the verge and brink of ruin, he knew of no desca iption of property which it would be more discreet or prudent to hemte than property in the Funds.
Rumours were rife of an intention on the part of several :Members to violate their pledges to their constituents on this question.
Fur his own parf, however, lie would not believe them : lie could not believe until the fact was brought before his eves, that any of those gentlemen who some few weeks ago hail raised the cry of " measares not men," would so sone turn round and desert the principles they so strenuously maintained — not that they loved the measures less, but that they loved the men more. (Loud cheers and laughter.) He could not, fur instance, believe, although it certainly had been very strongly rumoured, that the alember fur South Derbyshire (Sir Roger Griesley), who defeated his Liberal opponent mainly in consequent.% of the opinions lie professed on this very question, had the most remote intention of shrinking from the avowal of those opinions, on this the first opportunity he had of maintaining them. (Loud cheering.) He had made an extract trout that honourublv Baronet's address to his constituents prior to his election, which he would beg to read. " I do not hesitate to say, that if 1 have the honour of, representing yeti in Parliameut, 1 shall propose, with all the energy in my power, the adoption of two measures which I hold to be indispensably and im- mediately requisite." The first of those measures related to the currency. (" Read, rend ! ") The second he fituud spoken of in these terms—.." The repeal of that most oppressive, and mischief-working impost, the Malt-ax; one which depresses industry and checks hilarity, promotes intemperance and immorality, and diminishes the consumption and comfort of the productive and labouring classes. For these professions I claim credit because no one can con- vict me of ever having broker, my promise or belied my principles." (Much cheering.) Surely, then, Lord Chandos need be under no apprehension for the fate of his motion— Was there any cause for alarm, when be had those to support him who bad but a few weeks since declared upon the hustings that they were the friends and supporters of the measure, and who had now an opportunity of showing the sincerity of their professions? Was it possible that gentlemen bad been sent to this House who would a hi to the despair of the already miserable fanner, by falsifying. the promises made, and betraying their cause? The days for profes- sions had now gone by, and now the sincerity of promises made and depended upon would be put to the test; and the division of that night would show who was or who was not truly the farmer's friend.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said he was anxious to speak at an early period of the debate, before any topics of a party nature had been introduced.. He hoped that this most important subject would he calmly consi- dered, and that the House would decide upon the facts before it un- influenced by political feeling. The question was, whether the Efouse should pledge itself completely and irrevocably to the total. repeal of the Malt-tax.
He was called upon by Lord Chandos to consent to this resolution, at a period when the House bad had no opportunity of hearing what the financial state of the country was ; when Members had no means of knowing what theamount of assets was, or bow much the disposable funds ; when it was nut yet known what amount would be demanded for the public service of the country ; and before an opportunity had been given fur any. other class of persons in the country to put in their claim fur a share in any remission of taxes which it might be possible to make. He stew called upon to be a !Party to a resolution which irrevocably deprived the public revenue of the kingdom of several millions sterling. If this were to be done—if it were possible to do it—lie appealed to the House if the proposition ought not to he brought forward, not at the present period, when nothing was known as to the unionist which could be spared from the public service, but after the declaration of what was necessary—a declanition which would ne- cessarily be made at no very remote period. It would become his duty to make that declaration as soon after the termination of the financial year—that is to say, after the 5th of April next—as possible. lie would then lay before the House the probable amount of the revenue of the ensuing year, and the certain amount of the surplus of the present year ; and the House would then be in possession of a surplus from which they might either reduce taxation or apply it in whatever other mode they thought most expedient. But his noble friend the Member for Buckinghamshire would not wait till that period. No: he called on the House tee set aside the consideration of all other classes, and to consider the propriety of coming to a resolution pledging it absolutely and irre- vocably to repeal the Malt-tax.
Sir Robert then explained, that the surplus revenue of the year ceding 5th April 1836, according to his own calculation as well as Lord Althorp's, would not exceed 250,000/. Now, the gross produce of the Malt-tax last year was 5,150,000/. sterling. It had been pro- gressively increasing without any augmentation of rate. In 1831, the net sum paid into the Exchequer from the produce of the tax was 4,208,000/. ; in 1832, 4,675,1?CO1. ; in 1833, 4,772,000/. ; in 1834, 4,812,010/. As he had only 230,000/. surplus, the consequence of re- pealing the Malt-tax would be a deficit in, the public revenue of 4,300,000/. It was said that the expense of collection would be got rid of, and that the sum expended for that purpose was very great ; but he Turd ascertained that there were few taxes the charge for collecting which was so small ; for it did not exceed 1,50,000/. Lord Chandos and Mr. Handley had alleged that, while other taxes were reduced, there had been no diminution of the duty on malt : but, in 1830, the duty on beer, which ultimately fell on malt, -was reduced 358. a barrel. Le rd Chandos had spoken of the great depression in the pt-ice of agri- cultural produce ; but had barley fallen in price ? Ne—wheat, which paid no tax, was low in price, while barley, which paid•this large tax, was unprecedentedly high ; and yet it was the barley-growers whom the House was asked to relieve. The high price of barley did not Janie from scatcity, for the quantity malted I ad gradually increased. If the harvest had been deice; ive, the quantity of malting barley brought to charge could not have been augmented, as it had been. lie found upon inquiry, that the increase in the quantity brought to charge, between the 10th of October 1834 and the 19th of February 1835, as compared
with the corresponding period of the preceding year, was no less than 846,000 bushels. lie admitted that the quantity of beer consumed had not increased in the same ratio with that of tea, coffee, sugar, and spirits ; but he contended that the change in the national tastes, in- dicated by the consumption of these articles, was the reason of the comparatively less consumption of beer—it could not be the tax.
In 1722, the quantity of tea consumed in England amounted to 370,000 pounds, or about au ounce to each individual. In 1833, the consumption of tea
was 31,829,000, or nearly two-and-a-half pounds to each individual. Was it not notorious, that the use of tea had superseded the use of beer among all classes of the community, in the same manner that the use of spirits and wine
had superseded it ? Mr. Handley might say that lie deprecated the use of spirits, but it was impossible for him or ally other person to make any regulation by which the quantity consumed could be decreased. It was true he might
increase the duty, but he would be mistaken if he thought that such an increase
would diminish the consumption. No; in point of fact, it would only diminish the revenue, by opening the way to fraud. In 1722, the quantity of spirits con-
sumed was 3,000,000 gallons ; while in 1833 it was 12,382,000 gallons. But the most remarkable increase was in the consumption of coffee. In 1760—for there was no earlier authentic account of the consumption of coffee—the quan- tity of coffee consumed in the United Kingdom was 262,000 pounds, or about
three quarters of an ounce to each person : rn 1833, the quantity was 20,691,000 pounds, or one pound and a half to each person. Now, it was impossible that you could consume as much of all these articles as if only one of them was in use. It was impossible that the quantity of tea and coffee could be increased, and the quantity of beer also ; and as far as the morals and habits of the people went, he doubted much if they should be improving them by discountenancing the use of tea and coffee. Then it was said, that an unfair advantage was given to these articles, and to wine and spirits, and that the Government had encou- raged their use, by laying a loo er duty upon them than upon beer. Now he would state the rate per cent. upon the several articles. The duty on malt was only 2s. 7d. per bushel, or at the rate of 57 per cent. ; and he would beg the House to hear the rate of duty on articles favoured by Government. The duty laid upon West India coffee was at the rate of 63 per cent. ; the duty upon port and sherry at the rate of 75 per cent. ; the duty upon ruin at the rate of 407 per cent. ; the duty upon English spirits at the rate of 333 per cent. ; the duty upon brandy at the rate of 627 per cent. ; and the duty upon geneva at the rate of 930 per cent. How then could it be said that an undue preference had been given to those articles over beer?
The enormous profits of the maltsters bad been assumed by the advo- cates of the repeal : it was said that sixteen millions of pounds sterling were pocketed by the maltsters : but bow could this be, when the malt- ing trade was perfectly free?
There are no fewer than 14,000 maltsters in England ; and independently of the causes which induce competition in other trades, there were peculiar reasons why there should be a strong competition in that of a maltster, because in some measure his capital was provided for him by the public. Ile could give a bond
of security for the duties, and carry on his trade with the Government capital; which was an advantage peculiar to the malting trade. But, with respect to the difference between the prices of barley and of malt, Mr. Cobbett had stated
on a former occasion—and the statement appeared to make an impression on the House—that when the duty was 208. 8d.,,,and the price of barley 25s., the price of malt ought to be 45s. 8d., while in point of fact it was 66s. ; and that the
198. difference went into the pockets of the maltster. Now, be (Sir Robert Peel) had sent this day to Mark Lane to inquire into the prices of barley and of malt, because he was desirous to ascertain the real difference between them, and
the causes which gave such enormous profits to the maltsters. He found that the price of the best malting barley was from 36s. to 408. per quarter—a good price that for barley, and it was not diminished even by the heavy rate of duty. Now if to the barley which bore the highest price, namely 40s., were added the duty, amounting to 20s. 8d., the price of malt, leaving no profit to the maltster, ought to he 60s. 8d. And what was the price of malt at Mark Lane this day ? It was 66s. ; leaving a balance of only 5s. 4d. between the price of the barley and the price of the malt. Now, after the expense and trouble which the maltster was put to, he did not think that 5s.-Id. would he considered too much profit for him to put in his pocket.
With regard to the steeping of barley for the feeding of cattle, Sir Robert Peel stated, that he bad directed the Board of Excise to give
publicity to an order which had been issued as long ago as 1827, per- mitting the use of wetted barley for thatpurpose, under certain regula- tions. Another of the arguments used for the repeal of the Malt-tax was, the inducement which the poor man would have to brew at home : but as the large brewer would share equally with him' the advantage of the reduction in price, he did not see how brewing at home would be encouraged by the abolition of the .duty.
If there would be a temptation on the removal of the Malt-tax for the poor man to brew his beer, why did he not do so when the duty on beer existed ?
That tax, be it recollected, was only paid by the brewer, and the poor man who brewed his own beer did riot pay any duty of the kind. Then did the practice of the poor man brewing his own beer prevail to a greater extent than at present? At that time honourable gentlemen connected with the agricultural interests dwelt on the advantages that would result from the removal of the duty on beer ; but it was now found that the existence of the beer-shops had more than coun-
terbalanced the other advantages. Mr. Handley had alluded to the benefit that had resulted from the consumption of beer, with the exception of that drank at the beer--shops : he dwelt with much force on this point, as if the beer drank at the beer-houses possessed less nutritive qualities than that drank elsewhere. Now Sir Robert did not deny that the establishment of the beer-shops had extended the consumption of beer among the poorer classes ; but then, according to Mr. Handley, the beer was useless—it was not brewed by the poor man himself, and drank by his own fireside. Sir Robert warned country gentlemen against being led away by such an assumption. Let them not repeal a tax producing five mil-
lions a year, under the delusion that by so doing the poor man would be induced to brew his own beer. Similar motives would operate on the poor man to go to the beer-shop, when the tax was removed, as existed at present. If the whole of the tax were repealed, it would only make a difference of a halpenny a quart in the price of beer.
Then as to the taxes to be substituted for the one proposed to be re- pealed, he warned honourable gentlemen to beware how they proposed new taxes, and to remember the fate of Sir William Ingilby ; who, not- withstanding his constant advocacy of the repeal of this tax, lost his seat in consequence of his imprudence in proposing to lay on substitutes for it. Sir Robert contended, that in some respects the landed interests would be injured by the repeal of the Malt-tax.
At present, from the mode in which the duty on malt was paid, considerable
advantage resulted to the producer, and the manufacturer of malt was often enabled to go into the market and receive the price of it before ire paid the duty. It would be found that something like a capital of three millions belonging to the public was left in the possession of the manufacturers of malt for the en. couragement of that branch of industry. By the employment of this capital, the small manufacturer was enabled to enter into competition with the rich maltster ; the former often traded without capital, relying on the advantage he derived from the mode of paying the duty, whale the latter used his own capital. Ile was satisfied that it would be found that the great maltster, and not the small maltster, as it had been contended, would derive advantage from the repeal of the duty. The large mobsters would be enabled, by the judicious employment of their capital, by their greater skill, and by the advantage generally derived from carrying on the manufacture on an extensive scale, to gain the mono- poly of the trade ; but if they repealed the duty, the small mobster would not be able to avail himself of the advantage he derived from the present mode of paying the duty, but would be deprived of the capital now at his disposal, and which amounted to about three millions. He repeated, if they did away with this tax, the capital of the smaller mobsters would cease.
Another consequence of the repeal of the Malt-duty, would be a great increase in the illicit distillation of spirits.
The process of making malt was dilatory, and it could not be carried on to any extent in secret. The process of distillation from malt, however, was of a very different nature, and could be carried on with rapidity, and with compa- rative little difficulty. If the duty was repealed, every man would be entitled to make malt ; and it would be a monstrous interference with the liberty of the subject to prevent this being done. If, therefore, the manufacture could be car-
ried on to any extent, the inevitable result would be a greater increase of illicit distillation. The amount of the duty on spirits would be diminished to a cur-
responding extent ; and the honourable gentleman would not find, as he sup.. posed, that the amount of revenue from spirits would increase. Thus the revenue would be seriously injured, and at the same time agriculture would not derive any considerable benefit from the repeal of the Malt-tax, as had been supposed.
After alluding to the derangement of business and the suspension of
purchases of malt, which would necessarily result from the uncertain state into which the trade would be thrown by the adoptions of Lord
Chandos's resolution, Sir Robert Peel proceeded to discuss the various courses which might be pursued by the House when the question of supplying the deficiency was brought under its consideration.
There was only one of four courses that could be adopted. In the first place, they might increase the duty on other articles of general consumption ; or secondly, they might resort to a Property-tax ; or thirdly, they might trust to the reduction of the public establishments to make up the deficiency ; or fourthly, after making the deficiency, they might do nothing.
With regard to the reduction of the establishments of the country, he contended that no man of common information could imagine for a moment, that four millions and a half sterling could be saved by such a process. As to increasing the duties on spirits, that would inevitably
lead to illicit distillation, and smuggling from Ireland. Then as to a
Property-tax, the House resolved that it was inexpedient to resort to one, (when they had a surplus of 1,500,(00/. to dispose of ), upon a
proposition being made to reduce half the Malt-tax and the House and Window-duties. But after 'trying additional duties on wine, spirits, and tobacco, he prophesied that to a Property-tax they would come at last.
Could the country gentlemen of England tell what they would gain by im- posing a Property-tax in lieu of the Malt tax. They should recollect that a Property-tax would not fall on the profits of the tradesman, or on professional incomes, but, like all other taxes, it would fall on that which was tangible, the land. Then indeed they would have reason to repent having, while sitting in judgment on the subject, imposed a tax on property in lieu of the duty on malt. Then they would repent having tried a Property-tax, whether graduated or not, in lieu of the Malt-tax. He was satisfied that the country gentlemen would bitterly repent of their conduct if they yielded to the suggestion.
The gain of the farmer by the repeal of the Malt-tax had been greatly exaggerated. A farmer of 250 acres could not, as Lord Chan- dos had calculated, consume so much malt in his house as to render him a gainer to the extent of 701. or 80/. by the repeal of the tax. [Here Lord Chandos intimated that Sir Robert Peel had misunder- stood him.] Then as to a Property-tax, the people of Ireland and Scotland, who now paid so small a proportion of the Malt-duty, would have to take their fair share of a Property-tax. A small loan had been suggested to make good the deficiency ; but a series of large loans would be wanted ; and it was not possible, as bad been said by Mr. Handley, to make the revenue from the Crown lands available to pay the interest of such loans. Much had been done in the way of reducing the public debt by maintaining public credit, and he warned the House not to throw away this advantage.
He trusted the House would not again involve itself in those contradictions and those vacillations which had been the consequences of tire course taken on former occasions. The history of this very Malt-tax was pregnant with lessons of warning. On three different occasions they had retraced their steps. In 1816, they took off part of the duty, in the hope that there would be some great correspondent reduction in the price. In this being disappointed, however, in 1819 they replaced the duty they had so taken off. In March 1821, the House determined, by a small majority, to repeal the Malt-duty ; but in one month after, in April 1821, it rescinded its own decision, and reestablished the duty it had repealed. They did the same thing in 1833. By a precipitate vote, adopted in the enthusiasm of the moment, they passed a resolution with a view to the repeal of a portion of the duty ; and on the following Monday they re- traced their steps. Certainly it was better to do that rather than incur the im- putation of being determined to persevere in error. But let them not place themselves again in the same dilemma of having no other safe alternative but that of another repentance and another retractation of their steps. He believed, notwithstanding the numerous pledges which he was told had been given to repeal this tax, that upon a calm consideration of the advantages and mischiefs that would result from its abolition, a majority would be found to vote for its continuance. That, he be- lieved, the House would see to be its duty.
But whatever the determination of the House might he, of one fact be was sure, that with his views of the consequences of the repeal of this tax in the present state of the public revenue, he had no alternative but to submit his views to the consideration of the House ; and if the House chose to overrule them, to leave it subject to the responsibility which it would assume. Mr. COBBETT spoke for a short time, but in so feeble a tone as to be quite inaudible. Lord NORREYS contended that there was a necessity for union among the friends of Government; and though he bad voted formerly
for the repeal of the tax when he was in opposition, be should vote for its continuance now.
Mr. BENETT and Lord DARLINGTON spoke in favour of Lord Chan- dos's motion. The latter disclaimed all wish to embarrass Ministers ; and declared that he had never given a factions vote—never given one similar to those two votes which had lately been given by the Oppo- sition.
Mr. CHARLES WOOD said, that his intention to vote with Alinisters, was the best refutation of the charge that he was actuated by factions motives. He hoped that Members, however pledged, would not come to an inconsiderate vote.
He knew well that they had made promises and given pledges to their con- stituents, which it would be no easy task for them to forego, even in spite of
that creditable example which Lord Nerreys had set them. would be hard indeed for them to show to the world by any failure in promise that they and their friends now occupying the Treasury bench were the sole friends of the farmer. It would be difficult for them to resign the advantages they [pined at the election over those who had acted more honestly by promises held out to the aviculturists. It would be difficult for them to show the fallacy of their pro- fessions, and the pretensions they put forth, of being the exclusive friends of the farmer—of cherishing exclusive loyalty to the King, exclusive attachment to religion—all merely to turn the scale of the election, and for their own party purposes. Nevertheless, however difficult and trying all that might be, looking at the pledges they had made, looking to the danger avowed . by the noble :Member for Oxfordshire to the Government they professed to support, and looking to what he frankly considered was of still greater importance—the national credit of the country—he did not think they would hesitate to break their promises on the present occasion. As to those gentlemen who since voting fur the repeal of the .Malt-tax had accepted office, he could not entertain any doubt whatever. Indeed, they had after all but a sorry choice. He would not say that they must betray, but certainly they must either desert their con- stitueats or their colleagues; and it was quite natural to suppose that by this time they had seen sufficient reason for thinking a change of vote necessary. If there were any for whom such a course appeared inure difficult than others, perhaps he might instance the Paymaster of the Forces (Sir E. Knatchbull), the long-tried and consistent advocate of the agricultural interest in that House. lie did not know that it would add to the deference which Le hilted all the interests in the country would be ready to pay to the decisions of the Board of Trade when they found that the President and Vice-President were prepared on the present occasion to reverse their former votes. From any one but Mr. Daring he should not hive been prepared to expect such a change ; but when he looked hack to the conduct which that gentleman pursued in 18:33— when he found that on the motion for a repeal of the Malt-tax he put his own principles aside, and, to quote his own words, dealt with the then Ministers according to their principles, as he was pleased to attribute to them—be could not but expect that he would now do as much for his friends as he had done for those to whom be was opposed, and that he would on the present occasion, as then, put his principles aside, "content with what he had got in the scramble"— (Loud cheers and laughter from the Opposition)—and adopt, for the night at least, the principles of his colleagues. But, however that might be—whatever might be the motives which actuated those gentlemen to whom lie had al- luded—Mr. Wood was prepared to give his Majesty's Government the support of an honourable and not a factious vote (bowing to Lord Darlington)—a sup- port such, he was happy to say, as had on a former occasion been given to the hate Administration, much to his credit and honour, by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL briefly defended his change of vote, on the ground of th.r different circumstances of the case. When he voted for the repeal of the Malt-tax, there wits a surplus of 1.500,000/. in land ; now there wae only 250,0001. Ile had not voted for Sir 1Vil- liam Ingilhy's motion.
Mr. SPRING Bits could not hesitate to declare his determination to vote with Ministers.
Noble lords might indulge themselves, if they thought fit, in attributing motives of faction to their past conduct ; gentlemen might, if they thought fit, deal out in their absence the hard language of invective, and call them the offscourings of a party, and the sweepings of public offices, as the President of the Board of Trade had thought it convenient to do. Mr. Be RING inquired whether Mr. Rice alluded to him? Mr. Rice certainly impated the expressions he had used to Mr. Baring, as contained in the relent of a speech delivered by him on the hustings iii the county of Essex. Mr. BA RING rose for the purpose of explanation, but
Alr. Rice proceeded. Ile should he extremely happy to bear them contra- dicted ; for they had, lie confessed, given him individually very considerable pain. Auy explanation, therefore, would be received by him with the utmost franknest, nay, with the utmost gratitude.
Mr. BARING again rose, and required to be put in possession of the precise words imputed to him.
Mr. Rice was in possession of the very words, and they dwelt so accurately in his memory, that he had no difficulty in repeating them. Mr. Baring might, therefore, have the opportunity of taking them down. On the occasion
alluded to, Mr. aaring was represented as having designated the late Government, of which he had the honour to form a part, as the miserable offecourings of a party, and the sweepings of offices. Now he took the liberty of stating, that
from the offecouringe of that party, from these sweepings of offices, he and his friends would receive on the present occasion honourable and disinterested support. Such was the reply he was prepared to give to the noble Lord who had attributed to them factious motives. He was the more anxious to refer to this subject, because no one was more interested than himself in the real com- position of what he expected would be the majority on the present occasion.
If it was true that the mere circumstance of being in opposition precluded him from combining in a vote; if he was to be taunted under any possible circum-
stance of joining a man or a party from whom he differed on any other point ; how was it possible for him to come forward now in support of a Government in whom he had no confidence, and whose majority must depend on the votes
thus given? But he maintained that he was at perfect liberty now to give his
vote cordially, earnestly, and sincerely, without in the slightest degree compro- mising his principles. Those principles had been recognized on a former occa- sion in the course of the last Parliament, and not without some analogy to the
present, when Mr. Baring, on a motion made by Lord Chandos for granting relief to the agricultural interest, combined with those from whom he differed, although it was now attributed to the Opposition as high treason against political integrity, to follow that example. He was the more particular on that point, because he knew there were Members who were rather distrustful of giving votes on the present occasion, in favour of a Government they did not confide in; and if the doctrine on the other side were good fur any thing, those scruples ought to be respected : but the doctrine was good for nothing, and therefore the scruples were groundless.
Mr. RICE then stated that he wished it to be especially noted, that the arguments used by Sir Robert Peel against the repeal of the Malt-
tax were not temporary, applitable only to the eircumstan .es of the day, but permanent. He alluded to the pledges of the Ministerial Members to vote for the abolition of this tax.
Those pledges certainly were awful things ; but some of them, though honestly meant, might have been given in ignorance, and upon consideration a Member might see that the redemption of such a pledge could not but be a gross viola- tion of the duty he owed to the community at large. It was at the same time perfectly true, that any man who aspired to become the depository of the high trust reposed in a Member of Parliament, ought previously to have made himself ac- quainted with the merits of such a question : it was no new subject—it had often been discussed before, and no man was entithel to plead ignorance of it who offered himself as a candidate at an election. When two men of character, station, and independence, offered themselves as candidates, one of them candidly declaring his intention not to support a motion for repealing the tax, it would ill become the other to have inscribed upon his banners " No malt-tax !" and plead ignorance afterwards in that House. He did nut then taunt any Member with having done so, but he thought that the constituents of such Re- pressutatives ought to know that there were those who took such pledges, and then certainly did not appear to vote in that House as it was expected they would It could scarcely be forgotten that the Whigs were almost universally stigmatized with reference to the Malt-tax, and those opposed to them stood forward as the farmer's friend. He hoped that the electors for Derby would remember that one of their candidates was quite as much the farmer's friend as
the other. lie had the other day met with a circular which had beer s ued not long since, calling upon the farmers of England to look to their Represen- tatives, to recollect how Knatelibull for Kent had voted out of offiee, and how
he was likely to vote now that be was in—to compare the votes at for Essex, in anti out of office, to observe his conduct upon the Malt-tax—to watch how Lincoln for Nottinghamshire, and Ashley for Dorsetshire, would give their votes—to observe well the conduct of those official gentlemen, and see whether they proved their concurrence in the views of Lord Chandos, by voting with him on the question of the Malt-tax. He begged the House to understand, that be did not make any allusion to those points for the purpose of pinning Members to the opinions which they might have expressed on the hustings. By not adhering to sentiments unwisely or ign 'randy stated, they would most truly adhere to that which would most promote the public interest, and secure the confidence of the public ; but he hoped that never again would they unfold the blazing oriflamme with the words " No Malt-tax !" displayed. Air. BARING denied that he was one ready to throw overboard every principle in a general scramble ; and never was more surprised than at having such an imputation cast upon him. He also denied the words ascribed to him by Mr. Rice. What he really said was, that he did not think it was fair that the monopoly of public employment should be enjoyed by the Reformers as long as a sweeper remained in the public offices who had been there when the Reform Act was passed. He had never given any pledge in his life, and never saw the inscrip- tion " No Malt-tax !" on his banners. (Laughter, and cries of " Oh, oh!") Mr. Baring then proceeded to argue against the motion ; and read some returns to prove that the operation of the Corn-laws would prevent that rise in the price of barley which some persons scented to expect would follow the repeal of the Malt-tax.
Mr. PouLErr THOMSON spoke briefly against the motion ; and ridiculed the idea of the farmer being benefited by an increased price of burley, as the landlord would at once, and very fairly too, raise his rents, and get tilt. lion's share.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM strongly disapproved of the personal crimina- tion and recrimination which had marked a part of the debate. The
subject was of paramount importance, and involved matters of far higher consideration than merely personal ones. After stating some arguments against the motion—most of which, however, Sir Robert Peel had anticipated—Sir James Graham insisted on the policy of retaining the Malt-tax, because it was almost the only one remaining of
those peculiar burdens which ,justificd the landed interest in their demand for the Corn-laws. He then alluded to the plan of meeting the defi-
ciency in the public revenue, which would arise from repealing the Malt-tax, by large reductions in the expenditure. He did not think this could be done even by the Administration of Messrs. Grote and Warburton, and the gentlemen with whom they would of course be associated.
Mr. Hume must have a seat in the new Cabinet ; and, from the notice of motion be made for Friday mext, the seat could be no other than that of Chan- cellor of the Exchequer. Then again there was Mr. Harvey ; he, too, could not be spared front the new Administration. (Laughter, and cries of " Question !") Mr. Ilarvey, he was sure, could feel no displeasure himself, however others might, at the choice of him ; because he remembered hearing
that gentleman declare that he was so conscious of his own ability, after having taken the measure of other men, that he viewed himself as not inferior to any Member of that House, and that there was but one circumstance alone which offered a temporary obstacle to the triumph of his great talents. The inquiry. which Mr. Harvey sought at that time, lie had since found, and he was now of course ready and qualified to take a prominent part in the new Administration. He would ask the People of England if the repeal of the Malt-tax could be cone sidered as at all adequate to the advantages to be derived from the formation of such an Administration? Let the country look to the advantages that must follow from the Government of men called to his Majesty's councils pledged to a graduated Property-tax and the repeal of the Corn-laws. A breach of faith with the pul.!ie creditor must then be inevitable. Ile looked upon a Property-
tax, indeed, e 4 the least evil of the two ; but he considered it as highly probable that the aile,,tion of such a measure would be speedily followed by a repeal of the Corn-laws.
Some gentlemen on the Opposition benches had in their election speeches spoken strongly in favour of the repeal of the Malt-tax : he alluded particularly to the speech of his friend Mr. Gordon, at Crick- lade.
Mr. Gordon had said, in an address to his constituents, or was reported to have said, that such was his opposition to the continuance of the Melt-tax, that he had obtained a monosyllable nickname—(Lonr1 and continual laughter inter- rupted Sir James Graham for sonic moments)—that name was " Malt." The honourable gentleman had said that he had constantly impressed on Ministers
the necessity of repealing the duty on malt, and that at last he was delegated by the late Government to draw up a plan fur its abolition and for supplying its place, which plan he had drawn up, and he hoped it would be satisfactory. That plan was, however, cut short by the dissolution of the Melbourne Adminis-
tration. Sir James did not see why the plan should be lost. If it had been matured, he saw no reason why Mr. Gordon should not state it to the House. It might have the effect of shaking his vote ; but until he heard the plan ex- plained in all its details, he should adhere to his intention of opposing the pre- sent motion.
Mr. ROBERT GORDON said, that although Sir James Graham cant,! nomeed by detiounciug " crimination and recrimination," his speech was full of personall abuse of one gentleman Or another. He did not expect Hitch an atttnek from Sir James Graham, with whom he had been in batiks of intimacy, and who knew how ill he was.
Sir JADIES GRAIIAM—" I did not know it."
Mr. Hottoox continued.
He might follow the example of others and say, that not having much time to spare, he was not in the habit of reading newspapers, and therefore could not hold himself responsible fur what they might publish ; but he would nut avail himself of that plea. He had no objection to have airy thing that he said to his constituents made the subject of comment. It was well known that he had been uniformly opposed to the Malt-tax. When asked by his constituents his reason for the course he had pursued with respect to that tax,—and the sank question, Le had no doubt, would he asked by other constituences,—he had told his lemma. tuents that he had pressed the repeal of the tax on the Goverument until they were sick of his repeated applications. Ile had pointed out the necessity of doing somethiug for the landed interest, and showed that the election for East Glouces- tershirewould be lost if nothing was done ; and that election was lust because nothing was done in that respect. It had been stated in the debate that Mem berg, not being Chancellors of the Exchequer, were not bound to hying forth specific plans for replacing any tax that might be abolished. He would nut state any plans ; but he might observe, that he had endeavoured to impress upon the late Government some notions of his own on that subject, and, perhaps, from the courtesy with which his suggestions lad been listened to, he might have imagined that those noble lords were impressed with the same views ; but if any impression had gone abroad that the Government had authorized him to declare their intention of repealing the Malt-tax, he was sorry to sae it woe incorrect.
He again must express his regret that such attacks as those ire now felt himself called on to reply to had been made, and made from such a qum.er ; but he hoped the House would go with him in thiuking that they were such as called or him for a reply.
Mr. HUME was surprised at the manner in which Sir James Graham bad concluded his speech. He had endeavoured to terrify those who knew no better by asserting that the public credit would be injured by the admission of such men as Mr. Warburton into an Administration.
The honourable Baronet had likewise alluded to him, and had spoken of a breach of faith to the public creditor. Now he would never consent to any
measure which would tend to wrong the public creditor. But there was not an individual more committed to measures adverse to the public honour and faith than Sir James Graham himself. He had not forgotten the day when Sir James proposed to cut the shilling down to sixpence. But whenever the honourable Baronet rose, he never could sit down without indulging in some personal at- tack. On a former occasion he had called those who were opposed to him a Babel Opposition, and had characterized them in the most unworthy terms. Whether, however, Sir James Graham belonged to the old or to the new Whigs —whether he adhered to his recent determination of maintaining the standard untouched, or had gone back to his old opinion of the expediency of clipping the King's money—Mr. flume would repeat, that there was no individual in the country more committed to measures adverse to the public honour and faith; an allegation which the honourable Baronet's acknowledged publications would abundantly support. The persons by whom Sir:James Graham was surrounded —he (lid not how many there might hoof them—doubtless disliked to see one of their leaders so roughly handled ; but he said what was true of him, and Sir James might take it as he liked. Mr. flume then observed, that Sir James Graham argued the ques. tion before the house as if only the fanner and landlords were in-
terested in it, forgetting the great body of the people. As to the bene- fit which would accrue from the repeal of the ditty on an article which the mass of the people used in large quantities, there could be no doubt of it ; and there would be no such great difficulty in meeting the d ficiency in the revenue.
The House were, perhaps, not aware that the large establishment of Excise- officers which were formerly necessary to collect the tax on beer had been kept up to the present moment, for the purpose of collecting the Malt-tax. The whole expense of the Excise exceeded 1,200,0001. Now he was satisfied, that if the Malt duty were repealed, 500,000/. of that expense might be saved. That would leave only 4,100001. to be provided for. It had been stated by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 14th of July, that although six millions of taxes had been taken off since the year 1831, the actual loss to the revenue had been only half the amount. The reason was, that the people who bad been re- lieved from those taxes had laid out their money in other articles subject to taxation. Mr. Hume had ventured on that occasion to state, that a repeal of
taxation to the amount of 7,800,0001. had produced an actual deficiency in the revenue of no more than 1,800,000/., and therefore that the late Chancel- lor of the Exchequer had greatly understated the fact. Taking, therefore, the sum in question at 4,600,000L, he was convinced that the only actual loss which they had a right to calculate upon would be two millions and a quarter. This left only 2,100,0001. to be provided for; no difficult matter when they took into account the increase of revenue that would accrue from other quarters in consequence of the reduction on this article.
Mr. Hume then went into some figure statements, which are not very intelligibly reported, to prove that, in the various Military de-
partments, in the Colonial and Diplomatic services, and in the cost of collecting the revenue, the requisite saving might be made. He also expressed himself in favour a tax on the bequests of landed as well as personal property.
Mr. GROTE said, in reference to Sir James Graham's remark about his taking office, that it was contrary to his wishes, intentions, habits, and interests, to undertake any public employment of the kind alluded to.
Mr. PEASE, Mr. HALL. DARE, and Colonel SIBTHORPE, spoke against the motion ; Mr. lionises and Mr. CURTEIS supported it.
Sir ROGER GRIESLEY, amidst shouts of laughter, declared his in- tention of voting against the motion ; although he knew be should offend niftily of his constituents by so doing.
He felt it incumbent upon him to give his vote against the motion of Lord Chaudos because he held it to be the bounden duty of every true patriot, under the circumstances in which the country was at present placed, to consider, not the mere question of the repeal of the Malttax, but the inevitable result which must follow the success of that motion—namely, the dissolution of the present Government. It was on these grounds that he held it to be his present duty to alter the vote which he had intended to give, and to vote against the motion of his noble friend. He contended that the suddenness and variety of the changes
which bad taken place in the political circumstances of the country—circum- stances which battled the keenest foresight—justified a man in voting to-day in a sense contrary to that in which he would vote to-morrow.
The Marquis of CITANDOS briefly replied.
lie expressed his surprise at the change of opinion which he had that night witnessed in the House. lie had a deep feeling of alarm lest all confidence in public men should be lust by it. If gentlemen could make promises and profes. sions on the hustings to their ennetituents, and then, when they appeared in Parliament, could change their sentiments and votes, the constituency could no longer place that confidence in them which ought to be placed iu them, and on which he believed the security of the country depended.
The House then divided : for the motion, 192; against it, 830; majority, 138.
2. COMPLAINTS OF THE CANADIANS.
Mr. ROEBUCK, on Monday, took the opportunity of presenting a petition from certain members of the Legislative Council and House of Assembly of Lower Canada, to dwell at great length on the grievances complained of by the Canadians ; but his tone of voice was so low and indistinct, that the reporters in the Gallery could catch but a small portion of what he uttered. He went over a long catalogue of the complaints which he maintained were justly made by the Cana- dians • laying especial stress on the alleged perversion of the funds of the Catholic Church to the purposes of the Protestant Church. Ile censured in strong language the system adopted by Lord Stanley. He also reprobated the establishment of the British Land Company. The proceedings of the Legislative Council spread a moral pestilence over the whole country. He said that the pseudo English party did not amount to 10,000 in the province ; that there were 1,300,000 stout hearts ready to resist oppression ; and that it must be remembered, that they lived side by side with the thirteen millions of American Re- publicans. Mr. Roebuck concluded a speech delivered with consider- able warmth of manner, though in a tone which the Chronicle reporters say would have been almost inaudible in a drawing-room, by moving that the petition should be brought up.
Mr. SPRING RICE, after apologizing for detaining the House on so uninteresting a subject, went into a long detail of the recent facts con- nected with Canadian discontent ; and referred to the report of the Committee of last year, to which the ninety-two resolutions of the Lower Canadian House of Assembly had been referred, to show that the House of Commons was disposed to act with justice towards the Colonists. He especially complained of a mistaternent by Mr. Roe- buck that the communications between the Governor and the House of Assembly had been broken off in consequence of Lord Stanley's measures ; whereas the rupture had occurred three months before Lord Stanley was appointed Colonial Secretary.
Mr. Rice said that he had prepared a despatch to be sent to Lord Alymer, the Governor, just before lie left office. It was ready to be sent off by a packet which was to sail on Monday the 17th November ; but it was necessary in the first place that it should be submitted to a Cabinet Council, which was called for the previous Saturday. The letter was not dtspatched, for on the Saturday he found that the Alirustry itself was despatched, just two hours before the time fixed for the despatch of the packet. He was walking down Regent Street on that day, when he met an acquaintance, who communicated to him the unexpected intelligence that be had ceased to be Secretary for the Colonies. ( Cheers and laughter.) If honourable gentlemen wished for an opportunity of studying proceedings by ejectment, they had only to study the proceedings of that (lay. In these circumstances, he had only one course to pursue : be communicated to the head of the new Government the despatch for Lord Aylmer, leaving it to his successor to settle what should be done with it.
Lord STANLEY defended himself, and reminded the House of his willingness to grant the Committee- of inquiry. Mr. ROBINSON defended the British Land Company against the attacks of Mr. Roebuck, and Mr. Papincau, the Speaker of the }louse of Assembly, who had called Mr. Robinson, the Chairman of the Company, " a vile sharper." Sir ROBERT PEEL expressed his disapproval of the warmth with which Mr. Roebuck spoke on the subject ; and stated, that Govern- ment had determined to send out a Commissioner to inquire on the- spot into the state of affairs, with sk view to the adjustment of the quarrel on perfectly fair and equitable terms.
Mr. HUME dwelt upon the fact of the large majority of the Canadian people being opposed to the present state of things.
There could be no doubt but that the petition was the deliberate expression of the opinion of the people. No less than ten elevenths of the population were of the faction (as it had been called) of Mr. Papineau. Out of eighty-eight re- presentatives which Lower Canada sent to Parliament at the last election, only twenty. seven represented what were termed the British interests, and consti- tuted what might be more properly described as the Tory party. What was the result of the general election? Sixty of the representatives of the people were in favour of the petition ; four, and only four, refused to sign it ; twelve were pre- vented from attending to sign it by the bad state of the roads, in short, out of the eighty-eight, only nine were opposed to the resolution. The population re- presented by the petition amounted to 373,000, while those who were adverse to it numbered only 32,000. Were the people of Canada satisfied or not? had they good government or had they not ? He would answer, that neither had they good government nor were they satisfied. They asked to be placed in the situ- ation which the Constitution of 1791 promised that they should be placed in; they wanted to be allowed to enjoy rights which the Charter gave them. They considered that they were deprived of their rights ; that they were misgoverned; that their property was taken from them improperly ; that Judges were placed on the bench who ought not to be there. What would this House think if, out of every four bills it passed, three were rejected by the House of Lords ? and those bulls of the greatest importance—relating to such matters as public educa- tion, the finances of the country, the state of the Government, and even the inde- pendence of the House itself. It could be proved from documents in his pos- session that the Legislative Council contained in it placemen—men fattening on the spoiis of the country, who disregarded the large mass of the population, who were deaf to their cries for redress, and who rejected with disdain their demand for improvement. By a list published in 1833, it appeared that out of 169 bills passed unanimously by the House of Assembly from 1822 to 1832, sent up to the Legislative Council, 122 were rejected by the Council without any reasons being assigned. And what was the nature of these bills? They were to prevent judges from holding situations that were inconsistent with the judicial office ; there were acts also for the promotion of education, and they were all refused; others were for preventing men sitting in the House of Commons from bolding offices under the Crown, and being in fact pensioners of the Crown. The people imagined that by this constitution they were to be protected from the undue in- fluence of the Crown in their House of Assembly as we were in ours; but the Government constantly violated that law. A bill was passed every year by the House of Assembly, declaratory of what ought to be the acts of the Government ; and those bills were as regularly rejected. In '1629, out of twenty-four acts, sixteen were rejected ; in 1831, out of fourteen acts, only three were approved. The truth was, the Legislative Commit were ruled by at petty faction, and that fiction had the ear of and were supported by the peztonsieauffice ha this country.
He contended that an alteration of the principle on which the colony was governed, and an arrangement by which the right to control nice tenths of the population should be taken away from the remaining one tenth, alone would satisfy the people of Canada.
Mr. Stint., Mr. ALEXANDER BARING, and Mr. LABOUCHERE, made some remarks. ROEBUCK briefly replied ; and promised to wait for the bringing forward of the measures intended to remove the dissatisfaction of the colonists, before he again called the attention of Parliament to the subject. The petition was then laid on the table.
3. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.
Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK ( Attorney-General) moved, on Thursday, for leave to bring in a hill to improve the administration of justice in Ecclesiastical causes.
His object in the first place was to consolidate some three hundred or four hundred courts, which were incompetent to retailer justice :u the cases referred to their decision ; and to concentrate their jurisdictions in ecclesiastical matters in one court, which should sit in London, or in whatever other place his :Majesty might be pleased to appoint. It was intended by this bill to give the new court additional power, in order that justice might be more effectually administered in those cases which naturally fell under the cognizance of an ecclesiastical court ; and to invest it with a superintendence over certain other matters, an indifference to which had Mang been a subject of complaint in that House, and in the country. He proposed to abolish the Court of Delegates as a court of appeal, and to trans- fer the authority of that court to this Privy Council. The of of this altera- tion would be to bring into one system, and under one arrangement of rules, a variety of important jurisdictions now exercised in point of practice by sonic eight or ten different courts, and with power to be exercised by some three or four hundred courts.
He stated that his bill was founded on the Report of the Ecclesias- tical Commission appointed in 1t480, and which he believed had been drawn up principally by Dr. Lushington ; and a more learned and valu- able report he had never had the good fortune to meet with. A bill founded on that report was drawn up at the close of last session, and approved of by Sir John Campbell and Pr. Lushington, although its provisions interfered with the pecuniary interests of the latter. That bill embraced a variety of important particulars, to some of which he wished to draw the attention of the House.
It must be quite obvious to the House, that from the extent of those different tribunals for the trial of ecclesiastical causes, amounting in number to nearly a thousand, tinder the presidency of Archbishops, Bishops, and several inferior dignitaries, there must arise considerable variance, possibly conflicting decisions in many cases, the effect of which must be to impede the course of justice. It was proposed then, as a remedy for thisevil,;to consolidate all the jurisdictions be- longing to these several tribunals, and to prevent for the future any of tin ss courts to which he had alluded from having any contentious jurisdiction what. ever. It was intended also to limit the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Court to matters of sufficient importance to occupy the attention of that tribunal; to leave some matters which now came under the cognizance of the Ecclesiastical Courts to the jurisdiction of the new court ; to transfer other questions which came at present to be decided before those courts to the ordinary courts of law; and to leave others again to the tribunal of manners and morals. The first and most important jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts related to testamentary cases. It was proposed that this jurisdiction should remain in the new court. It was material also that he should mention, that with respect to those tithes which were enumerated by the Commissioners as civil and spiritual dues, it was
intended that the Ecclesiastical Court should not interfere with them, and that it should not meddle with cases of neglect of duty on the part of the clergy, on the ground of any statement of any opinion not in accordance with the doc-
trines of the Church of England, or any relaxation in Church discipline. It was further proposed, that all cases of defamation, brawling, laying violent
hands, and with respect to certain immoralities to which it was unnecessary
more particularly to allude, should be taken out of the hands of the Eccle- siastical Court. He was of opinion that actions for defamation, as well as for laying violent hands in churches or churchyards, should be left to the juris- diction of the ordinary courts of law. Ile also thought, that the offences of adultery and incest, except when they were preferred for the purpose of pro. curing a nullity of marriage, should not be brought under the cognizance of the Ecclesiastical Court, but left to that tribunal of which he had before spoken, manners and morals.
He would give the Judges in the new court the power of directing questions of fact to be tried by a Jury. There would also be an
appeal from the decisions of the Court to the Privy Council. The Court would be presided over by a Bishop or Archbishop, assisted by a Judge, who would have the same tenure of office as the other Judges. Dr. LUSHINGTON, SIP JOAN CAMPBELL, Dr. neitosa, and Mr. PRYME, expressed their approbation of the measure, which it ap- peared that the late Government had determined to bring forward at an early period of the present session. Dr. LUSHINGTON said, lie re- gretted to find that one recommendation of the Commissioners, for the immediate abolition of ecclesiastical sinecures, to which the Arch- bishop of Canterbury had assented, was not embraced by the bill of the Attorney- General.
Sir ROBERT PEEL claimed credit for this bill.
The present measure was the first practical fulfilment of those pledges which were given in the Speech from the Throne, that his Majesty's Government were desirous of introducing into the administration of the laws well-con- sidered reforms, and of remedying any grievances of which there might be just complaints. Ile did hope that it was some kind of prognostication of the nature of those reforms which had convinced the Member for Middlesex that it was. flat necessary to hold over his Majesty's Government the menace of a limited Supply ; end that honourable gentleman would see, in the universal
testimony which had been borne to the efficacy of this first reform, a guarantee i
of the intentions of his Majesty's Government with respect to other matters. Air. HUME said, that Sir Robert Peel's pelsonal allusion to him rendered it necessary for him to speak a few words. Ile was asked whether the introduction of this measure was one of the reasons which had induced him to alter his course in regard to the Supplies? His answer was, that iu changing that intention, the measure under considera- tion never for a moment entered into his contemplation. It would seem that Sir Robert Peel assumed great merit for the introduction of this bill, and that he wished it to be considered as a guarantee of the intentions of his Majesty's present Government on the subject of reform. The fact was, however, that Sir Robert Peel had merely crept into the nest of the old Administration, and that he was now hatching one of their eggs. (Loud and long continued
Nothing was more certain than that if the late Ministers had re- mained in office, this would have been one of the first measures which they would have proposed for the adoption of Parliament. It was therefore a monstrous assumption on the part of the right honourable Baronet of a merit to which he had no claim whatever.
Sir ROBERT PEEL rejoined— The honourable gentleman hail talked of hatchings eggs. Why, the honour- able gentleman himself had laid an egg in that House, which it seemed that neither lie himself nor any of his friends could hatch. (Roars of laughter.) What had become of the egg which the hunourable gentleman had laid last week ? Last night the honourable gentleman stated it to be a matter of doubt whether he or sonic friendly hen would sit upon it ; but to-night it appeared that, notwithstauding the incubation, all attempt to bring forth a chicken was to be abandoned. ( Great laughter.) Mr. O'CoNnEr.t. advised Sir Robert Peel not to count his chickens before they were batched ; for he would probably find Mr. Hume's chicken to be a good fighting-cock yet. (Shouts laughter.)
Leave was granted to bring in the bill. Sir FREDERICK Pou.oct, also had leave to bring in another bill to establish a Court, to be pte- sided over by a Bishop, for the maintenance of Clerical Discipline.
In the House of Lords last night, Lord BROUGHAM, after referring to the two bills about to be introduced to the House of Commons, one for the consolidation of Ecclesiastical Courts, the other for the better maintenance of the discipline of the Clergy of the Church of England, and eulogizing the Reports of the Ecclesiastical and Real Property Commissioners, introduced his own bill, founded on the former Re- port. But, after a suggestion from Lord LvNintensr, that it might be better to postpone the consideration of it till the bills came from the Commons, be consented to let his bill stand over.
4. ELECTION EXPENSES.
On Wednesday, Mr. HOME called the attention of the House to the Report of the Select Committee of the last session on the subject of Election Expenses.
The first object to which the Committee directed their attention, was that of
enabling electors to vote with as little loss of time, and at as little expense as possible. At present the elector was obliged to vote in the district in which his
property was registered, wherever his actual residence might be; and accord-
ing to the opinion of Mr. Harrison and other eminent counsel, it would be an illegal act to pay the expenses incurred by any party in going to the poll. The Committee thought that the elector ought to be allowed to vote in the district in which he resided, simply giving a declaration in writing to the effect that while he claimed so to vote he claimed to be registered for the district in which his property was situated. Another object was that of limiting the duration of elections to the period of one day; and this might easily be effected by increasing the number of polling-places so as to equalize the number of electors in the different districts. Such a plan might have a tendency to increase the expenses by causing an increase in the number of polling-places, bat it would operate to lessen them by diminishing the duration of elections. As to the practicability of the plan, it appeared before the Committee that the elections for the city of London, for Southwark, and other large places, might easily be taken in a single day One strong reason for enforcing such a measure was, that it would have the effect of putting an end to the present corrupt practices of a set of venal men, who were in the habit of hanging back until the second day, in order that the price of their votes might then be enhanced, according to the narrowness of the contest.
It was also proposed to allow the Returning Officer more time to add up the votes, and examine the poll-books ; as mistakes had arisen from the hurry in which this duty was performed. The legal expenses of an election were classed by the Committee apart from the various charges which were illegally made. The object of the Committee in all the suggestions of the Report, was to diminish expenses, prevent unneces- sary loss of time, and give electors a better opportunity of voting as they thought right. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to carry into effect the recommendations of the Committee. Sir GEORGE CLERK approved of the measures proposed generally ; and Mr. WYNN, he said, bad paid great attention to the subject and thought that a bill might be brought in without requiring additional evidence. Sir GEORGE, however, doubted whether in the counties, more especially in the Highland districts of Scotland, all the votes could be taken in one day.
Major CUMMING BRUCE agreed with Sir George Clerk in this ap- prehension.
Mr. J. A. MURRAY said, there might be some difficulty in one or two
Scotch counties—as in Ross for instance ; but generally there would be i no inconvenience.
Sir ROBERT BATESON and Mr. O'Coxxrt.r. suggested the necessity of increasing the number of polling-books in Ireland ; and Sir HENRY HARDINGE thought it would be desirable to alter the number of polling- days in Ireland from five to at least two.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
.5. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Sir GEORGE GREY moved for the appointment of a Select Com- mittee to consider the most effectual means of preventing bribery, cor- ruption, and intimidation in the election of Members of Parliament. He enforced the necessity of the interference of the House toprevent these practices ; and said that he thought it was unfair to refuse the ballot, while they took no measures to check the evils which the ballot was called for to remedy.
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL hoped that measures would be taken to render the ballot unnecessary. He had seen so much of intimidation and improper influence exercised, that against his will he was almost obliged to come to the conclusion that the ballot was necessary ; but he would always consider it as a necessary evil. He thought, however, that the English, Irish, and Scottish voters should have the means of exercising their franchise free from intimidation ; and if it could be properly defined, and a punishment inflicted, the Committee would deserve the everlasting gratitude of the country ; but if a remedy could not be effected otherwise, then he saw that they must have recourse to the ballot. Mr. ROBERT STEWART complained of the undue interference of landlords with their tenants.
Mr. FORBES defended the Scotch landlords. Mr. GROTE would go into the Committee perfectly ready to adopt any effectual remedy ; though his opinions in favour of the ballot were well known.
The Committee having been appointed, Mr. RUTIIVEN moved that Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Fitzsirnon be added to the Committee. Mr. O'CONNELL begged to be excused : lie really had not time. Sir GEORGE GREY intended no disrespect in not having named Mr.
1 .O'Conneli upon the Committee ; but he bad deemed it more prudent to abatain from doing so, in consequence of the charges that had been brought against him.
Mr. O'CoNNELL could not understand what charges Sir George Grey alluded to. It was true that three petitions had been presented from three different parties against his return, but in no one of those petitions was there any charge of his having been guilty of any intimidation towards electors.
Mr. RUTIIVEN repeated, that he saw no reason why Mr. O'Connell Should not be added to the Committee.
Mr. O'Costaw. thought, in fairness, Sir George Grey should have Acquainted him from what source he had derived his information.
Sir GEORGE GuEv had derived it entirely through the usual public channels.
O'CONNELL—" What public channels?"
Mr. HUGHES HUGIIES—" Could any one fail to have read of the 5 death's head and cross-bones ?' " Mr. O'CONNELL—" I have certainly heard of a calf's head and an ass's jaw-bones." (Loud laughter and cheers.) Mr. RuntvEN consented to withdraw his motion, and the Commit- tee, as originally proposed, was appointed.
On Thursday, Mr. GISBORNE obtained leave to bring in a bill to regulate the payment of expenses in eases where an election is declared void on the ground of bribery, treating, intimidation, or violence ; and 311r. ORD had leave to bring in a bill to indemnify witnesses giving evidence before Parliament in cases of bribery.
6. ORANGE RIOTS.
Mr. L. Donnts moved, on Thursday, for a copy of the account of the investigation into the riotous proceedings of the Magistrates, Police, and Orangemen, at Kcady in Armagh, on the 5th of November.
Sir HENRY HARDING': said that Ministers had considered the transactions to be so improper on the part of all those concerned in it, that they had ordered the parties to be proceeded against. Under these circumstances, he could not produce the papers called for. Indeed, he had not got them, as they were put into the hands of the lawyers instructed to prosecute the offenders.
After a brief discussion, the motion was withdrawn.
Mr. Donats then moved for " a copy of the proceedings at an investigation, held also in Armagh, into the transactions which took place in the neighbourhood of Beady between the Police and the Country people on collecting an arrear of tithe due to the Reverend J. Blacker, wherein one man was killed and several wounded; and a copy M the inquest and all other documents connected with that transaction."
Sir HENRY HARDINGE promised to produce these papers.
Mr. Downs again moved for a copy of the evidence given at an investigation into the riots at Armagh, on the 15th of January last, and the week following; in the:course of which, fourteen houses belonging to Catholics had been burnt by Orangemen.
Sir HENRY lJMauisan. said that these papers also should be furnished. It was impossible to deny that proceedings of the most improper kind had taken place. Means would be taken to bring the guilty parties to justice.
A warm discussion then ensued ; in which Lord MANDEvILLE and Colonel VERNER denied that any proof existed of the misconduct of the Orangemen. Lord MANDEVILLE charged the Earl of Gosford, Lord-Lieutenant of Armagh, with gross partiality in the performance of his official duties. Dr. LUSIIINGTON defended Lord Gosford, and called upon Lord Mandeville to maintain his allegations : it was his . duty to represent Lord Gosford's conduct to Government.
Mr. CURTEIS expressed his deep disgust ut the conduct of Irish Clerical Magistrates in actively enforcing payment of their own tithes.
Mr. ELPHINSTONE asked if Mr. Blacker had been dismissed from the Commission of the Peace?
Sir HENRY HARDINGE said that he had not. Sir Henry had issued A circular to the effect that Clergymen and Magistrates should not act in their own cases.
Mr. DOBBIN stated an instance of 2000 Orangemen being marched, during the last election, into Armagh, with colours flying and deco- rated with the Orange emblems. They did so much mischief, that two days were occupied in assessing the damage, which was estimated at 14001., from the injury done to houses in the town.
Colonel VERNER said he was not out of the town on the day in question ; and he denied that the Orange party appeared in the town decorated as bad been described.
Mr. DOBBIN said he was on the hustings ; from which he should doubtless have been dragged by the Orange party, and his life perhaps sacrificed, but for the protection the Police afforded him.
Here the discussion was brought to a close.
7. DISMISSAL OF TILE LATE MINISTRY.
Colonel LErrir HAY in moving, On Thursday, for a copy of the des- patch dated the 29th of last November, announcing the dissolution of Lord Melbourne's Cabinet to the Governor of British Guiana, ob- served that As his Majesty's Government had agreed to his motion, he should confine himself to slating that it was not his intent on on the present occasion to dilate on the practical illustration which this despatch would afford of the mischievous effect of the concentration of the great offices of state in one person. On the production of the papers, he should, however, make such a motion as would bring this grer constitutional question before the House in a proper form. Colonel EVANS said, that he had expressed himself very strongly on this subiect to his constituents ; and if no other Member had taken it up, lie hould himself have brought it before the House.
S. LIMITATION OF TUE SUPPLIES.
Sir ROBERT PEEL asked Mr. Hume, on Wednesday, what would be the precise form of the motion of which he had given notice for Friday relative to the Supplies; and at what time it would be brought iorward? Mr. Hum": replied, that he did not know whether the motion would be brought forward by himself, or by some other Member : its object would le to limit the SupplieS to three months.
Sir Roarfer PEEL wished fp know whether the motion would he in the form of an instruction to the Committee before the Speaker left the chair, or after the Estimates had been opened.
Mr. Hemp said, be did not wish to refuse the Supplies, but to limit them ; and therefore he thought the motion should be made in Com- mittee. There were sonic precedents he wished to consult before speaking positively on that point.
On Thursday, Mr. Henn: withdrew his notice ; when the following scene between him and Sir Roamer I'EET. was enacted.
Mr. Iles:r—" The right honourable Baronet opposite put a question to me yesterday, relative to the motion of which 1 gave notice, to limit to three months the votes in Committee of Supply ; and I gave him a conditional answer to his in- quiry whether it was intended to bring on the motion to morrrow. I am now able to state to the right honourable Baronet, that having consulted with those upon this side of the louse who I thought would support that motion, I regret to find that they do not concur with me in considering the question sufficiently decisive of our want of confidence in the present Administration ; and I have therefore bean induced, with regret, to postpone the motion of which I gave notice respecting the Supplies—( Triumphant cheering from the .Ministerial side of the House)—but I do so with a view to proposing a subsemiont motion, tending to show decisively that the House has CO confidence in his Majesty's :Ministers. ( Cheers from the Opposition, and counter.cheers and laughter from the Ministerial benches.) Sir It. l'Err.—" Is this, then, the motion of which you gave me solemn notice more than a week since. (Lowland protracted cheering.) I say, is this the Inn- t on which you thought it ineumibent on you to give notice of a week beforehand ? I asked the honourable Gentleman last night, if he intended to bring forward his propcsition for 'ting the Supplies, pursuant to notice ; and the how ur- ab'e gentleman now says lie gave me a conditional answer. That conditional answer was, that the motion would be certainly brought on either by himself er seine other Member. ( Cries of " Hear, hear ! " " Order !" and sonic con- fusion, occasioned by Members rushing into the House ; in the midst of which, a Member, said to be Mr. Barron, rose and said—" I do not know what the question is ; there is no question before the House." Sir Robert Peel resumed.) " I ask the :Member for Middlesex a question ; the question is, whether that other honourahle Member, who was to have taken the honourable gentleman's place to-morrow, has also abandoned his intention of proposing to limit the Supplies; ( Cheers and laughter from the _Ministerial side of the House); and whether the more decisive motion of want of confidence in his :Majesty's Ministers, of winch the honourable gentleman talks, is to be brought forward to- morrow ? "
Mr. ITV r—" I answer, that as far as I am concerned, it will not be brought forward tomorrow. ( (.Lecrs front the Ministerial side.) I beg to observe, that on a former evening, when 1 expressed my opinion that the vote on the Address evinced that the house had no confidence in the present GoVernment, the right honourable Baronet did not appear to consider the Amendment in that light. 1 considered that granting the Supplies for only three months would be tantamount to a vote of no confidence in Ministers; but 1 was reminded by some friends, that the right honourable Baronet might turn round on us and say, " This is no vote of want of confidence in the Administration ; " and on that ground, lest a limitation of the Supplies should not be taken as a decisive indication of the opinion of the Ilouse, I have consented to alter the course which I had intended to adopt. I have done so, seeing the necessity °finch. posing some unction which shall come directly to the point, and contain words that cannot be misunderstood. ( Cheers and counter-cheers.) I have only to add, that as far as I know, no other person will to-morrow bring forward the motion of which I gave notice fur limiting the Supplies." ( Cheers from the Ministerial side.) Sir It. Prra—" I asked the honourable gentleman what course he intended to pursue with respect to his threatened decisive motion of want of confidence in Ministers, with a view to displacing them ; and I really do not think that I am trespassing unreasonably on the honourable gentleman or his friends, when I again venture to ask a question as to a course of proceeding which may be of im- portance to the Alinistry and the country. The honourable gentleman says, that neither he, nor, as far as he knows, any other Member, means to press the motion far limiting the Supplies, on the ground that it might not be considered suffi- ciently deci,ive of the opinion of the House with respect to the present Adminis- tration ; but he adds, that I may depend on it another motion, which cannot be misunderstood, and which is to convey a decisive declaration of want of confi- dence in Ministers, will be substituted—to-morrow? (Mr. Hume—" No, not to. morrow.") No? Then I ant to understand the honourable gentleman that it is not intended to bring forward his new motion, implying want of confidence, to-morrow ; and such being the case, 1 have now only to appeal to the honour- able gentleman, whether it is not right, after he and others who act with him have determined that such a motion shall he made, that the honourable gentle- man shall lose no time in naming the day fur making it." (Loud cheering.) Mr. II M I can assure the right honourable Baronet, that if the matter rests with me, the very first fit and proper moment shall be named for the motion." ( Cheering on both sides of the House.)
9. NAVY ESTIMATES.
Lord ASIILF:Y brought forward the Navy Estimates last night, in a Committee of Supply. The Committee, after a dry discussion of some length, voted that 26,500 men, including 1000 boys and Marines, should be employed for the year ending 13th March 1836. It was understood that the number of officers, not stated in the estimate, should be furnished on the bringing up of the Report.
Lord Asitra:v then proposed that the House should proceed to vote tine money for the payment of this force. But
Mr. Hr ME called out, " No, no; no money to-night—it's past one o'clock."
Several Members repeated the cry, " No money to-night!" So Lord Ashley gave way, and the House resumed.
10. LORD LONDONDERRY'S APPOINTMENT.
Last night, the motion having been made that the Speaker do leave the chair, previously to the House going into a Committee of Supply, Mr. Smarr. moved that an address be presented to the King, praying for a copy of any appointment of an Ambassador to St. Petersburg that may have been made during the last five months. lie proceeded to enlarge on the great importance of having an Ambassador of supe- rior qualifications at the Court of Russia at the present crisis in the affairs of the East.
It was clear that he ought to be wise, sagacious, firm, discreet; that be ought to be firmly and inflexibly attached to those principles to which the great moan of the people of this country were devoted ; that he should be qualified to protect the commercial interests of the country ; that he should represent, in his own calm dignity, the honour of his country; aud, e.hal 8, let him add, iu favour of neglected and unfortunate Poland, to raise the voice of healing re- monstrance. Whether such a person had been appoinkd or Lot, it was for his Majesty's Ministers to state. (Repeated cheering.)
Mr. Shell then alluded to the rumoured appointment of the Marquis of Londonderry ; and quoted the opinions of the Times and Courier in regard to it. It was plain that it was condemned by the whole country. Ile also called the attention of the House to the celebrated " to memorandum of Lord Liverpool; and read the speeches of Lot Londonderry and Lord Dudley in the House of Peers in the debate which the former provoked on the subject of the denial of his pension. He concluded by saying, that although Lord Londonderry's services as an orator at Hillsborough might be very valuable, he was not qualified to represent the King of England at the Court of Russia.
Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON seconded Mr. Shell's motion ; and dwelt with much force and feeling on the barbarities inflicted by Russia on the Poles,—rebels, as they had been termed by Lord Londonderry, who had openly expressed his regret in the House of Peers that England bad gone as far as she had in their favour. His words were—" He considered the conduct of England wholly unjustifiable, not only in regard to her interference with Belgium, but also in respect to the Emperor's rebellious subjects." Mr. 1"ergusson believed that Lord Londonderry was the first person in this country who had ventured openly to call the people of Poland " rebellious subjects." He would ask the House, whether a person who had expressed itimself in this way, and whose avowed opinions were so notoriously hostile to every thing like free institutions, was fit to be sent as .Ambassador to Russia ? He would tell Sir Robert Peel distinctly, that the appointment would be considered his own act ; for he was Prime Minister, and responsible for it.
Lord MAHON, in a very low tone of voice, defended the appoint- ment. He charged Mr. 9heil with eagerness to plunge into personal invective. (Cries " No, no!") The object of the motion was simply an attack on Lord Londonderry; but all that Mr. Shell could bring to support the charge, was the old anecdote about Lord Liv. r- pool—a stale joke. The expression of Lord Liverpool, quoted by Mr. Steil, was only made public through a breach of official confidence, for which the person who made it, if discovered, would be expelled from society with ignominy. He contended that there was nothiag objectionable in the appointment of Lord Londonderry, and that few persons had such talents for the office.
Mr. HUME deprecated the idea of paying 15,0001. a year in salary and perquisites for the services of such a man as Lord Londoriderry—a man ever foremost in the ranks of despotism. He trusted that, at a future period, the House would guard against the appointment, by -withholding the necessary money.
Lord STANLEY complained that the tone of the debate had been lowered by Mr. Hume's money calculations. The objections to the .nopointinent rested on much higher ground. It had been painful to the Grey Administration to withhold active aid from the Poles; but they at least deemed it imperative in every way to mitigate the evils they suffered. It was impossible not to feel that Lord Londonderry eras the very last person who ought to be sent to Russia to represent the feelings of this country in regard to Poland. Lord Liverpool's memo- randum was the last record of Lord Londonderry's official conduct, and it was not one that would escape public recollection. Ile also reminded 'Sir Robert Peel, that he was responsible for an appointment hostile to the inclinations and interests of the country.
Mr. OTwAY CAVE reprobated the appointment.
Mr. CRESSETT PELHAM defended it, amidst the loud laughter of the -House. He said, that though Lord Londonderry had been called a despot, yet for many years he exerted himself against a great despot— that unfortunate individual Bonaparte.
Mr. ORD spoke strongly against the appointment. Mr. Hume bad -.said, "withhold the money "—he said, " withhold the man."
Mr. GISBORNE said that this was a most natural appointment for Mi- nisters to make.
" It is an incontestible avowal of the principles of the Administration ; it is in complete accordance with the principles on which the right honourable gen. tleinen on the opposite benches took (dime. They were the steady opponents of the Reform Bill, and opposed it in every stage; they did every thing in their power to prevent its success; they say, ' We gave our last votes as we gave our first votes, in opposition to it, and therefore are we better able than any others to carry out its principles, and to work out its results.' In complete analogy, then, to the reasoning on which the right honourable Baronet and his colleagues took office, the noble Marquis is considered the best person that can be ap- pointed to see that the execution a f the treaty between this country and Russia, which guaranteed the independence of Poland, is carried into effect. Ile is deemed the most proper man to send to the Court of Russia to endeavour to procure the fulfilment of time ratification of the Treaty of Vienna. He is, in consequence of his declarations elsewhere, the best adapted to interfere to miti- gate the cruelty now exercised on the unfortunate Poles by Russia. The ana- logy is therefore complete between the present appointment and the accession of the present Itlinistry to office." ( Continued cheering.)
If the appointment should actually take place, it would become the duty of the House to adopt sonic strong measure. Sir ROBERT PEEL avowed his willingness to assume the full re-
sponsibility of the office he held. He had no doubt that the appoint- ment of Lord Londonderry would be unsatisfactory to the Opposition, as all his other appointments hail been. They objected to his retain- ing the Irish Attorney-General, though be was their own officer ; and to Sir Edward Knatchbull, though Earl Grey had offered him a higher place in his Government than Sir Edward held in the present. After dwelling upon these points of recrimination for some considerable time, Sir Robert said, lie now came to the appointment in question. (Loud cheer.sfront the Opposition.) Surely the impatience of honourable gentlemen was not so great that they could not wait Live minutes and allow hint to make a few preparatory observa- tions previous to going to the general question. Were they so impatient, that they could not allow him to make his groundwork for the vindication of the course which he had thought it his duty to pursue? Ile repeated, he could not doubt that the appointment of Lord Londonderry was unsatisfactory to those to whom he was politically opposed ; but he should be to know, from the debate, what allegations could be brought against Lord Londonderry. (Ls ol cheers and laughter.) What substantive allegations had been brought against tebIe Lord etn y CUB that he ad heard WAS Via urged by _iv. verges- sin—navel,, th it LI:rd Londonderry hz,d express al a at: on1.0p4ion against the late Government for having pushed its interference in behalf of the Poles to an unjustifiable extent, and that he had used the expression that the Poles were re- bellious subjects. He could not find the expression in Hansard's Debates. (A Mem- ber said, it was in the Mirror of Parliament.) Sir Robert said, he had not had an opportunity of looking into the Mirror if Parliament. He
rgued, that the bud opinion of the Times was no reason for cancelling the appointment; and entered into it long history of Lord London- derry's military achievements and official services. Mr. Canning, in his mote accepting Lord Londonderry's resignation of the Austrian Embassy, had used some very complimentary terms respecting his cone duet as Ambassador. Sir Robert !'eel then dwelt at some length on the impolicy of going to war with Russia for time sake of Poland and Turkey. He also complained of the attempted interference with the prerogative of the Crown by a strong minority. (Cries "
Ile had no wish, lie could assure honourable gentlemen opposite, to underrate
their force ; but if they were a majority, still it would be an infinitely better course for them to exert their power in an attack on the Government—to ask the Crown to remove them—to declare their entire want of confidence in that Goverment—( (Jhecrsfroni the Opphsitiou)—and address the Crown for its removal,—it would surely be infinitely better for them to take that course, data to lower the prerogative of the Crown by assuming. undue powers, and inter- fering with those which properly belonged to the Crown.
Sir Jolos Hoenouse wished Sir Robert Peel to state distinctly, whe- ther he, as Prime Minister, responsible for the appointments made by the Crown, intended to persevere in this appointment ?
Sir Roamer PEEL asked whether Sir John Hobhouse wished for an answer now?
Sir Jonx Hoeitouse said that he did ; for he could act discover from Sir Robert Peel's speech what his intentions were.
Sir Roemer PEEL—" Is that a question to which the right honour- able Baronet wishes for an answer at the present moment ? "
Sir Jolts Hoenonsa would not press for an immediate answer, if it teas inconvenient. But he could not ascertain from the speech of Sir Robert Peel, whether he meant to persevere in the appointment, in opposition to what looked very much like a majority of the House of Commons.
Sir Romer PEEL said, he was never disposed to withhold irjhrenn-
/ion, or refuse answers to questions, that he could answer consistently with his duty. He did not hesitate to say, that, notwithstanding the speeches of that night, he was not prepared to advise the Crown to cancel time appointment of Lord Londonderry.
Sir JOHN Hommouse regretted the perseverance of the Minister in this most unfortunate appointment. In allusion to the offer of Elul Grey to Sir Edward Knatchbull, lie must say tint he never heard of it ; but if it had been made, there was this difference in the eases of Earl Grey and Sir Robert Peel—Sir Edward Knatchbull had never
charged Earl Grey with putting himself at the head of a party for the purpose of betraying it. Sir John Hobhouse then referred to the vote on the Civil List, and the important aid given by Sir Edward Knatch- bull in tumble out the Duke of Wellington. It was, therefore, natu- ral that lie should be applied to by Earl Grey to join his Cabinet. Sir John Hobhouse remarked upon die dexterity with which Sir Robert
Peel had avoided the real question before the House—beating about the bush—now having a hit at Mr. Hume's economy, then flying off to the Parliamentary Register—speaking about any thing but time ap- pointment of Lord Londonderry. He pointed out the inconsistency of the appointment, with the declaration of Ministers that they in- tended to persevere in the foreign policy of their predecessors. He adverted to the position of Lord Stanley, who had contrived to play his cards so as to have the Government in his fingers. He next came to the taunts of Sir Robert Peel against the Opposition for not taking stronger measures to turn them out.
"Put an end, if you please, to our Government by a vote of want of confidence;
but do not let the King's power be injured by attacks upon the appointments of Ambassadors: devise," said lee, " some direct mode of ridding yourselves of the Goyermnent." Sonic, however, thought that when the House placed you, Mr. Speaker, in that chair, that it had spoken its want of confidence in the present Government. But it would not do: Sir Robert Peel showed himself after that vote as ready for the fight as ever ; and that he was able to do so, no man was mote sensible than himself, and lie was not sorry to have the pleasure of hearing hint speak. Then there was the Amendment on the Address. At one of their secret meetings, when they were concocting the Amendment, it had been; asked whether he thought Sir Robert Peel would resign if it were carried : he had said, " Put in this (alluding to some part of the Amendment on the Address), and be must resign." Then at last a friend of his had come and said, " Put in something about the dissolution ; and if carried, no man of honour and feeling can continue longer in office—the doom of Sir Robert would be sealed." Well; the Amendment had been carried—certainly by a smaller majority, from casualties, than the question of the Speaker. Previoug opinions a the course Sir Robert would take were justified. He said he would not resign—he would persevere to the last. But he would ask when o ould- that last come? He only mentioned this to show that they had done their best to turn out Sir Robert Peel ; but he did nut know when the "last" would arrive—when Sir Robert would admit that the day had arrived.
Sir Robert Peel, however, knew that circumstances would arrive which would induce Lord Stanley to join his old friends, and then there would be an end of his Government, which depended for exist- ence on mere party differences and feelings.
Sir EDWARD KNATCHEULL spoke in justification of the appointment. He also said that he had been asked by Earl Grey, through Lord. Palmerston, to join his Ministry ; which proved that Earl Grey did think him an Anti-Reformer. He had declined the offer, but said that be wished Earl Grey success.
Sir G. STRICKLAND, Lord DUDLEY STUART, Colonel EVANS, Mr. BULWER, and Mr. EWART reprobated the appointment.
Mr. Slim withdrew his motion, as it appeared that the appoint. meat had not yet been formally made—and the discussion was then closed.
EDUCATION IN IRELAND. On the motion of Lord RODEN in the House of Peers, on Tuesday, several returns relative to the Natrona Schools of Ireland, were ordered. RELATIONS WITH AUSTRIA AND RUSSIA. Lord BROUGHAM, on Tuesday, said he hoped that, as a new Emperor of Austria had ascended the throne, the British Ministers would endeavour to obtain a mitigation of the punishment of political offenders now incarcerated in Austrian dungeons. He also hoped, that a person of great talent, experience, and discretion, would without delay be sent as Ambassador to St. Petersburg. The Duke of WELLINGTON gave no reply to the first observation ; but said that a Noble Lord had been named as Ambassador to Russia, who would depart as soon as the season permitted.
HAND-Loom WEAVERS. A Committee of the House of Commons to inquire into the state of the hand-loom weavers was appointed on Monday, on the motion of Mr. J. MAXWELL. Several gentlemen, among whom were Mr. BARING, Mr. HUTT, Mr. T. ATTWOOD, Mr. HUME, and Lord FRANCIS EGERTON, while they assented to the mo- tion, expressed their disbelief that the remedies understood to be asked for by the weavers would be obtained by legislative interference.
SEQUESTRATION OF SCOTCH BANKRUPT ESTATE:S. Leave was given on Wednesday, to Sir WILLIAM RAE, to bring in a bill to regulate the sequestration of bankrupts' estates in Scotland. Mr. J. A. MURRAY, Mr. WALLAcE, Sir J. Cast :ELL, and Mr. C. FEtteessox expressed their satisfaction at this proceeding of the Lord Advocate.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND .MARRIAGES, IN SCOTLAND. On Thursday, after a brief discussion, leave was given to Mr. ROBERT STEUART to bring in a bill to establish a uniform system of registering Scotch births, deaths, and marriages.
NEw CireitenEs IN SCOTLAND. On Thursday, on the presentation of a petition by Major BRUCE for an extension of church accommoda- tion in Scotland, Mr. Fox MAULS, Mr. BantoN, Major BEAUCLERCK, and Mr. FINN, took occasion to protest against the money of Dissenters, and of Englishmen and Irishmen generally, being expended for such a purpose. Mr. PRINGLE said, there was no part of the United Empire which cost the country so little as Scotland did : England had received grants, and so had Wales ; it was only reasonable, therefore, that Scotland should obtain something, especially as she contributed her Fair quota to the expenses of the State. The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.
MR. CUTLAR FERGUSSON'S VOTES. Mr. CUTLAlt FERC.UsON
mentioned, on Thursday, that be had received a letter from Kirkcud- bright, informing him of a report being circulated in that place among his constituents, to the effect that he had broken a promise to vote fir Sir Charles Manners Sutton. The fact was, that he left England immediately after his election, for the Continent, and did not return till the day before the assembling of Parliament ; and he had no com- munication with any one respecting the election of Speaker. He was said to have left the House without voting at all ; but the Member who really did so was Mr. Hubert Ferguson, Member for liaddingtonshire. He had himself voted in the majority both on the Speukership and the Address.
VOTES OF AIR. SINCLAIR. Mr. SINCLAIR complained to the House of Commons, on Wednesday, that he had been calumniated by the Ultra Whig papers, on account of his votes in the House. It was (he said) a practice with those papers to abuse and vilify all such Members as dared to exercise an independent judgment ; but in despite of all their hostility, he should persevere in the conscientious execution of his duty to his constituents and the public. Sir JOHN HORHOUSE called Mr. Sinclair to order—that was not the time or place for such com- plaints. Mr. SINCLAIR urged that he bad been thus misrepresented in his own county. Sir JOHN HOIIIIOCSE rejoined, that he had been misre- presented in every county. Mr. SINCLAIR said no more.
WRIT FOR NORTH NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. Mr. VERNON moved, on Wednesday, that a new writ should he issued for North Nottingham. shire, for the tlection of a Member in the room of Lord Viscount Lumley, now Earl of Scarborough ? He explained that there was some difficulty in this motion, because the late Earl of Scarborough had never taken his scat, and as yet no writ of summons had been issued by the House of Peers to the present Eall.
In the ease of Lord Viscount Horsley, the motion was made, and the new writ was grantyd, although the mover declined to allege that he had been called tip to the llon,e of Peers in consequence of the distinction which had been drawn between the case of an heir-apparent and one of collateral descent. Ano- ther ground of objection in that case was the supposition that Lord Horsley might not have been the eldest son of the deceased Evil Berkeley. Ile ousted he had said enough to show that, in similar cases, it had not been the universal practice to declare, in moving for the writ, that the party had been called to the House of Peers, but that it had been considered sufficient to say that he was then a Peer.
The SPEAKER felt it necessary to say a few words once established usage in such cases. He apprehended be was correct in stating that the usual form of the motion was "Now called to the Muse of Peers." The honourable Member had stated, that Lord Lumley was now Earl of Scarborough. That was a point on which they had no formal information ; it was one which it was not competent for the House to decide, and which the issuing of the writ of summons would place be- yond all doubt. The honourable Member had referred to the case of Lord Horsley. The circumstances which had occurred in that case afforded, perhaps, an additional reason for their observing the utmost caution with reference to similar questions; and he therefore considered himself justified in deciding that a new writ could not issue on such a motion as that which had been made by the honourable Member.
Sir RonEaT PEEL fully concurred with the Speaker. He had no doubt that Mr. Vernon was authorized to make the motion he had just submitted ; but he did not exactly see what authority they had on the part of the individual ; and he certainly was of opinion that they ought not, without having clearly ascertained the fact, to subject the county to the incon- venience of a new election. They ought not hastily to adopt a principle which might have the effect of depriving an individual of the privilege of sitting in that House. Take, for instance, the case of a contested claim to a peerage. If the House proceeded without any fact before them, beyond the single motion of an honourable gentleman, speaking apparently without authority, they might prejudice the claim of one party by expressing their opinion upon it ; and in case the claim to the Peerage on the part of the individual who had a seat in that House was not established, they might, by their act, deprive him of his seat. RIST7VERNON reminded the House, that if Lord Scarborough should never take his seat, the constituency would then be virtually disfran- chised, until the next election.
Dr. LLSIIINGTON, Mr. WYNN, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL, opposed the issue of the writ. Sir ROBERT PEEL observed, that if Lord Lum- ley had sat in the House until the writ of summons issued, no one would have questioned his vote, or doubted his being at perfect liberty to exercise his privilege as a Member of the House of Commons. Again, supposing these parish registers should not be found, and the title should never be established, what right had they to deprive the county of Nottingham of its claim to the services of its Representative? or what right had they to deprive Lord Lumley of his scat in that 1-louse.
'Ile motion was then withdrawn.
CARLOW ELECTION. The SPEAKER informed the House, on Thursday, that he bad received a letter from Mr. Wallace, the unsuccessful candidate for Carlow county, stating that he had not been able to transmit his petition in time through the Crown Office, Dublin, when he took it there; it being refused, because it was unaccompanied by a copy. He took it away in order that a copy of the petition might be made ; and when lie returned, the Crown Office was shut, it being past the usual hour of business. He had consequently sent Isis peti- tion to the Speaker. Mr. A BERCROMBY added, that perhaps the House won'd direct the Clerk to read the standing order applicable to the subject.
The Clerk read the standing order; from which it appeared, that the Crown Office itself was bound to make and keep a copy of every petition sent in.
After a few remarks from Mr. II. GRATTAN, Mr. SPRING RICE, Sir E. KNATCHLUI.I., and Mr. O'CONNELL, the further discussion of the subject was adjourned to the next clay.
DutiLis ELEcTioN. The SPEAKER mentioned, that the sureties in the petition of Mr. Walker against the return of the Alembers for Dublin, had not entered into the necessary rccognizanccs, and that the order for receiving the petition was therefore discharged. [There is still another petition against Messrs. O'Connell and Ruthven.] ELECTION PETITIONS.—Petitions complaining of undue returns have been presented during the week from the following places. Halifax, to be considered the lath May (second); Dublin University, :10th April (second) ; Inverness-shire, 211 May ; Bolton, 2fith May ; Kerry County, 2mth May (two) ; Ilutherglen, 28th May ; East Worcester, 211 June; Tralee, June ; Carnarvon, 4th June ; Roscommon, 5th May (second); Cork County, 19th May (second); Ennis, 7th May (second.) EAST INDIA MARITIME OFFICERS. Mr. ROBINSON presented a petition on Wednesday, from fifty.seven maritime officers of the East India Company, complaining of the small allowance made them for the loss of their situations consequent upon the breaking up of the Com- pany's trade, and praying for the interference of Parliament in their behalf. A conversation arose on the subject, in which Mr. PRAED, Mr. BERNAL, Mr. O'CONNELL, and Sir ROBERT PEEL joined ; but it ended in laying the petition on the table: nothing satisfactory to the petitioners was said or done, as the House wished in the first place to hear what Mr. Charles Grant, who was absent, had to say on the subject.
SMITHFIELD MARKET Btu- On Thursday, Alderman Wools moved the second reading of this bill ; the object of which was to enable the City of London to lay out 100,0001. in improving Smithfield Atrket, and lay an additional toll of a penny a bead on all the cattle brought for sale there. The bill was opposed by Mr. HANDLEY, Mr. Musa): IVILLtams, and others, on the ground that the market itself was a nuisance that ought to be removed, not extended. The House rejected the bill, by 14-2 to 27.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY. The bill for the Western Railway was read a second time on Monday in the House of Commons, on the motion of Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET. The Marquis of CIIANDOS divided the House on the question of going into Committee on the bill ; when there appeared—for the Committee, 165; against it 0; no person dividing with the teller against the motion.
GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL. This bill was read a second time in the House of Commons, on Thursday, on the motion of Mr WILSON PATTEN, and ordered to be committed.
SABBATH OBSERVANCE BILL. Leave was given, on Wednesday, to Mr. Pour.TEit, to bring in a bill to secure the better observance of the Sabbath. Mr. Poulter explained that the sole object of his mea- sure was to put an end to Sunday trading.
Busts:Ess OF THE HOUSE. On Wednesday, the House of Com- mons determit• I, by a vote of 186 to 65, to reject Mr. EWART'S motion that no new business should be brought before the House after eleven o'clock. Mr. HUME, Mr. ROBINSON, and Mr. O'CoNNELL, supported the motion. Sir ROBERT PEEL and others opposed it, on the ground that the time of adjournment would be more conveniently left to the discretion of the House.
NEWSPAPER PROSECUTIONS. Sir W. FOLLETT, (Solicitor-General) brought in a bill, on Monday, to indemnify the proprietors of news- papers who had omitted to comply with certain regulations, relative to printing the residences of publishers and other persons connected with the papers, from the penalties sued for by one Adolphus Warren. It appeared that in one instance, penalties bad been incurred to the amount of 10,500/. The person who sued for the penalties, on the incurred, paid of the existing law, is to have his expenses, hitherto ncurred, paid under the bill ; which was read a first time the same day. SALE OF NEWSPAPERS. Mr. CHARLES BULLER, on Monday, moved that an order which he had obtained for the return of the stamps sold to different newspaper proprietors, during the last six months of the year 1834, should be discharged. His object was to prevent fraudulent representations on the subject and he put it to the Crown lawyers, whether it might not be expedient to provide that the stamps on newspapers should contain, not only the amount of duty (as at present), but the name of the particular paper. ATTACK UPON GRAHAM'S TOWN. Mr. BAGSHAW moved, on Monday, for copies of any despatches received by Ministers relative to the recent attack upon Graham's Town, Cape of Good Hope, by the Caffres ; but as Sir GEORGE Cuss said that no despatches had been received, the motion was withdrawn.
PILOTAGE. Sir THOMAS T11.01.111RIDGI moved, on Thursday, for several returns relative to the duties, emoluments, &c. of the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. In the course of a brief discussion which arose on the motion, Mr. HERMES stated, that Ministers intended to issue a Commission to inquire into the whole subject of the Pilotage of the Cinque Ports. Mr. ROBIN sox spoke a few words, amidst cries of " Oh ! oh !" and much interruption ; and the motion was agreed to.
CORN-LAWS. Mr. HEATIICOTE asked, on Wednesday, whether Mr. Clay and Mr. Hume, who had both given notices of motions relative to the Corn-laws, intended to persevere in bringing forward the question. Mr. HUME. said, he withdrew his motion to make way for Mr. Clay. Mr. HEATIICOTE wished Mr. Clay to say what rate of duty on foreign corn he intended to propose, as he observed that his motion was fur the imposition of a fixed duty; but Mr. CLAY declined answering the question.
Lam Cituncii. Last night, Lord JOHN Rt-sser.t., having been in- formed by Sir HENRY HARDINGE that the Report of the Irish Church Commissioners would not be ready till the latter end of March or the beginning of April, gave notice that he should on Monday next fix the day when his motion on the subject of the Irish Church would be brought forward, and that he should move a call of the House for that day.
CORPORATION REFORM. Last night, in answer to Mr. PRYME, Mr BLA (:1; MAINE, the Chief Commissioner, stated that the Report of the Corporation Commission would be ready next week. Sir HENRY EARDINGE stated that the Irish Corporation Report would also be ready in little more than a week.
THE PENSION Lim :lb.. HARVEY, on Wednesday, stated his in- tention to alter the time of bringing forward his motion on the Pension- list from the '28th of April to the 19th of March, in order to prevent its occurring so close upon the Easter holydays. The SPEAKER said it was not competent for him to make this alteration. Mr. IlativEv submitted that he had an undoubted right to give notice of motion on this or any other subject on any day he thought fit. The SPEAKER said, it had always been a point well understood, that after a Member had given notice on any subject, for a certain day, it was not competent to him subsequently to name an earlier period : he might take a step forward with his motion, but certainly none backward. This dictum of the Speaker was supported ; and it was finally ar- ranged that the motion should stand for the 28th of April ; Mr. }JAR- -ITN giving notice that he should move for a call of the House on that day.
ADMISSION OF LADIES TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. Mr. G RAS:STET BERM:1LT gave, notice on Thursday, amidst loud laughter, that on the 1st of May he should move that a portion of the Strangers' Gallery be set apart for the accommodation of ladies.