Mr. S. Wortley said, that if the hon. [ member thought there was any hostility or disaffection to this country on the part of the population of the Canadas, he was mistaken. There were differences, and there were causes for them; but there was no hostility to the mother country. Mr. Maberly protested against this vote. The cost of these works was generally double the estimate. Mr. Hume said, he had never stated, that there was hostility on the part of the Canadians to the mother country. They were hostile to the ministers; but they were loyal to the country, as their petitions testified. The resolution was agreed to. NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES BILL.] On the motion for the second reading of this bill, attention of the House directed. Allche wished was, that the bill before the House might be made to expire in May next, instead of being continued for four years. As Ireland was now about to be tran quillized, he did hope that the legislature would have time to give its attention to this colony, which would be attended with advantage to the mother country. Sir G. Murray said, he disclaimed any participation of feeling in the anti-social system which the hon. gentleman had charged the legislature with pursuing towards this island. The only object he should regard would be that which should be the basis of all colonial connections; namely, that of promoting its prosperity, as the natural interest of both parties. He had last lession stated his intention to bring in a bill similar to this, and he had then hoped that, by the return of the chief justice of the island, he should obtain such information as would enable him to bring forward an amended bill in the course of the session. But as the chief justice had not returned, he had applied to the governor and two assistant judges for their advice, and they had concurred in the necessity of continuing these acts for some time longer, that they might see, by their operation, what amendments ought to be made in them. He did not contend for the necessity of continuing them for three years; for if, before that period had elapsed, the possession of the information he required enabled him to bring forward better measures, he would not wait, but introduce them at once. Mr. Robinson recommended that the bill, which was proposed to continue in force until the year 1833, should expire in May next, when another bill connected with the administration of justice in the island would also expire. He proposed this course, as a committee of inquiry would then be able to judge, by the evidence to be examined, of the operation of the bills now in force; and the legislature would thereby be more capable of determining the course proper to be pursued. The laws formerly in force relative to this colony treated it as a non-resident fishery. The effect was, that it made the situation of the settlers as uncomfortable as possible; but as more lenient laws were now in action, the island had become more Mr. Hume pressed the expediency of settled; although, he was sorry to say, an adoption of his hon. friend's proposithe convenience of the inhabitants had tion, to pledge the House to refer the not yet received that consideration which subject to a committee next year. That the importance of the colony required. would be the only way of arriving at the Previous to 1824, the system of legisla- truth. He knew it from experience. He ture, as applied to that island, was dis-had been for five or six years urging an graceful to this country; but the government had now altered those laws, and had shown a stronger disposition to assist the wants and wishes of the settlers. The colony had been much neglected by this country; but it was, in his opinion, one of our finest settlements in North America, and of far more importance than many of those colonies which were much more frequently heard of in that House. The court of justice established at Labrador he considered unnecessary, and the propriety of its continuance was one of the subjects to which he wished to see the inquiry into the condition of affairs in Canada, and had been continually told that he was incorrect in his statements. As soon, however, as a committee on the subject was appointed, the whole of the facts came out. The bill was then read a second time.. SWAN RIVER SETTLEMENT BILL.] On the motion for the second reading of this bill, Mr Hume objected to vest the powers granted by the bill in the hands of a single individual. He would not trust arbitrary authority in the hands of any human being. It had been well said by Mr. Wilberforce, that any man who found himself in possession of such authority ought to distrust himself, and to request to be deprived of it. Let there be an auxiliary council, composed of two or three respectable individuals, nominated by the government at home. Sir G. Murray observed, that it was not specified in the bill, that the powers int question should be vested in an individual. The words were "person or persons resident." Mr. Hume pressed his objection to the powers being vested in any one person. He had no objection to a plurality of persons. He hoped, that in the committee the right hon. baronet would agree to that alteration. Sir G. Murray said, that although the bill empowered his majesty to vest certain powers in the hands of an individual, it did not follow that those powers should be of an arbitrary character. He never wished to see any one possessed of arbitrary authority. Mr. Horace Twiss added, that there was this further guard against the exercise of arbitrary authority-that, in the latter part of the bill it was provided, that all orders on the subject should be laid before parliament. The bill was then read a second time. GAME BILL.] Mr. Stewart Wortley moved the order of the day for the recommittal of this bill, Mr. Leycester said, he was of opinion, that if the object of the bill was to prevent poaching, in that object it would fail. The saleableness of game would not prevent poaching. It would not diminish the demand for game. On the contrary, it would increase it; for many persons who had hitherto scrupled to purchase game, it being illegal to do so, would, in the event of the passing of the bill, feel no difficulty on the subject. Nor would the saleableness of game drive the poacher out of the market. It would be impossible to undersell him, because he obtained his goods for nothing. Being able to sell more openly, the poacher would sell more frequently, and would be more eager to sell; "crescit amor nummi." It had been said, that the bill would clothe game with something of the character of property. What was that to the poacher? Would he trouble his head to read acts of parliament? He read the book of nature. In that book he saw that the hand of nature made game wild, and "unclaimed of any;" and he would act accordingly. The bill did nothing; nay, it did worse than nothing, for, it pretended to do something, and thus diverted the attention of the legislature from considering some effective measure. There was no other way of diminishing poaching, but by regulating the preserves, and diminishing the temptation. Accumulated and exposed as pheasants now were, it was to be expected that they would be attacked by the spirited and hardy class of men abounding in the lower orders. A suggestion had been made some time ago, that one desirable plan would be, to put the pheasants upon short commons, and to diminish the quantity of artificial food grown for them; that barley and peas should not, as now, be grown expressly for the pheasants. He was aware that that suggestion might be open to some objection, but he was not aware that it could be justly considered as liable, until he found that it was so. For his own part, he was much afraid that the incorrigible poachers would turn this bill to their own benefit, and that they would drive, if not a mail coach, at least, a game cart through it. Mr. Lockhart agreed that this was not a good bill, and that its only merit was, that it was an attempt to suppress poaching. Still he thought it would be worth while to try the experiment. It would enable other persons to meet the poacher in the market, and although they could not expect to undersell him, many persons would buy from the regular dealer, who would not buy from the poacher. He allowed that the gentlemen of the country had, of late years, greatly increased the number of poachers, by accumulating pheasants in preserves, and by sporting in a manner never thought of in former times. If, instead of reserving their means of sport for a particular period, they were always hunting and shooting in their covers, the quantity of game would be so reduced and so [scattered, that it would not be worth the while of the poachers to expose themselves to risk for such scanty and uncertain profit. There were several great deficiencies in the measure. In the first place, the hon. gentleman forgot that the poacher might, under it, take game to market either before or after the lawful season for killing-either in August or in February. It ought to be provided in the bill, that any man convicted of buying or selling game at an unlawful season should pay a penalty: and that whoever was found killing game at an unlawful season should be compelled to procure security for his good conduct for a year. As to qualifications, the bill adverted only to rank, whereas Mr. S. Wortley suggested to the hon. member the expediency of deferring any remarks on the details of the bill until it should be in the committee. Mr. Lockhart acquiescing in this suggestion, the motion for re-committing the bill was agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee. Various amendments, obviating the objections which had been made to the bill, were introduced into the different clauses by Mr. S. Wortley. The bill then passed through a committee, and the report was ordered to be taken into further consideration on Friday. HOUSE OF LORDS. Tuesday, April 7. MILITIA STAFF REDUCTION BILL.] The Duke of Wellington moved the third reading of this bill. Lord Oriel objected to the bill for the reason that no parliamentary ground had been laid for it. It was a very hard measure to dismiss so many persons, without any provision being made for them on retirement. Lord Farnham concurred with the noble lord. At one time the militia had been reckoned the great constitutional force of the empire; and he hoped the time would come when it would be again so considered. His objection was, that many persons who had served long, and in the hope that their militia appointments would be permanent, were to be dismissed without any compensation or provision. Some officers, such as quarter-master, surgeon, and pay-master, might be well spared; but many of the officers who had enjoyed these militia appointments were officers of the line, who had retired on half-pay, expecting that the militia appointments would be permanent; and they ought, at least, to be put on the same kind of footing as officers of the same standing retiring from the civil service, who were generally allowed about one-third of their pay. It was extremely hard to leave these officers destitute of any provision; and he hoped the government would take the matter into consideration. The Duke of Wellington observed, that it obviously was not necessary to keep up the militia staff on the same footing as in time of war. The object of government was, to reduce the establishment as low as they possibly could, consistently with the exigences of the public service, in order to keep down the expenditure of the country. A provision was made for those officers who had been introduced into the militia when on its full establishment in time of war; but it could not be expected that a retiring provision should be made for those who were introduced afterwards. To make provisions for the officers of the militia on that principle was what the government and parliament were not bound to do, and which, under actual circumstances, they would hardly be justified in doing, more particularly as the regula tions intimated that no such provision was to be made. Even in the case of the regular service, many were dismissed on the reduction of the military establishment, without any provision or compensation, unless when the period of service had been long; and it was hardly reasonable that officers of the militia who had been a short time in the service, and had had but very little duty to perform, should fare better than officers of the regular service. The Marquis of Lansdowne agreed, that it was but just and reasonable to make some provision for those who had claims on the ground of length of service; but it was not reasonable, and could hardly be expected by the parties themselves, that a retiring provision should be made for those who had no such claims. The bill was read a third time. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMSPETITIONS FOR AND AGAINST.] The Earl of Carlisle presented a petition, which was most respectably signed by the numerous inhabitants of Carlisle, in favour of the Catholic Claims. He must beg leave to observe, that this petition would never have been prepared, had it not been for the attempts made to get up a petition of quite a different tenor, in the same neighbourhood. He understood from good authority, that this petition was signed principally by householders, and that none were permitted to subscribe it who were not perfectly conversant with the purport of the prayer which they were called upon to promote. Lord Farnham presented several petitions against the Catholic Claims; one of them was, he said, rather of a particular kind, and the first he believed, which had been presented to their lordships; it was from nine hundred and eighty females of the congregation of Wesleyan Methodists in London (a laugh]. He saw no reason why females should not lay their grievances before the House; and these petitioners felt they would be aggrieved, if Roman Catholics were to obtain political power. The Earl of Eldon presented upwards of forty petitions from various parts of England and Scotland, against the Catholic Claims, and wished to take that opportunity of stating, that many of these petitions had reference to the bill of disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders of Ireland, which their lordships had read a second time last night, when he was compelled to be absent in consequence of ill-health, or of those strong indications of pain which are the prelude of indisposition. Had he been present, he should have been anxious to have so far touched upon the merits of that bill, as to have said, that though he did not deny the competency of parliament to pass such a measure, yet he should have called for some case to be established to justify its enactment. Indeed, he might have been disposed to have said no more than this-that looking at it as a sort of hush-money, to pass the Catholic bill, he felt bound to refuse it his approbation.He had also to present a petition against the Catholic Claims from the lord provost and several thousand of the inhabitants of the city of Edinburgh. He understood that in that city there had of late been a great controversy upon this question, and that although a great difference of opinion prevailed, these petitioners, composed of all classes of the citizens, were very respectable: eighteen thousand nine hundred had signed the present petition; many of them were professors of the learned bodies of Edinburgh; some of them respectable advocates, whom he had had the honour of often seeing at their lordships' bar, and could therefore speak to their station and talents. No man could have a higher opinion than he had of the various and eminent acquirements of the bar of Scotland. This admission he readily made, without entering into any contrast of the opinions of the members of it upon any particular question, or going into any comparison between them and the members of the English bar. The Earl of Haddington said, that after the high manner in which the noble earl had spoken of the bar of Scotland, it did not become him to say one word about that body, after it had received the eulogium of a person at once so eminently qualified to pronounce an opinion thereupon. He would, however, take that opportunity of stating, as some allusion had been made to the opinions of the clergy of the church of Scotland, that there had been lately a meeting of the Presbytery at Edinburgh, which constituted the most important ecclesiastical jurisdiction of that church in Scotland. It was convened to consider of a petition against the Catholic Claims, by Dr. Lee, a reverend gentleman of high celebrity, of great personal cha racter and talents, and who opened the subject in an able and moderate speech which did him credit; and he was glad to bear this testimony to the respectability of a gentleman with whom he was acquainted. The Presbytery fully discussed the proposition, and decided, after a long debate, by twenty to eleven, that the petition ought to be rejected. In the minority were four of the clergy of Scotland, and in the majority thirteen. Such a decision would be productive of great effect in Scotland, where attempts had been made to delude the people into a belief that the Roman Catholic Relief bill was aimed at the Protestant establishment, which they were taught to believe would be soon upset by popery. The Earl of Fife said, he had to present a petition from the Roman Catholics of Kirkmichael, in Scotland, for relief from their present penal disabilities, and for putting them upon the same footing as other communities professing the Christian religion. He rejoiced at the arrival of the time when more liberal opinions pervaded the public mind upon these subjects, and when persons, on account of their religious belief, were not to be exposed to such cruel treatment as had been so well described by a noble and learned lord (Plunkett) who was so competent a witness of the present state of affairs in Ireland. He could, from his own knowledge, speak of the loyalty and good feeling of the Catholics of Scotland, than whom there were not in the king's dominions more dutiful subjects. The Earl of Eldon said, he had already presented eight hundred and seven or eight hundred and eight petitions against the Roman Catholic Claims; and their lordships might therefore give him credit for stating, that he was not particularly anxious to present any more. He wished, however, to say, that he had received several petitions from Scotland, which he could not present because there was no name on the first sheet. The petitions which he was unable to present in consequence of this informality were so numerous, that he found it impossible to communicate with the parties who had sent them. He therefore took that opportunity of stating the reasons which prevented him from presenting those petitions and hoped that the parties who had entrusted these petitions to his care, would accept his apology for not doing so. He had also to state, that he had received a petition from three persons, calling themselves the "friends of civil and religious liberty." The petition was said to have been agreed to at a meeting held at a certain mechanics' institute, and one of the persons whose name was signed to the petition was Henry Hunt. He only mentioned the circumstance for the purpose of letting the persons who sent the petition know, that he did not intend to present it. ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.] The Duke of Wellington having moved the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill, Lord De Dunstanville rose to address the House. He began by saying, that he had voted with the majority of their lordships in favour of this bill on a former evening, because he thought that whilst it admitted the Roman Catholics within the pale of the constitution, it tended to strengthen the Protestant interest and the Protestant church, more than any other measure which could be devised. He knew many of their lordships had frightened their wives and daughters, and who, he believed, had also frightened themselves, with their foolish notions about the power of the pope and of popery; but he thought that if they turned over the pages of history a little more carefully than they hitherto had done, they would see that their fears were without foundation. Their lordships ought to recollect, that, even in the early ages, the popes were often shut up within their own castles, by the very princes against whom they had issued their bulls of excommunication. They were driven out of Italy by the people of that country, and were compelled to retire to Avignon, where they remained for nearly three hundred y years! During that period the Italians refused to pay the slightest attention to the bulls of the church. Undoubtedly the power of the pope was at that time supported by a set of ultra-Montanes, who were not very unlike the ultra-Protestants of the present day, but there were still a large portion of the people of Italy, who refused to accede to his extravagant pretensions. It was not surprising that the popes should have put forth such extravagant pretensions; for in those days, every person in authority, from the monarch who wielded the sceptre down to the constable who wielded the staff, claimed more power than legitimately belonged to his office. Their lordships ought also to recollect, that at the begin ning of the Reformation the pope was besieged in his own capital by a Catholic prince; and that after he had been taken prisoner, that Catholic prince ordered prayers to be put up for the pope's delivery in every church within his dominions. He would now come to more modern times; and here he would remind their lordships, that the most bigotted monarchs in Spain and Portugal had made prisoners of every Jesuit in their dominions, and had sent them into perpetual exile, notwithstanding the eco clesiastical character with which they were invested. In still more recent times, the emperor Joseph had made considerable reforms in the ecclesiastical institutions of his country, notwithstanding the resist ance which the pope made to some of them, and the anxiety which he displayed to avert them all. Had their lordships forgotten the ease with which Buonaparte had made a capture of the pope, not per mitting him to leave his captivity, except to assist in the fête of his coronation? So why noble lords should fear the pope so much, he could on no account discover. He considered it to be a foul libel on the church of England to say, that if this bill should pass into a law, it would be impos sible any longer to maintain the establish ed church. He reminded their lordships, |