General Gascoyne declared that the Irish vagrants were a grievous tax upon the people of Liverpool. One-half, or nearly two-thirds of the taxes raised in that town for the poor, were directly or indirectly consumed on account of the Irish vagrants. He thought an act ought to be passed declaring that every person who brought over an Irishman here, and did not give security that he should not become a burthen to any parish, should be liable either to pay a penalty, or to have him sent back to Ireland. He was quite sure that England would gladly take back all her paupers, from both Ireland and Scotland, if those two countries would undertake to receive their own from this country. He hoped the noble Lord would lose no time in bringing forward his promised measure.

Mr. Slaney thought, that all the schemes for preventing the emigration of the vagrants of one of the three countries into either of the other two would be found useless, so long as the condition of the labouring classes in either of the three was superior to that of the same men in the other. The only mode of preventing the emigration of Irish vagrants here was to raise the condition of the peasantry of that country, and to place them as nearly as possible on a level with the peasantry of England.

Mr. O'Connell denied, that the poor of Ireland were any worse off than those of England. At least, they were not subject to the tyranny of parish overseers and select vestries.

Sir C. Burrell contended, that select vestries, which in London were considered such evils, in the country produced great advantage. They exercised no tyranny over the poor, but promoted their happiness.

Mr. G. Dawson contended, in opposition to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Liverpool, that that town derived the highest benefit from its contiguity to Ireland, instead of sustaining any injury, and that the Irish labourers paid in the sweat of their brows for whatever they obtained in this country. Very few cases could, he believed, be found, of an Irishman being a willing pauper. He

Mr. Benett argued that the evil arose out of a difference of laws relating to the poor prevailing in England and Ireland. The sure remedy was, to establish the same Poor-laws in both. The existing tithesystem in Ireland prevented the outlay of capital upon the land there, and the extension of cultivation. If some equitable means could be found out for commuting the tithes there, it would give, he believed, a great stimulus to the demand for labour in the country, and both keep the peasantry at home, and improve their condition.

Mr. Protheroe concurred with the hon. Member for Wiltshire, and said, he was sure that the evil must speedily be remedied some way or other.

Sir Robert Inglis stated, that the expense of removing every pauper was as great as if he were sent by the mail, and the expense fell on counties lying betwixt Liverpool and London, which derived little or no benefit from the labour of Irish labourers.

Petition read.

WELSH JUDICATURE.] Mr. R. Trevor, after observing that he wished the Judges of Wales to be placed upon the same footing as those of England, and that he for one could not consent to the dividing and mixing up of counties for the sake of making assize districts, presented a Petition from the freeholders of the County of Carmarthen against the Bill for the alteration of the Welsh Judicature. The hon. Member added, that he in a great degree concurred in the prayer of the petition. There might be some improvements in the present system, but he could not agree to its total abolition. Some Gentlemen spoke of the Welsh law as a foreign code; it was, in fact, the old English law differently, and in some respects better, administered.

Petition laid upon the Table.

Sir J. Owen presented a Petition with the same prayer, from between 1,800 and 1,900 freeholders of the County of Pembroke. He concurred heartily in the prayer of the petition.

Mr. Jones presented a similar Petition from the Sheriff, Magistrates, &c. of the Borough of Carmarthen. The hon. Member trusted that no attempt would

be made, as had been threatened, to hurry the Bill through the House before Easter. He looked on the proposed plan as an untried experiment, of which the good was doubtful, and before it was carried into execution he wished that the Bill should be printed, and circulated in Wales at least a twelvemonth. The Welsh had not complained of the present system, and when they did it would be time enough to alter it. He did not charge it against any member of the Government; but it had been said, that whether the Welsh liked the measure or not, they should be forced to swallow it. From that he claimed the protection of the House, and complained that the nature of the Bill had been kept as secret from those it was to affect, as if it were a state mystery.

Sir C. Cole said, that the borough of Glamorgan was in favour of the Bill before the House.

Mr. Peel denied that any mystery had been kept up regarding the Bill, which had originated in the recommendation of a commission, after due inquiry. It had been submitted to Parliament last year, and he had himself seen sixteen or eighteen gentlemen connected with the Principality on the subject, so that there was no pretence for saying that the matter had been kept secret. He, however, concurred in the objection that had been raised respecting the division of counties, and full time, he said should be allowed, to enable the people of Wales to give an opinion upon the whole measure.

Mr. Jones reiterated his objection to the alteration of the system, excepting as far as regarded placing the Welsh Judges upon the same footing as those of England. Mr. Peel was ready to enter into this compact, that all due time for consideration should be allowed, provided the hon. Member and his friends would not throw needless impediments in the way, so as to prevent the passing of the Bill in the present Session.

Mr. Jones consented to these terms, and laid upon the Table two other Petitions, with the same prayer as that he before presented, one from the Burgesses and Commonalty of Carmarthen, and the other from Kidwelly.

Colonel Powell presented a similar Petition from the freeholders of the County of Cardigan.

JUDGE JEBB.] Mr. O'Connell, after referring to a charge given to the Grand Jury by one of the Irish Judges, which was in opposition to the tenor of a Proclamation issued by the Government, moved that there be laid before the House a Memorial addressed to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, on the subject of certain prosecutions for murder to be tried at the next Assizes for the county of Fermanagh."

66

Lord F. L. Gower objected to the production of such documents, unless some ground of suspicion were previously laid : to grant it, would imply a want of impartiality in the executive government of Ireland, and the precedent would be liable to inconvenience and abuse. He heard with considerable regret anything like an insinuation against a member of the Bench of Ireland-Judge Jebb; and he felt bound to state, that were his own life in jeopardy on any charge, he should think he could not intrust it to any Judge more safely than to that distinguished individual.

Mr. Peel thought it would be dangerous to set a precedent like that now attempted to be established. It appeared that a judge of one of the superior Courts of Ireland differed in opinion from the executive government on the subject of a certain proclamation. tended to control the executive government when it attempted unduly to interfere with the liberty of the subject. He protested against the production of the memorial.

Judges were in

Mr. O'Connell did not intend, in the most remote degree, to charge the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with partiality: any man who did so would be guilty of a high crime, inasmuch as he would do gross injustice to that noble personage. The parties accused felt their lives at stake, as a judge who had expressed such a hostile opinion was about to try them. He thought that the better mode would be for the parties interested to present a petition.

Mr. Peel added, that he did not mean to impute the slightest partiality to the executive government of Ireland, and he was himself a party to the proclamation. from which Judge Jebb had dissented.

Mr. O'Connell withdrew his Motion.

EAST INDIA CHARTER.] Mr. Littleton, in presenting a Petition from the Proprietors of various Iron Mines in the Coun

ties of Stafford and Worcester, against the Monopoly enjoyed by the East-India Company, complained in strong terms of the privations to which the operatives in that trade were exposed, and adverted shortly to communications which he had some time ago had with the President of the Board of Trade. The parties to the present petition had then remonstrated against admitting foreign corn and steel into this country. Their remonstrance had been effectual, and they had now become sensible of the justice of the views they there opposed.

Mr. Huskisson remembered the application made by the hon. Member at the Board of Trade, and he also remembered telling him, and those by whom he was accompanied, that the hardware trade of this country would be most materially improved and benefitted by the introduction into this country of the lighter productions of other countries; and he had no doubt that that effect would be produced were the cause allowed to come into full operation. He was formerly of opinion that allowing the raw material to be brought into this country, would be a benefit; our manufacturers would be able to make their articles cheaper, and foreigners have something to exchange for them. He was glad to find that the people were beginning to be sensible of the advantages of the liberal policy he had recommended; and had that not been followed, he believed that our present difficulties would have been much greater. He would not then enter further into the subject, but he could not permit that opportunity to pass of acknowledging the honourable and candid manner in which the gentlemen who attended on that occasion, and formerly opposed him, now admitted that the measures then in progress for removing the restriction on foreign trade have turned out for the good of the country; and that the originators of those measures intended them to be productive of good.

Mr. Robinson thought the right hon. Gentleman drew a hasty conclusion when h inferred, because these petitioners were not suffering, that his measures must have been beneficial to the whole country.

Mr. Littleton said, the petitioners were suffering much; that no one engaged in the Iron Trade in England, Wales, or Scotland, was free from very severe privations.

The Petition was brought up and ordered to be printed.

SUPPLY.] Mr. Fysche Palmer then rose; Sir Henry Hardinge said, he hoped the hon. Member would allow the Report of the Committee of Supply to be brought up.

Mr. Fysche Palmer had no objection, on the understanding that he should be allowed to move afterwards.

On the question that the Report of the Committee of Supply be brought up,

Mr. Robert Gordon said, that in bringing forward the Resolution with which he intended to conclude, he meant to convey no imputation whatever upon the great and illustrious men who had served their country, either in the Army or the Navy; all he wished was, to establish a principle, he hoped a correct principle, upon which the half-pay of military officers might in future be regulated. It had been customary to introduce into the Appropriation Act a clause regulating the half-pay and allowances of the military. Early in the reign of the late King, it was made a rule that no officer on half-pay should hold a civil office without giving up his half-pay or retired allowance. This practice was continued from the year 1761 to the year 1820, when it was, for the first time, departed from, and by a new regulation, officers on half-pay were allowed to retain their civil employments, if any they had, and their half-pay at the same time. The Finance Committee recommended a recurrence to the ancient usage, and from that time to this, the regulation he spoke of remained on the old footing. Thus the House would see that the deviation from the ancient practice was to be found in the change of 1820, and the recommendation of the Committee went to a restoration of the old practice. He thought, that when the House came to look at the facts, it would agree with him, that the same regulations ought to apply to full as to half pay, and that neither should be retained by the holder of a civil office. He did not object to a military man holding a civil office; but when he did hold a civil employment he ought not to enjoy a greater benefit than a civilian holding a similar situation. Why should he possess greater benefits than the civil servants of the state? For example, if any person holding a Parliamentary pension obtain a civil employment, the practice up to this time has been, that he

make his election between the one and the other. If he accepted the one, the other immediately abated. A military officer, however, on full pay, accepting a civil situation, did not relinquish thereupon the full pay, but the holder of half-pay lost it instantly. In that there was anything but fairness. There was a remarkable case then before them, the Secretary at War enjoyed no half-pay for his military service, but his right hon. friend beside him enjoyed his full pay, though he held along with that full pay the situation of Secretary to the Colonies. The Secretary-at-War, then, and the Secretary to the Colonies, though both of them officers of distinguished merit, stood in situations altogether different. He was aware he might be told that the regiments which colonels held were their own property, and that they ought not to be deprived of those on account of any civil office which they might subsequently take. To that he had to say, that he did not propose to take away from those colonels the regiments they might hold, but merely suspend the military emoluments which they held while the civil emoluments were accruing. Here he might, in passing, observe, that the mode of paying colonels of regiments at present in use was one of which he entirely disapproved. In the report of Mr. Abbot on the Army Estimates this practice was judiciously mentioned, and he conceived very properly condemned. It might also be objected to the view which he was taking of this question, that those who were on half and those who were on full pay, did not stand upon the same footing, and ought not to be treated alike; but he thought the rule as to civil offices ought to be precisely the same. He believed that there were some instances, even where half-pay did not stand in the way of holding civil offices; thus a Navy Lord might hold his half-pay as an Admiral, and his full pay as a General of Marines, and his situation at the Board besides. He found it utterly impossible to discover any reason why full pay should not stand exactly on the same footing as the halfpay. It might be, that he thought the present regulations somewhat too strict; but whatever might be thought of them, there could be no doubt that fair play demanded that no difference should be made between one class of retired military offi cers and another. He hoped he had been in nowise discourteous in his remarks, and

he begged particularly to guard himself against being thought to convey the slightest offence towards any of the gallant officers in that House, or in the service. Most of all, he was desirous of guarding himself against being supposed to mean aught disrespectful to an illustrious General, who held his military and civil incomes without the one being at all allowed to interfere with the other. He should be the last in the world to endeavour to deprive those illustrious and gallant individuals of the reward of their services; they had the highest claims upon the justice and upon the liberality of their country. With respect to a great number of those now upon the half-pay list, he must be allowed to say, that nothing could be more melancholy than the condition in which they were placed. They were, for the most part, men of birth and education, who had served their country for years; some of them had lost their limbs and their health in that service, or had spent their property in endeavouring to attain that rank in the army which they had attained, and which left them now without the means of maintaining their station in society. Struggling against difficulties such as these, they still could have no just ground of complaint if the small amount of their stipend arose from the real necessities of the country; but when they saw other military men, not more deserving than themselves, in possession of civil offices and full pay, with such things before their eyes, it would be no matter of surprise that they should be discontented. Fair and equal justice ought to be granted them, and in the distribution of emoluments no difference should be made between the weak and the powerful. He hoped, too, that in meeting his Resolution, no nice distinctions would be set up between officers holding elevated rank, or subordinate rank. He then moved as an Amendment to the Motion for receiving the Report of the Committee of Supply, the following Resolution:-"That it is the opinion of this House, that, as certain regulations are in force by which Half-pay officers of the Navy, Army, Ordnance, or Marines, are prevented from receiving the whole or part of their Half-pay during the period they may enjoy the emoluments of any Civil office, it is expedient and just that the same regulations shall extend to all Officers of the Army, Navy, Ordnance, or Marines, in the receipt of Full pay or of