The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-24 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,

CLERKEN WELL.
Gearye Colesbrook, a journeyman baker, was placed at
the bar before Mr. Combe, charged with having assaulted
several officers of the G division.
The prisoner exhibited a severe wound on his head,
and was otherwise most dreadfully injured.
MMr. Robinson attended to conduct the defence.
Wlt appeared from the evidence of police constable 52
G, that on Sunday morning the 13th inst., at about half-
past twelve o'clock, there was a disturbance on Saffron-
hill, where the prisoner and other persons had assembled
together. He ordered the prisoner to move on, which
he did. Subsequently he was found further from the
spot sitting on the step of a door. lie refused to leave
when requested to do so, and became violent, kicked wit-
ness several times on the legs, and once on the mouth.
Assistance arrived, when the prisoner resisted and called
for a knife, threatening to kill them.
Mr. Robinson inquired. whether the prisoner was not
seized and dragged by them, and called out for a knife
in order to cut his neckcloth to prevent them from
strangling him ? Witness—No, he called for it to kill us.
By Mr. Robinson—l struck him once on the arm with
my staff. The people called out " Shame!" from the
windows. The prisoner bled profusely. The officers
were also bleeding through the prisoner's violence.
They were followed and pelted by the crowd. He was
kept in the police-yard five hours after the charge was
taken, when he was bailed and sent home in a cabriolet.
Taylor, 130 G, corroborated this evidence. Witness
struck him over the arms with his statE The prisoner
was violent in his resistance, and kicked the police.
Mr. Robinson—Pray, was he not covered with blood
in consequence of your violence? Witness—No; not
through mine.
Constable 85 G, was in Turnmill-street when he re-
ceived information that two officers were nearly mur-
dered on Saffron-hill, and he proceeded thither, and
found policemen 52 and 130 G with the prisoner on the
ground. The prisoner kicked witness on the nose. Saw
the officers strike the prisoner with their staves.
153 G was called to assist. The prisoner resisted.
Witness struck him on the arm, and once or twice over
the legs with his staff.
George Henry Adams, undertaker, of Easton-street,
Clerkenwell, a special constable, deposed to having seen
the prisoner kick 52 G.
Mr. Robinson suggested the necessity of allowing
some one to examine the prisoner's legs. Be had re-
cently broken his leg by accident, and it was now in a
most shocking state through being beaten with the
officers' staves. He (Mr. Robinson) never saw so bad a
leg, and it would be a considerable time before he would
be able to obtain a livelihood.
The prisoner here burst into tears.
Mr. CONDE—The question is, whether he did not
bring it upon himself ?
Mr. Robinson called
Mrs. Elizabeth Slade, wife of Mr. William Slade,
master hatter, of 16, Hatton-wall, Hatton-garden, who
said she was awoke out of her sleep by a noise in the
street. She opened the window, and saw the police-
men dragging the prisoner, who was exclaiming, My
dear sirs, it you will let me alone I will go quietly
with you." The police had tightly hold of his
neckcloth, and nearly strangled the man. Ile called out,
" Give me a knife for God's sake, to cut my handker-
chief, or I shall be choked." She knew the prisoner to
be a hard-working, quiet, sober man. The People called
out "Shame !"
Another witness spoke as to the prisoner's sobriety.
Mr. Robinson addressed the Bench, and censured the
violence offered by so many officers with their staves,
and begged that his client's present injured state might
operate in mitigation of any punishment that might be
inflicted, if it was the intention of the Bench to convict.
His client was a little man, and it would be absurd to
think that it required four officers to use their staves for
the purpose of securing him.
Mr. CONDE said, that there was no doubt the prisoner
resisted and assaulted the police whilst in the execution
of their duty, and that it required violence on the part of
the ?olive to take him to the station-house. He
should
tine him 205., and were it not for the injuries he had re-
ceived, he would have punished him more severely.
The prisoner paid the fine and was liberated.

WIGAN.—DISCOVER] OF THE _MINERS LOST IN
LOWER PATRICOFT COLLIERY, lY FLOODING OF THIS
RIVER DOUGLAS.—Early on Sunday morning the bodies of
three men and a boy, lost by the flooding of the Ince
Union Colliery, by the overflowing of the Douglas, about
nine months since, were discovered in the workings at a dis-
tance of between two and three hundred yards from the pit
shaft. The lamps of the unfortunate colliers having been
found near to the spot, a clue was thus obtained
to the discovery of the bodies. They were in a far-
decomposed state. After being placed in coffins, they were
removed to the Britannia Inn, to await the inquisition before
the Coroner. Two of them, named Rutter, were, we under-
stand, found clasped in each other's arms, and the other two
were very near to them. All appeared to be aware of the fate
which awaited them, and it is feared by many that they were
alive some time after the first flooding of the pit.—Liverpool
Mercury.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, August 23.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
THE GRANT 'lO THE DISTRESSED POLES.
On the question that 10,7001. to defray the expenses of the
allowance to the Polish refuges s,
Mr. OSBORNE said it was high time this vote was put a
stop to. At first the grant was only conceded for one year,
but although there were thousands of their own fellow-coun-
trymen absolutely starving, it was still proposed to put the
country to an expense of 10,000/., to support parties who
were strangers to the land, and many of whom were, by their
own industry, placed beyond the want of such assistance.
He found by the last report of the Society of the Friends of
Poland, that several of the parties who were participators
in the proceeds of this vote were actually engaged in
thriving trades; for instance, there was one refugee in re-
ceipt of a pension of 451. per annum who filled the office of
teacher to the French Schools; another, with an unpro-
nounceable name, who cartied on the business of a fencing
and dancing master at 101, Sloane-street; and a third named
Albert, who kel,t one of the fittest tobacconist's shops in
London. In fact, there appeared to be a list of about twenty
of them. who were all in receipt of pensions, and who were
all earning good livings in business. They must be just
before they were liberal, and while their own countrymen
were suffering so many privations, it was high time that
they bad abolished this grant of 10,000/. a year, and he
should therefore take the liberty of dividing the Committee
upon the vote. But, independently of the vote itself, there
was an expensive staff kept up to superintend the dis-
tribution of the fund. The secretary received 275/. a year,
his clerk received 601., and these two sums, together with
the Polish officers, made up an additional expense of 7001.
a year; and as it was high time a stop was put to this spe-
cies of extravagance, he should certainly give the vote his
most decided opposition.
Lord DUDLEY STUART—Mr. Bernal, I ant very
sorry to hear the observations which have just fallen
from my Hon. Friend with respect to this vote. I be-
lieve when the whole subject comes to be fully and pro-
perly considered that both my Hon. Friend and the
House will entertain a different opinion with respect to
the grants, and that he and they would admit that it is
based upon the broadest grounds of justice, and' ought
to be continued by this country. I know very well that
nothing gains more popularity than an Hon. Member
advocating a reduction of the public expenditure either
of large or small amount, and who points, as the ground
for. doing so, to the distress of our own people.—(Hear,
hear.) Those who come forward and adopt this line of
policy are sure to meet with a cheer—not in this House
alone, which cheered the Hon. Member when he ex-
pressed a desire that the grant should be abrogated alto-
gether, but in all assemblies in which, my Honourable
Friend, or any one else, may enunciate such sentiments.
—(Hear, hear.) I think, however, I shall be able satis-
factorily to show the House that it would not be justi-
fied in doing that which has never yet been doee—l
mean, stopping those charitable grants which it has
ever been ready to vote to persons in distress.—
(Cheers.) I think, if the House were to stop this,
grant to the Polish refugees in this country, that it
would commit one ot' the most ungrateful acts ever done
by the British Parliament, and besides, acting accord-
ing to the Hon. Gentleman's advice, would conter no ad-
vantage whatever on ourselves.—(Hear, hear.) My
Hon. Friend has made several statements which I think
evince that he is not well informed of the whole circum-
stances of the case; and whilst the Hon. Gentleman
complimented me upon my kindness to the Poles, he
said the expenditure of the whole of the grants was con-
fided entirely to me.
Mr. OSBORNE—I said great trust was very properly
reposed in you on the matter, and that your advice was
invariably sought with respect to the eligibility of the
parties seeking aid to receive it.
Lord D. STUART—I cannot but feel grateful for the
sentiments which my Hon. Friend entertains with re-
spect to me, and for his explanation that I had not the
complete control of the fund, It happens that I have
no control over the expenditure of the grant.
Mr. OSBORNE said, nevertheless, a statement to the
effect that the Noble Lord had the entire control of the
grant was in the evidence of a man named J ebb.
Lord D. STUART—I call upon the Noble Lord on
the Treasury benches (Lord John Russell) to confirm
the statement I have made, that I possess no control
over the expenditure of the grant.—(Hear, hear.) I
have no control over it at all. There was a time when I
had.—l mean when the grant was first made. The dis-
cretion of deciding who were fit recipients of the grant
was in the first instance confided to me. This was done
by me for four years, after which time the Treasury
took the expenditure of the grant into its own hands.
My Hon. Friend complains that an expensive
staff is kept up for the management of the
office entrusted with the expenditure of the money.
—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Osborne). Now, during the
time that I had the management of the grants, there
was no charge whatever.—(Cheers.) I repeat at that
time no charge was made connected with the ex-
penditure of this charity .—(Renewed cheering.) Then
my Hon. Friead says, that persons are on the list who
are carrying on very good and profitable occupations.
Now, I should be very glad indeed it my Hon. Friend
could prove that the persons. he names are carrying on
the lucrative occupations ho mentions, t ecause
if they are in such circumstances they should
not receive any aid out of the fund ; what
they improperly receive should be handed to the
really indigent. Ido not deny that many are in busi-
ness, but I would ask the commercial men of this
House, if it be not possible to carry on a large and ap-
parently thriving business without, in point of fact,
realising any profit whatever.—(Hear, hear.) If per-
sons, I repeat, are on the list who ought not to be
there, and this is proved on inquiry, I shall for my part
feel no objection to their being removed; but I think
you would carry the severity of security far beyond its
limits—you would be guilty of an unusual degree of
carefulness in the expenditure of the public money—
if you were at once to stop this vote. There would be
something harsh in the adoption of such a course in ap-
plication to the case of the Poles of such a public proceed-
ing, if you would so proceed--something so unusual in
such a course—for it has never yet been adopted—that I
cannot think this British House of Commons will con-
sent to it.--(hear, hear.) There would be something
harsh in that course of proceeding. Whilst I had any
control over that grant, and when I have had occasion
to recotntnend to the Government persons fit to receive
aid, I have invariably been at great pains to ascertain
that they were either young persons without the means
of support, or persons of more mature years in a state of
destitution. I think, if my Hon. Friend will inquire
into the way in which the grant is administered, he will
find that the whole of the control which I have over it
consists in recommending deserving persons. One person
has been placed on the list in consequence of a vacancy,
and three have been removed in consequence of not being
fit recipients of aid. The Committee of Miscellaneous
Estimates recommended that the substitution of others
for the three struckioff should not take place.
,Sir, when
I. recollect the feeling that was displayed by the House at
the time the grant was first voted—when I recollect that
at that time the House and the country considered that
the persons w horn it was proposed to relieve out of it were
persons who had fallen in them advocacy of nationality and
liberty, and that the House was pleased unanimously to
grant them aid, I am surprised at the state of feeling
on the part of some Hon. Members now, When I say
I recollect that these refugees have been brought into
their present state of destitution in consequence of their
attachment to the cause of liberty, and the indepen-
dence of their country—that they were influenced in
an eminent degree by these sentiments of liberty and
attachment to country, which have ever distinguished
this country, and been so highly appreciated by its
people, when evinced by others—that the vote was ori-
ginally passed without a dissentient voice—(Hear, hear)
—and though often objected to, and its policy discussed
in this House, yet never abrogated, I confess I cannot
think that this British House of Commons will revoke
all that it has done—that it will stop in its career of
benevolence to unfortunate, brave, and deserving per-
sons.—(Hear, hear.) Not only was no objection made
to the grant, but in 1838 a proposal was made to in-
crease it ; and, although the then Chancellor of the
Exchequer was averse to it, so strong was the feeling
on. both sides of this House. and out of it, that it was
raised from 10,000/, to 15,0001.—(Hear, hear.) I do
not deny that it was voted for only one year.—(" Hear,
hear," from Mr. Osborne.) There can be no doubt about
that, but the feeling in favour of it was so strong,
that it was continued.—(Hear, hear.) It was voted
for the first time in the year 1834, and the
next year in reply to a question, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer stated that he should feel great pleasure in
continuing the grant if it was the wish of the House
that he should do so, and the announcement was re-
ceived with loud cheers by the House.—(Hear, hear.:
It was then increased to 15,000/, and as the claims fel,
in it was reduced to its present amount, 10,7001.
Mr. OSBORNE—The whole charges upon the grant
are not included in that.

Lord D. STUART—Yes; that sum includes the en-
tire charges upon the grant and the cost of its adminis-
tration. If my Honourable Friend will turn to the
evidence collected upon the matter, ho will find that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that in the
course of a few years the grant would be totally abo-
lished.—(Hear, hear.) Do Hon. Members suppose that
this grant is the only one made on behalf of those who
have been driven from their native land to seek a shelter

in this hospitable country—that it is anexocLtiothanntia i made
is
in
favour of these brave and gallant pep
s
isomethingpolicy th
of
r dt
hoits'—ctohua
nt
ti
rt)ri.s
ton entirelypersons ndleyow
ndeol principleinik.oeerthtthha
the
fnonrfo ther tu
in.aotlee
sPo
whichs w%eV hhyti•v,
eSui rn,h‘evsei
tha at
ivneg
loyn
refugees) o
Tf ahlemoons
itya
dl all
trtehroe
nne ue t iboentswoete'
n theth
et:
grantr (t
oL ot
hu tel
cPheroelessa.nd to the unfortunate persons who have come to
our shores from other lands in a forlorn state is this,
that less has be,n granted to the Poles than almost to
any other distressed people.—(Cheers.) If, Sir,
we look into the records of Parliament, and
read what was done, in this respect, in former
times, we shall find that refuges from all parts of the
world have received aid from this country—not to the
amount which the unfortunate Poles have received, but I
an immensely increased amount. In 1800, the grants
made by Parliament for the relief of refugees from all
parts of the world amounted to co less a sum than
250,0001. for one year; and if you look at the
amounts of the different grants, yon will find
that they vary from 150,000/. anti 160 0001. to 167,0001.
These immense sums were voted once for French and
Dutch refugees, and in fact for the relief of per-ons
from all countries ; and in later times large sums were
granted to the Spanish refugees. I think, therefore,
that the Polish refugees may bo allowed to enjoy this

very small sum, the more especially as the claims upon
it are very large and are increasing. But do not let
Hun. Gentlemen suppose that this country stands alone
in its generosity to the Poles. It ma) truly he
said that England is the richest, and at the
same time the most generous nation in the world—
(Hear, hear) —but 1 may be permitted to say that in the
case of the it has not shoe, n much liberality--
since this grant amounted originally to 10 000/., then
to 15.000/., and now it is gradually diminishing —com-
p ered with what other countries have done towards the
support of these unfortunate persons. No country
which enjoys a free constitution has omitted to send
large sums of money for the relief of the distressed
Poles. Switzerland—pour Switz gland—has aided them.
One of her cantons has given halt the sum voted by this
country, and Belgium has also given them their aid;
the bounty of Franca has been greater than the rest. I
held in my hand IA paper, which I have procured frotn
France, w hich contaies a statement of the sums voted in
aid of the Poles during the time we have also so gene-
rously extended aid to th, tn. From this paper it ap-
pears that from the time we began to as-ist them the
French Chambers have not voted but 10,000/., as we
have done, butloo,oool. or 2,500.000 francs.—(Hear.)
Lest year it amounted to 50,0001.—(Hear)—and this
year a sum of nearly like amount has been voted.
Mind, I am not at all saving that we should continue
this grant because France has given so munificently.
because I do not deny that the Poles have a greater
claim upon the generosity of France than upon this
country ; I merely mention the fact to show that
what we have done is not so extraordinary as the Hon.
Gentleman would wish to lend the House to suppose, and
that we do not stand alone in our benevolence. Ido not
blame the Hon. Gentleman for advocating economy.
am as anxious for economy as any man, which is evi-
denced by my votes; but if you carry out the principle
of economy, let it be real in its nature, and not apply it
to such a miserable sum as this; do not take away
from these unfortunate persons the miserable pit-
tance they are now receiving, and thereby bring
them to the most abject state of destitution.
To show that I advocate economy in the public expen-
diture. I may state that I voted with the Hon. Gentle
man the Member for Montrose for the reduction of the
army and navy. A reduction in that expenditure would
confer a real good upon the country; it would be felt;
but if you reduce this miserable dole, it will go forth to
the world that England, notwithstanding all her great-
ness and her wealth, was carrying the principle of eco-
, notny to an extraordinary extent. Its abolition would
confer no good upon the country at all; it would not give
one man half a glass of beer more, or one woman
an additional teaspoonful of tea.—(Hear and laughter.)
It will, however, do this. If you withhold the grant it
will place an additional burden upon the parishes in
which the Poles reside, and the rates will have to be in-
creased in consequence; for when you take away the
-little aid you now give them they cannot be permitted
to die of starvation. The grant will therefore have to
be paid in some other and less palatable way. You
could not apply to them the Alien Bill which has un-
happily passed through this House. If you were inhuman
enough to desire to apply it to them you would bo
unable to do so, for you could not send them out of the
country by force after the length of time they have re-
sided here. The Act was not passed for any such pur-
pose, and such a construction of it would not be toleratd
for a moment.—(Hear, hear.) Then, again, this grant
does not aggravate the distress of the country, and the
people know this full well. If you doubt it, I ask where
are the petitions against the continuance of the grant?
The feeling of the country is not against it.
Is the table, I ask, covered with petitions
seeking its abrogation ?—(Hear, hear.) Whenever
I present myself at a public assembly I find myself
flattered instead of condemned for my exertions on be-
half of' the Poles.—(ilear, hear, and laughter.) It is all
very well for my Hon. Friend to ridicule what I am
saying, but I merely proclaim a fact—(Hear, hear).—
and it he had been present he would have found that
what I state is correct. Why not cut down other ex-
penses, not one of which was more necessary than this
grant to the Poles? Why, if we are to carry out a rigid
system of economy do we buy pictures for
our public galleries, or Elgin marbles for
our mussums ?—(llear, hear.) Why if this
principle is to guide us, do we maintain all the
splendour and dignity of the Court, and which it is the
right of the Sovereign to keep up? I say that this grant
to these unfortunate, brave, arid virtuous men does more
to uphold the dignity of the Sovereign and the character
of this country than all the proud array of the Palace
and the Court. I believe that the people of this country
would rather assist struggling men in distress than pay
for all this uselessness. How does it happen when this
grant is objected to that the House acceded to the
last sum specified in the miscellaneous estimates
for the entertainment of foreign princes—(Hear, hear)--
for the entertainment of foreign sovereigns, foreign
princes, and foreign grandees, whom the people stare at?
—(Laughter.) They would feel less pleasure in doing
so if they knew that the princes sent here are entertained,
when here, out of the pockets of the people. In looking
over the votes for this purpose during the last few years,
I find that almost every sovereign and foreigner that exists
has been here. I find in the list the Emperor of Rus-
sia and the King of Holland—(Cries of '` Question,
question.") I am speaking to the question. lam
showing that there are other things to cut down besides
this small grant to the Poles.—(Hear, hear.) lam
showing that we have had nearly every sovereign in the
world here, and that we have entertained them magnifi-
cently out of the pockets of the people of England, for
whom Hon. Members profess to have so much regard.
Read the miscellaneous estimates, and you will find
whole pages of the expense of bringing them over,
entertaining them here, and taking them back. —(Hear.)
They would find that a vast expense had been incurred
in carrying the King of Greece to Bavaria from Greece,
and taking him somewhere else; they would find all sorts
of things of this kind. For instance, an enormous sum had
been expended in entertaining Ibrahim Pechts.—(Roars
of laughter.) You had, for instance, to pay the expense
of bringing him from Alexandria to India, and also the
expense of bringing over three Egyptian young gentlemen
to Englanc—(Laughter)—and from 2,000/. to 3,0001. was
expended in entertaining them. Ido not say that you
ought to cut these down, but if you wish to do so, surely
you have an ample field without trenching upon the
seipend to the Poles. I am not one of those who
wish to do away with all the splendour that
attach to a Court and Government, but I
seriously think that some reduction might with propriety
be made.—(Hear, hear.) I do not wish for republican
simplicity, but I say if you wish to reduce the national
expenditure, I do not think it would be well for you to
take away that assistance you have now, for so many
years, so generously given.—(Hear, hear.) I ask you,
if the Poles stood in need of this aid years ago do they
not in a much more degree stand in need of it now?
Whatever may be the views entertained of the conduct
of the Poles in the affairs of the continent—and I shall
be ready at the proper time to defend it—l do not think
the House will act so ungenerously as to condemn the
Poles on that account, and to make their conduct a plea
for abolishing the grant. I must say that the conduct
of this country to the Poles has been most exemplary.
In former days the Polish Diet acted in a way not un-
like the English Parliament. As it was not indifferent
to English distress or English exiles, a large sum of
money was voted for a e aisiderable number of years for
the Pules, during the time of Charles the Second.--
(Hear, hear.) If Honourable Members would look
into the Blue-book they would , find that In
consequence of deaths and departures the grant, was
reduced to its present amount; and it is in sapid pro-
gress, according to the report of the committee, towards
hnal extinction, the number on the list having, in 1538,
been 680, and being now reduced to 365. It must also
be allowed, and that too appeared from the evidence
taken before the Committee, that the conduct of the
Poles in this country was, with few exceptions, exem-
plary. They had been brought into their present un-
happy condition by their patriotism and their virtue. I
must protest against being supposed indifferent to the
distress of our own countrymen, but this grant did not
aggravate that distress; the refusal of it would in no de-
gree alleviate it. I hope therefore my Hon. Friend will
not press his opposition to it.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENLEY said the Noble Lord had made out as good
a case as he could in support of the grant, but he had failed
to show that during all the years these Poles had been hers
they had been unable to make a subsistence, and, next, to
find their way back to their own country.—(Hear, hear.)
It was not right they should continue a burden on the people
of this country, many of whom, owing to their distresses,
would be glad of pensions. He did not think this grant should
continue for ever. He should vote against the grant, unless
the Government told the House that it would not be con-
tinued.—( Hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT said it was surprising that the Poles in four-
teen years had not been able to provide for themselves. He
could not but think that the Noble Lord was gratifying
favourite notion at the expense of the people of this country,
and at the sacrifice of his duty to his constituents. The case
was much worse than had been stated. Oat of the whole time
the money had been paid but one Pole had been magnanimous
enough to resign. He deprecated John Bull being made
a mulch cow by the inhabitants of other countries.—(Great
laughter.) In 1834 the House acceded to the grant on the
distinct understanding that it would be but temporary.-7
(Hear, hear.) He trusted this would be the last vote, or a" least the last but one, and that the Government would give
a pledge to that effect.—( Hear, hear.) It was the saving ,
small sums that made a large general saving.
Mr. HUME said he was one of the Comm. ittee to whom
the allotment of aid out of the vote to the distressed
Pole, was granted. The sums
very small, but they were given
merely, he admitted, were
ely as aid, and in
order
to support them until they could support themselves. That
principle had been altogetuer contravened. If the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would give a pledge that this and other
grants would be reviewed and not pressed again if found that
they could be dispensed with, he should advise his Hon.
Friend not to press his amendment. The Pole and every
other foreigner could now return to his own country.
Mr. OSBORNE intimated that he could not consent to the
suggestion.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER reviewed the
circumstances under which the money was granted. The
vote was one which could not be aonsidered a permanent
charge upon the country.—( Hear, hear.) He did not think
the House would be disposed to take away this aid from old
persons who had been long in the receipt of it—that would
be an act of cruelty; but young persons able to earn their
own living could not be allowed to receive it. He assured the
House that the list should be carefully reviewed.
Sir J. TYRELL did not wish to act cruelly, but in big
Opinion the Chancellor'of the Exchequer had not made out :
strong case for its continuance. He thought they would d
well to allow 4,0001. this and discontinue it next year, unless_
the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (whom
much complimented) could show a very urgent case for its

continuance to certain parties.
Lord R. GROSVEN OR accounted for the Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Bright) calling John Bull a milch cow by his having
sat seventy- three days on an Irish Committee. He thought
the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the best.
Mr. 11. BERKELEY said, when they had a heart to feel
for the woes ot foreigners, he trusted that some share ot their
humanity would be given fbr the distressed people at home.
Constituents generally remarked that the House afforded
liberal aid to foreigners whilst they neglected the distressed
condition of the people at home. He considered that neither
tho army or navy could now be reduced with itafetY•
Lie sslivuld eupport the AMOUdraent.