House Of Commons, Monday,...
.ilr. HiUMlE presented a petition trom the intabitants O0- the town af Droghedla, complaining of the abuse of the funds of the corpora- tion of I)rogheda, and praving tbat the house would address thc Crown to beseec Wlis *Uajesty to direct the commissiorers appoint- ed to irquire into the state of education in Ireland to direct their attention to the proceedings of the corporation. The honourable mnember said that be had seen documents which verified the state- ments of the petition. Ile would not detain the house by going into anv details, but he woalld tirply state, that the documents, which he bad seen, supposing them to be correct satisined him that the fiunds of the cornoration were grossly misapplied. The corporation con- sistedof about40 persons, who were self-clected, and who excluded all Catholics fro uthedr body. EI thought it ras proper to ascertain whether the funds of the corporation might not be applied to the promnotion of education. i Mr. HUM1E Withdrew his notice, which was fixed for to-mor- row, of a motion for grantiug compensation to slave-holders in,case of thie emancipation of their slaves, with thie intention of bringing fo,rad the subject next session. PRIZE-MONEY. Mfr. IHU. IE asktd why the prize-money to the Bditislr troops- wnIo served in Portugal against Napoleon was not paid ? illany of the individuals who were entitled to the money had died '-without obtainin rpayment. Mr. I1 ERRIES said that the distribution of the prize-money to- which the hon.member had allude d did not dependon the Treasury alone, hut on the Portuguese Government, which had tlhrowni an impediment in the way of that proceeding. Some time since, the British Government informed the Portuguese Government that the suml of 85,0031. bad bee.n awardel as the share of the prize- money due to Portugal, and that it would be immediately paid upon receiving a receipt froin Lord Bercsford and the Portunuese minis. ter. The Portuguese Government, howevrer, had declined to accede to this art;angemcnt In the mean time, the moliey had been 'depo- sited in exdicquer hills with accruinig interest,' and it would be. dis- tributei as soon as the consent of Portugal should be received to the arrangenent. JISTORICAL PAINTING. ' 31r. LA MIBTO, said herose to present a 'petition on the sibject ,of the tine arts, from illr. Benjamin Robert Haydon, an individual knowrn for his talents as well as his mistortunes-the latteF, be be.- lieved, were occasiened by no fault of his own, but by. an eflthu. siaatic attachment to the branch of art to wlhich he hiad devoted him- :sclf, but which, however it might lead to posthumous faime, could efer, in this countrv, under existing circumstances, be cultivated =ih profit. An lion. friend (Mir. Erougharn) had, on a former oc caslon, presented a petition from ISIr. Haydont directing the atten- tion of Parliament to the art of historical painting; and that vhich he was ?iew about to present referred to the same subject. He would state the substance of thepetition- It set forth that historical painting wvas less encouraged thah 'anv'other branch of art, al. though the Royal Academy and the .Brit;5h Institation wtre esta- blished for the purpose of fostering and encouraging iS It was impos. sible that historical painting could be culdvated, unless it received' public patronage. In Greece and in Italy; historical paintinj obtaiied public as well' s private patronage: in Holland, it 'received' pri- vate patronage onlyv. It wassunnecessary to point oat thsedift'erence between the two schools. It was 'only since the foindation -of the Royal Academy that student' in this countryc had ben affodedthe mnesns of pursuing their studies to advantKge.' The inate Sing had been a great encoarager of historical painting, having introduced some wo:k of that nature into every chutch or chapel over which he had any influence. Bat, in the course of time, the wantofpatronage -was so strongly felt, that lhistorical paintin had nearly falen into entire disrepptc. In 1801, the British Irstitutionwas estabished by p-iv.-tesubscription,upon the principle of excluding al portraits froi the sxhibitions there. An application was made to the:then C'iancellor of the Exclhequer, to grant some pecuniary assistance to the Instituition, to enable the governors to purchase historical paint- ings ; but the application was resisted. on the ground that the coun- try was then engaged in an expensive war. Since that time,:histo- riral painting had been left to the patronage of private individuals alone. Private individuals, however, found it impossible to pur:' chase large historic.l paintings, andtberefore confined their purchases to cabinet pictures. The publicex1fibitioil of the Elgin misarbles and the Angerstein gallery would be an incitement to Englislh artists to utate the greatness of the works which were comprised in those collections. After observing that in Italy and Greece the purchase of works of art had-been diiected by the Governments, the pietition concluled byc.illing upon Parliament to imitate that example, and to votc a sum of money to be expended in theipurchase of historical paintings. The hon. member said, that he was happy to have that zpuorLuniry of stating, that he cordially concurred in the sentiments 'which were axpTesstd in the petition. He was rejoiced that the liuse had voted for the buying of the Angerstein gallery, bat he hoped that they would not be so foolish as to stop at that point. If Government merely set those works before our ar- tists without afflrding them the means of competing with them, thev would only excite hopes that must be dlsappointed. If the object of Goyernment in the ptrehase of the Angers.i'n collec- teen had been merely to gratify the sigbt-seeing public, they 'would Ftop with what they bad done; but if they wished to make British arntits emrulate the magnificent works which had been placed: before -eizro, thet -wnulA folow up their good wbrk by an annual grant to be approprtted 'to th3 purchaseaofhistsricalpaintings. (Fear. hear.) ,'slr. DENM.AIN pre?en ed a petition from Jolts5 Hay, comiplain- ing of ceraini conduct of the Lord Advocate of Scotland. and offer- jog to verifv lhis complaint lby evidlence at the bar of the hotlse. The LORD ADVOCATE3 hoped that, as the petition. couirained nspersions upon the Lords of Session in Scotland, it would not be ordered to he printedat the present moment. M1r. DENLIIAN did stot mean to press for the printing of the pe.- AiLion at present. Il..:lr Stl1[TlIpr-sented.apetition from the corporation of Norwieii, praying to have two gaol deliveries in the year. SOUTH AMXERICA. ' Sir J. MACINTOSH said, that he vishied to postpone until 'to-: mnorrow thepresentation of the petidon of the merchants ofthe vity. Lof Lndon, praying for therecognition ofthe indepcndenceofthe'stites' o,' South America, with a vi.uvtoconsult the convenicnceof his 'iglht Es ra.friendtheSecretaryofState forForeiznAfflairs (lir. Canning); to wi-im, he understood it would heinconveriienttohave the petitionpre. aesrted by him (Sir J. Aiacintoslh) this Evening. Ile wished also, sot '.cinz a noble Lord (Palmerston) in hiis 10lace, to postpone unti to. 3ennr ow the presentation of a petition from M1r. Robert Bell, co:u- 4tlirinhl of the hardship, after 20 years had elapscd,ofbeing held re- spous;ie for a ctse of bail to the Crown. LJord A. IiAShILTONbrought in the bill for the better reco- er; of snis;lldebts in Scotland, which was read: a -first time, and MtR. ROBERr GOURLAY. Tise SPEAKER.-" I wislh to submit to the consideration of the house a letter which I received before I came down here this day, ined by Drs. Alunro and Sir George Tuthill, who were in attend- ance by nay desire upOR Mr. Robert Gourlay, who is at present in theanodyof. theSerreant-at-Arimisofthislhouse. Vriththeleave or the heus I will read the letter, which is as follows:- "&Sir-In obedience to your commands, we have liad several in- 'Uriews with Mr. Robert Gouarlay, with a view to asct'tain the state o his mind;* and after repeated conversations with hint, asd hear- in ? fromn him a detail of some of the events of his life, coupled with Ii, Last act,ouropinion is-tbat at different periods his miniod has Sx? b wjct to unsoundnes,-that he was of uasound mind on Fri. daylast wlieislie asMialted ah bob. Ihemernb of the Hoflse of Unim~ Mons, antl that he continuaes in the same state- still.'"1 (Sigacd) &c.'~ Mlr. CANNING said (iii a -.tone of -toic'c. lhardly audible), that: afterw wat te huse had just heard, it *As hardly expeaient to'fl :lQvw the usual course of-callitig the -indlividuLl'- to the bar.-{Hear, 'hear.) A great difficulty fromn thence arose respecting the~nmaner of disposing of this unfortunate man. He apprehsuded, howcver, that thie most humane coutse'woonld,be, to detninhim, witout,malt- uigtany further order upon his case, until his'finssoudb o. uied. Hie understood no motiona was nece3sarty,but thatlhe would, be detained for the-present. (Hlear.) Dilr. BROUGHUZ presented a petitiort from the ministers and elders df Annan uo-lr mithi's case. REVERtSAL OF ATTAIN'DER'S. ADir. PEEL said, that it became necessary for him,in thze dischiarge of big duity, to move the first readling of Aive bills for the reversal of attaindlers, for which hills Hlis Mlajesty had already, beent graciously pleased to signifv his assent. Thie first bill was for rever'sing the at.. tainider of Lord S5taffbid, and with i6~pect to that bill he wished it to be understood as the reparation for an itct of injastice (Hear, hear.)' The restoration of the ether titles stoo-d upon a different fooling, for they,iwere atll acts of grace and faveour. (Cries of "1hear.") 'In addi-- tion to Lord Stuff`'rd's bill, be haa to propose the usual course of reading the bills for reversing thealttainder of thieEarl of Mlar' Vis- counts Kenmure and Stratballan, a-nd Baron Nqairn. (Cheers.5 ,As in the precedent of Loral Edward Fitzgeralds bill, perhaLps the. house would allow thiese bills two readings without further delaty. (Hear, bear.) Mlr. ABERCRO.1BY said, that as a nati[vaof Scotland, he could not allow this opportuniity to pawss of testifying his cerdial approba- tionof the course taken by His Majesty in reversing these attainders. In thezase of the earl of Mfar, for by such aname lie niight now call Mr. rikne, hatpee wasconideably past 80 years of age, be. love in ublc en prvatelife a teadMrbig, and thecrefore it- wasgraifyngto indtha i th seectonwhich 1ii i Majesty had beenadvsedto akeno plitcalparialty bad been manifested.L (Hea,) Te rstortionof he ErlofMarto the ancient title of his ancetorswoud behaied wth ratiu4eby ;he p3eople of Scotland. (Chieers.) Sir J. MNACINTOSH said, thai in the case of Ijord SEafford, His Majesty was peribrmning a nmpmorable act'of national justice and in the case of -the Scotch peers, one of royal clemency. (hiear.) There wyas sornetising evna hcigi the former-the example of retributive justice, wb4ch it held forth 144 years after the infliction of mutrder by the swordI of law, whicht des!royedl by its blow, at a moment whien passion had poisoned And subverted the mo'ral attri- butes of justice. IVith reference to the latter cases, the Scottish at, taindlers, ho was one of.those who heild that every ponisihpient of the descendants of criminals, for acts in which thiey could be no parties, was crteel 4nd unjust (hear,:) and in that sense, he was peculiarly pleased thiat penalty had ceased to follow the house of Mlar. And wbile uponthissuabject, he might be permlitted to express a wih that at some future 1ieriad, flis Mlajesty wvould, by an exensionr of his gracious purpose, be pleased atl length to obliterate th atremaininig traces of these attainders from ?l4ose families who now innocently suffered from them., Mlr. IRUCE regretted that width tewarmest approbation of the principle oftthcse bills, lie could not concur ins approving, the selec- tion whifeh had been alluded to. He could not praise that selecfion whic'h toolk the taint from the b'-cod of thelineal descendants of the parties who bad flirst suffered, While the collateral branches of others whose descent was pure in their own line were still thought fit to he excluded from Hlis Majesty's grCe. Sugh was hig iown ease: he was descended, from a collaateral branch of tlhe famfly of the attainted Ijord Burleigh, and the attander alovae pre- vented that title froms devolving upon him. W Nhen His Ma,- jesty was in Scotland, he had felt it his duty to p resent a petition for the reversal of hiA framily attainder; and he had never since lieard why, this partial restoration of honours was se- lected. He yielded to no msin in loyalty to tile Hfouse of' Ilanover, and mnost painfully dlid he feel the distinctina by which he suffered on the present occasion. (Loud cries, of "h ear."i Thoulgh the blood froAm which he was collaterally descended from Lor-d Burleigh, who died wvithout issue, was pure and untainted, yet still was he, andl those who were to succeed him, excluded from the Royal grace. WVas that excluxsion to be for ever perpetuated? (L-oud cries of "thear.") lie hoped, that on some fututre occasion, his ease, end that of others similarl placed -would be considered by the Crown with grace and'Ifavour. ?Hear, hear.) The bonourable memiber then referred to the aietalls of the act of 1784, which wasfraed y te lte ordMelIlle, at the time Lord Ad- vocte whchresord he sttesfofetedlin the year 1745, and re- iteate hi coplant t ot ein inludd i te present act of Lor BININ sad, hatthee ws mch f wat had fallen fromthehonorabe mmberwel woth the attention of those to whiom it was more particularly addiresd By the old Scottishi lawv, the collateral blood was not attainte hetrusted, theref6re, that the exclusion would not stillattacinta line. lHe must take this opportu-sity of expressing the gratifcation hie felt at the rpstora- tioli of the title of the ancient and illustrious house of Afar. Mfr. PEEL said, that what had fallen from hiis hon. friend (Mlr. BEntce) slhowed, that at least no party attachment was acted upon in' reversing-the attaindersbyvthese bills. (Hear.) But there were only two alternatives in the choice of the King, in the view which his Majesty was advised to take-tither an iridisc'rimiriatpe reversal of the attainders, or a selection from tkem. To an indiscriminate re- storatioin there was a great objection. Some of the representatives of these fansilics did not, in the altered state of thecir proFerty, like the incuimbrance of a title. It was necessary in selecting cases for restoration to select those cases in whic:h there was no doubt as to the ilimitation of the original patent, or as to the applicant for the title. jis the restoration of- blood w;as always, in thi e language of the law, a nmatter of grace and favour, it could not be ezpected of him us a minister of -the Crown, to eniter into the merits of each indiyidual claimn, thougzh there was no tzask which he should have greater pleasure in. performing, i circumstances Tendlered it neces- sary. By some accident oro oler it happened, that thiebill restoring the title of the Earl of Mfar was the last to be read that evening. It migh pehap beconslatry o te huse to hear that this title was as aciet (f ideeditwre ot he mst ncint)as any in the whole Thebils wretitn rada scon tme, and.odrdtob os rirtted.-Report to-morrowy.- On the mnotion of Mlr. SCARLirTEy, the Lancaster county court hill was readl a thiird time'and paqsed. M tr. MbA BERLY, in. moving tliat-th . report on the land-tax redemptibn bill he brotught up,-took occasion to review the acts.rela- tive to -thd land-tax from its first imposition,, down to 'the pe- riod when it.-was niade perpetual. by MVr. Pitt. Afteor condemning the act whibh -fixed the land.tax onithle landead interest in, perpe- tuiity, and aifter pon" otthe impolicy of 'fixing the price of its redem-pti&atn eiortitant rate; ho-proceeded to state thaat the present bill was iistendedl to reduce the price of the redemption to such a rate as wo'uld.be consistent withi the existing state of the ma- niey-market. It 'wopkd. also provide for the paymeat of that pric inA ready money, aud not by intamets and for its*-application not to the,funded hut to the unfunded debt. Hie then entered into a detail of the provisions of the bill, contending thiat if' his plan were~ to be adlopted, the Chancellor of the lJxchequer would in allprobabilitrv heallowed, in thec couirse of -the next two years, to a~ppiy 3I 1000 OO01. to tliereduietion of the unfundedl debt- a; circum stoc' icivsch in case of host-ihitbis woutld b e of in caIcua- binbenefit. - A.~er-iepeating his forme'rarguaments, to pro'e that the a~ddption ofAehi Measure would erlable the Cliancellor of 'the Exche- quer, to' repeal;.5,000,OO0L of taxes, he concluded by saying that bie should certainly,takethe sense of, ilie house on. the question he hail just submitted-to its consideration.- Mlr. HERRIES rose for the purpose of mnoving thazt the report on -this bill be brough't 'up this dlay six m-onthis. Hp shiould anot enter inito -any argument uponi tthe details of it, but shiould oppose it en the -broad principle' which had beeni so ably stated on a former nighit by his right 'honourablc frienid the Chancellor of thie Ej~chequer_ Hle-eontende'] thatuhe-viewsof the hon. member'for Abingdon were by no maeans practicable; and asserted -that the idea that they were pniiticable could only have arisen in the bon4fnember's mind from: liis-nothiaving und'ers.tood the nature of the-subject. Originilly the srcheme for the redemption of the land-tax had operated beneficially, e,wing to the exigting circumstances of the country ; latterly, how- ever, it hand ceased to be so productive in consequence of a chiange in those circumstances. In all schemes for its redemption, a sa:crifice snust he made; either by the public or the infdividual. Now- it wais absurd to suppose ~that an individutal -woultd voluntarily accede to a plan whichsdefinauded of him asacrifice;' and it was equallyabsurd to sunpose thaetteUiovernmetn could accedii.on behalt'ofthepublieto suah aasacrifice as the adoption of the present biilwouldrendern'eees~' sarveon its part. HI .then went into aneximination of the chiarges on the'unf'unded debt, forl lse purpose.of ~proving that the calculations of the honourable memaber for Abing don,rxelativeto thehbenefits to be 'effected bytlis bill, were erroneous.,. This scheme could not enable Government to reduce the whole of the uinfunded debt, inasmuch as it would only produce 33,G00,0001.' 'uinder the most favoitr4ble cir- .cumstances, and the chiarge on tlse unfunded debt was at present 44,000,000. The hrlnourable gentleman then stated, tiathemneant- to move that tie reportbhe.receivedtliis (lay six months. H lis reason for doing so was, because'the measure *ould be fraught withaunen- ormousIoas'to the'public; a loss, in -the first instance, of 400,0001. a year an ultmatly,lookng o th difernce f icomafid charge, of 2f,0,00l. he hnouablge tlea)onldd by moving,, "tht te epot b rceied hi dasi month. Mr. G E~FEL cold nt snpor~the easure, of his hoitour. ubl frend whch ieconideed s vry njdigious hi.many.of its lilt I{ME sid,that some measure ought to be devised to re- lieve h onr from the expense of' collecting the land-tax..- He hadsow,oa former occasion that, by the present monde of col- lection, a suin of ,00,00. sterlin-was actually lost. He did not, however, tbink, thtt~bill now Ibefrd the house would eacbt th At object. Itiwas not, he feared, sufficitintlyadvantageousto thepublic. Now, if lie (Mlr. Hlume) were right- in principle, that the expense of collection miight and 'ought to be saved, then his advice wouldJ be, not to throw ouit thiis measure, but to re.-commit it. lathiecommnit- tee, the objectionable parts miighit he amended, andl it could be brouight before- the house at a future period. Hle would, onthie whole wvishi his lion. frieiid not to press the measure at 'the present perioti of the session. It was shown clearly by evidence which lied beeii- tirely dispensed witli, and the 7001. per annum paid - to eacl of the co'dectors might also be saved. Hiere, then, if ministers were sin- cere in their desire for economy, they might at once effect a saving of 50,0001. a-year. The bill ought to be Te-committed, and made as perfect as possible. His lion. friend night then bring it forward next session. .Mr. tIONCK thougilt the house was much obliged to the hon. member for directing their attention to this subject; but he thought the sacrifice proposed by him was too great.- It would be giving up an annuity wtorth 40 years' purchase for 24 years' purchase. Mr. MAIAERLY said, that vicwing the measure in every pos. sible point of view, he felt, although he had not the support of his honourable f&iends, that it was as wise and beneficial a bill -as ever was brought before the house. -' I-e, 'however, did not mean to di- vitle the house on the question. The amendment was then agreed to, without a division, and the bill 'was consequently lost. ' - ' ''THE STATUTES.- Sir 3L. W. RIDLEY withdrew his motion, which stood for to- morrow, relative to the expediency of a revision and consolidation. of the statutes. As it would pro!;ably lead to a long discussion~ Iie would not introduce it at'this advanced period of the' session ; lbut he now gave notice, 'that he would bring it forward early in the en. suing session. PAYNE KNIGHT'S DONATION BILL. On the motion of llr. BANxEs, this bill was read a second- time.- On the motion '- that this bill be committed," Nhr. HUMEI rose, and expressed his approbation of the measuje. Tbis, he was convinced, was not the last application of the kind that woutl(l be made to Parliament, because he felt assared that other public-spirited individuals would makesimilar bequts to the British Museum. He hal every reason to think, from what had falleit from an ion. gentleman, tbat, if certain contemplated at- ragi .entg , iide, the' public wouild, hi A i'eiY sisoft time,~ -poae~i asliensidcollection of every thing t1tat was rare andI vaiu. able~i suh a lecton a woud plce Eglan on parin that. re- utliqte, thebest ossile cfbct;and l let hope wa, Mr1, BANKES'xbservril, that the trustees of the Museum were ~eady- to give.every fa'cihtt, consistently with the safety of the col-. lection.-The bill wss otdered to be reported to-miorrow. IRtSH INSURRECTIOIN BILL. Mi GOUI,BURIN mioved the order of h a o h en readfing of the above bill. ftedyfrtescn Alr. ROBERTSON said, it was his intention to prove to the house the mischievouts-tendebcy of passing this bill, in the present state of the people of Ireland. It would have the effect of aggravating thei feellngs, by mnakitn England appear to be leagued with one of th pate nIead hr tws notorious one party en- eaourd-to Oppress and bear down alsother. He hiad recently re- ecvda letter frmwesnconnected with ontrof those parties in freland,'-which was wriiten for the purpose of showing him the determined, hostility' of the Roman 'Catholics against the Pro. cetnsthere. The - writer asserted, that the Catholics had take-n Inot to ertennjnate tne Protestants, man, woman, and child, on accoi(nt of their religion, Now there weru 2000,000 of Protestants In Ireland; and not one of them, he belleve3, had been put to death, ekcept where isome private feeling or wrongt rank-led in the mind of the partv comsmitting the outrage, and-impelled him to transgress the law. -The han. member then 'proceededi to rerad a paper, which was said to be sent forth by certain magistrates to whom' the exbcution of the insurrection act had been, and -would again be, intrusted, it was, he observed, one of the most inflans.. matory addressies that ever was published by any set of men. 'After adveiting to the frequent assemblage of the Catholics, and the disgracefil. acts committed by thesn,,-it went on to say, "W Nill you remain iin this state of apathy till you see your child reeking on the rebel pike, and the wife of your bosom satiating the libidinous passions of a lawless mob? IThe Insurrection Act is strong. Government will give us evr uport and shall we, under such circumstances, neglect! ousle? S!ial we not us~e, to its utmost ex~tent, the power intru'sted to us ?" This was an address of these very maitae '= Whose duty it %,ould be to put the Insurrection act iore (Here ai hnon. memberobserved, that the namies affix.. ee to it were fictitious.) The paper hiad been printed, and was, he believed, pretty widely disseminated. Men who could sendl forth suchi a publication, would be eager:and anxious to employ the power Iwhich tihis a7Et -4ouid p aee in their hands, Bunt had any case been made out to *f-suchi a measure V' He, denied thait there had. The Witnesss o2re the committee dlid not provei that any conspi- racy existed. -No independent man in that house hiad s'tated tha-t ~there was a-conspir.-.cy. Indecd, one gentlemani, Mlr. Blackburn, to whose evidence be attached more weight than to all the rest besides, decidedly negatived that fact. He stated that "Ithedisturbanicescbiefly arose from pre-aggression. There was, he observed, no combination ainongst the pople. The insurrectioni act had put dlown combiuna- tion~ hubt it hai left thQse people who conceived themselves to h'ave been injur~d, as anxious i~ ever fotr revenge.'` SUCh WaS the fact. "Under the insurrection act" (he farther 6bserved), "mren, for little or no cause, were sometimes thrown into prison for montbs." Miust not these unl'ortunate people (demnandedaMr. Robertson), when let loose on society, be muich worse; be far morehardened, tliani when theactwasinforceagai.nstthem? Tlhiswitnessbad saidtheinsurrccuon act, the new police, the improved niagistracy ;nd the institution of pet esoshad tende.4 towards keeping Sown the spirit of in- suborrfuatio in Ilpeland. It appeared, then, that the insurrection act was one of nianiy causes; and when it was known that positive!I evil had been infliCted under it, why should it be continued ? The chief oiffenes cognizable under the insurrection act were likewise punishable by the common law, andI therefore the former was not necessary. Mlr. Blackburn also stated, that the lowest la- bouritng classes in Irelwad 'were not so active in distuirbances as the sUd lanudholders. N'ow he could not conceive that thehouse would, under the present state of Ireland, aggravate Fthie situation of thiat unfortunate people, by. forcing this law upon them. It had beeni askced, coutId the loyal people e);ist without it ? this epithet loyal being exclusively applied to the Catholics. Now, he wou4ld not hear it said that the Roman Catholics of Ireland were less loyal than the Protestants who were opposed to them. If one ~party laid claiim to greater loyaltv than the other, he certainly would give it to the Roman Catholics over the Protestants. He contended that the experience which the English Government now possessed with respect to the coercivre sYstemn Of policy which had prevailed fromn the tinie of Henry 1U. down to the present period, was eniough to convince the warmest supporters of this measare that i twas not calculated to answer the ends of peace andt tranquillitv, mch less to allow any favourable development of the powers anid resousces, the industiy and virtues of that nation. One party repre- sented the Irish people as noble and generous, grateful and warmn- he;zted-,.anQthcr party described ilteu an perfidiolis, untractable, worse ltoan savaies. Suich a hete~r6ogneous character could not be the real charatcter o.I any people on earth. The Parliament ought to go farther with the subject,nnd, endeavour todiscover what liad been the genuine chiaracter of the Irish; and if it had been debased from an txcellent standard, to see what could be done for restoring it. The fact was, that the Irishi character was onlyl coiditionally a'tered. Braye and noblp_spiri~ed as they had once certainly been, thev had shown tliemselves occasionally V~erfidious'and cruel,becausethneireat- ment which they received undier the brutalizing polic of successive (Governments led to that inevitable cosqune. Tke away the causes which thus demoralizedI them, tewolbe as other people. Whbat could be expected from tim hie Goverment continued the samne policy of sacrificing the Roman Catholics, whose number madeup ne.hir ofthenumricl srenthsof the empire, to the bigotedProtstat lartyin relnd, ho erenot mnore thana onle- foriet oftheempre Th reortofthe comnmittee was really of no use and bd bee nulli or al praCtiC41 purposes by the mannrofolheelnthevidece.The etiselwa's'wose-thanusiless. Unde thi actther hadbeen taknu since they last met no less than between 2 and 3,000 persons, nt one of whiom had been convicted: so that here were 3,0100 persons let loose upon the peace of the community, who, to all their previous reasons for disafFectlon would naturally add the odium of hiaving sutTeredI unjustly. And this was the only effect which the insurrection act could be expected in reason tp pro4Zce ParliaMent Wasi generally unwilling to travel out of the up'lere of its own inforMatiOR, (4aughter.) Yet he could not help mentioning one circumtstance which had occurred in his ex- perience, bearinig very much, upon this subject. Thle Datclh Go- verninent was to Java what the English Government hiad been to Ireland, withi gn excess, if possible, of the pernicious causequence resnltiipg ,from., that mode of role. The character of thie us. fiyes 'had .9tsined, thlat atrocious complexion and ebharacter, that they wKere Areadid like the pestilence, No one coald venture upon ever so sihort an excurtsion into the country, withiout thie defence of an armed escort. Their theft, cruelty, adrapaiy 'caused them to be shunned as the very worst of e-vils;- thy wer no"'t allowed to comie on board any of the ships which ap- pra b. h coast, and their presence filled every, one wihcntr Pr uon. Yet suhwstee'ecl of the mnild and just uleasuiresof -Government introducedI by Sir T. Ilaflies, that within fou?r years afterwards, he (Mdr. Robertson) was in the habit of travellng liun. dreds of'mies in. the interior, with'no more that a sinigle attencdantin his carriage. The house -would do well, therefore, to susipend the bill, ;kt least till they were better informed. It would be his duty, .early i n the nextsmsioni of Parliament, to move for a Plarliamentary inqiryint te s~teof ha contr-amode which alone could satsfyhe ousa~to he ealstae f tat ounrywhere ineasustes of oerio an cuely ad orcenures ee trte, and where, if enfrce muh lnge, tey ustendin he eitucton.of odir own etnire He ove tat he ill,bered tis ay ixmouths. Mr. J. MITH dd not elieveththeblwod ever be made to agree wvith te institutions of a fe oenet He condemned the report of the cOmmnittee as a meegrbi la d colleigo bevi-a dence to excuse thle passing of theil hr sholdlhav breen anum ber ofth bet ifomedandlest-artalof heIrish community to give iformaion uon it Ife id no scrule osy, that there seemd tohav bees aprexnedtate nelectanddelay upon this- poin, a if n prpos tocary th bil wih teIlss molestation on ccont f he ateessoftheperodof the sessions. He con- tende, that it was usees to epc tranquillitY from the passing Of th c,while the Parliament contne withu such strange perverse- nessto efrin romallinquiry inotecues of the rebelion and riots which the bill was intended tocr.I has somr ethigosn- gtilar in the history of thlis subjectthtniquyhaevretge to investigate thie causes. They allsee ob set on foot for the purpose of warranting coercive measuresto check the consequences. He wishedI to state one fact which was exemplary of the xeal state ot that country.- There was 4 riot in the county of Fermanagh, with t teusaltunrusj nd dititructive cosqse~pnces- It was to be ob. served.tatur thi was, a poritf the - counry in whichl the insurrec- tio-ac wa no it foce,Thenebleinsrquis at the head of the Irish Governrient-sent down a gentleman duly qualifiedI to inquire into the distuirbances. Several persons were arrested the over nighit, and the magistrateft were to sit upon these -case th nex mornin,lan when the morning came, all the Protestants were mnissing-te a been let out over nbigh.Srely this was amnethoelof admittissering 'the laws whichiwoitld produce nothing but tumult and rebellion.- Be 'noel heatd--he did not know how trssly-thatthere were magistrates in, Ireland who were Orangemen: the Irish Attorney-General in- forme4 the 'houeti8 hlat Orangeism was illegal,, So that here was a magistracy btabituallyaWcsstomed to violate the latws. 'Wht could be expected fromt-tilis order o-f things ? The Government was deeply inculpated in the-disoirdtirs which naust arise from it, so long as they deferred.to qelectirxpaitial"pcrsons for the magistracy, instead of' per'siona who arit the fir'st example -of defiance to thle laws, Colonel DAVJEM would vote for the bill, becaute it was essential totdhiitr4nqiuillity Ithe gmuniry_ But no earthly power could in- duce him toioas if hie did not'belfeve that the Government were pereto introduce , m ore concIiitor serie ofee. uc into the aiThirs of Irelaind, 'Lord J. RUSSELL wrould not deny thiat thlere might be circum- stances which would justify the assing of the bfll. In a time of war, for instance, as in 1807, Mr. &rattan hadthoagbtftoinruc a measure of this kind, because he dlreaded thle prevalenceoOf a French party in Ireland. it was his decided opinion that the mea- suire now before the house was not calied for by the actualstate of Ireland. While the distresses which had prevailed in that conntry were the immediate causes of disturbance which rendered extraor- dinary mreasures necessarv, perhaps the existence of the insurrec- tion act mnight have been 'justified, or at least it might have been permitted: but now that it was confased on aUsides that there was no such pyrticular or urgent'listress, he feltcalled upon to oppose the continuance of the measure, because by cosequtng to it he should admit that whenever the misgovernment of a country might have roduced evils, the suspension of the constitutional law, or the ittouction of' measures foreign to that law, were to be applied as remedies. Si IL. Parsons said of this act when it was first pro. posed some years ago, that it was a violation of the principles of a free constitution. He (Lord J. Russell) not only thought tbat it was such a violation, but that it was a cluMsy CoD- trivance, unworthy of an enlightened Government. If we were told that in Austria or- Prussia a law was- in operation by whiclh the people were confined -without light in tlieir houses for 12.out of the 24 hours, should we hesitate to mronounce.sich u 14w to be arbitrary and absurd ? Upon referring'fo the evidence whichl had been given before the committee on -this iubject, it would be fiund that many of the petsons who -bad been taken up under the insurrection act, weresuch as had stayed out at the public-hpoasestuntil after9o'clock, while others had been.in thepussaitsof cattle or okieruno less l,wful occupations. Even the benevolenst intentions of the. Chancellor,of the Exchrqur,in diminishing thedaty6on distilleries,had beenfrus- frated, becausc the poor people thus enconraged to drink more had been seducc4into the clutehesof the insurrection.act. (Laughter.) In the evidence of Sergeant ILoyd, it was stated thatmost of dte persons taken up wereofgoodlicaracter. Oneofthe greatestobjec. dons he had to the measure was,the very dangerous discretion which it vested in a great nutmber of persons. In the first place, this dis- cretion-which Xhad been aptly enough called the -law of tvrants- was placed in the hands of the petty constables; then in those of the magistrates before whom the accused parties were brought previous to their trials 4thien hI those (It the persobs. by whom they WEre to be tried;, and lastly, in those of the LoDrd-Lieutenint, by-whiini, iudeed, he must say it had ever- been exercised in the most wise, just, and liberal manner; but stiUl it "was an -additional. branch of a system highly repugnant to the British contitution. The result Of the operation of this act had been suchi as umight have been expected. Of the ten counties from which retuirns had been- furnished, it ap eared, that in Kildare not one person had been pu- nished, although 87 hiad been apprehended; in Kilkenny and Cork, there had not been one;- in Clare, of 189g put in prison, only. fourr had been convicted; in Kerry, only one convicted out of 1312 taken up ; and in King's County and Limerick County, one only convict- edin eachi. So smill a number had been penishied in seven out of the ten counties. Hle ought not to say puinished, but coDndemned under thils unjustifiable act. It was fimpossible while this Pct con- tinued in operation but thatthe* people of Ireland must feel that disgut4t against all legal enactments which had been the causes of thec disorders thatbad. prevailed, and must still entertain that distrust of the Government which he believedl it was the desire of the house toremiove. It was his firm conviction that tle onlyineasure bywhiich tranquillity'could bere-stored toIreland, would beby esta.- blishing an equal law for the whole of the people; by miaking the Government independent of religon, anI thie power of the slate a purely political power; and by causi'ng religious disputes (if such disputes there must be) to he between the isubjects th[emselves, iind not between the subjects and the state. (Hear.) If this were once carried into effect, he had no doubt that the lapse of a very short pe- rnod wouild present-Ireland under a very differrct aspect. RIe should vote against the measure for the reaons he had statedl, and for this addirionalone-.that the house, by refusinigto sanction it notw, would drive M1inisters to fumnishing th,e remedy which'was in their power, and not pe.rmit them to postp)onieit for anothier year. (Hear. ,Mr. GOULBURN said, he felt as strongly as the noble 21ord, or as any other man could feel, when itwas his p2inful duty topro?ose this mieasure, that it was in some degree a departuire from the jpyrin. cililes of the constituttion. Hie was quite aware that the seventy of its enactments expose-d it to be argued against as liable to abuse, yet hie was conscious also that a state of things existed which called upon -Parliament to interfere witla some mneans for the protection of pro- pertyl, and for puttinig down, even with extraordinary vigour, those lawless persons who were confederated to subver th6e constitution. Upon the same principles, hie was prepared to justify the renewal. of the same mneasure. 'WhIo could dare to complain of the non-resl- dence in Ireland, if Parliament should refuse to give the only means which shiotild enahle genslermen to return to their estawes in security ? The statement of the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) proved that the operations of this act had hitherto been successful in putting dlowni the spiri of Combination. Having this experience of its bene. fits, thenm, ought it no.t to be continued, at least unitil an opportunity should be afforded of examining into some other plan, it any could be devised), of preventing a recurrence of the outrages which could alone justifv it ? The rmeasure hail the almost univer- sal aLpprobatlion of those who were best acquainted with Ireland and its interests. He should regr-etif thiequestion of the Catholic claims were to be mixed up with tUsi subject, upon whichi lie iris sure that it had no influence whatever. Hfis own opinioa on those claimnswas too well known to need there to be repeated. WVithout enterinig into the differeneces to which the coniflicting sentiments oa religious sub- jects g-ave birth in Ireland, he was quite satisfied that the Ro~man Ca- thiolic emancipation alone 'could not, if it were to take place to- morrow, in any degree remedy the evils which the measure before the house sought to abate. (Hear, hear.) He asked for this law to protect the persons and poperty of the peace- able and loyal inhlabitants of' Ireland. He asked for it to pro- tect, not mecrely the landlord, but to enable the tenant to enjoy his small possessions in peace. Hle asked it, not for the purpose of giving to the Government of Irelandt any tyrannuical authority. That was not hisa wish: the evidtene befole tite committee woula clearly show, that it was net the wish of the Government to increase the terrr o th lawin hatcounry;huthe asked, for this m easure in thecerainconicton hatit oul nt be safe to allow Ireland to remin urig te esuig wnte wihot such a measure. Mr. AERORO IJY aid i wasimpossible that Parliamenit, consderng hrv fte thi la ho beeairadypassed as a temPno- rary imeasure2 coul now consent to is r.eatent withouit record. ing its owes dssgree in sanctioningsuch repearted acts Of misgovern- nient: In the view 'which he took of it, he regretted that he dif- fered from the almo.t unanimnous opinion of the committee. At the same time he was not at all disposea to undervalue the labours of that commnittee. As far as they had gone, they had been m-ost im. potant:- a .great deal of valuable information hiaa been acquir- ed by thenm, which, whien published, would, he had no doubt, be of considerable service to the country. Much, however as he1 respectedl t'he exertionis of the committee, lie could not allow luraself to be very sanguine in his hopes of the ultimate result of their la- hours. They, as a committee, couldl only recommend-they could niot legislate.' He was anxious, th erefore, that too great expecta. tions should not he raised by the committee ; and patticuilarlv did he wishito gard against those expectations being excited in Ireland, l1estte shiould not be realized. (Hear hear.) It was admitted on all band that a very stroxg necessity lhould' exist to justify this bill. When he lookced at the opinionis of seine most respectable individuals in the cprmiittec, he found they were positive as to the existence of such necessity at the present time ; but when hie exa. mined the evidence on which such opinions were founded, it -present. ed to his mi'nd the strongestproof of the force of manyoftheobjrctioas whiceh had been made againsit the bill, and to which he should come by and by. It was admitted on all bands that one of the greatest evils of Ireland was a want of confidence in the law. It was not look-ed up to by the great mass of the people as a source of protection, but was rathier dreaded by them as an instrument of oppression. Now he would beg the house to considerhow the, presenatbil would operate on sucli a gehneral feeling. 1t was intended as a measure rather Of prevention than cure; but he would ask, could it be pretended that suclia meaure wouldlincrease the confidence of'the peoplein thelaw P Letthie hoaserecollect the great niumber of persons who had already been operated upon by thelaw-the many who weredraggedfromtheir hiones and their families, confined for five or siix weeks in a gaol on charges of being outafter sun-set, and then, after enduring so, much, brousght ts trial andl acquitted. Was the renewal of such a measure calculated'to increase the confidence of the people in the law; and was it not too mush to turn round upon a people so treated, and say that it shouild be ren ewed on the ground, that they had not confidence in the law, and could not respect the magistrates by whom they had been so committed? Whyv, let the hiouse judge of the way in whicll this act had b~an used, from what took place in one counity alone, in the county of' Cork, nearlY 400 persons had been comimitted for trial unider the insurrec. tion act ; and of that number, not more than 74 were convicted. Coald it be pomsble that such persons shouldl not complain anid be dissatisfied withi such a law, ard witht those who administered it ? He could not avoid culling the attention of the hioute to one part of the evidence of M1tr. Sergeaiit Lloyd, as to the operatioii of the act, andI the kind of persons who often suftered by it. A question was asked that gentlemian, a very leading orie indeed, and one, no doubt, to which a very different answver was expected from that whichi was given. He was astolilshed to think hlow any one couild read that an r' at afterwvards consent to vote for the bill, He woul d read te quetin and answer_-"~ Does it not freqaently happen that iper. sons who arer appreliended upon the charge mnerely of being out of thieir houses withiin the time proscribed by the insurrection act, are men of moat desperate ch aracter?-Ia general, miost of the' men who were brought before sue for that offpnce receiveda sgood chiaracter- that is, they received a character for being quiet anai tranquil in the conywliere they resided ; they were miserable creatures, and I bleequaite ignorant oftheprovisionsof the insurrectiosiactL" After hearing such an opiniona,sthis from a gentleman whoseoifflci,lsitua- tion rendered hiiuso well qualifiedto formnit,how,he would ask, could the house framne any measure more calculated to reukder the law odious to the people than this ? Anothecr objectjon to this measure arose from the discretionary power whichl it v~ested in thei magistrates. In order to see the force of' this objection, let the house' ask who were.those ment to whom such e-' raordinary powers were to he in. trusted? He would not-spea,k of themagistrates before th-e nion of the two countrics ; he wyould take those since that Deriod. He re- membered, that when he first eatme into Parliameint, in the year 1807, a complaint was made of the corruptionl of the Irish mnagis- tracy. The complaint was repelled with indignation ;adi was confidently assertedl on the opposite (the treasury) bench, that there was not orke corruPt magistrate in all Ireland, (Hear, h,ear, from the treasury benchi.) He (Mlr. Aber6torrby) spoke from his own experience and recollection of the cir- cumstance. Le could not have -believed that suchl a statementL would have been made, if' he had not heard it. From that year the magistracy continued withiout ally alteration until wiithiin the last twvo or three years, whien, some revision took place, under Lord WVellesley; many were, then superseded from the commission, but the purgation was not carried to tile extent which itought to have been. To istagistrates of adescription which neededlronsidemable re- formuation,,was this immiense power tobe intrustqd lby the present bi]Ll Hethought uksu.cispowerskloulabhegiven, unless they couldbhave it possiblea more certain guaranteetha,ttit should notbheabused. 'roin the evidenceof Ur. Lloyvd, it appeared th~at he always observed that on the trials there was a greater tendency to convict theprisoner,in the magistrates in whose neighbourhood .he had resided4 thsan ini those syhmo lived at a distance. The very principle on whichi such a mea- sureresed,tenrd i it naureto ake the people look upon the magitraes ithdisrus an supheon.Then looking at the bill as a mesur ofre~ntin, e wuldaskhow it could so operate an a peope, ho loke po itas o. degradation to be trie& unde theact,but onsieredallthose who sufiered, punlish- ment undler it as eos and martyrs. Not soA was a convic- tion before the tribunals regarded : tiere the people hiad an UP&a of receiving greater and miore imnpagtial justice, and *thie decisionsig of such courts were therefore more regarded. Ile could adduce many other arguments against the bill, but liie would rest chielly on this- that it tended directly to destmrojthe confidence of tbhe people i.n the law. But it was saidtat the billbhad tendeti to prevent combina- tions. That would be- good ;~- far as twn;htwe the fact wan closely e3;amined, it appeared that all suchidiscoveries were ade y apr0ovrs, ant ithe cases were tried before the regular tri,unls f he ounry,sotha onths ground the inmurrectiots act gaind nthig. Ie oul alo ojec tothe bill, as putting into the hand ofGovenmet a owe, intheuse f wich, lie did not think they ad aread exhbite gret widom. it.asUeles, he thiought as a emedyfor he evls o thatunha Pyout, anld so weuld all measurcs whaich were not founded in a sirit of co&icilia-.ion. As long as the great mtass of the inhabitants were kept in a state of de- gradlation, it would be hopeless to look for pWxmanent tranquillity. As longas a large class found themselves excluded from thosehon6uras and that rank to which the increasing wealth of many amongst them aspired, so long would disco,tient prevail in th country, The hon. and learned gentlenian then proceeded to, point out the dangers to this etiumitrsy' from allowinmg Irelan4 nrto emain in her present state, should tty-of the Continental Powers be disposed to take advantage of tbeir -'disconientrw and vwish to mnake alliance with the people of Ireland; and coicadedhv observing that Engiilid, by emnbracing the opportunity which was still onen to her, might by conciliationzrenderIrelandwhatsmimewasso well qalculated-'to be- come-a source of permanent strength to 'the British empire. Mlr. PEEL said he concurred with the opponents of the bill in admitting it to be. unconstitutional- and severe, and he regretted its necessity; but' as to its efflcacy (and that was really the question at issue) he altogether differed from them. If it couldI be 'shown 'tdut not only was tihe measure uuconsitu- tional, bitt also inefficacious, thcln Indeed, the objectinis to it would be-unanlswerable but he maintained that every tlling which hadyet transoired onuthe subject, had proved it% efflcacy. ' lt- was the unauimous opinion of the ruemnbers of the commnittee-men C!iffering widely in their generalpolitical views, differing alO unon 'the measures by which ireland miLht be rendered permanenitly tranquil-that it would be unsafe for Parliament to separate-to let the ensuing winter come on,without giving to theiExecutive (loveTn- ment in Ireland the powers conferred by this act.' It was ,the una. nimous opinion of the coummittee, that as a measure of prevention it had already been successful, anti that it was likely to succeed bet- ter than any other,in preventing such lawless outrages as had afflict. ed several parts of Ireland last year. He asked for the bill only as a temporary measure, till th enud of next. session, biv which time he hoped ali further cause for it would be-liappily removed. It had been objected to it, that no case had bee7 namde ouE to justify such a severe cnactment,tihat Ireland wax now tr0nqui, ana d;d notecallt or it. was a s ih V 7 mnember who opposed the'bli, thait' it Adhad, andwoul coattI tohaye,the effect oprbtluciug general discoiet`t wvihb, and dia- tionfrota, thelwO These at lea srt CotcIiste .objec u for if it hadpWduced such dlscoeetit and disafection to the laf t thatifey were no longer respected, that woula be one reasn wi should be contiiued' for a timc' longer. It was idle to l that this was a measure called for- by 'the protest nts' Ireland, to enable them to oppress their Catholic fell'ow n jects -,A greater libel on' the Protestants of Irtand not be uttered. No, it was called for to protect all du and loyal subjects, without reference to any 'sect or from uchi outrages as had, net long back,- been swit was the protection of -the poor peasant as well as of is landlord. They had already beard of the houses of indlt' being barricadoed dutin6 the night, and frequently during the so completely as to give to the interior the appesysace of nijT Such was the fear of 'the owners, to open their doors or vS dows. A very natural feeling of pity was expresae for 0 situation of those who had been obeieed to resort to ' means of protection;4 but there was another class of rsons ' wvexe equally entited to the pity and to the protection of the leglfz' ture_he meant those industrious peasants wlhoEe thatcked cote l atThrdedno such means ot.defence. From the videnceof nfleB nett before the committee, itappeared.that the bouses of lmost the peasantry were thatched, and of course easily destroyed by f and tbat very many peaceably disposed peasants were obliged"l joiu in nigh'ty depredations on others, to protect their own hou,i and families from being destroyed, which they knew would be caseifthev refused. (Efear, hear.) Why should suchpersons left without the ptotection :afforded by this act ? It appeared tl ' before the pAssing of this act, there were wot less thati fourti murders committed in one barny in one year (wethink) end:* in not one single inatwcewcre the perpoetrators discovered. Hekn very well that this -act 'was bad, but murders and burnings w' much wvorse. (Her, bear.) The hcuse recollected the'melaucbc fate of the family of the Sheas, whose house wvas burned aboutthe. ' and sixteean humtan beings perished in tbe flames, whilo I a;t of law/less ruffianst stood round to prevent any of t _L wretched victims from escaping. What protection could afforded to persons of that rank in life, if this act Wit not passed? It was only by comparison of evils, and by choo ing the less, that Parliament was caUed upon to pass this a, It was true, they had not lately heard of such dreadful crimes; b he was not sanguine enough, to use the words of an honourat member who spoke in the debate, to trust " the dove-like simp city" of some oftlosebaronies, and to allow another vear to pn away without such a cheek upon the designs of the il1.disposr The right honourable gent. then went on to contend, that ft measure (Catholic emandpation) to which allusion had been mad would not have the effect of re-toring Ireland-to that state of tra' qudllity which would render such a bill as the present 'unnecessar This, he maintained,was proved bvthe concurring tessimony of the,' who were quite opposed as to the inerits of that question. IUr. ROBERTSON 'explained. Mr. TRANT said, that convinced as he -was that the count' would relapse into a state of anarchy and con?usion if gone sun meavsure as the present wsere not adopted, he couldnot think of vt ing for the amendment, which woutd leave thle peaceable and lay inhabitants exposed to every species of injutry and out_ae. Mlr. ABERCROMABY explained. llr. SPRING RtICE: said, that he was desirous"of stating tl reasons which induced him to vote for the renewal of the act, ar, he bad the authority of his hon. friend the member for Waterfo; for stating that his assent to it was grounded on the same rezson. namelv, that the inquiry was to he considered as still Tending, ar ie had little doubt that theultimate result from the evidence coilec ed would be, that such a case would be made out against the insu riection act, that ministers themselves would be ashamd to propo MIr. DENIMAN considered that the renewal of the insurrectic act was paying too much for this inquiry; more especially as it wi doubtful if the act was not inefficacious. The report of the con. mittee did not, he thought, deserve such an implicit mark of cont; dence; and of the evidence, as it was before the house, they coui judge for themselves. He hadunderstood at the commencerment the session, from the right bonourable Secretary for Ireland, th' the clause should not-be renewed, which enacted thit any persc found in a public:house, whether licensedor not, between the bout of 9 o'clock in the cvening ana 6 in the morning, at any season of tl year, should be liable to be transported for seven years. Yet thi, cause was not omitted in the bill which had been sent down fronr the House of Lords. It certainly might aiot have been executed, bu the clause was most objectionable, and ought not to remain. Th evidence gave them a little insight of the causes of the discontents, from that evidence it apered, that the high rents and tithes es tracted from the miserable inhabitants were among the princip3 causes of those discontents which this bill was intended to suppress He agreed wi the lion. member (Mr. Robertson) that if it wer not for this act, the tendency of which was to deteriorate and degrad the people, there were causes of improvement now at worl that would without doubt operate beneficially. Among thos causesmiglitbenumbered a betterpolice magistracy, a nightlypatro and watch; the additional ipeans for and the progress ofeducation the improvement, also, in the magistracy-they did not now, i seenms, act corruptly, whatever might have been the case heretofore These were all moral causes, which would operate for the improve ment *f Ireland if the bale"iiI influence of this act did not preven their activity. AWasthis the'way totranquillizea country, bybrinFinl all mankind under the act of accusation, and accounting as gullt3 all who were not able to prove their innocence? These were ctt which ought not to be granted to the Government, or to any set o men. The Government which wished to receive such poweri showed that it did Yot know how to govern a great country on thi principles of a free constitution. Under no circumstances would ln give his consent to the pacing of sach an act as this. (Hear.) I was no law: it never could be one. For these reasons he, for one vould heartilv concar in a motion that the second reading of thh' act be put oft'forever. (Hear.) Alr. VE13SEY FITZZGERALD defended the bill, and vindicated the magistracv who had administered the act, and the committee! who had recomnmended it on this occasion. He contended that the hon. andlearnedgentleman had erroneously stated someof the fiacts he had mentioned to thelhouse. Alr. 1DN.MtAN appealed to the minutes of evidence, which were printed forhis authority. 11lr..IAURICE FITl'ZGERALD said, he did not oppose this rneasure fro any idea that its poers had been abused, or that it! badbeen improperlacted OR, either by the Government of Ireland, the assessors, or theinagistracy. He believed 'that no human being could do moR to resrr.min the powers bf Government within mild and moderate 3imits than the Marquls Wellesley tad dtone. But he (Mlr. Maurice Fitzgerald) did strongly op- pose the measure, because it placed the anagistrecy, whom it v7ested with enormous powers, in a most invidious situation with respect to he people of Ireland. (Hear.) MUultitudes had been imprisoned, and few punished, under this act; the consequence of which was, hat much irritation was excited, and littfe benefit effected.. At the amne time, he-was bound not to shrink from the questiw , and to illow that the magistrates and gentry of Ireland called for some rvong and effectual powers of retraint and repression. But he would refer to the operation of an insurreCtiOn act, the institution of mar- iab law in those provinces where the disturbances and the spirit were baria lw,rtotems vilnt. (Hear, hear.) Such asystem of for example, ~as that which the Marquis Corn- wallis established 'iu Irend' at a time when te enemy was in :he country. The courts so created were composed officers )f clharacter and- abllity, unprejudiced and intiRerent men; and heir reputation, as 'well as their manner of proceeding, placed hemn aWove every suspicion of being actuated by oppressive or. interestedmofives. (Hear.) WhIile lie said this, he would add, :bat most unquestionably he was not friendly to martial law upon ny general principle; but martial law would be far preferable o. y insur'rection act, and far more eftective in the exercise. . He thoughtnogroundhad been laid tojustify the re.enactment of this. neasure: it was, inhisopinion, unnecessary; but he had no doubt. Shat sin cere, imp?artial, and fearless administration of the existing- laws of the country would befound to answer every just and ne- -essary purnse. Sir IY OLTHURST supported the measure. The cries of question being now very general, the gallery was. cleared for a division. The house then divided; whenthenumbers were- For the second reading, 1121 Against it, 231 Majority, 89. NEW CHURCHES BILL. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposed the third reading of thie bill. Atr. HUiEl, onaccount of the lateness of the hour, moved as an amendment, thatthe third reading of the bill be postponsd until to- morrow ({this davL lr. DEBN.IAN supported the amendment. He wished to ex- press his objections to the bill, and thought it ought not to be' brought on at so late an hiour. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER regrettel that the hon.'and.learnedgentrleraanhadrotthoughtit worth his while to, attena durirng thte previous discussions, when he might have had an opportunlity ofdeUveriaghisopinious. (Criesof" hear.") He had: postponpel the corsideration of the measure ever and over again, at thioexpress desire of individuals on the other side of the house. Therehbad already been a division on the briDging up of tie report, and the opposers of the bill.were in a minority of 9 to a majority of' 42. Under these oircumstances; he tbought that lie was doing no. thing inconsistent with his duty in asking the hokse to. proceed with thQ measure. He knew that it was in the power of the lnarned gentleman, or any other, to obstruct the 'proceeding by availing himself of the forms of the house, but lie tbouglht that sucea conduct. wvould be very unreasonable. (Cheers.) .5r. DENMAN said that it hrd always bce bhit II,pntion to op- pose the bill, but he tbought that he had a right to e~. r-s his oppo- siton at anystageofthe measare, He thoughtitwo{a be more ad. visable not to troubb the house with a discussion at o*late an hour. (Cries of " Goon."'), Mr. BRCOUIQHA thought it -was much too late to \go on ivith thle discussion. ('" No, no."') The CHAXCE14L)R of the EXCHEQUER said, that he tan tot wish to persist pertinaCioLsly in any uling which might ap- pear unreasonable: but" really if he. were to postpone the third reading ti3 to-morrow, he did not know that he should stand a bet- terhance ofbringingitonthen than atpresent. ("Go,oon-'') 31r. BROUGi{AJI said, that the bil was an itiportarltmeasure, and that if it could rot be discussed in time to-morrow, it ought to be postponed to a future day. (" Go on.") Mr. B. COOPR.R said that the bill hal already undergone consi- derable discuiport, and he saw no reasot for postponing the third reading blr. MONCK was of opinion that no harm would result from the postponement of tbe bill till next session. Mr. CANANING observed; that since the hon. member who spoke last had cnterced upon tbe question of the merits tof the bill, he. aw no reason why the discussion'should not proceed. The house then divided, when there appeared- - For tbe uamendment4 20 1 Against it, 95 1 lijonity, 75. The bill was then read' third time. ':On the question that .tSe bil do pass. ' Mlr. DENIMAN rose to exareis his decided objection to.the mea- sure. Ata timL beajinlf the re'vnue of tihe. rountrj-wwas emplojed to pay the interest ofPthe ationadebt,he thought that a better rAode of employing the public money mizht'be found 'thau thit wbich was pointed out by the bill.t lllr. UE said that his opinion of ihe impropriety ofthe zieea. aure-remained unaltered. - MIr. ROBERTSON approved of the bill (as we ubiderstood.) Mr. MIONCK sai; that the church establishmuent was hated by the people andc he conceived that the presentbill would,not' cause the churc i to be held in greater veneration.- New cehutches: wert not wanting: those at-piesett existing were not half filled. MIr. T. WILSON 'did not u ish to say 'any thing Unpleasant lt the honourable 'member who. spoke last, but he :conld nbt 'help supposing that he never went inside a ckurcb. '(A laugb.) T'he new churches were constantly crowded, and the frt seats never re- rtunoe ued. - f . n Mr. 3IONCOkne1w, from his ow expeiace} tbbt then were, detsiees in London, capabie of hol&ing thousatids of persons, bich n2ftr contained more than 50. The house divided on the questiott for paosing the bill, and the tuflnbers were- For the motinn, 85 1 Against it, 15 I Majnritv, 70. EASr INDIA POSSESSIONS BTLL. lMr. CANNING, in rising to move the second reading of the bove bill, said that it haud been his intention at that stage of the measure to have entered into an explanation with respect tothe btaty with the Netherlands, on which it was founaled; on account the ]atcness of the hour. howrever, he would if thete were no hb- 3t;Ctao, postpone that cxplanation until the bill came to be com- Ir. AU.IEobjected to the principle of the, bill in tote. Ile tb ouht that the treaty on which it was founded was opposed to the interests of the country, and he tbereforehoped that therighthon. Se- ze'ary would not ,ersi,t in moving the second reading at that time. M1r. CA NINN G said that he had no desire to press the measure 4t1 the house at that time. Ile would not move the second reading till ton rorrow. M1ARINE INSURANCE BILL. Mr. BUXTON vooved thethird reading of this bill. M Ar. Alderman THOMPSON opposed the motion. Therc were WOpersons interestedin the measure, wlohad not had an opportu- flity of beint heard by counsel against it. *llr. PLUM MER also objected to the bili. 31r. HUSEK ISSON regretted that the worthy alderman should of hany thing like a vexations oppositdon to the passing of a measure hch had already been debated in every stagc. The two chartered ompanies who w ere interested in the bill had beenheardby coanfel t it, and he should certainly object to the hearing any more MrGRENFEILL could not admit that the bill had been suffi- det discussed. He thought that the third reading should bepost- After a few words from Dir. JoIIeN S31ITH, the horase divided, then the numnbers were- For the third reading of tbebill, 55f Against it, 1 61 Mfajority 40. The bill was then read a third third time, and passed. The other orders of the dav wcre then read, and the house ad- lOt-rncd at2 QU.RTER PCST TWO O'CLOCK. RTOUSE OF CO0I1IONS. MIONDAY, JUNE 14.