21 JULY 1832, Page 2

chat anb Procreting# in 13ar1iantritt.

2. RUSSIAN LOAN. This question was reintroduced on Monday, by Air. A. BARING, on a motion for certain papers connected with the payn Lents. Mr. Baring stated the case according to his view of it— If the question were put thus—" Gentlemen, do you deny that this payment ought to be made to Russia ?", Mr. Barino's answer would be, " It was not, and it ought not to be made to Russia, and that there was nothing on the face of the papers produced to show that such a payment ought to be made." When the noble lord told them, as lie did on a former occasion, that he had been once of the same opinion, but that, on looking more narrowly into the subject, he be- came reluctantly of opinion that the country could not without a breach of faith refuse to continue this payment,—and when the noble lord agreed with every one else in saying that the ary letter of the treaty was against his interpret:aim, but that there were circumstances connected with this negotiation which made the payment imperative, Mr. Baring thought that it would be contrary to the duty. ot the House to allow 5,500,000/. to be paid to Russia on the mere private opinion of the noble lord and the law-officers of the Crown, the reasons for which opinion had never been shown to the House. Were the members of that House to allow their constituents to pay this large sum ; and were they, on vague assurances, and without full information, not to feel some reluctance in assenting to such a grant? The whole tenor of the speeches made by the noble lord and the law-officers was to this effect—that if the House saw what they had seen, the House would vote as they intended to vote. The documents on which the noble lord and his supporters in office grounded their defence of the course they had pursued, were the correspondence and the communications which had taken place respecting a treaty that had been entered into seventeen years ago. He thought that the House had a right to be put in possession of the reasons which induced his Majesty's Ministers to say that they were bound by the spirit of the treaty to continue the payment to Russia ; especially when it was considered that the Dutch, who had always been remarkable for the good. faith with which they fulfilled their obligations, maintained, in opposition to the great power of Russia, that they were no longer bound by the terms of the treaty of 1815.

Mr. Baring abjured all factious motives in pressing his motion—

He believed that the honourable member for Middlesex considered that this question had been agitated for no other purpose but to embarrass the Ministry. He assured the House, that he had no such object in view. What he wanted, on the contrary, was to induce his Majesty's Ministers to lay before the House and the public those reasons by which they had been convinced in private of the justice of continuing the payments, in order that a large majority of the House might feel themselves justified in sanctioning their proceedings.

If, however, Ministers saw fit to refuse the papers for which he moved, then he would unquestionably vote against any further payments to Russia. He concluded by moving-

" That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying his Majesty to be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before this House comes or extracts of any documents relating to the convention of the 19th of May 1815, between Great Britain, Russia, and the Netherlands, explanatory of the spirit and objects of that convention." Mr. G. ROBINSON seconded the motion. He spoke with great in- dignation of Ministers having threatened to resign if the motion of the previous Thursday had been carried ; which was, he said, an insult to the House. The question had, by the declaration of Ministers, been converted into a party question. Mr. GALLY KNIGHT thought it would be most unprincipled conduct first to persuade Russia to consent to the separation of Belgium and Holland, and then to take advantage of her compliance to refuse pay- ment of what was due to her.

Mr. HUME explained why he voted against Ministers in January, and for them now— Although the gentlemen near him had submitted several motions on the sub- ject, not one of them had gone to the extent of saying that the payment should be refused. They always left themselves a loophole to creep out at ; and be had no doubt that if they should come into power again, they would continue to pay the money. The motion the other night was merely a manoeuvre to turn out the Whigs in order that the Tories might get in. He came down to the House with a firm determination to vote against Ministers ; but when he found by whom he was surrounded, he was extremely unwilling to become a party to a proceeding which he so much disliked as driving Ministers from office. He had no hesitation in saying, that he changed his opinion, and voted with the Whigs against the Tories, although he believed the Whigs to be wrong. (Cheers and laughter from the Opposition.) He was determined not to assist in turning out Ministers, until they had completed the great measure of Reform. (Cheers from the Opposition.) That was the plain fact. A great deal re- mained to be done yet, and he wanted to see a new election take place. He should be sorry to see the Tories again in power, and the country placed in a similar situation to that in which it stood when the present Ministers accepted Office. Under these circumstances, he felt himself warranted in voting for Ministers against his own judgment. The object of the member for Thetford to be paid to Russia ? }or Ins part, he was determined to such a division as that of Monday, he was quite justified in persevering the money ought not support Ministers, right or wrong. ( Great laughter and cheering from the n opposition.) He would do so, because he thought the general interests of the liament, be \'as not prepared to say that a strong case might not be country would be better promoted by Ministers remaining in office, than by a made out ; but until they were, the House was not justified in sane- change of Governmeut, which might lead to cOnsequenees that it wfs impossible tioning the payments. As the question now stood, the separation of to foresee. Belgium and Holland put an end,. to all intents arid purposes, Mr. J. CAmrstu., Mr. GISBORNE, and Mr. L. WELLesLev, advo- to the treaty of 1814 Enid its obligations. Still, if the Law Officers rated the propriety of the payment ; and Mr. PIGGOTT and Lord of the Crown woidd say, on their honour, that their opinions ELIOT opposed it. had not been influenced by the doeuments for Nehicli he had Mr. PRAM>, adverting to Mr. Hume's argument, said, that gentle- man spoke truth, and voted a lie. lie did not expert much novelty in

such a debate, but M Hrn r. ue's Manner and sentiments were new i , the finances ; and more especially Ivhen about to be saddled with a ndeed.

Mr. V. SMITH remarked, that Mr. Praed brought aslittle novelty to

the debate as he expected El Om it— The question bad been fully discussed in January. The objects of those who revived it now were two—one was to turn out the present 2,1inist,ns ; the other '

m make a splash on the hustire. He doubted xvhether it would have any .

effect upon the hustings; for there had been no expression of public feeling not to be governed by mere pecuniary considerations. and ended by about tids loan. desiring it to be governed by no others. He noticed Mr. Baring's Mr. SHELL put the pious reluctance of voting money to such a ! newly-acquired horror of loans and money-jobbing- sovereign as Nicholas in its true I That honourable gentleman, who was so earnest and disinterested an oppo- " Russia has not lost her claim to our money, by having earned a title to our ! nent of a money-seattering Administration—who had such a holy horror of all jobbinir in loans—that honourable gentleman himself, the member kr Thetford, detestation. We are net to try the responsibility of one party by Hu. delioqueneies

of another ; to rely (I/1 Poland's sufferings iu order to make money of them, were was well aware that there was not one of those money-squandering loans—not even that in NvIlich England was to bectom the guarantee far Grecce—but had indeed a thafty retribution. There was a time when we ought have interfered

—when an aamiral in the Baltic might have interceded woh more eloquence been entered into by the mency-squanderiags gentlemen around the honourable . mionlwr for 'Thetford. Nor wits then! one of them which had not been opposed. than a minister in St. Peterslutz.g ; but the irrevocable drrcision has pasi-ied by ; and now, are WC—now that Pukad has perished for ever, and of her glorious strenuously and conscientiously, mid, not for faction-snlic, but upon principle, hy his noble friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But now, When his noble people nothizig but their glory remains—are We mew to itvail ourseha.s of all her friend found himself the head of the financial affairs of this country, he was incalculable misery, her anguish, her tears, her desolation, to indulge in luera-

bound in duty to adhere to binomial engagements to which the country had pie- our sympathy, a prontable caunniseration—to make an entry of her wrongs in .

viously been pledged. His noble 11.ietn1 found that the honour of this country our fiscal ledger—to convert them into an item of sordid calculation, and ba-

lance the account between ourselves and her destroyer with Poland's best and had been pledged to the treaty, and be stood upon its full anti 'honourable ratiti-

=blest blood ?" cation. It•wais for those who had entered into the treaty—who had bound the After some further remarks of various members, Lord ALTHORP country to the payment of those sums to Russia, now to cavil at the Govern- observed, that it v.els not easy to see how those Who voted for the pay- menti—now tio do :acrid against the rraitication of their own engitgenients, by the gent e V 10 lave Slit (:CI211V1.1 lierrc in °dice, and .to whom they have kit the ments on rf hursthly could vote against them OD Monday. The motion embarrassments necessarily arc, mg trom such treaties— of Mr. Baring was no more than a new version of the motion of 111r.

}ferries. The real point of discussion was, whether the money was to be paid ; and those who thought it ought, would do well to disembar- rass the question, and at once avow their conviction.

Mr. GOULBURN thought it ought to be shown that the national faith was involved, before they consented to the payment on the ground that to refuse it would be a breach of national faith.

was merely to effect a change from Whigs to Tories, and not to sae the public xnoney. Mr. Hume had made a candid avowal of his sentiments, and admitted that he had consented to a little evil in order to obtain a great advantage. This, however, did not pledge him to support the policy which Ministers had pursued. On the contrary, he protested against it. The present motion, like the former one, was intended as a mere trial of strength between the two parties; and he would support Ministers, however unwillingly. Would the member for Thetford be as candid as he was, and declare, upon his honour, that he thought

Mr. It. GRANT remarked on the bonhomie of the Opposition : they had already moved two votes of censure on Ministers, and now— good simple men I—they merely asked for papers, to ascertain whether these votes had been merited or not.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL declared his determination not to vote a shilling of the public money till the papers were produced.

Lord PALMEP.STON begged to correct a slight mistatement into which supporters of Mr. Baring's motion had fallem—from mistake, he did not doubt : the sum to be paid was not 5,000,000/., but 1,800,0001. He ridiculed the notion of -economy being served by refusing to pay that sum' and contended, that had Ministers attempted it, no persons would have been more ready to condemn them than Mr. Baring and his friends— Never was there seen grosser inconsistency, never so much of the mere work- ings of fiction, as oil the present occasion. Members opposite first come down in January, and call upon the House to pronounce a positive vote of censure upon Ministers. It was vain to tell them that the House was not in sufficient possession of the subject to come to so emphatic a decision; those members had no misgivings, and a vote they would have. Well, they were defeated. In July, however, as if nothing had occurred, they come down, and, without hav- ing received a whit more information, call upon the House to again pronounce an emphatic vote of censure upon Ministers. They are again defeated; and now, as a last resort of factious opposition, call for the information which they on te two former occasions affected to decide. On the present motion, the i House would decide as it thought lit. This he would take t upon him to affirm —that if the very persons who now endeavoured to raise the outcry against Mi- nisters on this loan transaction should succeed to office, they would do the very same thing.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, unless the necessities of the public service forbade such a step, Ministers ought to furnish the documents called for. With regard to the payments, he would err on the safe side, by voting for them, lest, as described by Lord Althorp, the national faith should be pledged on the subject.

The House at length divided: for Mr. Baring's motion, 155; against • it, 191; majority for Ministers, 36.

Last night, on the House having gone into Committee, Mr. MILLS, the member for Rochester, moved, as an amendment on the resolution authorizing the continuation of the payments, that the Chairman should report progress. He said he was an honest, though not a constant sup- porter of Ministers- and he was aware that, for the course he was pursuing, he would expose himself to the obloquy of a certain part of the press.

Lord SANDON thought the refusal of the payments would be a gross breach of national faith. Mr. HOPE took the same line of argument.

Mr. Mills's amendment was supported by Mr. P. STEWART, Mr. ZEST, Mr. A. TREVOR, Sir J. BRIDGES, Mr. PIGGOT, and Sir RICHARD VYVYAN. Sir Richard said, the payments were made to procure a truce not a peace ; they were meant to induce Russia to look on while die King of Holland was extremely ill-used. Lord ALTHORP repeated his argument for the non-production of the documents asked for by Mr. Baring on Monday : there was ample to be paid to Russia ? }or Ins part, he was determined to such a division as that of Monday, he was quite justified in persevering the money ought not

i his demand. If the whole facts of the case were laid before Par-

opposition.) He would do so, because he thought the general interests of the liament, be \'as not prepared to say that a strong case might not be country would be better promoted by Ministers remaining in office, than by a made out ; but until they were, the House was not justified in sane- change of Governmeut, which might lead to cOnsequenees that it wfs impossible tioning the payments. As the question now stood, the separation of to foresee. Belgium and Holland put an end,. to all intents arid purposes, Mr. J. CAmrstu., Mr. GISBORNE, and Mr. L. WELLesLev, advo- to the treaty of 1814 Enid its obligations. Still, if the Law Officers rated the propriety of the payment ; and Mr. PIGGOTT and Lord of the Crown woidd say, on their honour, that their opinions ELIOT opposed it. had not been influenced by the doeuments for Nehicli he had

moved, but by the mere dry treaty, then he would allow the House

to decide on the same authority. Otherwise, they would do well to pause before they sanctiuned these payments, in the present state of

i , the finances ; and more especially Ivhen about to be saddled with a guarantee for 800,0001. in order to put a young gentleman, not yet out

of his teens; on the throne of the most distracted country in Europe,

Ireland not excepted.

Mr. STANLEY remarked on Mr. Baring's consistency of argument.

He set out by deseribiog the question as one in Nvirich the House was effect upon the hustings; for there had been no expression of public feeling not to be governed by mere pecuniary considerations. and ended by about tids loan. desiring it to be governed by no others. He noticed Mr. Baring's Mr. SHELL put the pious reluctance of voting money to such a ! newly-acquired horror of loans and money-jobbing- sovereign as Nicholas in its true I That honourable gentleman, who was so earnest and disinterested an oppo- " Russia has not lost her claim to our money, by having earned a title to our ! nent of a money-seattering Administration—who had such a holy horror of all jobbinir in loans—that honourable gentleman himself, the member kr Thetford, detestation. We are net to try the responsibility of one party by Hu. delioqueneies

bound in duty to adhere to binomial engagements to which the country had pie- our sympathy, a prontable caunniseration—to make an entry of her wrongs in .

viously been pledged. His noble 11.ietn1 found that the honour of this country our fiscal ledger—to convert them into an item of sordid calculation, and ba-

lance the account between ourselves and her destroyer with Poland's best and had been pledged to the treaty, and be stood upon its full anti 'honourable ratiti-

evidence before the House to justify the payments. On the general question, he again remarked, that the sevenuice of Belgium mid Hol- land was now, every one allowed, complete; and it was equally allowed, that it was not such a severance as was contemplated in the treaty of 1814.

Mr. BARING contended, that, on constitutional grounds, he had a right to demand the documents for which he had asked ; and that, after

Surely no 011V snspected the honourable member of being party to a fact:ons

opposition. ( is (!c91 btu:Ater.) If such a suspicion could by possibility enter into the mind of :II! N. Man, :lir. Stanley asked, would it not be at once re- moved by a perusal of the speech whiclt the honourable member for Thetford made in January last ? In his speceb, when the same subject was under the consideration of the House, on the 2(5th of January 1882, he stated the question to be altogether of a pecuniary nature ; and he then also warned honourable members, that their constituents would view it in the same li;eht when they presented themselves upon the hustings in October next. In that speech, on the :26th of January 1832, the honourable member for Thetford told the Rouse that if it then sanctioned the payment—and he said that a vote in favour of the Government would Ice a sanction of the payment which had already been made —that it would pledge the country to the future payment ; and that, conse- quently, if at any time England should discontinue to pay the dividends until the whole of the principal was paid off, then it would no longer be safe for any nation to enter into pecuniary engag,ements with England, and there would he an end to the honour and national faith of this country.

Mr. Baring had putt it to the Law Officers of the Crown, whether they could declare upon their honour that they bad been influenced in their opinion by the documents before the House merely ; now Mr. Stanley would ask Mr. Baring and his friends to say, upon their honour, whether these documents of themselves did not fully justify Lord Althorp's resolution. Mr. Stanley went at length into the general argument— It was not on account of colonies which this country held by the right of con- quest that such a stipulation was entered into. No; it was in consequence of the strenuous exertions made by Russia, at a period of extremity and danger, when this country was threatened with war and invasion. England was t'hen rescued (as Lord Liverpool *aid) by these exertions, from a knowledge, except an historical knowledge, of war, and London, perhaps, from pillage. It was on these grounds that Lord Liverpool supported a treaty which the present Govern- ment were so much blamed for upholding. Yes, they were denounced as a money-scattering Government, because they adhered to the spirit of that treaty. But gentlemen said, " This question does not depend on the statements of those who made the treaty ; no, we must he guided by documents, and by documents alone." Why, it was quite evident from those documents, that the great ob5.,ct of the treaty was to afford a suitable return to Russia for the heavy expense in- curred by that power in recovering those provinces from the enemy. Holland . had a distinct interest in their recovery ; England had a distinct interest in their recovery. And who was the enemy there designated? There could be no enemy but France. If this were not so, why expend 2,000,0001. on the erection of frontier fortresses to protect those provinces against the incursion of France?

The discussion was prolonged by Sir GEORGE MURRAY, Sir H. HARIHNGE, the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, Sir R. INGLIS, Mr. HUNT, and Sir ROBERT PEEL. Sir HENRY HARDINGE spoke in reference to the military precautions which he had adopted in Ireland at the period of the French Revolution ; Sir R. Nous, in the state of uncertainty in

which the House was placed, declined voting; and Mr. HUNT followed his example, because he did not wish on the one hand to embarrass Ministers, and on the other could not, like Mr. Hume, vote against his conscience.

• Lord PALMERSTON wound up the debate. The Committee then divided : for the amendment, 112; against it, 191; majority for Minis- ters, 79. The resolution was consequently agreed to, and the report ordered to be received to-day.

2. GREECE. On Wednesday, the Marquis of LONDONDERRY, pur- suant to notice, put certain questions to Ministers respecting the ar- rangements entered into with regard to Greece. It had been stated, that France, England, and Russia, had agreed to guarantee a loan of twenty millions of florins for the support of Prince Otho of Bavaria, in the government of that country : the Marquis wished to know, if Austria was a party to the treaty ; and if not, why not ? He wished also to know, if Earl Grey was ready to lay before the House a copy of the conference by which Prince Otho was appointed King of Greece ; and if Ministers meant that Parliament should enable them to pay the loan which they had guaranteed ? In the course of his speech, the Marquis spoke of Earl Grey as having a fancy for king-making—of his making Leopold King of Hollaud—of his slighting Austria, as he had slighted Turkey, Portugal, and Holland, and all the ancient allies of England, to gratify our belle alliance with France. He concluded by attributing the Revolutionary principles of France, with a flood of which Europe was now threatened, and the unsettled state of Holland, Belgium, and Ireland, to the policy pursued by the present Ministers.

Earl Gun- noticed the leading fallacy in Lord Londonderry's speech— Namely, that the foreign policy of the present Ministers was entirely of their own formation ;*while, in point of fact, it was, in a great degree, but the follow-

ing up of that of their predecessors, both being under the control of circum- stances. The Marquis was right in saying, that the aspect of Europe was most unsettled and gloomy on their accession to office; but he ought to have added, that they had no hand in its creation. Ministers might have erred as to the course they pursued to remedy the ills of Europe, on their accession to office ; but surely wet:: not responsible for the birth and existence of those evils. The change in the French dynasty might, in possibility, though not in probability, be as pernicious as the Marquis had often asserted, but it was not the Ministers' doing. So might the separation of the Netherlands ; but neither was it their doing—not even the fact of recognizing either event.

The same observation was correct as applied to Greece ; Ministers were in respect to that country merely following up the policy of their predecessors. When Leopold was proposed as king, the Duke of Wel-

liogton proffered, in conjunction with France and Russia, to guarantee a loan of sixty millions of francs. The appointment of Prince Otho was precisely analogous to the appointment of Prince Leopold, and the pecuniary assistance in amount and principle the same. If the treaty received the sanction of Parliament, England would become guarantee for one third of a loan of sixty millions of francs for Prince Otho's use. 'Vire were not to advance the money ; we were merely to guarantee those that did advance it against loss in case of the failure of the principal,— which, from the arrangements for the payment of interest, and the forming of a sinking-fund, was not very probable— Did the Marquis believe that any prince would accept the government of Greece on any other terms than those which had been agreed on in the present case ? and if not, did he think it desirable to throw that country back into a state of anarchy and confusion, which it was impossible to describe, by refusing to afford the means of carrying on an effective Government? The treaty would and must be communicated to the House; for, without the sanction of Parlia- ment, its provisions could not be carried into effect ; and it would have been brought under consideration before now, but that sonic delay had taken" place with respect to copies of protocols, and with a view to lay the fullest informa- tion before Parliament. More than this he did not think it necessary to say till the subject came fairly under discussion; and if the Marquis should then object to what had been done, Earl Grey must protest against its being considered as a new line of policy on the part of his Majesty's present Ministeis ; who, in taking the course which they had adopted, only followed in the footsteps of their predecessors.

The Earl of ABERDEEN said, the Duke of Wellington at first re- fused to guarantee any advance at all; he then consented to guarantee 500,0001.; and on Prince Leopold's stating that sum to be too small, he agreed to guarantee 800,0001. He at the same time had reason to be- lieve, that Prince Leopold did not require the objection arising from the refusal of such a guarantee, to enable him to get rid of the arrange- ment. After Prince Leopold withdrew, the Duke repeatedly declared that lie would not enter upon a second guarantee, unless he approved of the person appointed; and he distinctly objected to Prince Otho, because of his age. The circumstance, also, of Prince Otho being a Catholic, it was considered, must operate against him. Prince Leopold had deter- mined to conform to the Greek Church.

Earl GREY remarked on the extraordinary vindication of the late Go- vernment—that they agreed to guarantee a loan, in the certainty that the guarantee would be rejected. He denied, however, that the guarantee was merely proposed : on the contrary, there were actual articles drawn up.

The Duke of WELLINGTON admitted the guarantee to Prince Leo- pold, but repeated, that it was at the time understood that the Prince would not accept the appointment offered him. The late Government had not approved of Prince Otho, but the contrary. The Duke spoke of the state of affairs in the Mediterranean being now altered by the French having taken possession of Algiers— When he saw France remaining in possession of Algiers, notwithstanding the provisions of a treaty, and when he saw what was done at Ancona, he must say the interests of this country had been grossly neglected in that quarter.

Earl GREY subsequently adverted to the occupation of Algiers— He certainly understood the Duke to say that France remained in possession of Algiers notwithstanding the provisions of a treaty. Now, Earl Grey had not been able to find any engagement or treaty to evacuate Algiers in an authentic form. If such a document existed, he would thank the duke to point it out.

3. RECIPROCITY DUTIES. On Thursday, Lord STRANGFORD made some observations on the late arrangement in respect to tonnage-dues entered into with France; he considered the arrangements as good, but thought they were susceptible of amendment. The tonnage-dues paid by French vessels in British ports, he said, did not exceed 10d. ; while those payable by British ships in French ports were, even under the new regulation, 15d. He noticed also the great advantage which French ships received from our light-houses while on the French coast : in some eases, more than a hundred miles of coast were without those necessary guides. Many English vessels had been wrecked between Ifshant and Cape Frehel in consequence.

Lord AUCKLAND, after praising the frank and liberal spirit in which the advances towards a satisfactory arrangement of the tonnage-dues had been met by the French Government, proceeded to correct the mistakes of Lord Strangford's estimate of the amount M the two countries.

It was the former rule in France, to impose a tonnage-duty of 3s. 6th on all British merchantmen entering any of its ports, without distinction; while in this country every port had its own rate of duty on French vessels. It became necessary, therefore, to arrive at an average charge in British ports on French goods; and for this purpose, the sum levied during the last four years in four- teen of the principal ports of England on French tonnage, was calculated, and it gave an average of DV. per ton on French merchandise as the charge in British ports. The charge in France was Is. 3d. ; but the difference was apparent, not real, and arose from the circumstance of the English and French measures being to each other in the proportion of ten to fifteen ; so that is. ad. in France on the English ton was the same thing as 10d. in England on the French ton. Such; at least, was the French statement, which he rather believed to be correct; but the subject was still under the most amicable investigation, and would, he was confident, be permanently and satisfactorily settled.

With respect to light-houses, it was plain that the French Govern- ment could not neglect them with safety to their own commerce.

4. ANTI-TITHE MEETING IN IRELAND. Last night, Lord KIL- LEEN having presented a petition fr o m certain of the persons engaged in the meeting at Nobber, complaining of its dispersion by the Magistrates, Sir E. SUGDEN rose to declare the illegality of all such meetings ; he condemned at the same time the indelicacy of the Irish landlords in giving countenance to them. If tithes were abolished, the landlords would be the only party that would benefit.

Mr. 0' Cosisma. spoke strongly in behalf of the legality of the meet- ing. There were no flags, no music, no arms ; the object was legal, the demeanour peaceable. He pronounced Sir W. Gossett's circular illegal and unconstitutional, and expressed his hope that in a Reformed Parliament, Mr. Stanley would be impeached for his Star Chamber proceedings. He asked if it was illegal in Ireland to declare against the payment of tithe, and legal in England to declare against the pay- ment of taxes.

Mr. STANLF.Y admitted the right of petitioning to be sacred, but it might be made the cloak for most dangerous and illegal proceed- hugs. Meetings, which in one state of the community might be safe and legal, might in another be dangerous and illegal. Such was now the case with the Anti-Tithe meetings in Ireland ; which Government would use all their powers to put down ; and if their present powers were not sufficient, they would apply for greater. With respect to the meeting at Nobber, it was incorrect to say that it did not possess the exteriors of illegality : there were music and flags and military array; and the Magistrates who dispersed it had information on oath of its ob- ject and character. Like all the meetings held on the subject of tithes, its evident purpose was, not petition, but intimidation.

Mr. HUNT observed, that the Birmingham meeting had all the marks of illegality that the Nobber meeting had. And Mr. SIIEIL asked, why, if banners and music and military array constituted illegality, the meetings of the 12th July were allowed to go on without interruption ?

Mr. CRAMPTON asked, if members were not aware, that some of the persons arrested at Nobber were about to be tried for assembling there ?

Mr. O'CONNELL subsequently adverted to this question. He did not care for the trial, if it were fairly conducted ; but at present the Crown appointed the Juries. Why had they no bill for making the appointment of Juries fair? Because the present Ministry were in office.

Some conversation ensued on this observation. Mr. CRANIPTON

said, the Sheriffs of Counties struck the Common Juries ; the Special Juries were struck by the Prothonotary of the Common Pleas ; and

Special Juries in Crown cases were struck by the Master of the Crown Office. Lord ALTHORP said, the bill for regulating Irish Juries had been supported, when in the Commons, by all the members of the present Government ; it was no fault of theirs that it had not passed.

5. LONDONDERRY FORT. On Wednesday, Mr. GEORGE DAWSON moved " That an address be presented to his Majesty, to release the Irish Society from that part of their charter which obliges them to pay 2001. a year, and the rents of certain lands, to the Governor of Londonderry and Culmore Forts, on cordition of their applying those sums to the building of a stone bridge over the river Foyle, or any other improvement in that district."

He noticed the income of the Governor—.

He received 318/. a year of the public money by an annual vote of that House ; 2001. a year from the Irish. Society; and he was also invested by the Irish Society with the property of certain lands about Culmore, producing an annual income of from 6001. to 7001.; so that the whole of his income amounted to very nearly 1,200/. a year.

The payment of which he wished to procure the remission, was originally made with a view to the protection of the Protestants of Londonderry; a purpose which it no longer served, as the Governor had no force under him for the purpose of affording them protection. Mr. Dawson proposed to appropriate the 2001. a year to build a bridge over the Foyle.

Lord Althorn had pledged himself to the abolition of all sinecures; and he was now calla upon, in fulfilment of his own pledge, to do away with this sinecure office ; and the Government who had expended vast sums of the public money in the improvement of the Southern part of Ireland, were bound in fair- ness to assist in forwarding an undertaking which would prove highly advan- tageous to the Northern part.

He noticed a rumour, that the Governorship was about to be con- ferred on Sir John Byng ; still he did not believe that one of the members for Middlesex (Mr. Byng) would vote for the continuance of the sinecure— He did not know how Mr. Hume would vote ; for he had confessed, that on the division on the Russian Loan, he would vote that "black was white."

(Laughter.) . .

Lord ALTHORP declared himself an enemy to useless sinecures, but he never said that sinecures which afforded the means of rewarding deserving officers were useless. The granting of such situations to undeserving individuals was not certainly to be justified; but he thought that they were, when properly. disposed of, most useful and beneficial. He had no doubt that the present motion would be very popular with the Corporation of Derry. They would, no doubt, be highly pleased to be relieved from the payment which they were bound to make to the Governor of Londonderry Fort ; but he thought that the House would be of opinion, when they recollected all the circumstances of the loan of money which

was made to the Corporation of Derry for building a bridge over the river Foyle, and that Corporation had not any very strong claims on their consideration.

Mr. HUME regretted to hear from Lord Althorp such an opinion respecting sinecures. If officers were entitled to rewards, the honour- able plan would be to come-before the House and receive them from the people. His vote on the question of the Russian Loan had been commented upon by Mr. Dawson: he begged to inform him that be had voted against that motion, because he believed that it was brought fotward from factious motives, and not from any desire to benefit the public. Mr. BYNG said, if he did not apply for the sinecure to-his brother, it was not from want of Mr. Dawson's advice ; for he had repeatedly told him he ought to do so.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE spoke of the Army looking to the country for the reward of their services as highly unconstitutional.

The motion was not pressed.

6. INNS OF Counr. On Tuesday, Mr. D. W. HARVEY brought forward his motion- " That an bumble address he presented to his Majesty, that he will be graci- ously pleased to direct the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state and practice of the Courts of Law, to examine into the course of proceedings before the Benehers and Visitors of Lincoln's Inn, Inner Temple, Middle Temple, and Gray's Inn, upon the application of persons seeking to become students thereof, or to be called to the bar ; and to report the evidence thereon, with any special circumstances, to the House."

Mr. Harvey understanding that no opposition was to be offered by Ministers to the motion, contented himself with simply proposing it.

The ArTORNEY-GENERAL, on the request of Sir CHARLES WETHE- RELL, explained why no opposition would be offered by Government to this motion, although they had opposed the last that was made by Mr. Harvey on the same subject. The question was now brought before the House on public grounds, not on private grounds as formerly. The opinions of many persons high at the bar were in unison with his own, that there ought to be some appeal against the power of the Benchers to admit or exclude students.

Some conversation ensued respecting the manner in which the Benchers had exercised their power. Mr. C. FERGUSSON noticed, by way of exemplification, the resolution to exclude all persons connected with the press, which had been agreed to at Lincoln's Inn, and only re- scinded by the strenuous opposition of Mr. Stephen (the Master in Chancery), who had himself been a reporter.

The House was about to agree to Mr. Harvey's motion ; when Sir CHARLES Wierneitett and Mr. J. KNIGHT, perceiving that there were not forty members present, insisted on dividing, though entreated not to do so. There appeared, on a division, for the motion, 28; and against it, 4,—namely, Mr. J. E. Gordon, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Knight, and Sir Charles Wetherell. The House, in consequence of this proved defi- ciency of members, adjourned till next day.

It was stated by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, on Wednesday, that on inquiry, it had been ascertained that the Commissioners bud ample powers to do what he wished them to do ; but that it was expected, in such a case, that an instruction should he given by Government. This would be done, and Mr. Harvey's object would in consequence be ef- fectually secured.

7. ANATOMY BILL. On the motion, on Thursday, for the third' reading of this bill, Lord WYNFORD repeated his objections to the bill, as cruelly mischievous in principle, and as a sacrifice of the feelings of the poor to the sole benefit of the rich. He moved that the hill be read a third time that day six months.

Lord TEYNIIAM said, the bill would convert every workhouse-keeper into a trafficker in dead bodies.

Lord MINT° said, there were two facts that sufficiently showed the futility of such general objections,—first, the price of bodies was at pre- sent such as to offer a temptation to murder of the foulest kind ; second, the plan had been tried on the Continent and in America, and found to be effectual.

The Earl of Hanewoon spoke of the indecent slurring over of the service of the dead, as tending to demoralize the country.

The House divided on Lord Wynford's amendment : for it, 9; against it, 29; majority, 20.

On the original question being put, Lord Wrs:roxin objected to the clause forbidding the bodies of murderers to be dissected.

Earl GREY supported the clause, on the ground that making dissec- tion of the bodies of murderers a part of their peculiar punishment, tended to perpetuate the prejudice against dissection in general. The Earl afterwards moved, by way of rider, a clause to the effect that "the bodies of all prisoners convicted of murder should either be hung in chains, or buried under the gallows on which they had been executed, or within the precincts of the prison in which such prisoner had been confined, according to the discretion of the cot= before whom the pri- soner might be tried ; and that such addition be stated at the time of pronouncing sentence."

The bill was then read a third time, and passed.

8. CHOLERA. On Wednesday, in answer to a question from Sir ROBERT PEEL' Mr. POULETT THOMSON stated, that the reports of Cholera in the Metropolis were greatly exaggerated-- From the best accounts which the Board of Health were able to obtain, not

more than thirty or forty cases occurred daily within the whole district of Lon-

don, and the number of deaths varied from twenty to thirty. It was not the intention of Government to publish any daily report of the cases which occurred,

because the appearance of such an account would cause the trade from London to be placed under quarantine in every port throughout Europe. If any disease of the kind really prevailed in the port of London, any attempt to conceal its existence would be most improper; but the fact was, that the malady did not prevail there, and during the last four days there had not been a single patient received in the hospital-ship. The cholera existed in some parishes in London, but it did not in the river; yet if any official statement of the existence of the cho- lera should be published, the consequence would be, that while no practical bene- fit would be derived from the publication, the ports of other powers would be closed to our trade.

Colonel SIBTHORP did not think Mr. Thomson's communication . Byng, and Mr. Hume addressed the meeting.

sufficient ; and stated his intention to persist in his motion that copies of the daily returns of cases occurring in London should be laid before the House.

9. SCOTCH REFORM BILL. The amendments of the Lords were agreed to on Monday, without discussion ; and on Tuesday the Royal assent, by commission, was given to the Sill.

10. limn REFORM BILL. This Bill was read a third time on Wednesday, and passed. Mr. MULLINS, Mr. JEPHSON and Mr. LEADER, offered amendments by way of rider, but none eithem were insisted on. Two clauses with a view to facilitate the registry, and several verbal amendments, were iiStroduced by Ministers. It was read a first time in the Lords on Thursday and the second reading fixed for Monday next. There was an attempt in the Lords' last night, to substitute Thurs- day for Monday, on the plea that the latter was too early it day for the Irish Peers. Earl GREY observed, that there was nothing to prevent them from attending, if they chose : they were quite vell aware of the progress of the Bid. The Di tikes of CUMBERLAND and WELLINGTON and the Earls of G OSFORD and LIMERICK argued for Thursday. Their Lordships at length divided on the question ; when the original ap- pointment of Monday was carried, by 15 to 13.

11. lersii Trrons Bier. On Wednesday the second reading of this bill was agreed to, without discussion, on the understanding that ample opportunity for discussion should be afforded in the Committee ; which was fixed for Tuesday next.

12. DUBLIN RECORDER. In the Committee of Supply on Wed- nesday, in the course of the Irish Estimates being voted, Mr. HUME wished to reduce one of the votes by 1,6001., the amount of the Re- corder's public salary ; but he was advised that the salary being secured by act of Parliament, could not be so reduced : he contented himself therefore with giving notice of a bill to disable Recorders of Dublin from sitting in future Parliaments.

13. BRIBERY BILL. Lord WI-NI-one, last night moved the second readieg of his Bribery Bill ; on which occasion be repeated the argu- ments he had formerly used to induce their Lordships to comply with the motion. Subsequently, however, on the suggestion of his noble friend the Lord Chancellor, he consented to give up the measure alto- gether. Lord BROUGHAM'S argument for the abandonment of Lord Wyn- ford's bill was derived from the progress of Lord John Russell's in the other house; where, he said, such a bill more properly originated. Lord Wynford's bill was read a second time pro fbrolit, on the under- standing that when the time for commitment arrived the order would be discharged.

14. SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL. This bill, after clouds of witnesses had been examined, and after the attendance of counsel, attornies, agents, engineers, surveyors, Parliamentary agents fee., has shared the fate of the London and Birmingham Railway BBL-it has been thrown out by the Lords ; their Lordships' Committee haviug discovered " that the preamble bad not been proved."

15. Bins PusrroNEn. On account of the advanced state of the ses- sion, Mr. BARING, on Monday, withdrew his Privilege of Parliament Bill. Mr. J. CAMPBELL at the same time postponed his General Re-. gistry Bill; and Mr. B. PORTMAN his Road Acts Consolidation Bill.

16. SOMERVILLE. In answer to a question put by Mr. HUNT, last night, Sir JOHN HORHOUSE stated, that he had no power to discharge this man ; but he hid forwarded the representation to Lord Hill, and re- ceived an assurance that if Somerville conducted himself properly, his discharge would be granted on the usual terms. The Court of In- quiry commenced on Wednesday last ; and Mr. Hunt might rest assured that Somerville was under no sort of intimidation or control regarding it.

Spotted a problem with this article?

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

chat anb Procreting# in 13ar1iantritt.