Sitting of 16 March 1819

COPY OF THE TREATY WITH AMERICA."
Lord Castlereaghpresented, by command of the Prince Regent, the Convention between Great Britain and America, of which the following is a Copy:
CONVENTION between his Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, Signed at London, October 20th, 1818.
His majesty the king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the United States of America, desirous to cement the good understanding which happily subsists between them, have, for that purpose, named their respective plenipotentiaries, that is to say, his majesty, on his part, has appointed the right hon. Frederick John Robinson, treasurer of his majesty's navy, and president of the committee of privy council for trade and plantations; and Henry Goulburn, esq. one of his majesty's under secretaries of state:—And the president of the United States has appointed Albert Gallatin, their envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the court of France; and Richard Rush, their envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the court of his Britannic majesty: who, after having exchanged their respective full powers, found to be in due and proper form, have agreed to and concluded the following articles:
Art. 1. Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United States, for the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, and cure fish, on certain coasts, bays harbours and creeks, of his Britannic majesty's dominions in America, it is agreed between the high contracting parties, that the inhabitants of the said United States shall have for ever, in common with the subjects of his Britannic majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind, on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland, which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau islands, on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland, from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon islands on the shores of the Magdalen islands, and also on the coasts, bays, harbours, and creeks, from Mount Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the Streights Of Belleisle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson's Bay Company. And that the American fishermen shall also have liberty, for ever, to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays. harbours and creeks, of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland here above de-

997
scribed, and of the coast of Labrador; but so soon as the same, or any portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the. said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled, without previous agreement for such purpose, with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground. And the United States hereby renounce for ever, any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, or cure fish, on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours of his Britannic majesty's dominions in America, not included within the above-mentioned limits: provided, however, that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbours, for the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them.
Art. 2. It is agreed that a line drawn from the most north-western point of the lake of the woods, along the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, or, if the said point shall not be in the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, then that a line drawn from the said point due north or south, as the case may be, until the said line shall intersect the said parallel of north latitude, and from the point of such intersection due west along and with the said parallel, shall be the line of demarcation between the territories of his Britannic majesty and those of the United States, and that the said line shall form the southern boundary of the said territories of his Britannic majesty; and the northern boundary of the territories of the United States, from the lake of the woods to the Stony Mountains.
Art. 3. It is agreed, that any country that may be claimed by either party on the northwest coast of America, westward of the Stony Mountains, shall, together with its harbours, bays, and creeks, and the navigation of all rivers within the same, he free and open for the term of ten years from the date of the signature of the present convention, to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of the two powers: it being well understood, that this agreement is not to be construed to the prejudice of any claim which either of the two high contracting parties may have to any part of the said country, nor shall it be taken to affect the claims of any other power or state to any part of the said country, the only object of the high contracting parties, in that respect, being to prevent disputes and differences amongst themselves.
Art. 4. All the provisions of the convention "to regulate the commerce between the territories of his Britannic majesty and of the United States," concluded at London, on the 3rd day of July, in the year of our Lord 1815,
[998
with the exception of the clause which limited its duration to lour years, and excepting also so far as the same was affected by the declaration of his majesty respecting the island of St. Helena, are hereby extended and continued in force for the term of ten years from the date of the signature of the present convention, in the same manner as if all the provisions of the said convention were herein specially recited.
Art. 5. Whereas it was agreed by the first article of the treaty of Ghent, that "all territory, places and possessions whatsoever, taken by either party from the other during the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty, excepting only the islands hereinafter mentioned, shall be restored without delay, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any of the artillery or other public property originally captured in the said forts or places, which shall remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, or any slaves or other private properly;"—and whereas, under the aforesaid article, the United States claim for their citizens, and as their private property, the restitution of, or full compensation for, all slaves who, at the date of the exchange of the ratifications of the said treaty, were, in any territory, places, or possessions whatsoever, directed by the said treaty to be restored to the United States, but then still occupied by the British forces, whether such slaves were, at the date aforesaid, on shore, or on board any British vessel, lying in waters within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States; and whereas differences have arisen, whether, by the true intent and meaning of the aforesaid article of the treaty of Ghent, the United States are entitled to the restitution of, or full compensation for all or any slaves, as above described the high contracting parties hereby agree to refer the said differences to some friendly sovereign or state, to be named for that purpose; and the high contracting parties further engage to consider the decision of such friendly sovereign or state to be final and conclusive on all the matters referred.
Art. 6. This convention, when the same shall have been duly ratified by his Britannic majesty and the president of the United states, by and with the advice and consent of their senate, and the respective ratifications mutually exchanged, shall be binding and obligatory on his majesty and on the said United States; and the ratifications shall be exchanged in six months from this date of sooner if possible.
In witness whereof, the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the same and have thereunto affixed the seal of their arms — Done at London, this 20th day of October, 1818.
(L. S.) FREDERICK JOHN ROBINSION
(L. S.) HENRY GOULBURN.
(L. S.) ALBERT GALLAINTS.
(L. S.) RICHARD RUSH.
On moving that the said treaty do lie on the table lord castlereagh observed, that it was not Intended to take the opinion of the House on the treaty itself, as a right hon. friend of his would have to submit a bill arising out of that treaty, to the consideration of parliament.

BARNSTAPLE ELECTION.
The Speakersubmitted to the House, that it was necessary to take some step that evening with regard to the stayed writ for Barn-staple. Upon which it was ordered, on the motion of lord Clive, "That Mr. Speaker do not issue his warrant to the clerk of the crown, to make out a new writ for the electing of a burgess to serve in the present parliament for the borough of Barnstaple, in the room of sir Manasseh Masseh Lopes, bart., whose election has been determined to be void, till Tuesday, 23rd March."

PENRYN BRIBERY BILL.
Sir C. Burrellbrought in a bill "for the preventing of bribery and corruption in the election of members to serve in parliament for the borough of Penryn, in the county of Cornwall." The bill was read a first time, ordered to be read a second time on the 2nd of April, and to be printed.
The Speakerobserved, that in former cases, it had been the practice to give previous notice of the second reading of a bill to all parties concerned. In later ones, however, the practice was, to submit the matter to a select committee of the House who directed notices to be served on such parties. In the Hindon case, the order of the House was, to disfranchise Certain individuals only; which order was accordingly served upon them, and not upon the borough itself. He only stated these circumstances, in order that the House might be aware of the nature of the present proceeding; and suggested, that possibly it might be advisable to direct the returning officer to serve similar notices, or affix them on public places in Penryn.
Lord Castlreaghthen moved, "That a printed copy of the said bill be served upon the Portreeve of the borough of Penryn, and that he do affix notice of the day appointed for the second reading of the said bill on the doors of the Town-hall and of the parish church of the said brought
Mr. Wynndid not see the absolute
[1000
necessity of the step proposed, but at the same time was willing to agree to any measure that argued a jealous regard for the rights of individuals.
Sir A. Piggottthought it proper that all persons whose rights might be affected by the bill should be fully apprised of its provisions.
Sir C. Burrellsaid, he entirely concurred in the proposed proceeding; more especially, considering the loss of time which would accrue upon the serving of notices on not less than 250 individuals, residents of Penryn.
The motion was then agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN INDIA.
Mr. Humerose to submit his promised motion, for a return of papers relative to, and declaratory of, the judicial system at present pursued in India. On a subject of so much general importance, he thought it proper to offer one or two observations, as he was anxious that the House should clearly understand the nature of that system. He should begin by declaring, that the whole of our judicial system in India had been very much misrepresented. In this country, we had been completely in the dark, as to the deplorable state of jurisprudence in India, both civil and criminal, and as to the state of the police there. The documents he should now move for, as well as other documents in his own private possession, were connected with a subject which nearly concerned the welfare of no less than from seventy to eighty millions of souls. Yet, upon these important matters, the public now were, as they had been for the last twenty years past, in a state of profound ignorance. Civil justice was, in fact, virtually denied to suitors; those very suitors being obliged to pay the government, on the amounts claimed by them, from 50 down to 7 and 6 per cent. This he was able to declare, not from any official documents obtained by him from the East India Company, but from their own regulations of 1814 regulations, in which the House would find with astonishment, that a fine was levied on the value sued for, decreasing as the amount increased, from 50 down to 1 per cent. That astonishment would be much increased, when he stated, that every document requisite to the progress of a suit, the citations, examinations, and depositions of witnesses, &c. were all to be written, every sheet of them, upon

1001
stamped paper; thereby increasing these heavy expenses to an enormous total;—expenses which, under the native princes, never exceeded 25 per cent on the amount claimed. This, then, was almost a virtual denial of justice altogether. The consequence of these unreasonable disbursements was, that, for years together, suitors were unable to obtain justice; and it was stated in the documents already on the table, that in the course of a long life a man could scarcely expect to see any determination of suits commenced in Asia. The consequence of all this had been, an increase of crime, enormous and such as that House was little prepared to learn. The depravity of the inhabitants of Bengal, in particular, had exceeded all bounds. He blamed no individual: it was the system under which such abuses existed, of which he complained. When the House understood that the extensive system of lord Cornwallis, enacted in 1792, prevailed in one part of India, while in another it was altered and disfigured, so that throughout those extensive dominions there was neither uniformity of law, nor uniformity in its operation, he hoped they would feel how necessary it was to consider of a remedy for such alarming evils. He should therefore move, "That there be laid before this House, copies or extracts of the reports and proceedings of the several presidencies in India, concerning the administration of justice, civil and criminal, and of the police, from 1810 to the present time."
Mr. Canningsaid, that as the hon. gentleman's motion seemed to have been made merely for the purpose of obtaining information, he would trouble the House with a very few words. It was undoubtedly true, that much difference and controversy had existed; not as to the judicial system attempted to be introduced into India, because that was modelled upon our own, and such emendations had been engrafted upon it as local circumstances were thought to require; but as to the adaptation of that system to that particular country. Were his own opinion to be asked upon this subject, he should not, undoubtedly, draw so highly coloured a picture as the hon. gentleman had done; but he should rather say, that the benevolent intentions of lord Cornwallis had been in many instances frustrated. If some evils had flowed from that system, he was by no means prepared to bay, that no good had been effected by
[1002
it. It should be remembered, that it was a system sanctioned by his name, and by the approbation of that House; and as the emanation of so great and luminous a mind, it ought at least to be approached with hesitation and respect. Of the several motions which the hon. gentleman had purposed to make, and which he had done him the honour to transmit to him some time ago, he had selected four which he thought would be found to answer his object best; and the papers required by these even, would be so voluminous, that he was sure the day proposed for the discussion of the subject would prove to be a very distant one.
Lord Morpethconsidered the motion as one calculated to confer the best benefit on an extended population, namely, a just administration of the law: with this benefit they were at present entirely unacquainted, and India presented a melancholy scene in consequence. It was impossible that the House should not enter into the views of the hon. mover. For himself, it was his decided opinion, that however extensive our territorial dominions in Hindustan might be—however we might have subdued faction and revolt—however we might have crushed a formidable confederacy of Mabratta princes, and now ranged those predatory and feudatory chiefs under our own banners—yet our best security and our firmest empire was to be established in the affections, and attachment of the native population; and those could only be acquired by making them, feel that equity and protection were the principles of our jurisprudence.
Sir W. Burroughsdeclared, that to his own knowledge there was no justice in India until the establishment of the regulations introduced by lord Cornwallis, whose system had his complete approbation. The diffusion of it was of course attended with difficulty, and many years must elapse before it could be exclusively in operation. Its progress, however, had been greater than could have been expected, although much impeded by a false economy in limiting the number of individuals employed in the administration of justice. He had had an opportunity, during a residence of 21 years of witnessing the improvement which the system had made in the character of the natives, and the inducements which it held out to the inhabitants of the neighbouring states to emigrate to the British dominions. As to the system of police, it was dreadful.

1003
The population of Calcutta was estimated at from 750,000 to 800,000 souls; consisting of Hindoos, Mahommedans, Malays, Chinese, Jews, Europeans, Arabs, &c. whose occupations were as various as their description. To keep so motley a grouped in order, certainly required much vigilance; but great oppression was frequently exercised. Persons, after apprehension, were sometimes kept in custody for months together, without examination. Some even died in prison before the time for their examination arrived. He knew an instance of a young Malay female, not twenty years of age, who was sent by a magistrate to the town guard, where she remained many weeks: and when eventually liberated, it appeared that no information had been given against her. In fact, the abuses in the police both at Calcutta, and in the neighbouring districts were numerous, flagrant, and abominable.
Mr. Humeexpressed his concurrence in the selection from his motions made by the right hon. the president of the board Of control. Adverting to what had just fallen from the learned gentleman, he observed, that if there was one evil in India which required correction more than another it was the state of the police. Many months often elapsed before persons who were apprehended were brought to an examination; during which time they were kept in crowded prisons, where death frequently overtook them. The whole system of the Bengal police was carried on by hired spies, the heads of bands of rubbers, who were admitted king's evidence. So far from there being any economy in the judicial department, the administration of justice on the whole of Europe did not cost so much as the administration of justice in the British dominions in India. He congratulated the House and the public, on the recent publication of Mr. Mill, which contained so many accurate statements and so much clear reasoning, that it could not fail to be eminently beneficial.
Mr. Hutchisondwelt emphatically on the, importance of India, and on the wretched state of the police and administration of justice in that country; and impressed on the other members of his majesty's government, the expediency of taking measures forthwith to bring the natives of that country out of the state of wretched-ness in which they, were plunged.
Mr. CanningSaid he could assure the
[1004
hon. member, that it was not the first time the subject had been under consideration; it might be called the daily food of those whose duty it was to superintend the police, and to improve the internal condition of our East India provinces. But a controversy did still subsist between very able men, whether the system of British jurisprudence, which had been transplanted there with the best intentions, was adapted to the wants, the habits, and the interests of the natives. With his limited experience, he could scarcely say what was the inclination of his own mind respecting it; much less could he, although it had been the subject of his anxious study, express a confident opinion, where there was the authority of lord Cornwallis on one side, and that of a distinguished successor on the other. But if equally balanced in other respects, still it was evident that the latter had the advantage of experience to set against the prospective benevolence with which the system was introduced. Under the chief-justice ship of sir E. East, however, many difficulties in practice had been removed, and some points of difference set at rest. He did not apprehend that the subject would be ripe for being referred to a committee during the present session, but he looked forward with hope that it would be in a fit state for consideration in the course of the next.
The motion was agreed to, as were also the following for,
1. "Copies or Extracts of the Dispatches from the court of Directors of the East India Company to the several Presidencies in India, concerning the administration of justice, civil and criminal, and of the police, from 1810 to the present, time 2. Account of the Expense of the Police and judicial establishments in Bengal, Behar, Orissa, and Benares, in the year 1792, and in the year 1818, or the latest year, to which it can be made up. 3. Amount of the: judicial Charges in India at the three Presidencies of Bengal Fort St. George, and Bombay in the year 1818, or for the latest year for which the same can be made up distinguishing the principal heads of charge, and the expenses of his majesty's courts."

INSOLVENT DEBTORS—COMMITTES APPOINTED.
The Attorney Generalrose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to submit a motion to the house with regard to the present state of the

1005
law as it respected insolvent debtors. It was not his intention to move for the abrogation of that law, but to recommend the expediency of inquiring whether it was not susceptible of some improvement. An act of parliament had passed in the year 1813, which might be called new, as far as it became a part of our legal system. It was a law not before known in the ordinary administration of justice, and its object was to provide for the discharge of persons under confinement for debt. From time to time, however, during the last hundred years, acts of this kind had been passed as occasion seemed to require. Before the introduction of that practice, a creditor to a certain amount might, by the law of the country, not only arrest his debtor and detain him till he found bail to try the cause, but, on obtaining judgment, might keep him in execution till he should pay the debt. At different times the legislature had therefore interfered, and applied the principle of the bankrupt laws to the ordinary cases of insolvency, and the debtor was discharged on surrendering his effects. Such laws were, in the strictest sense of the word, ex-post facto; and the question was, whether the honest debtor would not be more effectually protected from oppression, and the creditor from injustice, by some permanent and established system of law upon the subject. The present act would expire at the end of the session, and if not renewed, with such alterations as might appear expedient, the law must return to its former state, by which the debtor who could not pay was subject to imprisonment for life, at the discretion or mercy of his creditor. After the first act had been some time in operation, a motion was made for appointing a committee to consider it; and the result was, that it was so far changed as to give the judge who presided at the insolvent debtors court, a power of refusing to debtors, in case of misconduct, the benefit of the act. It seemed now to be agreed, that the law required still further amendment; and for the purpose of making it more beneficial, he thought it better to refer it to a committee, than to bring in a bill formed upon his own or upon private suggestions. Another ground for referring the whole subject to a committee was, that many persons urged that the law was bad in principle, and that it ought not to exist. The numerous petitions which had been presented to this effect made it expedient
[1006
to re-consider the principle, as well as the best practical means of regulating its application. Under these circumstances, no question better deserving of grave inquiry could be imagined, than whether the law as it now stood ought to be continued, or entirely done away. It was undeniable, that the occasional acts which had been passed during the last century for the relief of debtors, had grown in rapidity of succession with the growing population and commerce of the country. It was also clearly more advantageous for the creditor to know before-hand on what terms he contracted with his debtor by some fixed and general law, than that parliament should at different periods be called upon to interfere between them. He believed that the defects of the law had been considerably mistated: many persons had unquestionably been defrauded, but there were also many unfortunate cases in which the debtor could not by any human ingenuity answer his engagements. The important question was, whether, on a fair balance of the inconveniences attending the law, with those of the ancient system, it was desirable that the latter should be restored. He knew that observations had been made as to whether justice had always been administered in the court appointed for the hearing cases of this nature. This would also form a proper subject for the inquiries of a committee; and he could assure the House, that none were more desirous of investigation than those who practised in that court. All that labour and assiduity and integrity could do, had been done; but whether, in the vast multiplicity of business which had come before it, honest judgment had not some times fallen into error, was more than could be said of the highest tribunals, of of the purest characters.—The hon. and learned gentleman concluded with moving "That a Committee be appointed to take into consideration the state of the law respecting the discharge of Insolvent Debtors, and the several Acts passed, in the 53rd, 54th, and 56th years of the reign of his present majesty, relative to the same, and the effects produced thereby; and to report to' the House then observations thereon, and the best means of rendering the same effectual."
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, it would be in the recollection of the House, That on presenting the first Petiton against the Insolvent Debtors act, he had given no-

1007
tice, if a renewal of that act were proposed, that he should move the appointment of a committee to inquire into the nature and character of the measure, and the effects which it had produced. After such a notice, he certainly did not expect that the hon. and learned gentleman would come forward and move for a committee, pledged as he (Mr. W.) was to the measure. His object would have been, if he had had the nomination of the committee, to have proposed gentlemen possessed of a practical knowledge of trade and commerce. He did not wish to speak with disrespect of gentlemen of legal attainments: it was to be recollected, however, that this act had been in force four years, that two attempts at its improvement had already been made, and that notwithstanding it was still in a most defective state. Whether it was owing to the defective formation of the former committees that the grievances existed up to the present moment, he would not pretend to say. He certainly agreed with the learned gentleman, in many of the observations which he had made. It would be said, perhaps, "if you agree to the proposition of the learned gentleman, what is the object of your now addressing the House?" Without meaning to throw out any reflections or imputations upon the House, he might be allowed to my, that this was a subject which, by the majority of the members, was but little understood. It was a subject which they perhaps thought of no great importance; but a more important subject was never before the House, whether considered in a moral or commercial point of view. He felt himself particularly called on, as having presented petitions from various places, against the renewal of the act in its present shape, to explain what his views were to the House. And, in the first place, he would observe, that the subject was brought before the House in the fairest way in which it could be brought. Though some members had, on a former evening, deprecated the raising a clamour against the Insolvent act, he would say that no unfair means had been resorted to in order to provoke petitions against it. The subject came before the House in a way which showed what the feelings of the people were with respect to it. He agreed with the learned attorney-general in thinking that it was necessary there should be some law on the subject; and the petitions which
[1008
had been presented to the House, all concurred in expressing a wish for what the learned gentleman stated to be the object he had in view, namely, a measure for the security of creditors and for the protection of honest debtors. The question for the consideration of the House was, what ought now to be done? It had been said that the present measure was equivalent to a commission of bankruptcy. Now, with deference to the hon. member who made this observation, he would observe with respect to the bankrupt laws, that whatever defects they might have, they were yet founded in reason and justice. And they possessed one advantage which did not belong to the Insolvent act—that when a person had entrusted his property to an insolvent, he had an opportunity of stopping the individual in his extravagance, and preventing him from going on till not one farthing was left to his creditors. From the expense attending petitions, and the want of due arrangements, the bankrupt laws were not so beneficial as they might be; but he had never seen an instance in which if the assignees were determined to see justice done, the commissioners were not ready to do their duty. But he would ask the advocates of the present act, if any such advantages resulted from it? The greatest injustice had been committed under it that probably ever was inflicted on the country by any act of parliament. There were individuals in the liberties of the King's-bench and Fleet who owed tens of thousands of pounds to their creditors, who had property to a large amount, and yet the creditors had no means of making them account. He had received a petition which he should have presented to the House last night, but for some informality. It related to a particular case. A person who kept a boarding school for young ladies, who owed between two and three thousand pounds, collected all the sums due to him from his scholars, sold off all his furniture, and contrived to get into prison, where he lived within the rules, on the property of his creditors, who had no means whatever of reaching that property. A petition had been some time ago presented from persons, who stated themselves to have been kept in prison some of them twenty or thirty years. On application to the keeper of the prison, he had been informed that one of the persons who had petitioned,

1009
was possessed of considerable property,— that she had been living there several years on that property, and that she might have taken the benefit of the act, had she chosen to give up that property. Another of the persons kept there had been confined twenty years on some exchequer process. Were creditors to be considered as hard-hearted for keeping their debtors in prison, when they had no means of forcing the debtor to come forward? There was a report of a committee of that House on the subject in 1792. On looking into that report, it would be seen that the same disposition in debtors existed then, which now existed. At that time there were many prisoners who had been twenty years imprisoned. There were there many disreputable persons who followed the profession of the law, without having been regularly brought up to it, and who practised all manner of pettifogging acts. Many of the individuals then in confinement, some for a period of twenty years had been kept in prison for the costs to these pettifogging attorneys. Various persons then, as well as now, chose to stay in prison, living on their property rather than pay their creditors. He had been accused of misrepresenting some of the facts which he had stated on a former occasion. In March 1817, two years ago, the property decided on by the insolvent court amounted to 8,800,000 l. He did not know what the exact amount of the sum was at the present period. But he had said, if it bore any proportion to that of the former part of the period during which the act had been in operation, the whole would amount to 14 or 15 millions. He had stated, that not one farthing in the pound had been received. But they were now told that this was a wrong calculation—that many of these debts were twice included—that in cases of bills, where more than one insolvent were concerned in the same bill, such insolvent gave in the whole amount of the bill in the list of his debts. Looking at the return from the Fleet prison, it appeared that a greater number of prisoners were liberated otherwise than by the act, than the number who took the benefit of the act. It appeared that those who chose to make terms with their creditors were immediately liberated, and that those who had expended all their property took benefit of the act. Admitting the accuracy of what had been stated by
[1010
the clerks of the insolvent court, that bills were included several times over, this might amount to one-fourth of the whole. The House had been told that this measure answered well in Scotland, and that the Insolvent act was founded on the' cessio bonorum. With respect to the law of cessio bonorum, it was like the bankrupt laws in one respect—it allowed an inquiry into the past conduct of the individual seeking to be liberated. Under the bankrupt laws, the first thing which was done was an investigation of the accounts of the bankrupt, an examination of his balance-sheet. Mow he would ask the learned gentleman, if this was the case with the Insolvent Debtors' act? He might appeal to any gentleman connected with trade, whether it was possible for any individual to obtain a certificate, unless he satisfactorily accounted for the manner in which he had got rid of his property. A great deal had been said respecting poor and distressed debtors. But what was the fact? By an account which he now held in his hands, it appeared that the debts amounting to 1,000 l. and upwards, formed nearly three-fourths of the whole. Out of four millions of property, the debts amounting to 1,000 l. and upwards, came to 2,835,000 l. It would hardly be contended, that those who owed these sums were poor persons thrown into prison by their hardhearted creditors. The attorney-general had told them, that before the present act, there was every year a necessity for a partial insolvent act.—The worthy alderman here went into a statement, to show that from 1806 the number of persons discharged under these partial acts amounted only to a small proportion of the number committed to prison for debt. On coming to 1814, they would find more persons committed and discharged in one year than in three or four years previously under occasional acts. He would state his conviction, that it was necessary to have the subject on a different, foundation altogether. In fact, the place where the court was held, in the city of Westminster, was so far from the seat of business, that creditors rather than go so far, would prefer to lose their dividend altogether. He did not mean to throw out any imputation on any individual connected with the insolvent debtors court, as those individuals were not there to defend themselves; but he would say that it was impossible for any individual

1011
to do justice to creditors, debtors, and the public, who had above three thousand cases annually to decide upon. This was more business than belonged to the whole of the commissioners of bankrupts and the court of chancery. It was impossible that one individual, without a jury, and without assistance, could execute the duties of such an office. He should only trouble the House with one farther observation. Every individual with whom he had conversed was of opinion that something was necessary. It might be necessary to extend the provisions of the Lords act—to revise the bankrupt laws with the view of diminishing the expense of petitioning. If this were done, there would be little necessity for a measure of this kind. But if a measure of this kind must be brought in, he hoped it would differ essentially from the present. As to the committee of the learned gentleman, he knew hot who was in his list. The learned gentleman had, indeed, shown him, the list one day, but he hoped he would not pertinaciously adhere to that list. He had two or three names to propose— he knew not their sentiments on the subject, but he knew they were acquainted with business, and above all, with the effects produced by the insolvent act, and that they would give an impartial consideration to the subject.
Mr. Abercrombyobserved, that after the committee had terminated their labours and presented their report, the merits of this question would properly come under consideration. He had to apologize to the House for offering any observations on it at all; but there were some few words which had fallen from the worthy alderman that required notice. The worthy alderman had charged some offences on the Insolvent Debtors' act which did not belong to it. The worthy alderman had said that a comparison was drawn some nights ago between the bankrupt laws and the Insolvent Debtors' act, but that comparison could be drawn between them, as the bankrupt laws were founded in justice, and the Insolvent Debtors was not. Was an act which said that an honest debtor who fairly gave up his property should not be abandoned entirely to the mercy of his creditor, not founded in justice? The worthy alderman had said that when assignees were disposed to do their duty, justice was always done, and he had bestowed praise on all Who were connected with the execu-
[1012
tion of the bankrupt laws. Now, he himself had been a commissioner of bankrupts many years, and he would say that with every desire, it was impossible for them to do that justice to the parties for which they here received credit.—The Worthy alderman had said that persons went within the rules and set their creditors at defiance —but he was at a loss to know why this offence should be charged on the Insolvent Debtors' act. If a person possessed of property took the benefit of the act, without giving up that property to his creditors, this might be charged on the act; but he could not see why a man's not taking the benefit of the act should be charged on the act. But the very same thing took place when temporary acts were passed—the debtor who chose remained in prison, and the creditor remained without redress.—Without going into the statement of the worthy alderman respecting the large sums decided on by the court, and the small dividends which had been received, he would only observe, that unless the worthy alderman could show that the debtors had property which they fraudulently kept from their creditors, this could not be a charge against the Insolvent Debtors' act.—As to the cessio bonorum, on which the Insolvent Debtors' act was founded, the greatest benefits had resulted from it, both in Holland and in Scotland. In the latter country the greatest benefit had resulted to all classes of persons from this law. When the subject was before the committee, one of the questions For their consideration would be, how to deal with persons Irving within the rules in the possession of large sums which they would not give up to their creditors. If he showed that this could be done, and that the Insolvent act was the road by which this could best be done, he hoped the worthy alderman would agree that it was a measure which the House ought to adopt.— The worthy alderman had intimated a strong desire to have a committee composed of commercial men alone. But, without any disrespect to commercial men, the House would not be doing its duty if it allowed the law of debtor and creditor to be decided by the creditors alone. But though the creditors ought not to sit as judges, they might come forward as witnesses—they might come before the committee in what numbers they pleased; The laws which were passed before the present were ex post facto laws—they were

1013
passed when the gaols were full, and they sat the debtor at liberty without forcing him to transfer his property to his creditor.
Mr. Hurstagreed with the last speaker in his view of the subject, and he thought the attorney-general deserved great praise for the manner in which he brought the measure forward.
The motion was agreed to, and a committee, consisting of the following members, was appointed, viz. Mr. Attorney General, lord Althorp, sir M. W. Ridley, sir C. Monck, Mr. Abercromby, sir J. Mackintosh, Mr. W. Courtenay, Mr. Brougham, Mr. Alderman Wood, Mr. Robert Grant, Mr. Calcraft, Mr. Alderman Waithman, Mr. Hart Davis, Mr. Finlay, general Gascoyne, sir It. Wilson, Mr. Littleton, Mr. G. Lamb, Mr. Fazakerley, Mr. John Allan, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lambton, and sir James Graham.

QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS BILL.
Sir G. Warrendersaid, the motion which he had to propose would not require to be prefaced by many observations. By the act of the 9th of queen Anne, ch. 5, it was enacted, that to enable a person to sit for an English county, he should possess 600 l. a-year; and to sit for a city or burgh 300 l. a-year, in land in England or Wales. Since the union with Ireland, property in that country was taken as a qualification for members, in the same manner as property in England, so that now the only part of the united kingdom, in which property was not admitted as a qualification for representing English counties and boroughs, was Scotland. His object was not to interfere with the general law respecting qualifications, which was deemed by some to be capable of amendment, but merely to correct an anomaly, by making property in Scotland available as a qualification for members to represent English counties or boroughs. He then moved for leave to bring in a bill "for farther regulating the Qualification of Members to serve in the United Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland."
Mr. Broughamsaid, that though he did not mean to oppose the introduction of the bill, nor was prepared to state at that period his assent to, or dissent from the principle of it, he should suggest one obvious primâ facie objection, with which, no doubt, the hon. mover would be met, but which it lay in his power to obviate. There was an obvious reason why, as the
[1014
law at present stood, landed property in Ireland was receivable as a qualification for members to represent, places, in England. Between England and Ireland there, was a reciprocity; not only did land in Ireland qualify its possessors to represent places in England, but property in England qualified the proprietors to represent places in Ireland. But if the measure now proposed were carried in the shape in which the hon. member had brought it forward, the possessor of property in Scotland would be qualified to represent an English county, while the possessor of property in England would not be qualified to represent a Scottish shire.
Sir G. Warrendersaid, he had not; overlooked the objection stated by the learned gentleman; but the qualification was required in Scotland under a particular law, by which every representative of a shire was to be an enrolled freeholder: to represent a Scots burgh, no qualification whatever was requisite. For representing particular places in England (he had understood), some boroughs, in Yorkshire for instance, and the Cinque ports, particular qualifications were necessary [cries of No!]. The qualification necessary, to represent a Scots county might, be purchased for a small sum.
Mr. Barnettasked, whether any clause was to be introduced to set at rest the question, whether Scots peers eldest sons. were qualified to sit?
Sir G. Warrendersaid, he had no such intention, as he had always thought that question settled.
Leave was given to bring in the bill

ROCHESTER ELECTION.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that an order had been made for the production of the minutes of evidence, taken before the committee on the Rochester Election, without any reason assigned for that proceeding. As this was contrary to the practice of the House, he should move that the said order be read, for the purpose of moving afterwards that it be discharged.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he had moved for the production of the minutes without assigning any reason, but anxious himself to hear from some member of the committee the reasons for the decision which that body had adopted. As a motion was now made to rescind that order, he should state the reasons why he had been induced to procure it. He wished the minutes to be produced that future petitioners might

1015
see on what ground they had to stand. He had no opinion to pronounce as to the decision of the committee, that the sitting member was duly returned; it was merely to that part of their decision by which they declared the petition frivolous and vexatious that his attention was drawn. The circumstances under which the petition had been presented were these:—the petitioner, at the election, had stated his opinion that the qualification of the sitting member (lord Binning) was insufficient. In consequence of this suggestion a general meeting of the electors took place; the case was put into the hands of eminent parliamentary counsel, Messrs. Harrison and Warren, to decide whether there were grounds of petition against lord Binning, on the allegation that he had refused to produce a qualification,—he deeming himself to be qualified as the son of a Scots peer. The counsel gave it as their opinion, not only that there were grounds for petitioning, but even for expecting a favourable issue. On that advice the electors acted: yet the petition had been voted frivolous and vexatious. This was the first time that on an unmooted, undecided point of law, such a decision had been come to [Order!].
Lord Castlereagkrose to order. The opinion of counsel was no reason, he said, for attaching blame to the committee. They had decided upon the evidence before them, and the previous opinion of counsel was very improper ground for impeaching their conduct. It would be improper and dangerous to arraign the conduct of committees.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he was in a strange, and certainly a difficult situation. An hon. gentleman had objected to him, that he had procured the order without assigning reasons; and now when he had begun to assign reasons for his proceeding, the noble lord had objected to him that he was out of order. In what was he out of order. The House could canvass or arraign the conduct of the lord chancellor it could arraign the conduct of the judges or of any individuals in the kingdom, invested with judicial powers; and in that right he stood up, and asserted his privilege, though not in the language of arraignment, to offer his observations on the conduct of the committee. He repeated, that his object was the guidance of future petitioners; that it was the first time, that on an unmooted, undecided point of law, a committee had come to
[1016
such a decision; that the decision was on a petition which had had the sanction of two of the most eminent parliamentary lawyers in the kingdom—nearly as good judges on these subjects as fifteen persons who were no lawyers. It was on these grounds that he moved for the production of the minutes: and if others had taken the course he now took, those decisions which were to be found on election petitions, contradicting one another on every point, would not have existed. If it was understood, that these committees were to be sacred ground, free from publicity or inquiry, that these anomalous judicatories might do what they pleased, without being open to observation, the franchises of the electors of the kingdom would be subject to very different decisions from those which protected their persons and property [hear, hear!].
Lord Normanby, as a member of the committee, deemed it to be his duty to declare the opinion which he had formed after mature consideration, and which every thing he had since heard had contributed to strengthen. He had concurred most fully with the committee in deciding in favour of the due election of the sitting member, but there had appeared to him to be that ground of doubt on the face of the act of parliament, that a legal argument might fairly be raised on it. He could not, therefore, bring himself to concur in the opinion of the committee respecting the petition, because a sentence of a committee that a petition was frivolous and vexatious, implied not only that the committee had no doubts on the subject, but that there could arise no reasonable doubt in the minds of others. The House would only gather from this that the committee were not unanimous. He was convinced at the same time that the committee had acted from their best judgment, and he therefore concurred in the present motion.
Mr. Sturges Bournesaid, he had not objected to the production of the minutes, lest he should seem to have opposed inquiry. His noble friend had put the question as to a petition which should be voted frivolous and vexatious on the fair footing; but he would state why it appeared to him that there could exist no reasonable grounds for such a petition. Minutes of evidence there were in fact none; all that was material had been admitted on both sides; the whole question arose put of a few words of an act of parliament, which

1017
any plain gentlemen were as competent to understand as the most learned lawyers. It was enacted, that every member representing English counties, &c. should possess certain property in land, "except the eldest sons of peers, or lords of parliament." One uniform construction had been put upon this act. It was said by the hon. gentleman, that it was unmooted and unsettled. It was unmooted because it was settled. No one had ever doubted that the eldest son of the earl of Haddington was the eldest son of a peer. It had been taken for granted at all elections, and even by the House for the sons of Scots Peers would not have been admitted to take their oaths unless the House had deemed them qualified. Yet never had they produced any other qualification than the declaration that they were sons of Scots peers; and to none of them, lord Cochrane among others, had a single objection been made. There was indeed evidence, that lord Kirkwall had delivered in a qualification in land; but he was the son of a peeress, which might have misled him as to the extent of his privileges. But even if there had been more instances in which this had been done, either through ignorance, or ex majore cautelâ, they would not have weighed with him. The arguments of the two counsel for the petitioner completely contradicted one another. Mr. Harrison argued, that even if lord Haddington had been one of the 16 Scots peers who sat in parliament, his son would not have been qualified; while Mr. Warren took a different ground, and said, that in that case, indeed, lord Binning would have been duly qualified. He argued, that the "or" was not disjunctive; and that "Peer and Lord of Parliament" were synonimous; but this was immediately answered by the case, not only of the Scots peers, but of the Catholic peers and peers in their non-age, who were all peers, though not lords of parliament, while è contra, bishops were lords of parliament, though not peers. He was therefore convinced, that there was no reasonable ground of doubt, but that the words were as clear as words could be. The committee had no alternative; they had to pronounce that the petition was frivolous, or that it was not. They could not pass it by in silence; and though, in this case, the voting the petition frivolous and vexatious was of subordinate importance, the costs being small, yet, if at any time a committee was to de so, it was on this
[1018
occasion fit to do it, when a candidate, confessedly in a minority, attempted to seat himself by raising doubts which had never existed before.
Mr. Tierneythought that good had been done by bringing forward this discussion, and argued that it was too much to decide that a petitioner had acted frivolously and vexatiously, when he proceeded under the advice of two gentlemen who had had so much business before committees. No petition could be with propriety decided to be frivolous and vexatious, unless the object of the petitioner clearly was, to harass the sitting member, without hopes of succeeding in his petition. The question as to the qualification of the eldest sons of Scots peers had never been decided: The clerk at the table was merely in the habit of receiving the declaration of a gentleman, that he was the son of a peer without inquiry. He did not quarrel with the decision of the committee as to the merits of the election; but when they had divided seven to seven on the question of censuring the petition, which was carried only by the casting vote, it was natural the petitioner should feel some degree of soreness. Some measure should be taken to relieve committees from the necessity of such a decision, as the practice would in effect be writing up against petitioners "Steel traps and spring guns." The right hon. gentleman had said that any plain person might construe the act of parliament; bat the right hon. gentleman was not a plain person; he was a person practised in the explanation of acts of parliament. But here came a gentleman who had been in the artillery. What could he do? He had consulted two eminent counsel, and had acted on their opinions. If a petition founded on such advice was voted frivolous and vexatious, no man could tell when he was safe in petitioning the House.
Lord Castlercaghthought that no good could result from the motion; but, on the contrary, that to bring before the House, who were not on their oaths, the judicial parts of the transactions of election committees, would shake the fundamental advantage of the Grenville act. To decide a petition to be frivolous and vexatious, it was not necessary that the intention of the petitioner should be to harass the. sitting member; it was enough that he proceeded upon such loose and frivolous grounds as had the effect of bringing unnecessary vexation on him. He also protested

1019
against the idea, that because the petitioner could get the opinion of two counsel in his favour, he should be deemed secure against the decision of a committee.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that this was the first time, he believed, for the last five and forty years, that it had been expected that any good could arise from canvassing in the House the decision of its election committees. The next step would probably be a proposal to repeal the law which had already produced such excellent effects. The House had, by the Grenville act, delegated to its committees the right of deciding on election petitions, and had thus prevented great evils. If the order to produce the minutes was enforced and the judgment of the committee questioned, there was an end of the law. It was a part of the duty of committees to declare on oath whether they thought the petitions on which they sat frivolous and vexatious. If they so determined, the petitioner paid the costs. Was not this what happened in all other cases? The right hon. gentleman had made a distinction between frivolous and vexatious; but it did not appear necessary for inferring costs, that a petitioner should be adjudged both. If frivolous, it was in fact vexatious. It seemed strange, after this petition had been decided on by fifteen gentlemen, who had the best evidence, and who were sworn to examine it impartially, that the question should be brought before the House for discussion by those who had heard only one side of it, and who saw only the opinion of counsel. Fifteen gentlemen had given their judgment against the petitioner on principles which had been acted upon for the last hundred and fifteen years and yet the hon. gentleman had said to-night, that the question was never mooted. A uniform practice of upwards of one hundred years was surely better than a doubtful decision, or a newly mooted question.
The question for discharging the Order was then put and agreed to.

WINDSOR ESTABLISHMENT.—REDUCTION OF THE EQUERRIES.
Sir Alexander Hoperose to make his promised motion, to continue the six equerries making part of his majesty's establishment at Windsor, instead of reducing the number to four as recommended in the report of the select committee. The proposition he was about to make was, he said, so reasonable, that he confidently expected
[1020
a correspondent feeling on the part of the House. The cause which he advocate was that of honour and justice against petty pretences of economy. The officer for whom he spoke had been always about his majesty, and ought still to be continued attached to his person, that, in the even of his recovery, he might perceive no change had taken place in his establishment. His majesty had not appointed them to the honourable office they now held, till they had distinguished themselves in the service of their country. The hon. member here mentioned some facts in the life, and some traits of the character, of generals Spencer and Winyard, two of the equerries at Windsor; and after panegyrising their fidelity, and describing the confidence reposed in them by his majesty, went on to say, that the question o economy was not concerned in the salary proposed to be continued to the two former, as the necessary sum had been already provided for in the 50,000 l. voted for the Windsor establishment. He would not shield under a subterfuge a question, the soul of which was high feeling. The members of the committee were under the necessity of making mutual concessions of opinion to one another, and the abolition of the offices of two of the equerries was the consequence. They had, at the same time, inconsistently recommended a sum out of which these salaries could be taken. After closing their papers, and retiring from their committee-room, why did they not return to their consistency, and agree to the rightful application of what they had voted? In former times when the demand for economy was as great as now, such petty savings as the reduction of the salaries of two equerries were not attempted. In 1782, his majesty had seven equerries, two pf whom were discharged and five retained. Mr. Burke, who recommended the reduction of their number, proposed not to reduce the salaries of those discharged. The cofferer and treasurer, though unnecessary, were likewise suffered to receive their salaries. So far as Mr. Burke's authority therefore went, it would be found against any reduction of offices that contributed to the splendour of the crown. All thanks, all gratitude were due to the sovereign for having himself commenced economy, by reducing his own household. If, then, Mr. Burke, in the year 1782, was against any reduction of the kind when the king was in the zenith of his power, would it

1021
become the Commons of England, now that he was blighted by the hand of God, to trample on his dignity—to break in upon his establishment now, for the first time, and reduce it to a condition which was not adequate? The high feeling which Mr. Burke had distinguished by the name of chivalry, might possibly provoke a laugh, but taken in the plain meaning of the word, a disposition to succour the helpless and distressed, the language was intelligible, and the king was unfortunately in a situation to call for its exercise. If he should ever return to reason, it was against the dignity of the crown, and against every fine feeling, that he should be deprived of the servants to whom he was accustomed. It was not only possible, but probable, that his majesty might recover: the prayers of a whole nation might prevail in his behalf, and a paltry economy ought not to be put in competition with those feelings, which did honour to human nature. It was possible, if not highly probable, that he might awaken, if not to the exercise of his kingly powers, to a perfect knowledge of his situation, and to a recollection of past events. What, then, would be his sensations, upon hearing, when he called for those by whom he was formerly attended, that the Commons of England had interfered to deprive him of their assistance? He would repeat, that the king was likely to return to reason; the hand that struck the blow by which his faculties were prostrated, might awaken them to a full consciousness of the glories of his reign; and the economy that was to be found in the paltry saving now proposed, could bear no comparison with the generous principle upon which they were required to act. He concluded with moving—"That, although it is expedient in the present state of his majesty's health, that no unnecessary expense should be incurred in the royal establishment at Windsor, yet that it is the opinion of this House, that it ought to be kept up in a manner which will at the same time mark the dignity of the person of his majesty, and the affection of his loyal subjects; and that therefore this House cannot Sanction any reduction in the present number of his majesty's six equerries, as mentioned in the said Report." [A laugh from the Opposition benches.]
Mr. Spencer Percevaladdressed the House for the first time. He said that if it required any thing In addition to the importance of the question itself to rouse
[1022
him from his seat on the present occasion, it was the respectful laugh which had burst from the gentlemen on the other side of the House. If there was any thing ridiculous in standing forward to fight the battle of his old and respected king, he was willing to encounter the shafts of that ridicule. It was with feelings of strong indignation that he heard the first proposition which emanated from the other side, a proposition by which the Commons of England were invited to attack the private property of the Crown. That feeling was changed to surprise, when he saw the same gentlemen come forward on a subsequent night, and turn their backs upon their own admission, when they found that they could not get the sum required out of the property of their sovereign. He had forborne from obtruding himself upon either of the former occasions, under an apprehension that he could not then have rendered any service to the cause; but the present was a stronger case, it stood upon a different ground, and appealed to warmer feelings. It was to be supported by the bold coming forward of every individual who felt a respect for their afflicted sovereign, and the more particularly as it was a question which had not the same support which was often bestowed upon others of less importance. He regretted that the government had consented to diminish the establishment of the Crown one-half, and that the minister, instead of acting on his own responsibility for its preservation, had compromised with a committee, and submitted to minor defeats, in order to secure an imperfect victory. He could not but deplore their conduct as weak, and the conduct of the opposite party as marked by the same unremitting perseverance to harass and perplex the government which they manifested upon all occasions. In this instance, as in all the rest, they held out to the country, that they had supported the principle of economy and the rights of the people; and coming down fat from the pastures of popularity, boasted of their strength, by which they drove their opponents into measures of conciliation, at the same time weak and unworthy. The noble lord who moved for the committee had let in a certain number of those who resisted his government; they carried into the committee the old impressions of the wastefulness of ministers, and acting upon that impression, what work had they done? They had saved a couple of five hundreds

1023
a-years and, with this saving, no doubt they would go in triumph to their constituents, to tell them that they had taken from off the shoulders of each individual in the community the fraction of a farthing, so smart as to baffle denomination! Such was their claim to the gratitude of the country! But how would the country feel when they were told, that this saving was purchased at the expense of ingratitude and disrespect to the Crown—of cold and' unkind treatment to the sovereign [cries of No, No!]? It was impossible that the question of economy could be implicated in this. It was not, whether they would save so much to the country, but whether, having already reduced the establishment one-half, they would give an additional kick of insult to the sick lion. The question was simply this, and if he had-powers to impress their minds as he could-wish, he would persuade them to do away with the suggestion of the committee by a vote of the House, and to resist the indecent conduct of those who would impair the dignity of the so-vereign.
Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Broughampresented themselves to the notice of the House. Lord Castlereagh first caught the Speaker's eye; but Mr. Brougham was loudly called on by the opposition members to proceed.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that he should not have persisted in claiming priority of speech at that period of the evening, had he not been of opinion that he could offer same explanations to the House which would render it unnecessary to enter into any lengthened discussion. Though they did not convince him, he had listened with the most pleasing attention to the arguments of the last speaker, and had witnessed with the utmost satisfaction the same enthusiasm of feeling exhibited by the son in defence of our reverend monarch as had formerly been displayed, so nobly and ably, by the father. Notwithstanding the respect which he felt for him, and for the gallant officer who had brought forward the present motion, he was obliged to disagree with them into: he did not think that the reduction of the equerries was a reduction at all detracting from the rank, the splendor, or the comfort of the sovereign: if he had thought that it did, he would have been the last man in the world to have lent himself to such a measure. He had submitted his motion regarding the privy parse and the
[1024
custos to the House, in consequence of the report of the committee; and if his gallant friend had at that time had any objection to its suggestions, he ought to have entered his protest then, and not to have deferred it to the present minute. If any question had arisen in the report of the committee; regarding the loyalty of the House, he would have taken care that it should have been settled at as early ah opportunity as possible. The hon. gentlemen had thrown out reflections, if not on the pusillanimity of ministers, at least on a feeling narrowly attached to it. He could not allow these re-flexions to pass unnoticed, because they were totally unfounded. For his own part, he could not see how it could be more derogatory to submit the Windsor establishment to the revisal of the House, than it was to submit either the civil list or the Prince Regent's establishment; and yet, during the period that he had held the office which he now enjoyed, he had submitted the two last to the consideration of a committee. As he had adopted the suggestions made in the former part of the report, and had taken the sense of the House upon them, he did not think himself justified in turning round, and opposing the suggestions made in the latter part of it. He should, therefore, oppose the gallant general's proposition, and should; move the previous question upon it.
Mr. William Lambsaid, that he had listened with as much pleasure as any member on the other side of the House to the hon. gentleman who had spoken last but one. The recollections which had pressed upon the mind of every man in the House, in consequence of the subject on which he had spoken, had given his speech an additional interest of a very peculiar nature. Notwithstanding that, he would make bold to tell him, that the laugh which had come from the side of the House on which he (Mr. Lamb) sat, and which had excited the hon. gentleman's strong indignation, had not been directed against the revered individual whose advanced age and heavy misfortunes rendered him so strong a contrast to the splendor of a crown. His thought that the hon. gentleman would withdraw his anger, when he was told, that the laugh originated in the palpable inconsistency of the resolution. The preamble stated in lofty language, that the Windsor establishment ought to be conducted with all proper magnificence, and ended with

1025
merely proposing the addition of two paltry equerries. When the beginning was so inconsistent with the end, it could not create any surprise that a laugh had been excited; and he therefore trusted, that the hon. gentleman would forget his anger, and be pacified by the explanation which was offered him. He was not at all surprised at, though he could not himself sympathize with the feelings of the hon. mover; he knew the hon. mover's sympathy for the persons who had lost these situations, and was sorry that he had not stifled the expression of it for prudential reasons; because, considering the quarter from whence it came, the expression of it was extremely imprudent. The saving obtained by this reduction had been ridiculed as being too paltry to deserve notice, but, in his opinion, a paltry saving was a great consideration, inasmuch as in matters of economy, it was not to the paltriness of the sum, but to the in-utility of the expense that the country would direct its attention.
Sir. A. Hope, in explanation, stated, that if the hon. gentleman meant to insinuate that the motion had originated with any of his military friends, who were high in office, he laboured under a complete mistake.
Sir John Nichollexpressed his willingness to concur in the motion, and he did so under the impression that there was a possibility that the sovereign might, before his death, become sensible to the objects around him. If then, such an event was to take place, in what light could this paltry saying of 1,000 l. be viewed, when the satisfaction of the royal mind was considered? His majesty, when surrounded by his faithful servants, would have the less cause to regret that, for so long a period, he had been shut out from the world, and from all the blessings and comforts of human life.
Mr. Martin (of Galway)said, that when he heard that a motion for the restoration of the two equerries was to be made, he had declared that it should meet with his support. He confessed that, after what had passed, he was in some embarrassment, from a doubt as to which side he should give his vote, and this doubt was caused by the manner in which the gallant officer had thought fit to word his resolution. He was ready to acquiesce in the motion for the restoration of the two equerries, but he was not prepared to agree with the hon. member in the reasons
[1026
he had coupled with the motion. Not to appear, however, inconsistent with his former declarations, he should give his vote in favour of the motion.
Mr. Grattansaid, that if the adoption of the motion were capable of adding in any degree to the dignity of the Crown, or the comfort of the sovereign, no man would be more ready to support it than himself; but he felt that, in the present unfortunate situation of the king, to annex a multitudinous train to his majesty would be a mere mockery. He could not accede to such a proposition, although were this train to add in the slightest degree to the dignity of the throne, or the comfort of the king, the grant of 1,000 l. or even 10,000 l. would, in his view, be a comparatively insignificant object. Were he present upon the proposition to grant 10,000 l. to the duke of York, he should most probably have felt it is duty to vote against it; although he would have given his vote with a pang, considering the important services which that illustrious personage had rendered to the army and to the country. But with respect to the proposition before the House, his sense of duty impelled him to vote against it, as its adoption was not at all required by any consideration for the dignity or comfort of the royal family.
The previous question being put, "That the question be now put," the House divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 259.

COAL DUTIES.
The Earl of Rosslynpresented a petition from Dysart against the equalization of the coal duties. He observed, that great apprehension had been excited throughout the country by the proceedings which had taken place for the purpose of altering the present system of coal-duties, and levying a tax at the pits. He hoped, therefore, that the noble lord opposite would explain what were the views of ministers on the subject.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that Whatever apprehension might have arisen on the subject, no proposition of the kind alluded to had received any countenance from his majesty's government. More than twelve months ago an association had been formed in the metropolis, with the view of obtaining an equalization of the duties on coals. A committee from that association had waited on him and his right hon. friend the chancellor of the exchequer, and stated the nature of their object. His right hon. friend had concurred with him in declining to give any opinion until those who were interested in opposing the proposed measure should, be heard. On hearing the other parties be and his right hon. friend had intimated

993
that his majesty's government would give no support to any proposition for altering the coal-duties, or encourage any inquiry or proceeding on the subject. Of course, they did not give a pledge that they would not, under any circumstances which might arise, agree to an alteration in the system of taxation.
Earl Fitzwilliampresented a petition against any alteration in the coal-duties, signed by a great number of the merchants; manufacturers, canal share holders, &c. of Sheffield and its neighbourhood.
The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that it was impossible for him to say, whether or not any proposition on the subject would be made in another place, what degree of encouragement might there be given to it, or whether it was likely to come in any shape before their lordships. He could, however, assure the House, that any proposition for the equalization of the duties on coal would meet with the decided opposition of those connected with the administration of his majesty's government.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, that the equalization called for would be one of the most injurious and unjust acts that could be committed. In the state in which this country was placed, their lordships would not attempt to legislate on the view of right and wrong, abstractedly considered; the application of the abstract, principles of justice would be the greatest injustice. They could not now act as they might do, if capital had not been sunk in manufactures and extensive works of various kinds in the districts, on which the proposed regulation would impose a new and burthensome tax. The present state of society in this country was so extremely artificial, that the greatest caution was necessary on subjects of this kind. He hoped that the declaration which had been made by the noble secretary of state would set Sheffield and other manufacturing towns at ease on this question. The people in these places had embarked their capital in undertakings on the faith of the continuance of the present system, with respect to the duties on fuel, which their manufactories required, and nothing could be more ruinous and unjust than to subject them to a tax on that necessary element.
Ordered to lie on the table.

ALIENS' AND DENIZENS' BILL.—BANK OF SCOTLAND.
Lord Sidmouthrose to more the second reading of this bill.
[994
Their lordships were aware that it was the consequence of a measure which had been fully discussed last session. It was the object of the bill to continue, for another year the suspension of the rights of naturalization supposed to be granted by an act of the parliament of Scotland, to aliens who became proprietors of the Bank of that country. There was at present a case before the court of session, the decision on which would decide the question, whether this was the law of the country or not. All he asked, therefore, was, that their lordships would not suffer the law which prevented such purchases to expire in the mean time, but would continue the suspension, until the legal investigation was terminated. This was the course which their lordships were bound to take; for if they allowed the bill to expire, they would, by inference, declare that to be the law, which was at present in question.
Lord Hollandcould not help expressing his surprise at finding this bill proposed for a second reading, before any i motion had been made for printing it. The noble lord conceived, that if the bill did not pass, the House would prejudge the question at issue in the court in Scotland. He was quite of a different opinion. If their lordships refrained from legislating they would leave the question just where it stood last year, before any bill on the subject was introduced. The passing, in so hasty a manner, a bill for suspending an existing law, was more like prejudging the question; and if it were now read a second time, he should consider it extremely unjust in the House to allow it to go through another stage, before it was printed, and time afforded for fully considering its principle. Their lordships must recollect, that the law which first gave occasion to the present measure was so little known to the noble secretary of state, that he did not introduce it until the Alien bill of the last session was about to pass the House.
The Earl of Liverpoolthought that the noble lord had misunderstood both the nature of the bill and the argument of his noble friend. The state of the case was this: Last year it was stated that a certain law existed in Scotland which would render the provisions of the Alien act inefficient. A bill had, therefore, been introduced, to suspend the rights supposed to be acquired under that law. A suit was now before the court of session in Scot-

995
land, which would decide what the law really was His noble friend had given no opinion on the subject, and he should think it very indecorous for parliament to interfere with the judicial proceedings. This bill was, therefore, only the continuation of that which had been passed last year, When the subject was discussed last session, objections were strongly urged to the retrospective operation of the bill; but no one, as far as he recollected, disapproved of its prospective effect. The legislature rejected the retrospective clause, and passed the act which would soon expire. AH that was asked was, not to permit the law to cease to have force until the court of session pronounced its decision. The question might come before the House in the shape of an appeal, and then they would have to give judgment on it in their judicial capacity; but in the mean time it would be very improper to allow the law to expire.
The Earl of Lauderdalethought that if the noble lord meant to give the House full opportunity of judging of the principle of the bill, he would not press it farther until it was printed. The bill was, on the face of it, of a nature unlike any measure ever recommended to their lordships adoption. That a case for which a remedy was open in a court of law ought not to be interfered with by the legislature, was a principle generally acknowledged Here the House was informed that the question was before a court in Scotland; their lordships were therefore bound to wait for the decision of that court, before they ventured to legislate in any way whatever. He was taken quite by surprise. In order that time might be afforded for printing the bill, and an opportunity given to their lordships to consider it fairly, he would move, that instead of now, the bill be read a second time on Friday next.
The Earl of Harrowbyurged the necessity of proceeding with the bill. The court in Scotland would decide either for or against the claims of the persons who had purchased bank stock. If the latter, no injury would be done to them by this bill: if the former, it would become the duty of their lordships to alter the law, and prevent persons from obtaining by such means rights which were more extensive than those conferred by a bill of naturalization.
Their lordships divided on the question for the second reading: Contents, 14;
[996
Non-Contents, 6;—8. The question, that the bill be committed to-morrow, was also carried on a division: Contents, 14; Non-Contents, 6; Majority 8.