tical utility. He would not detain the House by going into a discussion of a polemical question which might be suitable for another place; but it was a question into which it was not fit for him to enter there. He should only say, that he would meet the Motion with a decided negative.

Mr. Cobbett: The noble Lord said, the House hardly expected him to answer the speech of the hon. member for Brighton. No, nor did I either.

Mr. Harvey acknowledged, that he too was a Dissenter and a Non-Conformist; but, though he was prepared to support the abstract proposition made by the hon. Member, he could not agree to all its terms. The hon. Member had rather prejudiced the question, by directing his arguments to the abuses of the Church, instead of limiting himself to establishing the great principle of religious liberty, and the injustice of compelling Dissenters to support an Established Church; which, being at variance with all spiritual freedom, was a fair and open subject of investigation. The hon. Member had rather dwelt on the administration of the Church, than upheld the great principle of toleration. He could not say, that the Church was altogether opposed to practical utility, for that would imply that it had been of no utility at all times, to which he could not agree. He should like to have the principle of exonerating the Dissenters from paying to the Church brought under discussion; and he had hoped that the noble Lord would, at least, even on this occasion, have acknowledged the principle that the Dissenters ought not to pay to the Established Church. He subscribed to the latter part of the proposition, but not to the former; and he trusted the hon. Mover would withdraw the Motion, as to negative it might place the non-conformists in an improper light.

Sir Robert Inglis would express his utter dissent from all the words of the proposition of the hon. Mover. He would make only one observation on the system of sermon and speech of the hon. Member. The hon. Member admitted, that he was a Dissenter, and he attacked those who in that House could not appear to defend themselves. He attacked them on account of their temporalities, and he attacked them also on their spiritual practices and motives. The hon. Member was, he believed, not only a Dissenter, but a

Third

VOL. XVII. {Series}

licensed preacher among that body, or he had been; and it was hardly fair in him to attack the Ministers of the Church of England as to their motives and conduct, when they could not come into that House to defend themselves. He felt, that the House had expressed its opinion so decidedly, that it was unnecessary for him to trespass on its time.

Mr. Aglionby was friendly to the latter part of the proposition, but not to the first part of it, and had no other course but to oppose it.

Mr. O'Dwyer proposed an Amendment to this effect:-"That the Revenues of the Church of England have always been subject to legislative enactments, and they ought to be appropriated to their original institution.

Mr. Harvey objected to the Amendment, as implying something to which no Protestant Dissenter could agree. He could not allow those revenues to be appropriated as they were originally.

The Amendment withdrawn, and the original Motion negatived without a division. Some voices called out "the Ayes have it," after the Speaker had decided ; but

The Speaker said, they were too late, for not one "Aye" had been uttered when he put the question.

BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION.] Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the Trial of Petitions complaining of general Bribery and Corruption in Cities and Boroughs sending Members to Parliament. The noble Lord explained the objects of his Bill shortly, but the noise in the House prevented him from being heard in the Gallery,

Mr. O'Connell wished to know whether the parties were to be exposed to all the expense of the Grenville Act, as that would be a bar to justice in many places in England, and particularly in Ireland? Did the noble Lord mean to impose any oaths respecting bribery on the Members of that House?

Lord John Russell was understood to reply, that when petitions were frivolous and vexatious, the parties presenting them would be saddled with the costs; when they were otherwise, the expense would be defrayed in the same manner as the expense of other Parliamentary Committees. With respect to the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he H

never contemplated imposing upon the Members of that House such an oath as had been mentioned; it might be very well to require an elector to declare upon oath whether he had or bad not been bribed, because that was a matter of fact to which he could at once speak; but not so with a Member of Parliament, for at an election many acts might be done, of which he, probably, would be more or less cognizant, but they might not appear to his mind to amount to bribery; and, therefore, in calling upon a Member to take such an oath, it was requiring him to swear to a matter of opinion, and not of fact.

Leave given.

LIMERICK CITY ELECTION.] Mr. William Roche: Sir, the subject matter of the Motion which it becomes my duty to bring before the House, in obedience to

courtesy alike called upon me to apprize the then right hon. Secretary for Ireland of its object, and, in order to enable him to inquire into the matter and be prepared to defend the conduct of his Government. He did accordingly write over to Ireland, and obtained an answer from one of the gentlemen, Mr. Vokes (Chief Magistrate of police in the city of Limerick, and stated to be an agent in conveying the desire of Government on this occasion) denying that he, Mr. Vokes, used any such influence on the part of Government, or was at all authorized to use it. This reply the then right hon. Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Stanley) communicated to me, and I transmitted it to my constituents, the petitioners, on which they held a meeting and adopted the following ResolutionResolved, that the reply of Mr. Stanley to our respected Representative (Mr. William Roche) in reference to the com

freedom of election, contained in a petition from 146 electors of this city, is unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it contains 'but the denial of one of the parties im

as it does, the all important considerations of freedom of election, the rights and privileges of the people, and the dignity and character of this House, which must needs rise in the estimation and confidence of the people in proportion as it is felt to be the free emanation of their choice. The petition, Sir, which I hold in my hand, contains the complaint that forms the ground of my Motion, and charges the Irish Government with unduly interfering and exercising their influence during the last election for the city of Limerick against, not my return, but that of my hon. colleague Mr. David Roche, who is not now in his place, being at present in Limerick. But, Sir, as I have no wish to portray this complaint with the slightest shade of higher colouring than the allegations contained in the petition call upon one to do, I think my better way will be to read those charges from the petition itself; but before I do so, allow me to explain why it has not been earlier brought under the notice of this House. Sir, the petition has been in my hands for some weeks, and the delay of acting upon it arose from the following circumstances. Perceiving when I received it, that it contained such grave charges against the Irish Government, I conceived that justice and

،

which, as the petition alleges, can be sustained by irrefutable testimony. That therefore, we call upon both our Representatives to demand, with that uncompromising energy by which their parliaimentary career is already distinguished, that thorough investigation which the petition claims, and the future freedom of election requires.' Sir, this "Resolution" necessarily left me no alternative but to bring the matter before the House, and as the petitioners demanded only investigation, as the case is one of such general importance, and as the petitioners say they can substantiate the charge by irrefutable evidence; I conceive that their prayer ought to be granted. I have no personal feeling on the subject, and am acting solely in obedience to the duty I owe my constituents and the public in moving "That the petition be referred to a Select Committee, to consider the matter thereof, and to report their observations thereupon to the House."

Sir John Hobhouse contended, that the hon. Member opposite had laid no sufficient grounds for the appointment of a Committee, and he should certainly resist the Motion; for the appointment of such a Committee would amount to pronouncing a sentence of condemnation upon the

The

conduct of the Irish Government. hon. Member had said, that he made a sufficient case by merely presenting a petition from certain individuals, who were no doubt respectable; but that fact did not constitute evidence sufficient to substantiate all their statements. He did not say, that the hon. Member had acted improperly but he had not brought forward sufficient evidence to support his proposition.

Mr. O'Connell said, that the case for the Motion was, that Major Vokes had interfered most improperly with the Limerick election, and that Mr. Kenney had done the same. To that, he contended, the right hon. Baronet had given no

answer.

Mr. Stanley affirmed that the conduct of the Irish Government had been perfectly impartial during the whole of the election; and read two letters, one from Major Vokes, and the other from Mr. Kenney, in which both gentlemen denied the interference imputed to them. Motion negatived.

Mr.

DISTRIBUTION OF STAMPS.] Cobbett moved for a Return, stating the names of the Commissioners of Stamps, of the Solicitors of Stamps, of all under officers and clerks, and other persons in that department; stating the annual sum which each of the said persons receives as salary or pay; also stating the names of retired commissioners, solicitors, clerks and other persons in the said department, and the sums which each of the said retired persons receives annually. And also stating the names of all the distributors of stamps, county by county, in England Wales, and Scotland; and stating the salary or sum that each distributor annually receives for his services.

Lord Althorp said, that the number of names of persons, for a list of which, with the salaries attached to their offices, &c., the hon. Member now moved, amounted to no less than 525. He just stated that fact, to show the enormous trouble that would be occasioned in making out this return. He should like to know, therefore, from the hon. Member, what object he had in view in moving for such a return. As yet the hon. Member had mentioned no grounds for this Motion, to which he (Lord Althorp) should certainly object, unless good parliamentary grounds were established for complying with it.

Mr. Cobbett said, in the first place, with regard to the enormous trouble which the noble Lord asserted the taking out of this return would occasion, that he (Mr. Cobbett) had one clerk, and that he would most undoubtedly discharge him on Saturday night unless he would in the space of twenty-four hours make out such a list as that of those 525 persons, with the salaries attached to their offices. What he (Mr. Cobbett) wanted to ascertain by this return was, who the persons were who pocketed a quarter of a million of money out of the collection of the stamps. He had a motion for the 26th instant relative to the Stamp duties, upon which occasion he would prove clearly to the House that those who should not pay those taxes-namely, the poor of the country-did pay them; that the rich, who ought to pay them, did not pay them; and his object in moving for this return was to prove that the rich actually received them. If the noble Lord should refuse him this return, which he did not ask as a favour from him, he (Mr. Cobbett), when he brought forward his Motion, would be obliged to proceed upon presumption, as the facts were withheld from him.

Lord Althorp had never supposed that this return was asked as a favour. What he said was, that good parliamentary grounds should be laid for such a Motion, and he did not think that the hon. Member had stated such grounds. If the hon. Member had stated that there were more persons employed in those departments than there ought to be, or that improper persons were employed in them, such would be good grounds for granting the return; but he had not made any such statement.

Mr. O'Connell contended, that sufficient grounds had been stated for granting the Motion. The mere fact that a quarter of a million of money was spent upon this department was sufficient to induce the House to call for such a return.

Lord Althorp begged to correct the hon. and learned member for Dublin. So far from this department costing half a million, or a quarter of a million, the whole of the salaries of the persons employed in it amounted only to 140,3837. Motion negatived.

SAVINGS' BANKS.] Lord Althorp, pursuant to the notice which he had given last night, moved for leave to bring in