of Portland's case, of which he had fre-regulating the Civil List, that the revequently heard, that he thought was most nue of the Crown all went to the Consolidsatisfactorily explained; on the whole, how- ated Fund; and that Statute contained, ever, the right hon. Gentleman's speech in the strongest language, a declaramade for the inquiry rather than against tion that it was meant to preserve to the it, and in his own view, as a committee Crown its powers and privileges over its cost little or nothing, he thought one ought Lands only; their rents were to form a to be appointed to discharge all persons part of the royal provision. The Civil connected with the Woods and Forests from List Acts expressly recognised the princiblame, and to fix it where blame was ple, that on the death of the reigning justly due. A committee might also ascer- Monarch, the powers and privileges of tain that the present mode of applying the the Crown over its lands, and hereditary money received from this source was not revenue, were to remain the same as the most advantageous, and might recom- ever. Under the present management of mend an alteration in this respect. He the Revenue, splendid streets had been had no hostility to Ministers, he believed built, that would never otherwise have that they wished to economise the public been in existence, and it had been so resources, and thinking that a committee ably managed, that in a short time the might rather serve than thwart that object, hereditary revenue would be sufficient to he should give his vote for the Motion. maintain the dignity of Royalty. Mr. Ridley Colborne said, that he had Mr. Harvey said, in reply, that the last year asked a question about the passage hon. and learned Gentleman had supplied into the Park from Waterloo-place, and him with an argument in favour of a comabout a new opening into Kensington Gar-mittee, of which he was not before aware, dens; and he had received such an answer for the hon. and learned Gentleman had as satisfied him and his friends around raised a doubt whether the property were him that both openings would be made. not absolutely vested in the Crown. He Considering that they would be advanta- would not enter into that discussion, geous to the public, he hoped that the but it was time, if that were the case, resolution would be carried into effect. that the public should be disabused of the error of supposing that this revenue was as much under the control of Parliament as the Excise or the Customs. He was particularly surprised at what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, though he had been surprised at many things he had heard that night,— for that hon. and learned Gentleman had a few nights before expressed an opinion, that the revenue of the Crown-lands might be improved, and now he spoke of the maThe Solicitor General said, the honour-nagement of them as quite perfect. able Member had carefully enumerated There was one point on which he was cerhow much each part of the Crown property tainly in error. He spoke of the Crownwould fetch, whence it might be fairly inferred, that he meant to sell it. In fact, however, the Act of Anne did not confer upon Parliament the right of disposing of the Crown property, or of the Church-livings in the gift of the Crown, any more than it gave the power of revising private property, or the adowsons possessed by individuals. That Statute did not divest the Crown of the property; it said that the Land-revenue should go in aid of the honour and dignity of the Crown, and forbad the alienation of lands, or the granting leases beyond a certain period. It was not until the statute of George 3rd, The Solicitor-General contended, that the hon. member for Colchester had misunderstood the meaning of the statute of Queen Anne, which he seemed to think vested the whole property of the CrownJands in the public, and gave the Parliament a right to dispose of them, so that his object in moving for a committee was to obtain a recommendation to sell the Crown property. Mr. Harvey said, No. lands soon maintaining the dignity of Royalty; but the most valuable part of them, that in the neighbourhood of all the improvements to which he alluded, had within ten years been let on lease for ninety-nine years, and till the expiration of the leases, would yield nothing more than at present to the Crown. His only object in moving for the committee, and he did not care how it was attained, was, to make the Land Revenues of the Crown available to the service of the country. The right hon. member for Liverpool seemed to be in error in the construction he put on the Act of 1794, for it said vour. any therefore if the House performed its duty, it would grant the inquiry. The House divided; For the Motion 46; Against it 98; Majority 52. List of the Minority. Althorp, Lord Poyntz, W. S. Pusey, Phillip Sebright, Sir J. Townshend, Lord C. Whitmore, W. W. TELLERS. Harvey, D. W. PAIRED OFF. Burdett, Sir Francis Davenport, Edw. Ebrington, Lord Hobhouse, J. C. {MARCH 30} nothing about letting at a rack rent, with an abatement of five per cent to the tenant in possession. He found among those who had hired Crown property since 1794, the names of the Duke of Richmond, of the Marquis of Exeter, Lords Fife, Westmorland, Balcarras, Cholmondeley, and many others, which must satisfy the House that this property had not been let at very high rents, and that he had not spoken at random on that point. It was said, that since 1794 the sales of this property had always been public; but it was a mockery to call them public, for the reserved bidding which was always kept might be turned to the advantage of person the commissioners desired to faIt was certainly true, that he had applied for an estate on one occasion, and he had as good a right to do so, making his offer publicly, and purchasing in the open market, as those who bought large tracts of land in private for thousands of pounds under their value. There were no persons, out of forty-one tenants of the Rosedale estate, who would not have purchased their holdings, but the noble Lord said he would not divide it. Why not? when by that means it would sell to most advantage. He was ready to rest his Motion on one fact. It was said that this branch of the public Revenue was not to be subjected to the inquiries of the Finance Committee; but he was sure that no Gentleman who voted for that committee supposed for one moment that these revenues were to be excluded from its inquiries. If, then, those who voted for that committee thought these revenues were to fall under its notice, and if that committee had not continued long enough to go into the subject, he did not see how those Gentlemen who voted for that committee could now vote against his Mo-pointment of Constables, and to vest that tion. Ministers and hon. Members assumed, however, that they were individually attacked by such a Motion, and they made angry speeches, and fierce retorts, and replied in bitter invectives. The Administration was so extremely sensitive, that no inquiry or reform could be proposed which its armed phalanx did not immediately resist as an attack on individual honour. He, however, had made no attacks on individuals, and there was no necessity for that sort of vindication. All he wanted was inquiry; the country demanded inquiry; no man knew what the Crown-lands were worth, and Marjoribanks, S. IRISH CONSTABULARY.] Lord Francis Leveson Gower rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Acts relating to the appointment of Constables in Ireland. The noble Lord stated, that the principal provision of his Bill was to take away from the local Magistracy the ap appointment in the Government of Ireland. He meant by making that alteration to cast no imputation on the Irish Magistracy; but it was found necessary to take the first nomination of constables out of its hands, and place it in those of the executive Government. He should propose, therefore, that in future this appointment should vest in the Government, and he should also propose that a new class of officers, to be called sub-inspectors, should be appointed. The object of appointing those officers was, to ensure a more ready and efficient superintendence over the constabulary force than at pre sent, and as their duties would be both arduous and confidential, he proposed to give them one-half more pay than was given to the chief constables. He proposed also by the new regulations to provide for the more speedy assembling this force in any given spot which was sometimes necessary to check and overawe the tumultuary meetings of the peasantry while there was such a force, there could be no good reason why it should not be made as efficient as possible. He meant also to introduce into the Bill a clause to make a provision for those who might be disabled in the service, or whose conduct merited some particular reward. In many cases the police had half the fines levied in cases of violations of the law, and out of this sum the Government was sometimes able to reward certain services; but it was found that giving these rewards to the police officers made the peasantry look on them with ill will, and therefore it was desirable to reward them by some other means. These arrangements, however, would be met by reductions in the force, which would prevent it on the whole, from causing any additional expense to the country. The economy proposed would spare several thousand pounds, while the expense for the salaries of the sub-inspectors would not amount to more than 1,4007. He ought to observe that the new appointments were to be made only in those districts where they were necessary. He meant also to propose a clause to enable the Government to give a retired allow ance to persons whom it might be necessary to discharge in order to facilitate the reduction of useless hands. The Government was not pledged to keep up the establishment, yet it could not be denied that many of the officers looked on their situation as permanent, and it was to meet their views that he should propose that the Government might, on dismissing them, be enabled to give them one year's salary. The noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill. Mr. Spring Rice expressed some alarm at the proposition of his noble friend, and though he was thoroughly persuaded of his good intentions towards Ireland, he could not look without apprehensions at a measure that was to take away from the local magistracy, and place in the hands of the Government the appointment of between 4,000 and 5,000 persons, distri buted over every part of the country. The establishment cost upward of 200,000. annually, paid out of the public Exchequer, besides the local expenses, and he did not see why a greater part of that charge than at present should not be defrayed out of the local funds belonging to the places where the force was stationed. He knew that the expense was to be diminished because the tranquillity of Ireland was improved, but he thought, at the same time, that the expense should be wholly defrayed by local funds, and the appointments wholly placed in the hands of the local magistracy. He did not think it politic to say by Act of Parliament that the local magistracy of Ireland was not to be trusted. His noble friend disclaimed any intention of casting imputation on them, but such would be the effect of his measure, when leisure was afforded to discuss the subject, and he hoped that his noble friend would select a clear day for the discussion; he wished to give him notice that he should come prepared to shew that where the authority of the local magistrates was most complete the conduct of the police had been best, and that where the authority of Government had interfered, the abuses had been greatest. At that late hour, however, he would not enter into details; he would only say that he had a constitutional objection to the measure, and that he desired to see the expenditure not only reduced but also equalized. Mr. Jephson said, he was anxious that the constabulary force should be improved, but he regretted to see the disposition of the Government to deprive the magistracy of Ireland of its legitimate influence, nor did he think the substitution of the police constable for the magistrate, as the medium through which the Government was to obtain information of the state of the country, would be advantageous. He knew that the constable at Mallow was directed to send communications to the government without consulting the magistracy, and on one occasion he had made such a communication which might have been attended with injurious consequences. That town was one of the most quiet towns in Ireland, but the constable, taking all his information from a disappointed Orangeman, represented it as agitated by party spirit and in a disturbed state. If, therefore, the noble Lord meant to rely for information as to the state of Ireland on his constabulary agents, he would find that the government would be frequently deceived, for if the constables themselves did not share the feelings of the people, they were led astray by their representations. As he hoped that a full opportunity would be given to examine and discuss the Bill, he would not. then enter further into the subject, but only recommend the noble Lord to make the punishment of neglect of duty on the part of the constables somewhat more severe than a penalty of five pounds. Mr. Trant was so much opposed to the principle of the measure, that he was inclined to object in limine to its introduction. He saw in it a part of a settled scheme on the part of the Government to take into its own keeping, and under its own control, the police, not only of Ireland, but of England, and not only the police but every part of the constitution of the country. Inroads were every day making on that Constitution, and he gave the noble Lord notice that he would oppose the Bill in all its future stages. He hoped the Members would resist the permanent establishment of such an unconstitutional force. The people of Europe were generally struggling to get rid of the constraints of a police; and was that a time for the House of Commons to sanction the extension of so odious a principle and practice in the British empire. When the Bill came before the House at a more advanced stage he hoped that it would be suppressed, and nothing but that hope made him forbear, even on that occasion, from resisting the Motion by something more strong than a mere declaration of opinion. He warned the House that measures of that description would go far towards extinguishing the liberties of England. Mr. Robert Gordon expressed his satisfaction at hearing such sound constitutional doctrines from his hon. friend. He too looked on this Bill, and the bill relating to the importation of arms into Ireland, with considerable alarm. He thought there was in both the measures an indication that the Government was apprehensive for the continuance of tranquillity in Ireland. Unless the Bill were supported by some stronger reasons than had yet been urged in its favour, the noble Lord would certainly find it difficult to procure the assent of the House to it. In reference to the police of London, it was necessary to observe, that the expenses of it were wholly provided for by the different parishes; while in Ireland half the expense was paid out of the public purse. Notwithstanding what the noble Lord said of reductions, he was apprehensive that the Bill would entail additional expense on the country, which would certainly make him oppose it. Each parish in Ireland ought to pay its own officers, and he must protest against the local force of that country being paid out of the public purse. Mr. Chichester inquired, if the sub-inspectors were to be substituted for the payclerks; and if they were to give security for the performance of their duties? The Chancellor of the Exchequer deprecated further discussion at that late hour, but he was obliged to remark, that the appointment of sub-inspectors would cause no additional expense whatever, and therefore the objections on that score were groundless. As to the force being unconstitutional, he could only say that an objection of that nature was urged when it was first established; but whether unconstitutional or not, it had been productive of much good. His hon. friend would perhaps consider that well before he acted on his determination to oppose the Bill. Mr. Alexander Dawson was bound to express his conviction, that as long as the appointment of constables was left in the hands of magistrates, who had always servants to provide for, improper persons would be appointed. He approved therefore of the Government taking the responsibility on itself. Mr. George Dawson said, he was sure that the proposed alteration would be very beneficial to Ireland. The constabulary force was rendered in a measure inefficient by the present mode of appointing constables, which left the way open to party feelings and to much corruption. As to the expense, he was not prepared to say that it should not be wholly borne by the parishes of Ireland, in the same manner as the local police was supported by the parishes of England. At present he knew that no expense was more unpopular in Ireland than that of the constabulary force, but if the Grand Juries were invested with the power of controlling that expense, they would be less repugnant to increasing it. At present the law said, that there should be sixteen constables for each Barony, and this number, though in some places perhaps totally unnecessary, the Grand Jury had no power to reduce. He was surprised at the observations of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Trant) who last year, though now he objected even to the police, was for applying the Insurrection Act to the whole of Ireland; and was quite willing to place every man under martial law. Though the Government were not to have that hon. Member's support, he congratulated him on his altered tone; and on his readiness to adopt a milder and more constitutional government for Ireland than that of the Insurrection Act. would yield him a profit after the payment of the Tithe, but it might turn out that the gain would be but barely sufficient to pay the Tithe, and thus the clergyman would get the whole of the profit of the farmer's capital, and the farmer of course would have nothing. He did not understand these petitioners to pray for anything injurious to the Established Church of England; if they had prayed for any object of that description, he would have been the last man to advocate their views, although he might present their petition, if respectfully worded. Mr. Trant had never objected to the constabulary force, but to the Government taking the control of it from the local magistracy, and assuming it all into its own. hands. As to his opinions, they remained unchanged, and he opposed the present measure on the same grounds as he had opposed the measure of last year, looking on them both as tending to subvert the Constitution. Leave given to bring in the Bill. HOUSE OF LORDS, MINUTES.] Petitions Presented. By Lord DUNDAS, from the Duke of MONTROSE, from the Gorbals of Glasgow, praying for the Opening of the Trade to China: By Lord WHARNCLIFFR to the same effect, from Birstal, Holbeck, The Indemnity Bill, and the County Palatine of Durham TITHES.] Lord Suffield presented a Petition from the Hundred of Diss, in the county of Norfolk, praying for an alteration in the mode of the payment of the Clergy by Tithes. The whole of the Petition, his Lordship stated, was well worthy their Lordships' attention; but the petitioners stated in general that the present mode of paying the Clergy by Tithes was injurious to religion, and contrary to sound policy. It was injurious to religion on account of the irritation frequently occasioned by it between the incumbent and the parishioners; and it was contrary to sound policy, because it had a tendency to prevent improvement and the extension of agriculture, and so far to lessen the means of employment for the labourer. It was a cause of injustice also; for a farmer might be disposed to lay out some capital in the improvement of land, in the hope that it Ordered to lie on the Table. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MINUTES.] A New Writ was moved for a Burgess to serve in Parliament for the Borough of Dorchester, in the room of the Hon. A. W. ASHLEY COOPER, who had accepted the Office of Steward of East Hendred. Petitions Presented. By Mr. BURRELL, from Brighton respecting the Duties on Beer. By Lord FRANCIS OSBORNE, from the Merchants and other Inhabitants of Wisbeach, praying that the Severity of the Criminal Code might be mitigated. Accounts Presented. Annual Accounts from the Chamber of London. BILL.] The House resolved itself into a Committee. Counsel appeared at the Bar in support of the Bill, and several witnesses were examined to prove its allegations. After the examination had gone on for a considerable time Mr. Hume rose to move its adjournment. The Chairman, he said, ought to report progress, and ask leave to sit another day. He did not think any advantage would arise from continuing the examinations at that hour. Sir II. Hardinge objected to that course. This was the first divorce case ever so sifted by that House. Lord Ellenborough, however, would have no objection to the case being minutely investigated. Mr. R. Gordon supported Mr. Hume's Motion for an adjournment. The House really was too thin to proceed with the examinations at present. Sir H. Hardinge proposed, that Miss Steele's examination should be taken. That lady was a witness of undoubted respectability, and he should wish her evidence to be taken at that time. He had every desire that the case should be gone into most fully; for the more it was examined, the more, he was convinced, it would appear that Lord Ellenborough was |