Sitting of 24 May 1811

PETITION FROM WATERFORD RESPECTING THE BANKRUPT LAWS.
Sir John Newportpresented a Petition from the Merchants and traders of the city of Waterford; setting forth,
"That the petitioners having new, for a series of years, felt the pernicious influence and injurious operation of the present system of administering the bankrupt laws, and experienced, in many instances, the inefficient nature of these laws themselves, having witnessed the increased frequency and too often triumphant impunity of fraud under a code enacted for its prevention, and having Suffered from the very heavy expences and tedious delays attendant on all attempts at the detection and prosecution thereof, beg leave most humbly to entreat the attention of the House to a subject of such vital importance in a commercial and trading country; and they entreat it under a conviction that the evils of which they complain take their rise in part from an inefficient code, but principally from the very defective and injudicious nature of its administration; under this conviction, the petitioners humbly pray a revision and amendment of the bankrupt laws for the following amongst other reasons: first, because the administration of the laws is entrusted to commissioners, who, by reason of their scanty allowance, are compelled, in a great degree, to depend on general practice at the bar for their support, and are therefore unable to devote little more than an hour at any one time to the investigation of accounts, however complicated, or detection of
304
frauds, however subtle, because the commissioners are paid according to the number and not according to the duration of their sittings, and are consequently not uninterested in according to every proposal of adjournment, that great source of delay and expense; second, because the expenses of a commission, which in all cases are considerable, and in many most enormous, are uniformly charged upon the bankrupt's fund, a fund which, from its nature, instead of being taxed in so oppressive a manner, and thereby so seriously diminished, ought to be relieved from every burthen, and rendered as productive as possible; third, because too great difficulty attends the proof of acts of bankruptcy, even in cases of unequivocal insolvency, and in the obtaining a joint commission, whence fraudulent references are had on mortgages and other securities, and considerable impediments raised against the recovery of the bankrupt's effects, and their collection thereby rendered most difficult and expensive; fourth, because the property of a trader, taken under execution, is constantly sold at a most ruinous undervalue in consequence of the precipitancy of sheriffs in the sale thereof, caused by their apprehensions of some being rescued from their hands by the issuing of a commission of bankruptcy, by which sale the creditors of such trader are most grievously injured; fifth, because punishment of death, to which nonconforming and fraudulent bankrupts are indiscriminately liable, confers impunity by preventing prosecution, and because there is no sufficient penalty against persons who shall harbour a concealed bankrupt, or shall assist in embezzling or concealing his effects, or in withdrawing them out of the realm; sixth, because the punishment in fabricating fraudulent liens and covers on property in contemplation of bankruptcy is not sufficiently comprehensive or penal, and does not extend to agents and accessaries as well as principals; seventh, because bankrupts have not now any fair means of support during the progress of a commission, and therefore under strong temptations to be guilty of concealment, and to commit perjury for the preservation of their existence, and because they are often deprived of their legal and merited allowance, when entitled thereto, by the uncontrouled prodigality of expence attending commissions of bankruptcy, and because commissioners have not the power of encouraging

305
good conduct in bankrupts, by ordering the expence of their certificate to be paid from their effects; and that the petitioners, having now detailed some of the numerous imperfections in the bankrupt code, and of the evils of its practical administration, and being persuaded of the incalculable injury they have and must ever produce in a trading country, by destroying the security and confidence of commercial dealings, most earnestly entreat the House to take the same into its most serious consideration, and to enact such regulations therein as to its wisdom shall seem best calculated for the more effectual prevention of the same in future."
Ordered to lie upon the table.

MR. PALMER'S CLAIMS—THE PRINCE REGENT'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
Lord John Thynnereported to the House, that their Address of Tuesday last, humbly to beseech his royal highness the Prince Regent to advance to John Palmer, esq. the sum of 54,702 l. 0s. 7d. being the balance due to him on the net revenue of the Post Office, from the 5th day of April 1793 to the 5th day of January 1303, and to assure his royal highness that this House will make good the same, had been presented to his royal highness; and that his royal highness was pleased to give this most gracious Answer:
"George P. R.
"It must at all times be my most earnest desire to attend to the wishes of the House of Commons, and I shall be ready to give effect to them in this instance whenever the means shall have been provided by parliament."
"Carlton House, 24th May 1811."

COTTON WOOL BILL.
On the order of the day being read for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Cotton Wool-Duty Bill,
Mr. Rosesaid he had made inquiries respecting the probable effect of the Bill, in consequence of the apprehension which had been expressed: and the result of them was that no inconvenience appeared likely to arise that could justify the alarm spread abroad. It was, however, his intention, as such a feeling was excited, and as the lower classes could not be convinced how groundless were their fears, to move, That the order for the committal of the Bill should be postponed to that day three months.
Sir R. Peel, though he did not agree
306
with the right hon. gent., that any good could come of the measure, rejoiced most heartily that ministers had the good sense and prudence to relinquish what the parties most interested thought so highly destructive to their interests.
Mr. Whitbreadcould not divest his mind of the idea that the right hon. gent. had had rather a bitter pill to swallow; but ha admitted that he had swallowed it with the best possible grace. The motion of the right hon. gent. would have filled him with the greatest surprise, if the matter had not been broke to him by an intimation which had been given since he entered the House. It was rather surprising that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who the day before yesterday was so confident no inconvenience could result from the measure that he would hardly grant eight-and-forty hours for the further consideration of the subject, and to give time for the sentiments of the manufacturers to be known, should so soon make up his mind to give up the measure altogether. The late Mr. Pitt used to extol every tax he proposed, as being the best that could be made, and as being such that no possible inconvenience could thence be expected to arise. It should seem that the right hon. gent. had been ambitious of imitating him on the present occasion in a minor degree. He had set out with saying that it was impossible for any evil to follow its adoption, but, on the contrary, much good was to be expected from it, and ended by giving it up. He was happy to find it was so given up, as under the circumstances of the case, it was impossible to suppose any speech of his could have inflamed the manufacturers, so as to render it expedient on that account. Though surprised, he was pleased at the change, which, however it was to be accounted for, he could not receive without feeling disposed to throw some discredit on the premises from which this conclusion was stated to be drawn.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerfelt himself under the necessity of saying a few words in support of what had fallen from his right hon. friend. With him, he thought the alarm which had been spread abroad, had been so spread without sufficient grounds for it being proved to exist. The hon. gent. who spoke last had expressed himself to be surprised and not surprised, so often, that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not know whether he at last wished to be understood

307
as being surprised or not. He had, however, expressed himself happy that the measure was relinquished; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was glad to see it had given him such good spirits and good humour; for that he was in a good humour was evident, notwithstanding the apologies he had thought it necessary to make for seeming pleased. The apprehension felt on the occasion, he regarded as extravagant; but at the same time, as that alarm had been found to exist, it was judged best not to impose the duty that government had it in contemplation to lay on. When he opened the Budget, he had stated to the Committee, that such ample provision had been made for the service of the year, that he thought it unnecessary to lay on any additional duties, but such as, dictated by commercial policy, were regarded as wholesome and judicious regulations. As the parties likely to be affected by the Bill, were now suffering from the pressure of the times, if after the alarm had been excited, the Bill had still been persevered in, it might have appeared to them an insulting aggravation of their present embarrassments. Under these circumstances, and with these feelings, he had resolved to withdraw it; and for the reasons already stated, while he did that, he should not feel it necessary to supply what it might have produced by imposing any new tax.
The motion for postponing the Committee to that day three months, was then agreed to.

ABOLITION OF CRIMPAGE.
Mr. Croker, in answer to a question put on a former night by an hon. gent. then present (Mr. Whitbread), begged leave to state the nature of the fund newly created by fines for the discharge of seamen. According to the old arrangement, when a seaman was permitted to procure a substitute in order to quit the service himself, his only course was to apply to persons called Crimps, who charged at the rate of 100 guineas for an able-bodied seaman, and 50 guineas for a landsman, and they insisted that the entire sum should be deposited in the first instance, often before they had obtained the substitute themselves. The consequence of this was, that months, and even years elapsed, before the substitute was found; and the individual, who paid his money, had often sailed to a foreign station, or, perhaps, died, before the object was accomplished, losing, to his distressed
308
family, the full amount of his discharge. The government, considering this a subject which called for its interference, resolved to interpose its authority, and put an end to the iniquitous trade of Crimps altogether. With this view it was determined by the Board of Admiralty, that the man should be discharged, the moment his discharge was paid for at the rate of 80 guineas for an able bodied seaman, in the place of 100, and 40 guineas for a landsman, in the place of 50, as charged by the crimps under all the casualties of imposition and delay. The money thus received, was carried into the fund for raising volunteer seamen; and he had the satisfaction to state to the House, that all the objects of the arrangement were fully answered. There was likewise an adequate security for the proper application of the money, there being no less than five checks upon the fund. This, he hoped, was a satisfactory answer to the question of the hon. gentleman.
Mr. Whitbreaddeclared himself perfectly satisfied with the explanation, and was confident the public would be perfectly satisfied also.

EAST INDIA BOARD OFFICERS SALARIES BILL.
On the question for going into a Committee on this Bill.
Sir Charles Poleopposed the Speaker's leaving the chair. He stated some objections to the Bill, and among others, insisted strongly upon the impropriety of placing the clerks of the Board of Control upon a better footing than the clerks of the Navy Office, by increasing their salaries. If such a principle were once recognized by parliament, there could be no knowing where it would stop. Every other department under government might feel itself entitled to an increase; nor did he see how the subalterns of the army and navy could be refused, after such a proceeding.
Mr. R. Dundasthought the hon. admiral completely misconceived the facts of the case: at the present moment there was an annual deficiency of 1,300 l. and unless that deficiency was supplied, the salaries of the clerks would be diminished; which he was sure the hon. admiral could not have in his contemplation. The question here was, whether the clerks at the India Board could be got at less expence; and when it was considered that the four senior clerks had duties to perform, which required an education and attainments beyond

309
ordinary accounting-clerks, he was prepared to say that it was utterly impossible to get effective persons for an inferior salary. It was proposed that the salaries of the senior clerks should not exceed 600 l. a year, and those of the inferior ones 400 l. a year, and it seemed strange to expect they should perform their various duties for a less consideration. The hon. admiral had directed his remarks against one clause alone of the Bill, but as there were several others which required consideration, he trusted he would not oppose the Speaker's leaving the chair.
Mr. Robert Thorntonsupported the Bill, and thought, that when the salaries of all other clerks were raised, those belonging to the India Board should not form a solitary exception, and be driven down in society, by being worse off than others in the same rank of life.
General Tarletonargued against the injustice shewn by ministers, in bringing forward a measure which was to improve the condition of the clerks in the India House, while they refused to raise the pay of the army, who were deprived of those domestic comforts which the former possessed. The stipend of every clerk was raised, but there had been no increase in the pay of the army since the reign of Charles 2, with the exception of something to the subalterns of the line and cavalry, which did not amount to more than the property tax. In the face of the House and the country, and in the name of the army, he must appeal against this injustice.
Sir John Anstruthernever heard a more ill-timed or ill considered speech than that just delivered by the gallant general. It was a most invidious comparison to hold out that the House was unjust to the army and navy, because it paid persons in inferior situations. What would be said to him, if, as a civil man, he acted similarly, if an addition was proposed to the pay of the army, and if he upheld the clerks to the officers of the army, who had much higher and nobler objects in view than mere pecuniary compensation? Good God! exclaimed the right hon. baronet, that a general officer should bring forward such a comparison, which was only worthy of some obscure alley in the city! The question was simply this, whether these persons were to be kept in that rank of life, which others in similar situations held? He could affirm, that the gentlemen belonging to the Board of Controul,
310
were harder worked, and worse paid, than any other such men in the kingdom. The right hon. gent. had refrained horn any mention of his own situation, which, how-ever, was extremely arduous, and required a much higher recompence than was attached to it, to induce the person who filled it not to give it up, which would be attended with extreme inconvenience. Such was the case, and he retained the most decided opinion as to the expediency of the present Bill.
Mr. Creeveydid not object to the increase of the salaries of the clerks; but he thought there were funds sufficient for that purpose without any additional vote.
Mr. Wallacemaintained the expediency of granting to the full extent provided far in the Bill.
Mr. P. Mooresaid he should oppose the Bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that all were agreed as to the propriety of remunerating the clerks, and those who knew most of the subject recommended an additional remuneration to the person at the head of the Board of Control; it was with this view, and not to serve any personal purpose, that his right hon. friend had proposed the Bill. The consideration of the Company's Charter would bring the subject under the notice of parliament again, and he was persuaded it would be then found that the great increase of business justified and required the addition.
The question was then put and carried; and the Bill went through a Committee.

IRISH TOBACCO DUTIES BILL.
The House went into a Committee on this Bill.
Mr. Bankesthought that the situation of Ireland was such, that instead of an additional duty on tobacco, a modification of the property tax would be more desirable. The finances of that kingdom were so low, that it was impossible she could support herself, and was becoming a burthen on this country, in consequence of the Union.
Mr. M Naughtenwas concerned to hear the hon. gentleman charge the sister kingdom with being a burthen on England, and hoped, that whatever might be done to relieve her from her present situation, at least the property tax would not be resorted to; that was a tax which the people could ill bear; it was a tax they much dreaded. He lamented that other gentle-men had not considered the situation of Ireland as well as the hon. gentleman.
Mr. Foster, with considerable warmth and agitation of mind, noticed the observations of the hon. gentleman, and denied that Ireland was a burthen on England. If she was indebted to England for a temporary loan, she would, in honour, discharge it. Did she, he would ask the hon. gentleman, call for the Union? Was it not forced upon her? He had voted against the measure; but the kingdoms being now united, it was better to conciliate all differences. The hon. gentleman ought, in justice, to recant the expressions.
Mr. Bankeswas not astonished that the hon. members had heard with surprise and indignation the situation of Ireland. It was true that she could not support herself; for was not she, at this moment, receiving pecuniary assistance, by way of loan, from this country? He did not mean to say that it was improper to extend that assistance. If the situation of Ireland had been examined into, this angry debate might have been avoided. He could not consent to recant what he had said. It was the effect of an anxious desire for the happiness of Ireland, and, therefore, he could brook the language of the honourable gentleman, who desired him not to interfere with that kingdom.—(Mr. M'Naughten here observed that he had not used that expression.)—He would appeal to them around him whether the honourable gentleman had not so said; but, however, he still thought the Property Tax would he the best mode of providing for the revenue, instead of the Tobacco Duty, as that would exonerate the poorer classes.
Mr. M'Naughtendenied that he was angry with the hon. gentleman who had given an Irish recommendation with respect to the taxes, by stating that a modification of the Property Tax would be desirable for Ireland. There was no tax on Property in Ireland. Ireland, instead of being averse to, would be very much obliged by the hon. gentleman's interference in her affairs, because whatever affected her must equally affect England.
Mr. Hutchinsonwished for more time, and condemned the duty as unproductive.
The Report was ordered to be received to morrow.

IRISH NEWSPAPERS—DUTIES ON ADVERTISEMENTS.
Sir John Newport, in pursuance of notice, entered into a statement of the nature of the Duty upon Advertisements in Ireland, and a comparison thereof with that of England. He complained
312
of its being unjust and contrary to the articles of the Union with that country, which ordained that Ireland should not be taxed in any one instance more than England. It was injurious to the liberty of the Press, because only those papers in the interest of government were favoured with government advertisements, and it was not productive, as there had been only the sum of 2,500 l. raised, although it had been stated at 30,000 l. The proprietors of newspapers in Ireland were al-lowed only one and a half per cent. upon payment of duty, while those in England were allowed 17 per cent. which afforded another instance of its being contrary to the act of union between the two countries. He concluded with moving, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Act of the 50th of the King as imposes an additional duty of two shillings for every ten lines which every advertisement, proclamation, order, or act of state, published in any Gazette, News-paper, Journal, or Daily Accounts shall contain, over and above the first ten lines, and as imposes a duty of one halfpenny on every hand-bill in Ireland."
Mr. Fostersaid he was willing to place the Irish newspapers on the same footing as the English, if the right hon. baronet desired it; but he suspected, if so, that the right hon. baronet would not be a favourite with the Irish printers. He must say, that it was rather ridiculous in some gentlemen to talk of the duty on advertisements as being detrimental to the liberty of the press, when the two subjects were in nowise connected. The worthy baronet seemed to think that he had violated the act of union by laying on some duties in Ireland higher than in England. The worthy baronet when in office did the same thing. He may shake his head, but he did. "Yes, (said Mr. F.) you laid a tax upon jaunting cars. What's the reason you don't hold up your head and answer me? You laid a tax upon jaunting cars, and you laid a tax upon licences for public houses. I do not blame you, I did the same thing. (A laugh.) It is not fair, however, that you should accuse me of that as a fault, in the commission of which you must have thought yourself perfectly justifiable."
Mr. Sheridan.I really, Sir, cannot help remarking the surprising change of temper which has so suddenly manifested itself in the right hon. gentleman. A few minutes ago, when the hon. gentleman

313
below me (Mr. Bankes) said that Ireland was a burden upon England, he was instantly all on fire; and well he might. If Ireland is a burden upon England, where are you to seek the reason? Where but in the oppression, the injustice, and the tyranny of this country, which has so long enthralled Ireland; which has debased her for three centuries. I do not wonder, however, at the sudden good humour of the right hon. gentleman. I hear a few of the worthy gentlemen opposite have been amusing themselves this evening elsewhere. (A laugh.) Really I am very far from blaming them; indeed I am one of the last in the House who would desire to interrupt their diversion. The right hon. gentleman has said, if the Union is to be violated, it is best to repeal it at once; now, all that the right hon. gentleman has done with respect to the press, is a violation of the act of union; a violation of that clause which says, that no taxes are to be raised in Ireland higher than in England. It will not be the least excuse for him to say, that my right hon. friend beside me did so too. Even if it was the fact, it would not excuse his following a bad example: but my worthy friend did no such thing. He taxed jaunting cars—there are no jaunting cars in England, so the case does not hold there. He taxed licences, but licences are not articles of taxation, but police regulations; so, there also he is in error. In fact, he has not made out a single case where my right hon. friend has violated the act of union. (Mr. Foster and Mr. Perceval here appeared to converse.) I should be obliged to the right honourable gentleman for his attention, though perhaps, it would be more politic in me to let him continue his hints to his right hon. friend; indeed, I shall lose but little by his instilling a few of the arguments to-night into the ear of the right hon. gentleman beside him. I turn, however, to the hon. gent. below (Mr. Bankes) who has had the hardihood to say, this night, that Ireland cannot support her own government. It is not so. She can support her fair proportion; but she cannot, nor ought she, to be required to advance an overrated quota to the general defence of the empire. See what Ireland is doing for you—see her sacrificing her courage—her best blood in our defence; and can you in return basely reproach her with her poverty? You have no right to do so. If she is poor, she has become so in your
314
support. Spare her, then, the mortification of hearing, that she owes that to your gratitude which she has a right to claim, not from your bounty but your justice. It has been said that the press cannot be hurt by raising the duty on advertisments. There are three ways of destroying the liberty of the press; one is by oppressive acts of parliament, another is by Ex-officio informations and the unconstitutional banishment of printers to distant gaols; and the third is by raising the price of cheap publications. This, and this is the way resorted to in Ireland, it is a mean, cowardly, and circuitous attempt. I have ever been a firm friend to the press, and while I live I shall continue so. I fear no corruption either in the state or in the government, while the press exists. Against venal lords, commons, or juries—against despotism of any kind, or in any shape—let me but array a free press, and the liberties of England will stand unshaken.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerjustified the opinions of his right hon. friend with respect to the duty. The assimilation to the English duty would raise more money, and, as a matter of revenue, no doubt if the right hon. baronet was sincere, his right hon. friend would consent to repeal the present duty. He denied that it was a violation of the act of Union, as had been urged. Referring to what had been said by Mr. Bankes, he must declare that Ireland was no burden on England; so far from it, she was the great strength of the empire in assisting to combat the enemy, both by sea and land. The loan which had just been granted, was given for the advantage of the whole empire. To con-tribute to the wants of such a friend was serving this country. To say, that such a sum as four millions and a half taken from the Exchequer in aid of Ireland was entailing a burthen on England, or was detracting from that dignity and station in the empire which Ireland ought and did possess, was holding language which should not be held out. The loan was not an act of generosity and relief, but an act of liberality and justice, as well to England as to Ireland, for she was the main limb of the empire. The right hon. gentleman had talked of the liberty of the press, of informations filed by the Attorney General, of sending persons to distant prisons, of the unconstitutional caprice of the judges, &c.; but the right hon. gentleman should weigh well the use of words before he uttered them.

315
He could not justly charge the judges with being actuated by caprice in passing the sentence of the law upon offenders. There never was a time when the administration of justice was so pure—when the judges were so uncorrupt. If the right hon. gentleman would reconsider his words, he would find that he had been too hasty, and that there was no foundation for any one of his charges.
Mr. Sheridanin explanation said, that when punishment arose from caprice, the law could not justify it, and therefore he should take this opportunity of giving notice, that he would next session move for the repeal of that law which related to Ex-officio Informations.
Mr. Ponsonbysupported the motion. He thought the hon. gent. who had observed that Ireland was a burden to this country, rather deserved the thanks than the reprobation of the gentlemen of that country, as he had shewn the necessity of some remedy being adopted for the evil. It must be acknowledged that that country was in difficulty, which could not pay the interest of its own debt, but must accept 4½ millions for its service. In this instance, however, the right hon. gent. was imposing an unjust tax, as it was contrary to the spirit of the union; and although it might not tend to destroy the liberty of the press, yet it enabled government to shewn an unjust partiality, and to create dissatisfaction in that country, which they ought to use every exertion to conciliate.
Mr. Parnellsaid that he could not admit the construction of the act of union that had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If those parts of the 7th article which pointed out the application of the revenues of Ireland, and the manner in which the proportions of contribution were to be provided were taken together, it appeared to him that no article could be taxed higher in Ireland than it was in England. Taxation for the purpose of providing for the proportion of contribution being necessarily by that article a proceeding following taxation for providing for the interest of the debt, which formed a separate charge, the true purport of the clause directing, that no article should be taxed higher in Ireland than in England for the purpose of providing the proportion, was to prevent any article from being so taxed for any purpose whatever. Whatever the tax on any article might be for the purpose of defraying the
316
separate charge, no such addition could be made to it for defraying the joint charge as would make it altogether higher than it was in England. It was however no wonder that difficulties should arise in ascertaining the precise meaning of this article. It had now been the subject of discussion for some weeks before the Irish Finance Committee, and as yet the only opinion the Committee had been able to form of it was, that it was almost wholly unintelligible. But in regard to the question of issue, a noble member of that Committee, the framer of the article, had so lately as yesterday declared that Ireland was secured by it from the imposition of a higher duty on any article than that article was liable to in England. In respect to the duty on advertisements, he must contend that it was grievous to the editors of the public papers, and had a tendency to destroy the liberty of the press. He could consider it in no other light than that of an attack upon those editors who were the advocates of the people, and the opponents of the abuses of government. As to revenue, it was idle to look upon it as ever having been intended to be productive. It was a measure of the same class as many others of the Irish government to endeavour to stifle the freedom of public discussion. This he firmly believed to be the case when he considered the use which was made of the annual grant of 10,000 l. nominally given for printing proclamations; and also the manner in which the express establishment between London and Dublin was converted into a source of profit to some editors, and of injury to others. The argument that the Irish press could bear equal burdens with the English was one at variance with every principle of taxation. In this country the public press had been long established, and it was supported by the immense wealth of the nation. In Ireland it was but just beginning to take the form of an established business, and had to depend on the support of a people only beginning to emerge from poverty. But in his opinion there was a still stronger reason why the press of Ireland should be protected instead of oppressed, and that was, her having lost her local legislature by the union. The public press had become the substitute of that legislature. Without it, the grievance of the people and the abuses of government could not be known; it was impossible that rights could be protected or wrongs redressed without the aid of this

317
establishment; he should therefore, on this and on all occasions, resist to the utmost of his power every restriction that was endeavoured to be imposed upon it.
Colonel Barrysaid he should vote against the motion.
Mr. Shawhaving already troubled the House on this subject, begged to assure them that at this late hour he would not trespass on their patience more than to answer one or two observations that fell from the right hon. gent. opposite. He was sorry the right hon. gent. (Mr. Foster) had so short a memory; for he appealed to every gentleman who was present at the opening of the Irish Budget last year, whether the right hon. gentleman did not distinctly say, that as the price of the Irish newspapers was just two thirds of the English, therefore no objection could be made to raising the tax on advertisements to the same ratio, that is, to two thirds the English tax. Was this the case or not? It had been said that if the tax was repealed another must be substituted in its place. This was a very erroneous apprehension, because, as it was stated in the petition which he had the honour to present from the proprietors of Irish newspapers, the tax was as unproductive as it was oppressive. Therefore, placing it upon its former footing would occasion no defalcation of revenue. It had been most whimsically remarked by the right hon. gentleman, that the tax being unproductive was occasioned by the obstinacy of the proprietors of the news-papers who set themselves against it. But could it be for a moment supposed that they would be such enemies to their own interests as to refuse the insertion of advertisements, upon which their profits al-most entirely depended?—Mr. Shaw made use of several other arguments to demon-strate the injustice and the impolicy of the tax, and contended, that it ought not, at all events, in any case to exceed two-thirds of the duty paid in England.
After a few words from sir John New-port, in reply, the House divided, when there appeared

Against the motion

51

For it

21

Majority

—30

MR. PALMER'S CLAIMS.
The Earl of Liverpooladdressed their lordships on the subject of the recent vote of the House of Commons, in favour of Mr. Palmer. He expressed his satisfaction at the notice taken by noble lords of the subject on a former evening; and he disapproved of such a proceeding on the part of the other House, after the question had been fully discussed, and decided in the negative by their lordships. He thought it preferable that no proposition should be made in that House, in consequence, but that they should wait until the answer of his royal highness the Prince Regent upon the occasion should be known. He, for one, as a member of his Majesty's government, or an adviser of his royal highness, should not recommend to him to sanction or authorize the grant of money for satisfying a claim which their lordships' House had decided to be unfounded.
The Earl of Radnorexpressed his satisfaction at what had fallen from the noble secretary of state.

CRIMINAL LAW BILLS.
Lord Holland, pursuant to notice, rose, to move the second reading of the Bills brought up from the Commons, and proposed by sir Samuel Romilly, for repealing the capital punishments annexed to the offences of stealing in dwelling-houses and shops, beyond a certain amount; stealing on Navigable Canals; and in bleaching grounds in Great Britain and Ireland. He first stated the origin and nature of the acts which rendered the offences in question capitally punishable. These enactments took place in the reign of William the third, and of queen Anne; and he adverted to the very different nature of the existing laws of England, from what they were at those particular periods: and also of the very material difference in the value of money. It was judged, under the circumstances of those days, advisable to punish these offences in the most compendious, though not the most efficacious, way they could devise, namely, by the dreadful punishment of death. The Bills under consideration, though evidently for

297
one general object, did not exactly rest upon the same grounds. Those which related to the depredations committed in bleaching grounds, proceeded exactly on the same principle, and were more particularly entitled to the attention of the House as the very individuals whose properties were concerned, in both parts of the united kingdom, had come forward, and requested the legislature to new-model the law, as, from the effect of its extreme severity, their properties were the more exposed in consequence of the very great uncertainty of punishment. Thus, the persons the most interested had clearly expressed their sentiments. In point of principle and object the Bills were the same. From the extreme rigour of the existing laws, the actual punishment of offenders became very uncertain; and thus, instead of restraining the commission of offences, they were in effect multiplied. This was incontrovertibly true: long experience evinced it. What he advocated when he urged their lordships to sanction the Bills in question, was not the cause of theory or speculation; It was founded in recorded facts—in the annals of the criminal jurisprudence of the country. In point of fact, the practice of the law in these respects was against the letter of the law: and the subject solved itself into the question, whether the terror of punishment or the certainty of punishment was the more likely to deter from the com-mission of crimes? The unfavourable operation of the present rigorous enactments existed in more ways than could be evidently ascertainable. It was not only the difficulty of obtaining convictions on prosecutions in courts of justice that was to be considered, but the numbers who were deterred from the prosecution of offenders, lest they should endanger the life of a fellow-creature, for the value of the paltry sum of five shillings, or even of forty shillings. That numbers were so deterred, he had a right to assume in argument, from those circumstances which were of daily and evident notoriety. Nor was even this the worst. Juries had been known to incur the crime of perjury rather than commit the culprit before them to the hazard of capital punishment. There happened a case in which the charge was the stealing of a 10 l. bank note. This the jury, in the warmth of their humane feelings, thought proper to reduce in their verdict, to a nominal value below 40 s. whereas in justice the verdict should have
298
been that the prisoner had stolen the bank note, or had not stolen it. And it was before them in authentic statements, that out of 1800 persons who were tried for the offences specified, in the Bills in question, not above one in seven years had been executed. It was admitted on all hands, it was notorious, that the commissions of these offences were progressively increasing; and the generally assigned cause was the extreme rigour of the existing law in these respects. Even the officers of the customs and the excise had expressly stated their opinions, that, in the case of the revenue laws, the severity of the punishments prescribed, eventually caused an increase of the offences, and they recommended a relaxation on that ground. The consequence of the present state of the law, by diminishing the chances of punishment, or even conviction, was an increase of the offences; and this view of the question alone, were there no other, should be sufficient to induce the legislature to modify and relax the rigour of the law. It might be urged against him, that generally in cases of conviction the law was not executed to the extent, but mercifully administered. But this was the mere exercise of a discretionary power; and he was un-willing to vest, in such frequent instances, a power over the lives of their fellow creatures, in any individuals, however highly he might respect them. It was a power which should be confided to them only in cases of extreme necessity. He did not lay much stress upon what was done in these respects in despotic countries; in Russia, for instance, where the punishment of death was said to be abolished, because in such countries the whole system of the law depended upon the will of one, or of a very few individuals. The principle upon which the legislature should proceed, in free countries, was widely different. Pressing his line of argument for relaxing the severity of the law, the noble lord contended, that it eventually operated as an inducement to the commission of offences, inasmuch as every commutation of the punishment from death to transportation, was regarded by the convicted as a species of escape, and this encouraged others to hope they should meet with equal good fortune: and they had to consider whether it was not better to assimilate the law to the practice, than to suffer the present inefficacious, nay injurious system, to continue. The noble lord concluded by moving the

299
second reading of the Bill for repealing the capital punishment on the conviction of stealing to the amount of 40 s. in any dwelling house.
Lord Ellenboroughthought the whole of this argument might be confined to this alternative; either there must be a high punishment for the aggravated commission of a general crime bearing the intermediate degrees between that and the lowest penalty, to be supplied by the discretion of the judge; or there must be a graduated seals of punishment, proportioned to all the shades and difference of crime. The latter mode was a the story borrowed from the Chinese code, which, in a late pamphlet, was represented to embrace the shades of difference of crime, from murder, down to those of the lowest denomination, where even the blows of the baton were not only numbered, but the size and thickness of the instrument ascertained. Such a system he contended was ridiculous, and as absurd in theory, as it would be found nugatory in practice. Judge Blackstone's authority had been referred to, but what he stat-ed on the criminal law was written at a period of his life when he was inexperienced, and though his authority was great and deservedly respected, yet it was not equal to other eminent legal authorities, The Bill which altered the law as it regarded privately stealing from the person, had, he knew beyond all doubt, increased that offence to a serious and alarming degree. He instanced some cases of gross atrocity which had come to his knowledge, at the last sessions at the Old Bailey. Two of the Bills on their lordships' table, respecting stealing from bleaching-grounds in England and Ireland, he should not oppose, on account of the petitions from those who were to receive the protection of the law. The other three, respecting stealing from shops, dwelling-houses, and canals, he should oppose; for they went to alter those laws, which a century had proved to be necessary, and which were now to be overturned by speculation and modern philosophy. He thought prosecutions were in general most sturdily pursued; and instead of prosecutions being encouraged, there was reason at all times to restrain them; for the parties appeared not to be wanting in an appetite for conviction. Juries, in general, acted according to their anxiety; and this might be called a rice inherent in the constitution of man. The discretion in Judges
300
was a power they exercised with pain; but he did not perceive how that mode of administering the law could be dispensed with. His endeavour was to discharge his duty, however he might be misrepresented; but he would never sacrifice his conscience to the cowardly Fear of misrepresentation. When he was appointed to the situation he filled, he made a covenant with himself, that he would always appear in that House, and state to their lordships all the knowledge with which he might be supplied from experience, as to the making, altering, or repealing of the laws of the land. In that capacity he offered himself at present, and he trusted that they would not readily change what the experience of a century had proved to be beneficial, for the illusory opinions of speculatists. The noble and learned lord moved, as an amendment, That the Bill be read this day six months.
The Earl of Lauderdalecontended, that the noble and learned lord had no just ground on the present occasion to arraign the framers or supporters of the Bills before the House, of an inclination to intro-duce what he was pleased to call modern philosophy. The same principle upon which these Bills stood, had lately been acted upon by their lordships in the framing of a Bill to consolidate into one, all the acts which made death the punishment of certain offences against the excise laws. Some of the first legal authorities in the country had given their attention, their labour, and their approbation to that measure; and no one thought of describing it as an attempt to introduce and establish a system of criminal law, on the basis of what was termed modern philosophy.
The Lord Chancellorreferred to the example of the disposition which men's minds had to examine the principles upon which our criminal code was framed, a disposition which he himself felt in early life, before observation and experience had matured his judgment. Since, however, he had learned to listen to these great teachers in this important science, his ideas had greatly changed, and he saw the wisdom of the principles and practice by which our criminal code was regulated. It was impossible to observe the various forms and aspects under which offences of the same class, and liable to the same punishments, offered themselves to our view, without feeling the necessity of allowing a degree of discretion in apportioning

301
the different degree of punishment with which each should be visited. In proof of this assertion, the noble and learned lord adduced a variety of cases; and argued for the necessity of vesting a very large share of discretion in the judges. Of this the framer of the present Hills appeared himself to be very sensible; for, while he took away the pain of death, he allowed the judges great latitude of discretion in measuring out the punishments which he wished to substitute in the room of death. After the most serious attention, however, to these cases, it was the conviction of his mind, that as long as human nature remained what it was, the apprehension of death would have the most powerful co-operation in deterring from the commission of crimes; and he thought it unwise to withdraw the salutary influence of that terror. The noble and learned lord disclaimed the smallest intention to impute improper motives to those who differed from him in opinion, with regard to the present bills.
Lord Erskinesaid, that the British nation was confessedly the most moral of any nation now known; and if in such a nation, he observed that a great number of offences were committed, to which was attached death, he should impute such an occurrence rather to something vicious and defective in our criminal code, than to any depravity in the moral disposition of our people. When he saw that out of one hundred prosecutions, fifty or sixty convictions and executions followed, then he should be satisfied that such offences should be punished by death; but when out of a thousand prosecutions, he observed that only one conviction and execution followed, he should also infer, that the legislature must see, that the pain of death was not applicable to such offences, on this ground he should support the motion now before the House.
Lord Redesdaleconsidered the discretion with which the judges were entrusted, as extremely beneficial. Allusion had been made by a noble lord to the Committee of that House, to whom the revenue laws, as far as respected the penalty of death, had been referred. The statement of that noble lord was not, however, correct. The fact was, that in the act which had been brought in, in consequence of their proceedings, the language of the former acts had been greatly simplified, but very few of the capital punishments had been commuted. In two instances, only, he
302
believed, had an alteration been made, and these were cases in which it was found better, by substituting pecuniary penalties, to render the risk of committing the offence greater, than any benefit which could accrue from its perpetration.
The Earl of Lauderdalecontended that his statement was correct. By the revenue laws, as they originally stood, there were 95 offences punishable with death; by the late Bill they had been reduced to 25.
The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that the reason which influenced the House to refer the revenue laws to a Committee was, that, in several of those acts, the penalty of death was enacted "by reference." This was most improper, and therefore the House had thought fit to investigate the matter. Direction was given to the judges to include in one act all the revenue laws which enacted the penalty of death. This Bill was referred to a Committee up stairs, and all those who were practically acquainted with the subject were examined as to the propriety of retaining or commuting the punishment of death attached to many of the offences. The proceeding bore, no resemblance to the measure then before the House. The noble lord who brought in the Bill had passed a high eulogium on the talents of the hon. and learned gentleman who had framed it. He was willing to concur in that eulogium; but it should be recollected that the branch of the law to which that hon. and learned gentleman applied himself, could afford but little information on the criminal law. He objected not so much to the Bills themselves, as to the principle on which they were founded, which might be applied to the whole criminal code. That code had succeeded as well as it was possible for any system of criminal law to succeed. He should therefore oppose the Bills, which, while he was sure they could effect no good, might be productive of very great mischief.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid that the facts which were admitted to have been proved before the Committee on the re-venue laws, that, in many instances, the severity of punishment had increased the unwillingness to prosecute, and thereby become the means of increasing offences, were sufficient to prove the necessity of the interference of the legislature. Those who asserted that it was intended to take away all discretion from the judges were mistaken. By examining the Bill it would

303
be found, that the judge could vary the punishment from transportation for life, to the period of seven years, or even to imprisonment for a certain time.
Lord Hollandreplied briefly" to the arguments advanced against the Bill.
The House then divided, when there appeared—

For the original motion

10

For the Amendment

27

Majority

—

17

The Bill was consequently lost. The Dwelling-house Robbery Bill, and the Navigable River Stealing Bill, shared the same fate. The English and Irish Bleaching-grounds Robbery Bills were read the second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday.