Star.
London, England, 1822-07-16 00:00:00

begged pardon for deviating from the subject before
the House ; but the two Billt hail been discussed to-

gether by others, and,.acting as he had done, be had
only followed the example set by others. He thought
that the keeping people in their houses at night was
only for their own good. The poor were not armed
against the rich, but against each other; and to keep
them from each bther, was the best measure that
could be adopted for their good. For these reasons
he should support the Bill.
Mr. W. SMITH found himself in a dilemma as to

the vote he should give upon this question. He be-
lieved the Insurrection Act to be in a great degree a
measure of mercy—(Hearj. He thought also that
the state of Ireland demanded it. But the powers
which had formerly been placed in the hands of Go-

vernment, had been sn abused, that he could not but
hesitate at incurring the risk of a repetition of the
events to which he alluded. In his opinion the In-
• temnity Act which followed them was an indelible
stain upon the country. When he spoke of those
Acts, and the abuse of power then displayed, he did
not at all mean to implicate the present Irish Go-
vernment, or to say that any part of their conduct
partook of his suspicions. He did not expect that any
thing which could be done for Ireland would give her
immediate relief. It must take the operation of a cen-
tury, under the liht and wisest management, to cure
the evils of four or five centuries of misgovernment.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY rose to make
one or two observations upon the impolicy of revert-
ing to the painful events and circumstances con-
nected with the It ish Rebellion, upon an occasion
like the present. He could tell the Hon. Member
that there was no abuse, or even exercise of the power
entrusted to the Government, in the acts which were
perpetrated at the time of the Rebellion, and which
he should be the last to countenance or defend. They
were not abuses of power, but acts of self-defence,
although of a nature which al'. lived to deplore.—
With regard to the Indemnity Act, he had the ho-
nour of being a Minister at the time it was brought
in, and he was desirous of taking all the odium which
attached to it upon himself. He should have been
_ _

ashamed of himself, if, when he brought down a Bill
for pardoning the Irish rebels for their acts of plun-
der, and murder, and rebellion, he had not also

brought down an Act of Indemnity for MAgistrafts,
who were compelled to resort, in self-defence, to

measures of melancholy severity. The Act of In-
demnity was not applied to individual cases, but to
the general state of Ireland. He would ask the Hon.
Member what he would have thought of any Minis-
ter, who, after pardoning rebels and the disloyal, had
left the Magistrates and those who opposed them un-
protected ?—( Hear, hear).
Mr. DENNIS BROWN thought that the Insur-
rection Act ought to have been put in force by the
House last year. With regard to what the Hon.
Member (Mr. Smith) had said, as to the abuse of
power during the Irish rebellion, the Noble Marquis
had very properly described the character of those
proceedings.
Mr. S. RICE said, that measures which required
Bills of Indemnity, should not only be disapproved
of, but detested. At the same time, he thought it
would be more adviseable not to refer to that melon-

'eholy period in the Irish history. The state of the
Magistracy in Ireland, loudly called for amelioration,
and he hoped to receive some information on that
subject from the other side. He should wish to vest
the power of taking bail, not in the Magistrates ge-
nerally, but in the King's Counsel, the Serjeant, or
the As,istar.t Barrister; and he also wished to intro-
,Auce a clause as to the appointment of Justices in
t Towns and Cities, where, under the present Bill, the
.County Magistrates could not act.
General HARTE commented on the excess to
'which illicit distillation was carried in Ireland.
Mr. PLUNKETT defended the clause in the Bill
relative to the power of requiring bail.
Mr. G. BENNET could not keep out of view what
had been the effect of measures of severity in the
sister country. In examining the question before the
House, he was compelled to recur to the transactions
of former times. In the course of the present Ses-
sion, with the exception of a grant of money, Parlia-
ment had done nothing for Ireland.
Mr. GOULBURN concurred in the opinion, that
the transactions in the Irish rebellion ought to be bu-
ried in oblivion. At the same time he would tell the
House, that it was to prevent the recurrence of simi-
lar scenes that the present measure was required.
'The measure was only asked for because it was be-
lieved to be necessary for the safety of Ireland, He
was not prepared to say that the Government of Ire-
land would put this Act in execution, even if it were
passed by the House.
Lord A. HAMILTON could not vote for the mea-
sures which his Majesty's Government had proposed
for the Government of Ireland ; for they were at com-
plete variance with the Constitution of the land.—
This measure was to Le voted too in a House in which
,he doubted whether there were ten Irish Members
present. The measures invariably adopted with re-
spect to Ireland were only of a temporary, and not of
a permanently tranquillizing character. The House
had heard a speech from a Right Hon. Gentleman
which it would not easily forget, in which he main-
tained that every disturbance in Ireland had resulted
from some anterior measures of severity on the part
of the Government. He believed that was the fact;
and that none of those Bills would benefit Ireland.
MI-. BUTTERWORTH believed the present mea-
sure to he necessary in consequence of the disturbed
state of Ireland.—ltead a third time and passed.
SUPPLY.
Mr. GOULBURN moved, that the House should
go into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. HUME said, that last Session he had called
the attention of the House to the immense sums levied
on our commerce in Brazil by our Consul in that
country. The Consul levied on our trade at least
nine or ten thousand pounds a-year. In consequence
cf this, the Noble Marquis wrote to forbid the Consul
from taking such heavy fees; but in a week or two
after, he sent another letter, desiring that he should
continue his charges. In six years our Consuls in the,
Brazil, made above 50,0001. 'This tax on British
shipping and merchandize was a premium given to
the Americans to carry off all the trade of the Bra-
zils from us. He called on the Noble Marquis to
take Care of the interest of the British Government in
the Brazils ; and he moved, that the large salaries of
the Consuls in the Brazils were extravagant, and
cugl.t to be reduced.
•

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY mid, he had
before stated that new regulations for oar Consuls
abroad were under the revision of our Board of
Trade. He admitted that the facts stated by the
Hon. Member were sufficient to require investiga-
tion ; but the average amount of our Consul-Gene-
ran earnings was 7,0001. instead of 9,0001. a-year.—
Besides, his income bad been reduced three times ;
and, four or five years ago, the price of provisions
was very high in the Brazils. Instructions had al-
ready been sent out to prevent any extravagant
charges by our Consuls in the Brazils. He should
lay all the correspondence on that subject before the
House. He should, therefore, negative the motion,
which he thought a very strong imputation, not only
on the Consuls, but on the Government.
Mr.A. BARING said, no such sums were granted
to Consuls, or allowed to them in former years.
Mr. HUAI E explained. The present differed from
all other Consular cases, and had therefore no re-
ference to the proposed. general arrangements of the
Noble Marquis. He (Mr. Hume) was already in pos.
session of the correspondence, but it would afford the
House no new information. lf, however, the Noble
Marquis thought otherwise, he ought to have laid it
on the table before.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said it was
rather surprising if the Hon. Member was in posses-
sion of the correspondence-of his office—(Hear, hear,
cad a laugh). If he had, he (the Marquis) would be
glad to know how he got access to it? At all events,
the House perhaps would not be inclined to take for
granted the opinion of the Hon. Member as to the
question whether the correspondence afforded infor-
mation or not?

Mr. HUME said he had alluded only to the cor-
respondence between the Noble Marquis and the
merchants.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he had
referred to the correspondence between himself and
the Consuls.

The Resolution was negatived without a division,
after a short conversation between the Marquis of
LONDONDERRY, Mr. BVIIIIIIT) and Lord PA LMRRSTON.

SCOTCH NATIONAL SIONUKSNT.
Lord BINNING moved that the Petitions with
respect to the National Monument in Scotland should

be referred to the Committee.

Mr. HUME strongly opposed the grant. The
10,0004. asked for the work in question would be
much better employed if applied to the purposes for
which it had been originally intended.
Sir ROBERT WILSON did think it most unsea-

sonable, and most indecent, to talk, in the present',
state of Ireland, of giving 10,0001. to build an orna-
mental temple. There seemed to be an opinion that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to act the
part of Pericles; but it should be remembered that
there was now no Phidias in the case. The Palle-
non bad been dedicated to Minerva: it was worth

ccntsidering bow far the deeds to be commemorated
by the Monument proposed were worthy of the espe-
cial protection of that goddess!
Mr. KEITH DOUGLAS supported the grant.
Mr. HUDSON GURNEY.—We have had discus-
sion night after night on the starving population of
Ireland ; we have heard complaint after complaint,
upon the general distress of all classes in England and
Scotland ; and yet, after all this, we are cafled upon
to give away £lO,OOO for the erection of a Church as
part of a National Monument for Scotland I—(flear,l
hear). The erection of the English Monuments has
been put off sine die; and in my conscience I believe
they never will be begun—(Hear, hear). They
were voted in a moment of national effervescence,
and there is now as much reluctance to complete, as
there was formerly eagerness to propose them. Why,
however, were they to be deferred, if £lO,OOO were
to be granted to the erection of a National Monu-
mental Church in Scotland ?"—(Hear, hear). The
Hon. Member said, that he had likewise another ob-
jection to the grant: £lOO,OOO had been voted for
building Churches in Scotland, wherever the popula-
tion was too great for the existing Churches, or
wherever the Churches were thinly scattered over the
country. Now, in consequence of that vote, he thought
it to be perfectly unjustifiable to grant £lO,OOO for
the erection of a Church in Edinburgh, which was
obviously intended more for the ornament of the town,
than for the use, benefit, or instruction of its numer-
ous inhabitants—(Hear).
Mr. MONCK opposed the grant. This magnifi-
cent temple, placed as it was on the top of a hill,
might be good as an object to the inhabitants of Edin-
burgh, but was by no means so u a place of worship.
He did not mean to dispute the propriety of Gentle-
men erecting such a monument of their gratitude out
of their own pockets ; but he must object to wring-
ing the money out of the purses of a people who
were already overburdened by the taxation inflicted
upon them—(Hear, hear).
Sir G. CLERK said, that the grounds of this grant
appeared to him to be completely misunderstood.—
This 10,0001. was wanted for the promotion of reli-
gious worship in Edinburgh—( Hear, and a langh).
The situation in which it was to be erected was at
once most centrical and most populous. He there-
fore trusted that Honourable Gentlemen would not
object to going into the Committee to consider of the
propriety of voting the sum in question to so laudable,
an object—(Hear, hear).
Mr. H. (jr. BENNET called the attention of duel
House to a curious circular which he had received '
that evening, relating to the subject' in question. It'
was to the following effect :
" The Subscribers earnestly request your attendance at the
House of Commons on Monday evening next to vote for the
I referring the Petition respecting the National Monument in
Scotland to the Committee of Supply."
—He did not know who was the author of this cir-
cular, but this he would say of it,
,that it was a most
novel and audacious proceeding—(Hear, hear).—
When. he gave his consent to the vote of £lOO,OOO,
for building Churches in Scotland, it was not with
apy view of gratifying the citizens of Edinburgh in
disir love for splendid buildins. If they wanted any
web buildings, let them pay for their erection out of
their own pockets, and not out of those of the people
of England—(Hearl.—He objected most strongly to
this grant, though he Could not say that he was at
all 4
astonished at its having been made, since he had 1I
seen how £5OOO of thitbstds of Greenwich Hospital I
had been thrown away, in building a Church for 250
persons—(Hear, hear).—Taxed as the people of Eng-
land were at present, it was an act of gross indecency
to add fnrther to their taxation for purposes like the
prascnt—(icar).-19 a just cause be was certain that

they would not grudge the paypent of any stun; but,'
in a tin,' likb tbiso 'thiy thital k tight to objets 40411111
payment of a . single farthing..:.(Hear)e—.When the(
Treasury was full, and the country flourishing, such .
grants might be advisable.; but now that the Exche.
quer was empty, 'Mid Gentle Men not receiving inOre
than One-tenth of their rents (llear)--it was unfair to
tax the people of England, in, order to gratify the
taste of the people of Bdinburgh--(Cheers).
Mr. C. GRANT suggested to the Noble Mover of
I this question to del* the 4 s -oer consideration of it
till next Session. He was 2t itesetit of opinion that
to grant 10,0001. for the erection of a splendid object
in the city of Edinburgh, would be a gross misap-
plication of the public mosey.—(Hear,hear)..L.When
he first heard of it, be could not help recollecting
that there were several parishes in the Highlands full
forty miles in extent, without a single church in
them, and that the money would be better employed
in building churches there than at-Edinburgh. He
thought that the propriety of this grant ought to be
submitted to the General Assembly of the Church of
Scotland, especially as a question of a similar nature
had formerly been placed under its consideration. In
England, the money granted for the building of
churches was issued to certain Commissioner, who
were made responsible for the proper expenditure
of it. He should wish to see a similar practice
adopted towards Scotland: for why was money to
be granted to that part of the island without any
responsibility at all ?—(Hear, hear).
Lord BINNING said, that if he had thought this
vote calculated to take a single farthing from the
starving Irish, he would have been the last man in
the world to have proposed it. He contended that
there was a great want of Churches in Edinburgh'
and Leith, and, in proof of it, stated that though the,
population of those two places had increased within
a few years from 104,000 to 140,000, only one new
Church, that of St. Gebrge, had been built for their
instruction—(Hear).
Sir W. WYNN thought 10,0001. much too large a
sum to be expended in the manner now proposed.
After a few words from Mr. T. WILSON and Mr.
MAaERLY, who opposed the grant, and also from the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Lord BINNING con-
sented-to withdraw his motion.