SD tinetc4 snit pratrain0 lit Vartiantritt.

THE CIVIL LIST.

The report on the Civil List Bill was presented to the Commons

on Saturday. On Tuesday the bill was read a third time. Aftet which, Mr. Hesse moved to reduce the sum to be granted to the Queen from 385,0001. to 3:33,000/.

Motion put, and negatived without a division.

Mr. GROTE then rose to move the omission of the 5th clause—in other words, that the 1,2001. anotted for new pensions in each year be entirely removed from the Pension.list. The first reason which led him to think that the House ought not to suffer such an item to conti- nue was, that pending the inquiry into the Pension-list, it was neither proper nor convenient to fix any new sum for pensions. What the re- sult of the inquiry might be, be could not of course anticipate. Per- haps the Committee might recommend the continuance of nearly all the pensions; it might propose the removal of three-fourths of the pensions ; it might pronounce a decided condemnation of the whole system of pensions, as the instrument of extensive corruption. Now, ths. House might receive information from the Committee respecting the purposes to which the pension-fund has been applied, which might render it averse to trust any Minister with so large a sum as that pro- posed to be granted in the Civil List Bill. In a short time, evidence of the use to which pensions bad been turned in times past would be laid before the House ; and Mr. Grote maintained that this evidence might most materially affect the judgment of the House on the question of granting any pension-list in future. The pro- posal to fix a sum for pensions, contained in the Civil List Bill, was to anticipate the decision of the House—to assume that the disclosures to be made before the Committee could have no beating on the amount to be awarded in future. The House had no right to make that assumption ; which, moreover, was calculated to impress the public with the idea that the inquiry was not to be searching or effec- tive. He could see no solid reason for fixing on one sum more than another. How was the stun of 1,2001. ascertained to be the just amount assignable for distribution by the Crown in new pensions ? It was by examining the annual vacancies likely to occur en a given principal sum ; but Mr. Grote preferred to name a princis al sum at once, because then the actual amount of the charge would 1;e known, whereas it now depended on the lives of the pensioners. It would be said that the Civil List could not be settled if no provision were made for pensions : but there was no more difficulty in putting off the settle- ment of the new than of the old pensions. Assuming, however, that it was proper now to fix a certain annual sum for pensions, he con- tended that it ought to form no part of the Civil List. It might be very proper to provide a certain sum to support the comfort and dignity of the Queen ; but how was the comfort and dignity of the Sovereign connected with the power of distributing a certain sum of money in pensions ? The power of appointing to a place on the Pension-list was no more essentially connected with the comfort and dignity of the Crown, than the power of appointing to civil and military uffices. It would be most unwise in Parliament to restrain itself from altering the number or the pay of civil and military officers until a demise of the Crown; and it would in like manlier, and for the same reason, be unwise to fix an unalterable and irrevocable Pension-list. Parliament should retain the power of modifying and terminating the system, if abuse or profligacy should demand decisive interposition. The Civil List Committee of 1831 reported that the Sovereign ought to be supplied with a fund for pensioning those whom "he wished to favour ;" but what was that but making the Pension-list the instru- ment and the evidence of courtly caprice ? On this definition, all pen- sions were equally unassailable, and abuse of power impossible : the title of the most worthless person ever placed on the Pension-list was as good as that of the best. In the days of Charles the Second, the Dutchess of Cleveland, the Dutchess of Portsmouth, and Mrs. Eleanor Gwynn would have been at the head of the list: and the same might be said of the mistresses of George the First and George the Second. But the House of Commons had sanctioned a revision of the Pension. list, with the view of distinguishing the deserving from the undeserving; and the doctrine of the Committee of 1831 was no longer recognized. Grants of pensions were now to be made only on certain predetermined conditions ; for the observance of which, the Ministers of the Crown were responsible. A return also of the pensions was to be laid annu- ally before Parliament. It was manifest, therefore, that the asserted connexion of the Pension-list with the honour and comfort of the Crown no longer existed ; pensions were not now to be granted on the arbitrary preference of the Sovereign ; and the excuse for connecting the Pension-list with the Civil List was done away with. But he bad other objections to the Pension-list, which lay still deeper: and he would remind Parliament that he stood on higher ground for the dis- cussion of the subject now, than when it was first introduced, several years ago. Parliament was at liberty now to decide whether there should be future grants or not ; and it was incumbent on the House to take a comprehensive survey of the purposes which pensions were ex- pected to fulfil, and to consider whether the advantages the public were expected to' derive from them warranted the imposition of a special charge on the nation. In his opinion, the public reaped no such ad- vantage from the pensions on the Civil List. He did not allude to retiring pensions, awarded, under certain rules, for services per- formed. lie knew that when any distinguished person, especially if in distressed circumstances, received a pension, public sympathy went along with the grant. But when they were called upon to provide a fund out of the public money, they should not be guided by sym- pathy for the persons benefited. They should require some public advantage in return for the pensions. He looked in vain for any such advantage arising out of the fund for pensions on the Civil List. It did not operate as a reward for public service; for 999 out of 1,000 public servants never obtained that reward. It was not an incitement to superior activity in the public service ; for the chance of obtaining it was too small to be appreciated. The same remark applied to men of literary and scientific pursuits. When signal services had been performed, as in the case of Dr. Jenner's discovery of vaccination, Pediment made a special grant. An examination of the Pension. list proved that it could not operate as a reward for ordinary or extra service, or as an incitement to useful ambition. He could not see any way in which pensions produced a really good effect ; and therefore he advocated their discontinuance. The only real effect of the pensions was to enable the Minister to pay a compliment to an individual of a

select class, and increase his income. What public benefit accrued from authorizing a Minister to select some philosopher, or historian, or poet, or mathematician, out of a number, leaving all the rest un- rewarded? does it not happen that the parties neglected feel aggrieved at the preference of the fortunate individual? and why should one be selected, to the exclusion of others equally deserving ? For one grained a dozen are annoyed. The difficulty was inherent in the case. Surely it was proper to take into account the wounded feelings of the persons who saw their rival preferred. But it was said that the Pension-list would be an asylum for literary men, or public servants in distress. This ground was no more tenable than the other. Within the last few years, literary and scientific men had been pensioned ; but he was sure they would feel much hurt were it supposed that they were placed there in consequence of distressed dircumstances. Some pen- sions, however, were to be given on the ground of merit; others on the ground of distress ; and others on account of distress and merit combined. This rule would cause perplexity and confusion ; and the distribution of pensions would become more irregular and arbitrary than ever. When a person was singled out for reward, the public would have a right to know why he was preferred to others. If that Point was left doubtful, the value of the pension would be much im- paired to the individual, and utterly destroyed as a compliment to literary and scientific men in general. The literary persons who had a chance of pensions were those only who moved in a certain circle, and were known to the Minister. The public generally receive no benefit which they would not have received if the person had remained unpensioned. The effect produced on the circle of rivals and expectants was most unfavourable. They had a strong

rivals and

to be pliant and obsequious to the Minister. Would it

exalt the character of literary men to encourage them to look to the Minister for reward ? For his part, he would ebstain frum holding otts. temptation to obsequious conduct ; he would rather encourage a erdria of independence. But it was a gross mistake to suppose that the: Pension-list had been devoted to the sustentation of men of literarg and scientific merit. 1Vere it so devoted, time effect would be ane thing but good : it would enable the Mieister to corrupt a large propor- tion of distinguished minds, by which the intens-owl cle of the age is formed. There would lie abundance of authors ready to fame in the path chalked out by the Ministerial dispenser of rewards. Them.se were undoubtedly persons struggling with difficulty, and selvaged its useful studies not widely appreciated, whom it was delightful to aid; but were those the cases that a Minister would select? Experience. showed that they would be rarely found oe the Pension-list ; and when there, it would he only by accident. The persons for whom sympathy was most excited were precisely those who would be the last to fine their way to the Pension-list. Their claims, unless patronized by some powerful individual, would be postponed to those more in the highway and blaze of public celebrity. It was idle to 'suppose thee there would not Ile, as there had been, ehilees in the dieiribution pensions, notwithstanding the restraint which the annual return of pensions granted would undoubtedly put upon the Alinister. Support of the Minister, in future as in past times, would be the readiest pars portto favour. Mr. Grote begged those who defended pensions onus-- ground that they relieved distressed persons of merit, to at tend to the ant- logy of the Poor-law. Doubtless, some were of opinion that that analogy had been pressed more closely than the circumstances of the case was-- ranted ; but he could tell thee], that on no point was public fueling more keenly alive than OD this. lie haul elways hem a summorter o the Poor- law ; but it had Ilre,‘,,,ed berely on individuels, and imposed the neces- sity of withholding relief where sympathy and con:passion %%mule_ have prompted a different ccurse. The Poor-law involved the prin- ciple that no relief should be. given out of the poor-rates except to entire indigence and destitution—that no indulgence should be given te cases of peculiar merit or peculiar hardship, if they fell short of that unhappy extreme. Nov, was it not inconsistent with timet princilfms to provide out of the public funds for distressed persons of higher ran -? It must teach the poor, that a principle of exclusion was adopts?. towards them, and a principle of bounty and benevolence towerds those whose position approached nearer to that of Members of the House. Nothing could tend more effectually to mike tile Poor-law odious tc the poor. It would encourage the idea that the poor are :le It wit unfairly and unequally, if bow, at the cost of the People, they established a new Pension-list for the Crown. Extraordinary merit, or species service, ought to he rewarded ; but Parliament was the proper quertec to apply to for such reward. Parliament might be profuse or partial; but the best security against excess or error would be provided, if Par- liamentary sanction were required to every grant before it was made. If it were contended that the Sovereign ought to have the means or rewarding ancient and faithful personal servants, the proper way of obviating the objection would be to make a moderate addition to the Privy Purse, or the sum allowed forltoyal Bounty ; though, in his view, the sums as they stood were ample for such purposes. Upon the prin- ciple he proposed, the reward of merit would be quite distinct from the relief of distress. Finally, Mr. Grote moved that the Pension-clause be struck out of the bill.

Mr. Hcsc seconded the motion.

Mr. SPRING RICE said, that the calm tone of investigation which pervaded Mr. Grote's speech was to him " perfectly satisfactory( but he differed essentially from the principles of Mr. Grow, who was also in error in some of his facts. Mr. Rice then made an array of figures, to prove that in twenty years the Pension-list would be re- duced to -11,000/. by the new plan of fixing the annual increase at 1,2001., by reason that a considerably greater annual diminution would be going on thromeh the deaths of the old pensioners. He contended, that in a monarchical government the power of conferring rewards on merit out of the public funds should be inseparably attached to the Crown. Mr. Grove's principle would be destructive of the best inte- rests of the country'. He denied that politics had influenced Ministers in their grants of pensions to literary and scientific men. He had a better opinion than Mr. Grote of literary and scientific men ; and did riot believe that their talent would be disgraced by political profligacy. If the clause were excluded, the Sovereign of this country would fot the first time be deprived of the means of rewarding literary and scien- tific merit.

Sir ROBERT PEEL. would vote against Mr. Grote's amendment ; but at the same time, he disapproved of Mr. Spring Rice's proposal. The sum of 1,200/. was too scanty. The saving which would be ef- fected, according to Mr. Rice's statement, confirmed his opinion on that point. At the same time, he agreed that a fixed sum, if ample enough,

was better than an uncertain one. He observed, that if the amount of 100/. was not bestowed in pensions in one year, the surplus was not to be added to the next year's fund : but he recommended that it should ; so that if only SOW. was granted in pensions one year, the sum applicable to pensions time next year should be 1,600/. He expressed his disapprobation of the provision which rendered an annual state- ment of the pensions necessary : it would give the House of Commons a veto on the bounties of the Crown. He entirely differed from Mr. Grote respecting the effect of rewards on literary men. When one

literary man was selected for royal favour, he always thought that the whole class was elevated by the act. He was decidedly of opinion that such rewards should be given; and, under a monarchical govern- ment, by the Sovereign.

Mr. CLAY would vote with Mr. Grote, as he thought that the Pen- sion-list should be separated from the Civil List. At the same time, he would not trust the House of Commons with the power of distri- buting patronage, which a public body never exercised discreetly. Sir ROBERT INGLIS objected to the periodical revision of pensions by the House. It was a mockery of the prerogative of the Crown to subject its disbursements and income to the control of Parliament.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER agreed almost entirely with Sirgleibert Peel. He could not think that the labours of the Pension Committee would effect any thing like the reduction which, it appeared from the state- went of Air. Rice, would be effected by the plan of settling the amount ref pensions at 1,2001. a year. He did not think 1,200/. too small 3:■151 ; but be fully concurred with Sir Robert Peel, that the amount need not be correspondent with that exact sum in each particular year. -de differed entirely from Mr. Grote respecting the quarter in which 3a power of grouting pensions should be placed— Ile thought it desirable that men of letters should be fostered by the Govern. :Tent, when labouring not for popular applause, or for the sale of works of the fag; but that their spirit should be susturued whilst contributing to the advan- age of posterity without receiving the recompense of popular favour. If they Issaited to the authority of those who had done the most friendly services to, and :at:Fermi the greatest benefit upon posterity—if they went back to history, they 7mild find that of all those who had implanted the impress of their own 0.-.07;ghts on future generations, there had not been one who was not supported Z) r the bounty cf the Crown or of individuals. lie might give the challenge to any great name in our literature, from Chaucer down to our own time, r▪ ad s.,!: whether there was any considerable porthm of slain who were not sup. izi ted by legal or individual generosity. Let the Home look to those who were neliutained by the Earl of Essex and by Queen Elizabeth, as well as by • di.': lute and worthless Charles the Second, whose pleasure, interest, and ::_sty; it was to cherish literary excellence. Let us look to the munificence of anbility—(Ironical —he must confess that he was afraid the spirit virel, former!) actuated the nobility was passed away, or at least that public -Sag was so altrrA that men of eminence would nut brook to receive the ....nty of an h.dividual. Ile was afraid that such a philosopher as Hobbes aa „old be loath to confess that he lived on the bounty of the Duke of Devon. eel that the free and independent spirit of such a man as Locke would voirstnt to be looked on as supported by an Earl of Shaftesbury. One of LI. • lit i;;litest ornaments to the Pension list was Dr. Johnson who, when party- rem most high, did not disdain to receive the bounty of theCrown. No. could better illustrate the doctrine of bestowing the bounty of the Crown 3 those who applied their genius to the benefit of posterity, than the compari- &sr: between the pursuits of the two eminent men Drs. Dalton and Wollaston. i.e first applied his powers to extending the limits of science, whilst the other Sala it his interest to engage in practical di:coveries, which was not the fittest taeupatiou for so great a mind. He was convinced also that public remunera. lien aught not to be confined to great men, and that such characters as Lord • 'Latham and his descendants should not be alone--profusely, he might say—pro- v;dal for. Was it proper or decent that great merits only should be regarded ; sal that such individuals as Colonel Stewart, whose services were perhaps ,t wally useful, should be neglected and their children left without any remune- ration? if a proposition were made in that House for giving some reward to :ilolonel Stewart, scarcely any one would be found amidst the turmoil of party esatention, to recognize his claims on the public generosity. Well, then, this was a case in which the paver vested in the Crown might he most beneficially mad judiciously exercised.

He believed that the best pension would be that regarded with least favour at the time it was granted. Such was the case with Johnson's r sosion, and with Coleridge's-

Of all those who had contributed to the literature or philosophy of the the opinions of half the thinking men of the present day were more hi'uenced by the writings of Coleridge than those of any other individual; at the same time, he was desperately obnoxious to a particular party; and line consequence was, there was a greater outcry raised against his pension than :Lan almost any by which it had been preceded, and it was in consequence with- drawn. Against the allowances given to 31r. Wordsworth and Mr. Sonthey a :most illiberal outcry was .raised ; which, in conjunction with the disapproba- -Sao expressed in the case of Mr. Coleridge, proved to him that public opinion was not always exercised fur the benefit of the community or for the promotion is the interests of science. It had been said that this power of granting pen. lions might be converted into a means of bribing literary men : now, in the first place, he did not consider that influence the most dangerous which they

to fear—he thought there was much greater danger that literary men would

!or profit flatter the passions of the multitude, than that they would be sub- aervient to the interest of the Crown. By such a course, too, they would be :ikely to acquire a larger portion of that honour to which all superior minds asp.ied, namely, ;the good opinion of their fellow creatures. But was it pru- d ent to deprive the Crown of the means of direct corruption while there was left to it the power of effecting that object much more effectually? If it were :really the object of the Crown to corrupt Mr. Wordsworth, it had the power of doing so much snore effectually by giving, him the situation of Stamp Distri- butor than by selecting him as the recipient of a pension which must attract ▪ attention. It appeared to him, that the danger of corrupting literary men did not apply to the Pension-list, when there were so many modes of lecomplithing the same object.

Mr. F. BARING spoke in support of the grant.

Mr. HAwas could see no utility in Mr. Grote's motion ; and should appose it in the blouse, as he had done in the Committee.

Mr. WARBURTON reminded the House, that there was au unappro- priated sum of 8,0001. a year voted in the Civil List, besides the Privy Purse of 60,00ut a year and the Royal Bounty, out of which the Sove:ei might reward meritorious and distressed persons. He con-

curred Mr. Grote's objections to pensioning literary and scientific men.

Mr. Gagra replied, and the House divided— Fa- Arr. Grote's amendment 23

Against it 123

Ministerial and Tory majority 102 Sir Roamer PI:EI. moved an amendment, to the effect that if the Aim of IOW. were not granted in pensions in any one year, the .datierence might be applied in any subsequent year.

Mr. SPRING Rice had no objection to the amendment, because in tiiv cos cut a saving would accrue to the country.

Mr. HOME trusted that Mr. Rice would not yield to Sir Robert but adhere to the bill as it stood.

Mr. WAKLEY was surprised to hear the word " yield" from Mr. Hume—

The Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly had not yielded to the right

Ootioinable baronet ;',! the most perfect harmony existed on both sides of tile House upon this question. He must confess, that he, with other .aenoulable gentlemen on that side of the House, were most awkwardly rittsated—they ought, undoubtedly, to move to the other side : and if the aight hououruble baronet, with his train of friends, knew their proper ?Aces, they would remove to the seats of those gentlemen, who were really the bpposition party, but had unfortunately been reduced by divisions sometimes to 19, sometimes to 20, and had scarcely gone beyond 21 or 22. (Laughter.) the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to change the present wording of corn bill, Le would lose all appearauce of wishing to save the;publie money ; Mr. G. F. YOUNG moved to adjourn all further proceedings on the bill till the 1st of February.

Negatived without a division. .

Mr. Husin would not allow the bill to pass without a protest against the amount of the Civil List. It was great beyond all precedent ; tad he feared that the profusion of the Ministry would make the mo- narchy unpopular. He contrasted the moderate expenditure of the American Government with the extravagant cost of the British.

Mr. SPRING RICE protested, on constitutional grounds, against any comparison between the expenses of the British monarchy and the American republic.

The bill then passed.

It was taken to the Lords, and read a first time on the genie eveitins., On Wednesday, Lord MELBOURNE moved the second reading ei the bill. He prefaced his motion by a statement of the purposes to which the hereditary revenues of the Crown were formerly applied; pointing out the injurious consequences which arose from the uncer- tainty of the amount of the royal income, and laying stress on the power an economical prince like Henry the Seventh obtained over his

subjects by confining his expenditure within the receipts from the Crown property, and thus avoiding the necessity of meeting Parlia- ment for grants of money. This system enabled Henry to establish a

system of despotism, which eventually led to the overthrow of the monarchy in the time of Charles the First. Lord Melbourne entered into a full explanation of the details of the bill ; and emphatically

called upon the Peers to support it, as they value the preservation of the monarchy, the rights, laws, and liberties of England. He would

not say that monarchy was the best form of government that ever ex. isted ; but he would maintain, that to attempt to alter it in this country would be the height of insanity and the worst criminality.

Lord BROUGHAM said, that he would not suppose Lord Melbourne meant to allude to hint when he denounced " insane " attempts to alto: the form of government ; and he would not degrade himself by a defence. It was not his intention to oppose the motion ; but be would call the attention of the House to the manner in wLich the bill

was framed and passed by the Commons,—for the purpose of ascer-

taMing whether it bad received due consideration, arid whether there did not exist substantial reasons for adopting a different decision on the bill. He would assume that the Peers were consulted, not merely us

a matter of form, but as persons having a deliberative voice on the question ; and he would ask whether it was wise to make a definitive

arrangement of the Civil List for the next fifty or sixty years ? They were acting in 18;37 as if they could foretell what the Sovereign would require in distant days ; as if time made no inroads, and produced no change in human and courtly state and circumstances. In 1760, the Civil List of a young Sovereign, George the Third, was fixed ; but soon afterwards Parliament was asked to pay off half a million of debt

on the Civil List, on the ground that circumstances had altered so

much that the former arrangement was no longer applicable to the ex- isting state of things. The debt of course was paid. Another appli- cation of the same nature was afterwards made, a fresh debt of 200,000. on the Civil List having been contracted. Still another arrangement he seemed afraid that the whole would not be expended ; and if for ten years so demand were made upon this fund, all the accumulation might be expended at once, so that not one farthing would be saved to the public. The questien was, whether 1,2001. should be added every year to the already enormous grant of 385,0091. for the Civil List, for the purpose of bribiog the literary and sciaatific men in the country—nominally by the Crown, but it was absurd to Icy that the Crown would have any thing to do with the matter—the whole would be in the hands of the Minister of the clay, to grant to whomsoever he chose. Sir Robert Peel seemed to enjoy the situation in which Ministers were placed, by doing the work of his party. The right honourable baronet expected in a slam period to have the distribution of the money; and, of course, would not oppose the extravagance of Ministers, even when they went beyond what the right honourable baronetwould have ventured to suggest. (aa Bear, hear ! " troni Colonel Sibthorp.) The danger he feared arose from the circumstance that the People would allow the Whigs to do that which they would not hear of for one moment if it were proposed by the Tories. The cos. sequence of this was, that one mischievous proposition after another was brought forward, and acquiesced in, with only nineteen or twenty members voting in opposition to them. It was obvious that the Radical Reformers wlan they sat behind Ministers were sadly out of place. They would be as teach so on the other side. The floor was their only proper situation ; and he trusted that during the recess the Speaker would have the goodness to order a few er011 benches to be placed for their accommodation. (Laughter.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, the question was not of much int. portance, but he would support Sir Robert Peel's amendment. AIL Wakley had paid Ministers a great compliment, in saying that, what. ever were the Ministerial propositions, they were sure to be supported by the House. This was so high a compliment, that he was at a loss for terms in which to express his gratitude.

Mr. LEADER. opposed Sir Robert Peel's proposition— lie mast say, that if the two large parties in that House had been differently placed—if the gentlemen on the other side of the House had been on the Trea• eury benches, and if the gentlemen on the Treasury benches had been no thii other side of the House, the former would not have come forward with this measure so indecently, or with so little desire to give sufficient time for its core sideration as the latter had done. And, above all, be was sure that if the right honourable baronet the Member for Tamworth had made a similar pre( pulposition from the Treasury bench, Lord John Russell would have raised strong 'objections against the extravagance of the measure; in which ease tin opposition to it might have gone out with a number of 120 instead of 20.

Air. BUNCOMBE, Mr. HAWES, and Mr. BItOTHERTON followed on the same side as Mr. Leader.

The House divided—

For Sir Robert Peel's motion Against it 114 26

Ministerial and Tory majority 88 Mr. CHALMERS moved to expunge the clause directing the issue of 10,0001. out of the Consolidated Fund for Home Secret Service more}.

For the motion Against it

Ministerial and Tory majority

2005 100 75

was entered into, under Mr. Burke's bill. And yet, with all this ex- perience before them, Ministers pretended to frame a Civil List for the life of a Sovereign who might be expected to reign for half a cen- ters,. If the arrangement turned out to be favourable to the Crown- if the price of articles of consumption should fall-if the abolition of the Corn-laws were forced from Parliament by the People..-then there would be no reduction of the Civil List ; the people would be held to their bargain : but if the reverse should take place-if prices should rise-then, depend upon it, an addition to the Civil List would be de- manded, and the final settlement he worth no more than waste paper. Next he would remark, that Parliament was in the dark as to the ac- tual revenues of the Crown. They were about to vote is Civil List of 395,000/.-which was 10,0001. more than was granted to George the Fourth or William the Fourth-in ignorance as to the sums derivable to the Crown from the Dutchies of' Cornwall and Lancaster. He would state one or two facts connected with this subject- He understood that there were in the Dutchy of Cornwall lands within the county of Cornwall to the extent of thirty or forty manors, ten manors having been sold to redeem the land-tax. There was also much land of the Datchy in Dorsetsbite, Norfolk, Hens, Somersetahire, and extending as far us Lincoln- shire-altogether about one hundred parcels of property of different kinds; and besides demesnes, besides manors, and other surface property, there was a mineral revenue of a considerable amount. The leases were either for lives or a tern' of years, in both cases subject to tine on renewal. From 1783 to 1808 the average amount of rent derived front this Dutchy was from 3,0001. to 4,0001. and of fines from 5,0001. to 6,000/. ; but they were at that period much lower than in former years. During the minority of the Prince Regent, the net revenue was about 225,000/. Between ISOS and 1313, no less it sum oat obtained by fines only, exclusive of all other sources of revenue, than 129,000/. For a renewal of the lease of that valuable piece of ground on which the approach to Waterloo Bridge from the Strand stood, called Prince's Meadow, no Ices a fine than 55,0001. was received; and for the renewal to the corpora- tion of Plymouth of the lease for 99 years, at a nominal rent of 1,000/. a year, of that part of Plymouth Harbour called Sutton Pool, a fine was paid of 12,0001. Thus these two Arles alone amounted to 67,000/. t deduct this from the whole sum of 129,000/., and there remained 62,000/. How was this latter amount obtained ?-Not by fines on renewals of leases for terms of years. which would not occur again until these terms of 99 years were expires', but by lines on leases for lives, all of which must fall in in the next two or three years, and thus give the Crown 62,000!. more fur renewed leases. Nay more, four of these leases were of mineral property, and, from the increased value et this property, owing to the increase of skill and scientific knowledge, and the ito- provernenta in machinery since the former period brought to bear on under- ground property, it was by no means a bold ealeulatiou to say, that instead of than leasers bringing in fines in the next thin e or four years to the amount of 62 000/., they were as likely as not to runtime tines to the amount of tath000/. or, 911,1x1:)1, or evert of 100,0(0/. Ile had aaoken on this subject to persons connected with the mines, who had told him that they would be glad to pay an increased fine of 40 or 50 per cent, if the Crown, as the possessor of the Dukedom of Cornwall, would renew their leases. This was nut all with regard to the property of this Dutchy-there Wa'i another valuable estate beloraaing to it in the neighhourhood bf that hotoe-nanteiy. the Kennington estate, upon which it was proposed to key a rite of 100.ao0/. fur the renewal of tire lease,

Let he believed dart this I: of le en rentol. Ile understood this atuount letzl In estimated in the report of the so: voyora of the Dutchy, hot the parties in- • .rented were riot t ri

pay this laree ntount, but bad effete( between ,!!1'./. and 90.000/, but (hi, Ltd lost loan eccepted, and there was little doubt Lot that the larger aunt would be elo,rtie given. Again, would any one tell him t: at the tolvieera of the Crown world net recommend the aeceptattee of the ur a4.4uial. wi,:ob would be given far the removal of be three or filer

- rriaa leases rectal oxpite 1n lr:s ? Ile stated these frets ith tae

iaraase of showing how enrol its the •1 were as to all these matte t.,, re, rein had not 1.:,:n Lrought 1., C'ne Pea liansrerre hot which ettglit to lyre., I:, s

• aatertted to it kffire tory preaosither woe he( ,e(Irt forty tra :4 anew Civil List.

L, !I:0 course of ten yeere, from tan 1519, the tInea and rent a .4'

/Melly of Cornwall Intl is ...,,toteto :330,0041. ; hat the not -

rein' era; only :H29illf ; hi. emit of every ill. being phi for the ne of the property. 31:Itch that, if they could, in the worst matterged Coate in the kingdom. Ile would mention one iesta Lice illustrative of tha bail management of tl.e affairs of the D chy- The ease he alluded to was one in which a lease had been granted by the player otheera of the Dutch), of an estate of ferty- five acres of gaud arahle land,

which, without any miracle-without any f grant-witierat the-ea:11 of any land ft orni the sea, or similar oceans, but aimply hy the fraudoinert conduct of the

[_cant the lax and careless management of the superintenelenta of the pro- perty, had been increased to an estate of upward,: of two hundred acres of good ra aide land. When the tenant iu possession was asked by an old pennon, who recollected something of the old land-marks in that part ut the country, how this increase had been effected in the property, he replied in the Cornish dialect, in which he would not attempt to lint Ate him, that his grandfather was a very industrious and careful man, and was very clever at hedging by candlelight. (Luuyhter.) The meaning of tine expreseion was very well known in C'orn' wall, and he had no doubt that it would be understood by their Lordships, and

it accounted for the way in which this estate had been quintupled. This was not dune at the expense of any private individual, or to the loss of any individual landlord, but had been an open and obvious encroachment on the property of the Dutchy. If this property had been under any timing approaching ta good management, it was utterly impossible that such a proceeding could have taken place.

It was said that tine revenues of the Dutchy of Cornwall were appli-

cable to the education and support of the Prince of Wales: but every. body knew that there was always a separate revenue voted by Puha- ment for the Prince of Wales. It was ridiculous therefore to prevent the affairs of this Dwelly from beim; placed under the control of tile Commissioners of Woods and Forests, on the pretence that the reve- nue was required for n Primo,: of Wales. Ile would say nothing respecting the Dutchy of Lancaster, as lie believed the revenue of that Dutchy was not nearly so large as that of the Dutch), of Corn- wall, and lie had not the same means of forming an opinion as to its nature and amount. But he should have thought that the proper course for Ministers, before they asked Parliament for a Civil List, would have been to have laid an account on the table of the revenue of both Dutchies. He would soy one word more respecting the value of the property in the Dutchy of Cornwall-

The great Clayton estate was not let on fine ; but in a few years the fine on

the renewal of the lease of the Keenington estate would amount to at least 80,000/. or 90,0001. Again, iu 1841, 5,000/. each would be payable from tine tenants of the Prince's Meadow and Sutton Pool, and the four great milling leases would fall in about the same time, and the fine on renewal would be from t30,0001. to 90,0001. On this part of the subject be should only once more ex.

. • .•i 'L.'

tl.•• riot's Ir este with whielt .

Ile thanked the Peers to r it was :In irksome task to ta,,h,i col,t,i■Itl! es cut of date, uod

right to remind them of loot:client and e, t.e:i: a.:..rurrl I -a. Ile , they would indulge him cane wi:litta lot•trot, I.: • It 1

p, odic uncut itt wh:eh the SovereiL::n of the coontry t•t• ! •' 'theet] Ile trusted that it was altogether ur.neeessare for him to (. s‘ 1e. attaeloneut to the illustrious house which had fwen called ma,. :a 1,1i, 1!

thrice of this country. What he then whiled to state was, th :nee • more than he did that the Poo de hat sit; ern such a gaecroas and aea

feeling of atmehmeat and devotion to her Majesty ; for :hey had &toad , supplying the place of gratitude by anticipations and had clothed theersoa reign in a garb of all their brightest hopes. Memory scattered with a ea! .2, scanty hand, but in the fervour of their affection the People felt stroea...

. warmly that their Sovereign would become .01 that they hoped. a::,1 . and desired. They had poured out their minds hy amicipetion in g-a.. indications Ur that illostriou a individual who now m copied the throne war. heartiness which did them honour ; and wilier[-if instead of the calm. 're:- :neat it had been poured forth at the close of a long reien-woul.1 be a stelae an proof that it had been marked by every thing beneficent and g`arioaa. rejoiced in this, because he knew that it would put aarde for ever all

of the disloyalty or disoffectiou Of any eh,. of the tohjacti of due Cr.sore. . becalm it taught statesmen this lesson, that they railcht not he afia:,1 rra- people, but that the more they consnited their interests, and the mons determined to establish their rights and privileges-the more they someae. cleanse the system of all corruption-the noire they endeavourer' to pr. rat-- as them the free exercise of unfettered liberty, the more peaceable the) maa...: and the more they would strive to euppoet the Crown and the canon:1161o, -..•, inestimable value of which tilt y would have learned ; and then the Legisb tea., might goon with oew reforms, loongsnre that all new powers which they 1:6z:A add to those already possested by the People would serve only to make the us:a narchy and the constitution of England, because more beluvel, more tieeilie.

The bill was then read a second time.

On Thursday, Lord MELBOURNE moved that the bill be " care- mitted." Ile took the ooportunity of stating, that although he hie certainly told Lord Brougham that there would he no objection to a:Re- ducing returns of the net revenues of the Putchies of Cornwall rze Lancaster for a certain number of years, 1m had since ascertained e...c there were objections to the production of that information. It was very unusual course to ask for information of tbis description, ,said. press his aorer thee in the mt. on the table the, aunt,prop., to grove .

395,000/. a year during the reign, without taking Iota eoneideratma the arra:ere of these revenues, and the increased value that would take place in them e a few years.

He then alluded to the subject of pensions, and professed Intros.? favourable to that mode of rewarding literary and scientific men. 7:::A thought that the annual returns of the pensions granted being h.:el fore Parliament, would act as security against abuses. Corotraless. would proceed from other sources less open to scrutiny. But what ie.") been done in the other House about pensions?

It appeared that a Committee had been appointed to inquire into the subject of the Pension-list. Ha al that Committee yet made a report era lore

subject 7-It had not reported, and not even deliberated on the matter. completed its investigation into the subject?-It had not brquired,or cam cete..• menced its inquiries. Had it examined any witnesses?-lt had not yet :eav:. any witnesses before it, for it had hardly yet sat. All that could be !ail son, that it bad not yet inquired ; that it had not yet discussed the subject-thee ct topic connected with It had yet been deliberated on-that it hail made ac port, fur that it had only been named a day or two ago. The Pailiament, ever, was called upon to sanction a proposition which should have groree err of the proceedings of the Committee which had knit been named, and cell . should have been founded on the results of that inquiry and investigatiee was to take place before it.

But let the House mark what had been done by another Cornra'oto: - The Civil List Committee, after the lapse of such a short 5rael• of time

orportunity could not be afforded for the due conahleration of tine stibjoe, to made as scanty and meagre a report as had ever been made Ly :any Coareetase in which an incidental allusien was made to this subj. net, am! era Cris the called upon to legislate for probably half a century. In the fortrarr reien, the matter had been before a Committee of the other House, which let4di oast, up reports on the subject, they were called upon to legislate for a life c: era-, eight; and mow, after only a meagre and urnatisftethry repert had Itee3 tented, and when the whole subject wasI t

ax to .o .h.!C:ITefla■ly

were called upon to legislate for probably the treat fifty ar sixty :nears, a life of only eighteen. The Civil Liat Committee had i.reen appointed r n t generally on the Civil List, and the other Committee had been a; points' ee:(a- cially to inquire into the Pension-list; and if they had only a pat tial lt, tore- from the Civil I.ist Committee, the Pension-list Committee bad not reported at e:e The Civil List Cotilttlittee 12341 seized on the aubh.et of a,ensnoira, real, •.- they had nothing whatever to do, and said a few words( respect:rig it ; ay( t'e.a were laid hold of. and the Pat liaarent was settled upon to legadete no tl. e . before the Peneiou-list Committee had reported, but la fore it hal eeasaaa-. on the stikieet of inquiry. The extreme haste with widen this 71,e.n'.:,7e posed through both tlouses-sitting on unaccustomed (I ree and amvonted -did not tend to ncordirm the accuracy of thiir calcul •rions -to enlartae aa.• charterer of their rle"iberatirms or the value of the mearoate in the loinn e in firedog men. 11 t` ore was mire-,It; for p:1-siro; a hal an this s without deka-00,y, had not tiro. subject Teen brought laward at an .• period? Why had 11.4 the Parliament been aaanadried at the lee]noing

yea her, imeteol of their beieg (-PA t. •,.•,..t11,1- in the ,ert :e

why were they :IA called tegether, a. t! ■••:, C• • , subject wit before Per,;:mient, in itaao. in the in: • 1..11

• ' And here he trotted tell Lord Glo,e1g, O. it bled at tut caeier to:dud, n n aettrea eri.ao lere • Canada, os renierkoi -le for pa: ;rod co; 01 host sersaion were for i n:o to.d !,•••1 met i.." v, 7,4 :".

rat: v. .•!,- , I-I • tt., „

Dad but been luid before the other House of Parliament ; and he put it 4s) the Peers whether they would run the risk of seeming disrespect to ale Crown by calling for papers which had not been laid before them ne a sedentary act of grace on the part of the Sovereign. It was not intended to adhere in future to the system of secrecy heretofore pine- ieeed with respect to the Dutehies of Cornwall and Lancaster. All el-et related to them would be laid open to the consideration of Parlia- ment. Under these circumstances, he asked Lord Brougham whether be would persevere in his motion for the returns.

Lord BROUGHAM said he was the last man in the universe to turn a oleef t lir to smell an appeal us that which Lord Melbourne, bud

.1i:dressed to him. He would not persevere in a motion stated to be sieZttIng and disrespectful to the Crown. He had another reason for zret pressing it—he knew that it %you'd be one of the most futile

ettempts that could possibly be made. Even were he backed by Lord

Melbourne and those who supported him, he could not fur a moment :,la;, e ie the opposition about to be made by the majority of the House: is would he madness in him to proceed without the support either of ajority or of Lord Alelbourne and his friends. As to the mu- itself being unfitting or disagreeable to the Crown—as to its being oroisual or unprecedented—be was not the oily person who laboured

oneer the mistake of supposing that it was nothing of the kind. Be • held communication on the subject with the 'Afarquis of Laesdowee, .cod Hulked, and Lord Dune:tenon ; who had ieformed him, ism

/seizing, that having consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the

reeler officer, they had ascertained that there would not Le the smallest oleieetien to givilig the information. It' there were any disrespect, ehrrefsre, to the Crown, his noble frierels were as irsutL hill/U(10(A as Lie ,elf in the offence. Ile had certainly thought it would be better to !save the information his motion was intended to procure, before coin-

erg to a vote which that information would afiect. It turned out that Lit was mistaken, and that it would be better to rote the wormy first eve _et the information afterwards-

" 7.11; Lord,. (sal(' Lord Brougham with great animation), harems, too, that ee :see to (emote:lance ns in this proceeding—in this !impose.: sus proceeit-g —1 lay expre.,ly prepost..-rous priicceding—in which we put that last which to lie first, and that first which ought to be last—it ameers, I say, cm• neatiesey, thst in this prepesterous course of legi.lation we have to countetemee ne the zeithoray of the Commons Douse of Panhonent—the es13111iitus of the

I-Albite purse—the jealous watchmen over the finances of the rouutry—those who

• to it pre‘ic.it the People in the People's llouse of Parliament—whose • alt the l'cuple's yokes seenning throng% thsin—aud which I hope I shah' 3211:)" live to see tailed in til:It I:Ouse by any juggle between tie Chair awl the hench—by .iny of it. whether on petitions or in debates on by which debates on prseions it is that there beve been obtsince essay ,ale of the vieteries ever plinth by the People in their tor tiegles agaiti•t tit ption of a lioroneliniungerirg Governini tit. I trust I shall never live

ic I, s bereafrer than heretofore; bat, for the present, a

• has cone over their vision—Co. a moment a eletel has pa--ed, over them, • eS, i 'sod, ft their sense., which has charmed tht ir accustomed activity, put to sleep their wirtel.fillues., their wal:efol rare, over the purse of

• Fohimoris intrusted to titan tl e faithful I Zepi e ienzatives. And

s •hi s, ,,re ehareed with too much attention to do iairse of the People, it is iiv s Lon y,,u tiiiwso 1..tien care ? why should %ou, the Laois, be more • than the l'i7epie theri- es, the i6,orc•iiiitatives tia. Commons 1 tinny ?' fn• r vi• n ,vc, s ivy 1 imiieve that before the :.:e toay „-....!, •. i.,, that ti.,t roc ,1 in :he rats of the ; atw r a tl ..•.. • liurre, wlecii tut. is it to the :tl : !• t 1,.,!.•1, !Ater pith i , , 1;: of th•• , p•, o y (.."ti a,:,.'a,:,.'12 1,,Bo i•i,11rttLlc • did net Welk that Lord Bronsham ought to v les motion on the eround steted by Lord Melbourne ; for . . , Are last five years there had been ineneruus instances of the

• rsiiros for ieforreatien which ja tie Dune! of Commons had n called for or been refused. An entire change should • e the Dutchy ofi Corhwell. Instead of fines on renewal of e time system of letting the property ut a fair minuet value should ested. It was momily iejurious to a Prince of Wales to have a e ur le0,000/. at hie dispood. on coming of age.

Li Beoueneet said he had withdrawn his motion from despair of ,e to carry it.

The Duke of 'Weet.leGTON feared that there was an insufficient eereision for pensions. There were many claims on the bounty of she Crown which a Minister could not defend in Parliament. Was it ottlee or proper that the termer' alone, of ell pastels, should have her where eels of justice aid gt rerusity canvasstd in as public assienbly?

Lord MELBOURNE said, that, relying on his own Ofticha experience, ee we; sure leedel. a year, properly administered, was a sufficient pen- eithe feed. A restriction of the amount would prevent profuse and eutsisss expenditure.

Tee bill then went through the Committee.

THE Pt:NO:ON-LIST Co3:3trr2EE.

It, the neise of Common's, on Monday, the motion for the Order Day that tile Civil List Lilt be read a third time, having been en: iieee the chide Sir CI OitGE SINCLAIR asked Mr. Spring Rice if he intended to ,einirees the Comaettee on the Pension- list that evening ? Sir George thereto Mr. Rice ought to mention the names of the Members he

Onterded to put upon the Committee, rind that a day should be set apart sor the }louse to consider whether the proposed Committee was enti- :led to the confidence of the House and the country.

Mr. Ewe said, that he found among the Orders of the Day the .reite el a motion by Mr. Hume fur the next day, that the names of

Members intended to be put on a Select Committee should be placed :el the Vote-paper the day preceding the day of nomination. If that eschew were carried, he should place the mimes of the Committee Olt Cee Vote-I:ever on Tuesday, and would take the discussion on Wed- esday.

IlAnvEr believed that Ministers looked upon Mr. Ilume's 7711411M t a perfect goti,erd. There was no straw, however filthy and

• tb.it rs sv■AiA riot clutch. For his own part, he eared

%et rtkli Sala, knight be east upon himself or connexions; but after the treatment he bad received from Government, nothing under He teen should induce him to serve Ott a Committee named by Mr. Spring Rice, except the decision of the House that after the part he had taken on the question of the Pension-list be ought to form one of the Committee. The Committee ought to be nominated then; the time oh the House should not be frittered away. The next day they might have the Civil List and the Dutchess of Kent Bills thrust down their thro its. Another Member might give another notice about the exhibition of the names of Committees, and thus the nomination might be postponed from day to day.

Sir GEORGE SINCLAIR moved that the Committee on the Pension. list be nominated.

Mr. WARBURTON wished to know why the names of the Com. mittee were not given 7 The subject had been long enough in the hands of Alinisters. Why did they not say at once whether Mr. Her. vey was or was not to be on the Committee ? The course Ministers pursued was unfair to Mr. Harvey, to the House, and to the country.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that Mr. Harvey bad to thank himself for any thing disagreeable in this affair. With respect to Sir George Sinclair's motion, Mr. Spring Rice would be ready to put the names of the Members of the Committee on the Notice-book that evening. Wus that the object ?

Sir GEORGE SINCLAIR said he: should take the sense of the House on his motion.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL then stated the reasons for not putting Mr. Harvey on the Committee. They .'amounted to this—that Mr. liar. vey had published the evidence given to the Poor-law Inquiry Com- mittee before it was reported to the House, contrary to a resolution of the House.

Mr. HALL strongly disapproved of the conduct of Ministers in this matter. He could not avoid reference to a correspondence which had appeared between Mr. Rice and Mr. Harvey.' For his own part, he would answer any such proposition as Mr. Rica made to Mr. Harvey in the same way that Mr. Harvey answered it, and he conceived that every other Member would do the same. What Mr. Harvey did with respect to the Poor-law evidence, he could do now. The House itself had sanctioned what Mr. Harvey did, by authorizing the publica- tion of the Poor-law evidence from day to day. The proposed inquiry would be perfectly useless, be might almost say faithless, unless Mr. purvey were placed on the Committee.

Mr. Hume hoped that Mr. Harvey's name would be placed on the Committee.

Mr. SPRING RICE said, he was awkwardly situated. The third reading of the Civil List Bill might be put off, if Mr. Grote bad not given notice of a motion which might produce a long debate; but such being the case, the intervention of Sir George Sinclair's motion was very inconvenient. He was ready to give the names that night, and take the discussion the next day. ( C'ries of " Now, now ! ") He bad understood that both sides of the House wished to have twenty-four hours' notice of the names, (Murmurs and confusion.) Ile should like to know distinctly what the House did wish. What was he to do ? ( cries of " Name, name! ") lie feared that be should lose more time by refusal, and would therefore read the names. Tiw motion for reading the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Civil List Bill was withdrawn, und Sir George Sinclair's amend. recut was also withdrawn. The thder of the Day for numinating the Committee seas read ; and then the Sys:eerie put the question, that the Committee du consist of twenty-one Members."

Mr. Rice addressed the House in support of the motion. He was ireppy to inform Sir George Sinclair, that a majority of the Members he intended to place on the Committee had been in favour of the in- quiry. That part of Sir George Sincluir's notice, therefore, the object of which was to secure such a majority, was answered. But Sir George also intended to move that Mr. Harvey should be placed on the Committee. Now it had been Mr. Rice's most anxious wish that Mr. Harvey should be placed on the Committee. He was aware Out with many the recommendations of the Committee would be deprived, by Mr. Harvey's absence, of the weight and authority they ought to have. With a view to secure his assistance, he had addressed a note to Mr. Harvey, which he would read to tho House. Mr. Rice then read his note of the 7th of December. Now he had been charged out of doors with presumption in sending this note. 14 But," Mr. Speaker,

• This ie the correspondence alluded to by Mr. Hall.

Mr. Spring Rice's Note to Mr. Harvey.

" Mr. Sprint; Rice present's his compliments to Mr. Harvey, and is led to trouble him with the present communication, in consequence of the motion for appointing a Committee on Pensions a Melt Mr. Spring Rice intently to bring on, " From the interest which Mr. Harvey has taken ill this subject, and the attention which lie has paid to it, Mr. Harvey's name would naturally occur to any person se- lecting the members of flint Committee. But Mr. Spring Rice trusts Mr. Ilarmy will sxiiuse hint if, before he makes such is ',imposition to the Illouse, he solicits information horn Mr. Harvey ou is question most essential to the future proceedings of that Com- mittee, if it shall lie named by the House. " In the Cothinittee on the Poor-laws, appointed last session, Mr. Harvey communi- cated to the public, from day to day, the evidence and the proceedings of the Commit- tee, even bec,re they were reported to the !louse. Mr. Spring Rico dues nut raise the que4iun wh.alier such a emirs° was, in that instance, Parliamentary or convenient. Due it is eVi.l..11it that, where the private affair... character, and service of individuals may be mail, matters of deliberation and inquiry, that publication or such evidence in :my way but in the authentic form of a report, and of cutomunicatien to the Meuse itatilf„ would IN' unjust and inconvenient. " Mr. Sprelig 'lice hilly anticipates that Mr. Harvey will concur in these opinions, from hi, observations respecting the ditty of such n Committee, and the mode and spirit in which its inquiries should Its directed. Hat, to tctuid any difference of opinion or mis- take hereaft-r, Mr. Spring Rice a ill be much indebted to Mr. Harvey if he will do him the favour of letting Iiini know whether, if appointed n member of the Committee, Ito adopts, uud wilt assist the Committee in adhering to. the principles laid down in this note.

" Downing Strout, Thursday Evening." (December 7.)

Mr. Harvey's Answer.

" filtrand. Friday Morning. "sir—Re4ar tine. sof sit the right of publishing the proceedings before Pailiamentary

d

Committees io be of the greatest public impeance. I cannot consent to' ,Mee its ex- ercise in abeyance 45 thu condition of being plaited upon a Cumtnittee. I readily ne- knowledge tat circumstances may arise which would render such publication nut only undesirable iiiit extremely unjust towards individuals; but I must claim the unlettered exercise of tn.. own judgment in all eases : 411,101k-it, I may be allowed to remark, i> not likely, I trust, to be in is direction less just or considerate than that of persons

squally disiniuresical as my sell. D, W. Hamar."

said Mr. Rice, with unusual elevation of voice and gesture, "the ques- tion does not lie between me and the honourable and learned 'Member, but the question is whether the orders of the House of Commons shall be adhered to or not. I only sought that which in the House and in the Committee I was bound to seek, that if the responsibility of sug. gesting the names of the Committee rested with me, I might acquit myself of the accompanying responsibility of seeing that the orders of the House were carried into effectual operation." He would then read the reply to his note by Mr. Harvey, when Mr. Rice asked him to ad. here to the resolution of the House. (" Hear, hear ! " and laughter.) Having read Mr. Harvey's note, Mr. Rice said he would ask Mem. hers to compare it with the resolution of the House prohibiting the publication of evidence or documents presented to a Select Committee before they had been presented to the House. He knew this was an inconvenient motion; he knew he should be exposed to a fire on his flank ; but he did not care—he should endeavour to do his duty, and would give a preference to the orders of the House over Mr. Harvey, who claimed the privilege of violating them. But even then, if Mr. Harvey would get up and declare that he would abide by the orders of the House, he should willingly—he should feel it to be his duty to insert his name on the Committee. .(" Oh, oh ! " and cheers from the back Ministerial benches.) The inquiry into the Pension-list had been rendered necessary by existing circumstances. (Loud laughter from the Opposition.) Were there not circumstances which rendered it neces- sary? Then what became of that cheer ? Let Mr. Harvey say that he would not publish the evidence, and he was ready to put Min on the Committee. (" Oh, oh I ") Well, then, let him say he would not give such a pledge, and then let Members vote for him if they could. He would now name the Committee. He proposed to place on it Lord John Russell, Mr. Grote, Mr. Bannerman, Mr. Plumptre, Mr. Hume, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Alderman Copeland, Mr. William Evans, Mr. Pendarves, Sir Eardley Wilmot, Mr. Handley, Lord Ebrington, Mr. Rickford, Mr. Strutt, Mr. Macleod, Mr. Goddard, Mr. Phillpotts, Mr. Villiers Stuart, Mr. George Evans, and himself.

Sir GEORGE SINCLAIR said, that from the exclusion of Mr. Harvey and the arguments used to defend his exclusion, it might be interred that the Government wished for no inquiry at all. In his opinion, Mr. Harvey was perfectly justified in refusing to give the assurance re- quired by Mr. Rice. When Mr. Harvey infringed the law of Par- liament, then the House could visit him with its censure. It was a hard case that such a stipulation should be required from Mr. Harvey, and

from no other Member of the House. There were circumstances which must make it peculiarly painful to Mr. Harvey to be excluded from this Committee. Without Mr. Harvey's assistance, the Com- mittee might just as well not sit at all. Mr. Harvey owed it to his own character not to accept of an appointment upon any other Commit- tee named by Mr. Spring Rice, after the treatment he had experienced on this occasion. He would not detain the House by a long speech, but would move at once that the number do consist of twenty-two Members, the name of Mr. Harvey being added.

Mr. MACLEAN thought that Ministers lowered the character of the House by their mode of dealing with this question. Why demand a preliminary pledge ? Surely the 1-louse could protect its co u privi- leges from aggression, and could deal with any Member two defied its a ithority.

Lord EBRINGTON spoke, in an excited manner, against the admission of Mr. Harvey without a pledge.

Lord CASTLEREAGFL was opposed, on principle, to the inquiry—he did not like ripping up old sores ; but he warned the House not to stultify itself by admitting that there was one Member amongst them whose searching eye they were afraid of, and whose influence made them uneasy.

Mr. WARBURTON said, that if the argument of Mr. Spring Rice availed against Mr. Harvey this time, it would amount to a sentence of perpetual proscription against him. He would be excluded from every Select Committee. Any Member might put the same question that Mr. Spring Rice bad put, and call upon the House to follow the precedent of exclusion; for to such a question Mr. Harty could never reply without a violation of principle. Mr. Harvey bad acted precisely as under the same circumstances he should have acted him- self. The object was to exclude Mr. Harvey, but to save appear. ances by making him the offer. As a man of honour, Mr. Harvey was bound to answer as he did. As to the publication of the proceed- ings, he had never known the House run a race with the newspapers which it did not lose. He remembered that Mr. Hume and himself reported a debate that took place with closed doors ; and he would ask why Mr. Hume was not excluded from the Committee? He regarded the present as a foolish and idle attempt to exclude the public from a knowledge of that which an hour or two after the termination of the proceedings would be as well known as if they had taken place in an .open court.

Sir ROBERT Pert, said it was unnecessary for him to declare that lie totally differed with Ministers on the subject of this inquiry. Disclaim. ing all connexion with the proceeding, it was a question whether, having refused to be a member of the Committee, be should take any part in placing others on it. If it were consistent with his duty as a Member of Parliament, he should prefer not to vote at all. But that he took to be a shabby course of proceeding; and be would at once declare his intention to oppose Sir George Sinclair's amendment. He objected to place Mr. Harvey on the Committee, because there were already fifteen Members on the Ministerial side of the House and only six of his friends upon the Committee; but there was an additional reason for excluding Mr. Harvey, namely, the privilege be claimed of vio- lating the rules of the House. He would not beforehand sanction this violation by voting to place Mr. Harvey on the Committee. Moreover, Mr. Harvey had indulged in sarcasms against the persons entitled to pensions. After the speeches he bad heard from Mr. Harvey, and when he remembered that females of high birth and great amiability were liable to be drawn before the Committee, he would not take part in the responsibility of placing him on the Committee.

Mr. RUME said, that there was not an opinion uttered by Mr. Harvey on the Pension debate to which he did not subscribe ; and yet Sir Robert did not object to his being on the Committee. Did Sr

Robert desire a Select Committee on which there should be no diffe- . reuse of opinion ?

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that if a motion had been made to put Mr. Hume on the Committee, Ire should have objected to that motion also. His objection to Mr. Harvey was not of a personal nature- 11e objected to take any share in the reeponsibility of appointing the Coen- nnttee ; and when he spoke of the principles on which the inquiry was to be

conducted, he alluded particularly to the strong opinion of the honourable and learned gentleman, that the same rules which governed the Poor-law in. quiry ought to be applied to the Committee on Pensions. That was an opinion in which he could not at all concur, and which be considered quite untenable.

Mr. 'MATTHIAS ATTWOOD Would vote with Sir George Sinclair. He did not think that Sir Robert Peel had advanced sufficient reason to justify the exclusion of .Mr. Harvey.

Lord Howice contended, that the power to restrict the publication of evidence given before Committees was most necessary. Sir Wil- liam alolesworth would recollect, that evidence was given before the Transportation Committee last session quite unfit for publication. Evidence given before Committees of the House should be published in a complete and authentic form, not in a shape to please or suit the purposes of individual Members. To admit the right to make volum. tary and unauthorized publication of evidence, would be to infringe one of the most valuable privileges of the House. Having the distinct declaration of Mr. Harvey, that he would not consent to put in abey- ance what lie considered a valuable privilege, but which was really a breach of privilege, Lord Huwick considered that it would be highly disrespectful to the House to put Mr. Harvey on the Committee.

Mr. WAKLEY said, that the true reason of the objection to Mr. Harvey was, that he was deemed an inconvenient person. He was too shrewd and discriminating for the Members who would have to act with him on the Committee. It was a mere farce to pretend to be so nice about breaches of privilege. Were not their proceedings daily published, in violation of a Standing Order ? Would the People sub- mit to the enforcement of that Standing Order ? He was glad that this discussion had taken place. It would show the People of Enc- land how the Members who advocated popular rights were treated in the House. Mr. Harvey had been excluded from the inquiry into the Woods and Forests, and the inquiry into Charities, both of which hail been matured by his labours : but the People were not blind to the cause of the persecutions he suffered.

Mr. E. L. Bulavea feared that, if Mr. Harvey were excluded from the Committee, the inquiry would not be satisfactory to the country; but he could not vote to put him on the Committee. Mr. Harvey, however, might put an end to all the difficulty, by saying, what nobody used be ashamed to say, that he would be bound by the decision of the House.

Mr. Boirrtiwica supported Sir George Sinclair's amendment, amidst much interruption.

Mr. Aenmori;v inslieved that the country would call upon the House to put Mr. Harvey on the Committee; and supported the amendment on personal and general zrounds.

Mr. Hanvne lammed his thanks to the Members who bad given ex- pression to their opinions in Lis favour ; and he did hope that the time was not far distant when he should be relieved from the effects of one of the most severe and relentless courses of persecution ever inflicted by an irresponsible depot. He would, however, immediately address himself to the question before the House.

Hs could not admit the Chancellor of the Exchequer's claim of anxiety to place him on this Cummittee. The pretension was falsified on three palpable grounds. The Chaucellor of the Exchequer had stated that be originally pro. pastel that the Civil List Committee, upon which his name did not appear, should he the only Committee to which the inquiry into pensions should be committed. What, then, did the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean by telling the louse, and through him the country, that from the beginning he thought him one of the first who ought to be appointed ? He would then come to the letter which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had written. He should like to know by what right the Chancellor of the Exchequer called a Member of that House iuto Downing Street to ask bins what he would do, or whet be would not do. But when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had so done, though his letter was written in a burry, he would venture to say that if the correspondence were placed on the Votes of the House and subjected to tla: deliberate and calm consideration of its Members, it would be at Once ascertained that the Chaucellor of the Exchequer had come to a conclusion that was untenable. What was his reply? Whilst on the one hand he spurned the imliguity that was attempted to be put upon him by lead- ing him into an unworthy contract, he said he would indeed be disqualified from Lolling a seat iu that lleuse, or to associate in any way with gentlemen. if he had consented to any agicelueut of the kind, and that he would not for a moment consent that a great public right should in his humble person be pre- judiced by making contemptible conditions in order to get placed on a hard- working Committee. lie di.1 also say, and he unfeignedly repeated it, that there might be circumstances in which it would be out only uudesirable but highly unjust to publish evidence in the way alluded to. At the same time, he was not now a new Member—he was of toenty years standing in that House; and he appealed to those who had known him during that period, to witness in justificatiou of his statement, that his course had implied, not only an upright judgment, but a generous and kindly feeling.

With respect to the publication of the evidence given before the Poor-law Committee, it was a fact that the paper he was connected with was not the first to publish it. Another newspaper was produced before the Committee containing garbled reports of the evidence, and he was aincng time foremost to concur in the condemnation of the prat. tine of publishing garbled accounts. In the souse of the inquiry, cir- cumstances arose which rendered the course he took indispensable— He saw seated at the bar of the Committee two or three of the Commis. sinners coneected with the Peer-law inquiry ; he saw their intelligent Secre- tary—he saw their short-hand writer—he saw all the appliances of the powers of oilice—he saw them not only taking down what was passing in the COM. mittee, but writing directly into the country to make inquiries into the truth of the statements given in evidence, crowilin; the Committee with witnesses to emitiel and cot:met:let and rrjeet the temilliony which was previously adduced ; and he immediately pointed it out to Lod John litiewelL and said that it was not a candid or honourable inquiry, if on the uric Laud they saw this great Mali. tution, the Pooriihaw Cumuli...ion, with all their agents and appliances and the suc:our of the Committee. making inquiries throughout the w hole country agaiust a class of people who, poor theratelveg, had no means whatever of auninioning witnesses at their own expease, or obtaining the necessary corn- municat ; Ile pointed out also, that there WM scarcely at y sympathy betweeu them and the C'ouniiittte. and that unless the evidence were published from day to day, and the truth weie known, he said distinctly that the inquiry would become a matter nut only of I ypoerisy, but of the grossest insult and injustice towards those whom it was intended to protect. That course he had taken ; and when the subject was brought forward whether the conduct of his paper should be brought tinder the consideration of the House, did he not say that he would scorn to shelter himself behind the printer, or any other species of ser- vant who was earning a few shillings a week ?—did he not take upon himself the whole responsibility, and say that if they went to Somerset House they would find him registered as sole proprietor of she paper ? — did he nut state that he was prepared to encounter whatever penalty the law directed ?—and did he not add, that it was absurd to have a law without the power of causing its infriugement to be prevented? And what did Lord Jelin Russell do to assert the integrity of the orders and regulatious of the House? Lord John came flown to the Committee, and after communications with the Committee nod himself as to the course which ought to be pursued, proposed an express motion that the evidence which was received from day to day should be published. But, said Lord Howiek, " Was anybody at liberty to publish the evidence in whatever shape he pleased ? would the House sanction garbled statements and evidence given in such a way ?" He defied the noble lord to produce any por. tion of the evidence he had published that was not verbatim the evidence that was given before the Committee, and which, with the consent of the Commit- tee and the support of the Secretary for the Home Department, was allowed from day to day to be published.

Now he would show the hollowness of the pretexts on which Ministers objected to him— In the for trier part of the evening he had alluded to the eagerness with which they seized godsends, their everlasting floundering in mischief, and the rcadin ss with which they caught at straws which the current bore past them. With what eagerness did they seize on the ungenerous suggestion of the Member for Tantworth ! That right honourable baronet said that certainly he had his sentiments with respect to the publication of evidence, but it was nut his intention to oppose the motion upon that ground. Gli, nu! the right honour. able baronet said that his reason for supporting the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer was, "that he was a gentleman much given to indulge in sarcasms— that he was in the habit of coining forward and makieg contrasts between the poor and the rich—that he had ventured to say that all persons who received the public money ought to be open to inquiry, and that he would subject them to the same sort of test as the poor old widow lie was so fond of a:luding to— that he remembered very area that allusion, and the allusions of the honourable Wernher for Southwark to the bastardy clauses of the Poor-law Bill ; that lie drew distinctions between the unfortunate poor and the oil pring of the illegiti- mate connexions of some high persons; that such sarcastic remarks were hide- cent, and rendered the author of them unfit to be a member of the Committee." If dulness was to be the qualification that fitted honourable gentlemen fur Cotn- mittees, he congratulated the Treasury bench that they would have their hands full. (Loire/der.) Ile had now stated his grounds fur disbelieving Mr. Spring Rice's professions of anxiety to put Lint on the Committee. He togged to u.k the right honourable gentleman at hence it was, that, after receiving his reply, with respect to which he wished the Howe to come to the same concliv.ion as himself that it was isupos.,ilsie to read it without perceiving that the 0' iter in. tended to set the rules of the House at detiauce,—if that were so, whence was it, and did it not app,ar most extraordinary, that he did not make some conuou- nication to him iti:urmieg him that such was hie impsessiun? cutely he !night have expeckd to have heard from the right honourable gentleman somewhat in this forsts—" The tiiialus.dlcr of the Exchequer presents his coill,Iiirosts to Mr.

Harvey, auil hogs t s ackhowhmige the r,ceipt o: ; however, lie regrets to say tl.•.1 Le.IIS Ct._ .■ Can.

not consent to pl.:. •1 the Committee." Dal the right lissome gcutic. man porsite that ware? ; 1, -ervol his reply, and Mr. ilarv,y ::d

fr.lin nn the s1.1,1..et CI to-night; exeLpt. indeed, ii eons:. (mica' wash: to Liu, al. Ills, tile nature of uhich 1 !

to the How:. te t give Lis honourable friend's ••. . ;

was ro.t so 1,, pr::..cot. 'Am:mike !.edtiesicso susmc to L..: - I

am =lo ;0 to yOJ, that the Chancellor of tic .1 with your l..:. r, :: lIr too wiii Lc oil the Commit:sx; leti do r ,;:!•

prised if satia:, -dy. I.. r coar,ee■al with ti.e Guyer:merit, !asks) y, mew to pill:!1-h.tiv.: evidence or not. t,:o far as the Clianeellhr of tie Exchequer is concert:oh lie will raise no ebjection." If he was challenged as to the truth of that sta,ement, when the honour aide Member appeared in ill litais.1 he would brihg hint face to face ii:th the t ieht Isormiiralsits gentleman. 1111honourabie friend ingierot of him whether he weal! give that assurance ; and his answer

was " !"—for no eat thly consideration would Le coneeut to be placed in such is degraded position.

Air. Harvey alluded to the personal attacks systematically made on him— It would be in the recollection of this House, that, in tlic elicit which ha believed engendered this opposition, some four or five years back a resulution was passed which was aimed directly at him as a Member of this House con- earned in private business. Had they found him—could any man get up in his place and say—could any professional man, in or out of this House, say that they had found him, by any means, directly or indirectly, endea. routing to controvert or evade that resolution, which was a harsh and cruel resolution as regarded its effect on his private fortune? He bowed obe- dience to that resolution, as he would to any other deliberately passed by the House. Did he allow his interests as a private individual to govern him ?.— No; lie was superior to all those considerations. What lie esteemed as the rightful rules of Parliament, while he was a Member of that assembly he would observe ; and he would take care well to weigh the solidity of his opinions before he presumed in any case to disregard its rules. If he had been on this Committee—and he would nut swerve a syllable, he would not breathe a word, So induce any gentleman to suppose that he was in the least relenting with a wiew to conciliating one vote, or to calm a single apprehension—but Le would say that, if lie had been on this Committee—and his conduct would be the same on any Committee—be never would violate a rule of this House if in so do rig be found himself in a situation of individual opposition. lint many of his honourable friends on the former Committee, to whom so much reference had been made, thought that the evidence ought to be published ; and finding his views so supported, he stepped forward and did that which he considered It his duty to do, hazarding all the consequences. He shrunk not from encountering the difficulties which then presented themselves, his express purpose being that of vindicating what be considered the rights of the community. As to the appeal that was made to him, he would ask the honourable gentlemeo whom he had the honour of addressing, not to regard this as a personal guts. tion. What appertained to himself could be of no moment, and as a fleeting shadow the House should pass it over. But he did ask them to look at this question as it regarded themselves.

If the precedent now set up by Mr. Spring Rice were followed, Committees would not be composed of independent gentlemen, but of Ministerial slaves— Ifs had heard it asserted, and could fancy and believe it to be true, that some gentlemen on the Civil I.ist Committee received an intimation before they were put there—before they bail the honour of being placed on that Committee, which bad no power to send fur "papers, persons, or records," and with respect to which it was said the intention was that it should be a powerless Committee, one that could do no mischief—he repeated, be could fancy and believe it to be true that some honourable gentlemen, before they were placed on that Com- mittee, were asked, though they might conscientiously differ from the Minis- terial proposition, to say nothing about the Dutchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. He could fancy the Government addressing gentlemen their before they were placed on the Committee—" Your intentions may be honest, but they may be at variance with our views), and we wish to know what you intend to do ? " A more slavish principle it would be impossible to act upon. Surely no one who valued his reputation as a man of jndgment, or as a man of integrity, and who wished to stand well with the People of this country, would, for any considera- tion, allow himself to be employed in such a degrading service. The right honour. able gentleman in the chair claimed tier them at tile foot of the Throne at the commencement of every Parliament that they should have liberty of speech. It ap- peared now that they were not to have liberty of speech. It was said that the liber- ties of this country could not be overthrown but by the corruption of Parlia- ment ; an lie would say, that the liberty of speaking could not be narrowed but by their own narrow views. If, according to the right honourable baronet, because an honourable Member ventured on the utterance of a sarcasm, or in. dulged in any little playfulness of fancy, and thus enlivened the dulness which had of late so remarkably characterized their debates, he was to be marked down as a person unfit to serve on their Committees, they would soon be fit for nothing. else but Committees of which dulness was to be the principal qualifica- tion. He wished to say further, that of all things ha should like not to be on a Committee such as the present, as it would necessarily occupy a great deal of his time, and would put him to much inconvenience. But if the House thought that he could be of any service there—if it were believed that he pos- sessed any peculiar knowledge or information that could be advantageously brought to hear on this question—lie should place his time and Lis exertions at their disposal. He would ask the independent portion of the House -- and when lie said so, be considered he was addressing himself to the whole House—he would ask them by their vote this night to show that they were not participators in this slavish requisition of the Governineut. He would call on them to vindicate their independence, and not allow it to Ira sup. posed that in acting on Committees they consented to act entirely under the direction of the authority which composed them, or that the condition of their being placed on them was that they were to sit in fetters, not being at liberty to exercise their judgment as to the course they ought to pursue. In conclu• • aim], lie would say that he would not accede to the requisition of the Coen- cellur of the Exchequer for any advantage which it might be in the power of his official station to afford hint. He begged to remind the honourable gentle- mu, that a man might be poor in circumstances and yet rich in the feelings of personal itulethealenee ! ((leers.) Mr. SVIUNG RICE complained, that Mr. Harvey had completely mis- represented him : he bud not sought to fetter Mr. Harvey, or infringe upon his pria ileges as a Aleinher of Parliament. He had done the reverse of th s. He had never authorized any Member of the House, or anybody out of the House, to make tally proposition to Mr. Harvey. Ills conduct Lad been uniformly open ; and he denied tbut he was In any way c... with insincerity. Mr. Barmy denied that he bud poblithel e.;:thled reports; but he held in his Land a number of the Tree S■ut, wi!ervin it was expressly stated that its great length pre- cluded I he publication of the Poor-law evidence entire, but such por- tions of it should be trivet) as bore on the practical question of the ope- ration of thy law. Ile had one word to say to -Members opposite—

It :1110:t suit with their views, lying opposed to the present Committee. from thi. ,,t.: .t, to rem!er it as dista..teful to the public as possible, teal thereby • .e Ft:rim:4e of justice; but let them Laval e that, in .,ratifying ri, . • itt this la..t owe, they might I:e shstroying: puhlas rvii emu-

,it: i.s is has! row uo more to say. He bad ,i; r is flat course of which it had been his iot to engige It co;:i v...1:1 a for volicain he lint always entertaim,d the kite i.:st Lk Cr, al:a 1,•;.:ara ; but, whatever might he the enrolee which he v...:do 1: r • to suies.it to, whether t! e sarcasm uf the honourable g.a.tleniart himself, or C. it at hom.nrah:c i.,.oitIclucti on the opposite side vf the Douse, thee.11■;11Zi ..t) of w:iaLver might follow would rest with others, Out with him.

The Si.: then pint the e,tlestion, that the "Committee do cons's::

of tv.enty- :11.embers"—

.,‘ 122.

71 irity against Mr. Harvey The Ceinmittee, consisting of the Members previously Lamed by Mr. Rice, was as then appoint. d.

Pt:ovum:4 FOR THE DUTCIIESS OF KENT.

On Saturday, Mr. SPRING RICE desisted from pressing in Commit- tee the bill he had introduced to increase the annuity of the Dutchess of Kent, in consequence of two objections, strongly urged by Mr. GOULBURN and Sir EDWARD SUGDEN. The first was, that although the resolution of the Committee only authorized a grant of 8,0001. a year to the Dutchess of Kent, the bill founded on that resolution pro- vided that 30,000/. a year should be the sum paid to her. The second. objection WilF, that the two sums of 6,0001. each, granted for the edu- cation of the Princess Victoria, were only payable during the life of the Queen ; and that, in case of the Queen's death before herself, the Dutchess woald no longer receive those sums. The order for going into Committee on the Annuity Bill was discharged; and, in a fresh Committee of the whole House, 22,cool., in addition to the 8,0001. previously granted, was voted as a provision for the Dutchess.

On Monday, the resolution was "reported," and an instruction to the Committee on the bill to make provision, pursuant to the said reso- lution, agreed to. On Thursday, the House went into Committee on the bill. Co- lonel Surrtone moved to reduce the amount of the annuity from 30,0001. to 22,000/. Ile objected to the arrangement. It was a sort of compromise between certain parties—a sort of sugar-plum—a " scratch me and I'll scratch you." After a few words from Sir S. WHALLEY against, and from Mr. FiNcit in favour of the motion, the Committee divided : for the amendment, 19; against it, 67. The other clauses and the preamble were agreed to, and the Committee rose.

DISTRESS OF THE HAND-LOOM WEAVERS.

Mr. JOHN FIELDEN, on Thursday, moved a resolution stating the distressed condition of the hand-loom weavers; and pledging the House to take measures to increase their wages, to relieve them from unnecessary taxation, and to reduce the cost of the necessaries of life, now enhanced by unjust and heavy taxes. Mr. FLEETWOOD seconded the motion.

Mr. MARE PHILLIPS was happy to say that the distress of the hand- doom weavers was decreasing. He fully admitted, however, that it was still very great. He did not see how the House could establish a

minimum of wages. He should always be ready to advocate a reduc- tion of taxes on the necessaries of life, especially the tax on corn. He thought that the faulty banking system of the country had much to do with the commercial panic, which was a principal cause of the distress in the manufacturing districts.

Sir EARDLEY WILMOT said that something must be done to relieve the distress of the weavers.

Mr. HINDLEY said, that the weavers bore extreme distress with great patience. He feared that the operation of the Irish Poor-law would be to increase the competition with starving Irishmen, which the operatives now experienced to their injury. It was a shame to call upon the English weaver paying double the price for his bread, to compete with the lightly-taxed foreigner. Mr. P. HOWARD did not think that the repeal of the Corn-laws, which would throw much land out of cultivation, would benefit the operatives.

Mr. DARBY raid, it was impossible by reduction of taxation to re- lieve the hand-loom weavers, without at the same time withdrawing necessary protection from other classes.

Mr. POULETT Teostsoe denied that the distress of the band-loom weavers arose from foreign competition or machinery : it arose from the excess of their own numbers. A Commission had been appointed to inquire into the causes of their suffering, and to suggest means of relief. It was a subject to which the Government was by no means indifferent, and he would support any remedy the Commission recom. mended.

Mr. WARLF.Y said, that Mr. Poulett Thomson was one of Job's comforters. They might wait two or three years for the report of the Commissioners.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG recommended Mr. Fielden to withdraw his reso- lution, and not place the subject in a false position by forcing the House to divide in the absence of information which the Commis- sioners would collect.

Mr. HUME also wished the motion to be withdrawn. The distress was caused by low wages, heavy taxation, and the high price of provi- sions. Government had the remedy in their own hands—they might repeal the Corn-laws.

Colonel SIBTHORP reminded the House, that the agricultural interest paid the bulk of the taxes : this should be borne in mind when the .Corn-laws were talked of.

Mr. MATTHIAS' ATTWOOD would support the motion, as it re- cognized existing distress and promised a legislative remedy.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said, that Members seemed to forget that an in- quiry into the condition of the weavers was going on, and that Govern- ment was pledged to afford all practicable relief. As to forming a system of taxation which should not press upon the great bulk of the people, it was impossible.

The House divided—

For the motion 11 Against it Majority erd

UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.

A discussion arose in the House of Peers on Thursday, on the con- duct of the University of Oxford. The subject was introduced by Lord RADNOR; who animadverted on the treatment of Dr. Hampden by the University authorities, and on their neglect to revise their statutes according to the promise given on their behalf to Parliament. He enforced the necessity of Parliamentary interference; and moved for a copy of Dr. Hampdeles protests against certain proceedings of the Heads of Houses and other members of the University.

The Duke of WELLINGTON went into a general defence of the pro- ceedings at Oxford.

Lord BROUGHAM protested against a part of the Duke's speech, re- flecting on Dr. Hampden. Incidentally, lie took occasion to contradict an absurd story that he had suddenly quitted the Royal dinner-table in consequence of receiving some imaginary affront.

Lord Wiectursea thought that Dr. Hampden had been leniently treated by the University. It was the duty of the University authori- ties to take care that no person should be appointed to the chair of Divinity whose opinions did not accord with those of the University.

Lord MELBOURNE confessed that he knew little of theology, but lie knew more than those who opposed 1)r. Ilainpdetes nomination. From a perusal of Dr. Hampden's published works, he undertook to say that the Doctor's opinions were in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England. He would not admit that Oxford University was infallible. If the opinions of that University had alone been con- sulted, nothing liberal, noble, or ingenuous, would have been esta- blished in the country. With respect to the motion, he recommended Lord Radnor to withdraw it. If the production of the protest were refused, lie scarcely knew how the House could compel its production, except by the inconvenient course of treating the refusal as a breach of privilege.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY could not help considering Dr. Hampden's appointment as very injudicious, being in opposition to the wishes of the University.

Lord RADNOR withdrew his motion.

MISCELLANEOUS.

POSTAGE. In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lerd Bnovratast presented a petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen. and Common Council of London, in favour of Mr. Rowland Hill's plan of Postage Reform. Lord Brougham supported the petition, in a speech explana- tory of Mr. Hill's plan; taking advantage also of some curious state- ments in the last edition of Mr. Hill's Postage Beferna, to show the absurd nature of the opposition offered in former times by the Post- office authorities to improvements in their system. Lord DeNeasixosr said that a partial adoption of Mr. Hill's plan had been determined upon. The Earl of LICHFIELD said that Mr. Hill had made several . erroneous calculations respecting the number of letters likely to be posted in consequence of the proposed reduction of charge, and the use of the penny stamp. Lord RADNOR feared that, by the probable failure of the experiment about to be made, end which u-as not a trial of Mr. plan, the public would be prejudiced against that plan. The Duke of WELLINGTON approved of the cautious conduct of Government in this matter.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Wolverhampton, very numerously signed, and another from Glasgow, signed by the chairman of a meeting of 60,000 persons, in favour of Mr. Hill's scheme.

The three petitions were laid on the table.

THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS' DECLARATION BILL went through the Committee of the Lords, on Monday, after an unsuccessful attempt by Lord BROUGHAM to extend the relief it affords to Jews and per. sons of all religious opinions. Lord Brougham was supported by Lord HOLLAND and the Marquis of BUTE, but opposed by the Mar- quis of LANSDOWNE and the Bishop of LONDON.

ELECTION PETITIONS. Throughout the week, the House of Commons has been much occupied with desultory discussion on petitions from va- rious parties to enlarge the time for completing recognizances, and for per.. mission to amend faulty recognizances by inserting different names or sureties. On Monday, the House extended the time for the sureties en- tering into recognizances in the Dudley petition, by a vote of 123 to 68. On Tuesday, the Speaker informed the House that the petitioner in this case, Mr. William Mereweather Turner, had not yet com- pleted his own recognizances. It appeared that Mr. Turner had mistaken the nature of the permission granted him. He thought that he had leave himself, as well as the sureties, to take till the 26th of December to prepare his recognizances. The House agreed, by a vote of 81 to 43, and in opposition to the Speaker's opinion, to enlarge the • time. On the same day, the time for perfecting the recognizances in the case of the Sligo petition was en- larged, by vote of ;55 to 20; and the order for enlarging the time granted to the sureties in the Pontefract petition for completing their recognizances, which order had been made on the previous Friday, was

rescinded. This latter case received considerable attention. The petitioner, Mr. Gompertz was an unsuccessful candidate at the last elec- tion for Pontefract. He received only two votes—one from his agent, Mr. Mosse, who also proposed him ; Mr. Gompertz himself being at the time in the Queen's Bench, for a debt of 16,0001. It appeared that one of his sureties, Mr. Proctor, bad been described as a gentleman residing in the Regent's Park, instead of a bootmaker in the Strand; which was held to be his proper designation, though he bad a house in time Regent's Park. The main argument, however, used by the friends of the sitting Member against the petitioner, was, that the whole affair was got up for the purpose of annoyance, and that Mr. Gompertz never was a bond fide candidate. On Thursday, the time for the sureties entering into recognizances in the Limerick petition was enlarged ; and the order for the consideration of' the Portarlington petition was discharged.

The petitions against returns for the following places have been finally abandoned,—Wicklow County, Downpatrick, Portarlington, Frome, Preston, Beverley, and Pontefract. Many petitions have been dropped only because other petitions will be prosecuted against time same returns.

QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS. Mr. WARBURTON obtained leave, on Thursday, to introduce a bill to " amend the laws relating to the quali- cation of Members of Parliament." The object of the bill is to make the amount of qualification for counties and for towns the same, and the possession of the required amount of personal as well as landed property a legal qualification.