presented a Petition from several owners and occupiers of lands resident in the county of Suffolk; setting forth, "That the petitioners are many of them owners, but the greater part of them occupiers of lands in a county where barley is the chief article of cultivation; and that it is with concern they learn that a Committee of the house has in its Report recommended the substitution of Sugar and Molasses, instead of barley and other grain, in the distilleries, which must be highly injurious to the agricultural interest of the country; and that the petitioners had trusted that the satisfactory and unanswerable reasons assigned by a committee of the house last year against the adoption of such an expedient would have set at rest its further agitation, and quieted the alarm it is fully calculated to produce; should the farmer be deprived of the certain market the distilleries afford, even for a time to be limited, it must tend to lower the price of grain, and damp the increasing spirit of agriculture; and that the petitioners, however strongly they may feel the distresses and the difficulties under which the West India trade at present labours, however anxious they may be for the adoption of any measure for its relief, still they cannot perceive that either justice, policy, or necessity requires that such relief should be administered to them at the sole and exclusive expence of the land, being a sacrifice of the more important interests of agriculture; and therefore praying the house not to allow such a bill to pass into a law."

presented a Petition from the lord provost, magistrates, and common council of the city of Glasgow; setting forth, "That the petitioners feel themselves called upon, at this interesting crisis, to express to the house their unqualified approbation of the proposal lately made in parliament for the temporary suspension of Distillation from Grain; the present relations of these kingdoms with the other nations of the world, the large quantities of grain which it is well known this coun- try has been obliged, for many years, to import beyond the extent of its own produce, and the necessity of our providing at home for the probable deficiency in these importations, evidently dictate such a prudent measure: and, although there is just now plenty of grain in the country, it would betray a great want of foresight, in times like these, not to be prepared for every event, or to run the smallest risk of a scarcity amongst the people of these happy lands; and that the petitioners are too well aware of its universal importance ever to make any request in the smallest degree inconsistent with the agricultural prosperity of the country; on the contrary, they feel it is at all times their duty, as it is their interest, to promote, as far as lies in their power, the improvement and extension of agriculture; but they must confess they are not able to perceive how the stoppage of Distillation from Grain at this time can possibly interfere with that improvement; they cannot see why any alarm should be excited in well-informed and unbiassed minds by such a proposal; they cannot allow themselves to believe that calculation has been resorted to by those who have taken such alarm; for surely it is manifest that our farmers will have to provide not only for the expected short importations into this country but also for the consumption of the West India colonies, which have now to look to Britain for the supply of a large proportion of their wants; the additional quantity of grain required for those two purposes will, beyond doubt, greatly exceed all that is at any time consumed in the distilleries; and it is a well-ascertained fact, that the prices of the different kinds of grain mutually operate on each other, so that the grower of barley need be under no apprehension; nor should it be forgotten, that the proposed suspension of distillation from grain is not to be of a permanent, but merely of a temporary nature, and that the king in council is to be empowered again to permit the use of barley in the distilleries as soon as it falls below a fair and reasonable price; farther the petitioners cannot avoid expressing their satisfaction, that this well-timed measure will also tend to the relief of a very numerous and respectable part of the community, whose interests as British subjects ought not to be overlooked, the West India planters and merchants, who, possessing a considerable quantity of sugar beyond what is required for the consumption of these kingdoms, will, by the use of that article as a temporary substitute for grain in the distilleries, be enabled to find a market for the surplus produce of their lands, and the country will thus be enabled to defeat the malicious purposes of our enemy, who equally withholds from us those markets where we could sell our surplus Sugar, and supply ourselves with what grain we stand in need of; and therefore praying, that the house may adopt measures for suspending the use of grain by the distillers of Great Britain, and for restricting them to the use of sugar for a limited period."

presented a Petition of the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses of the town of Liverpool, in council assembled, setting forth, "That the petitioners have seen, with feelings of considerable regret, advertisements for meetings in several parts of the kingdom, for the purpose of agreeing to petitions against the measure recommended by a committee of the house for a temporary suspension of the use of grain in the Distilleries, as calculated to prove injurious to the agricultural interest of the country; and that, in the present state of our foreign relations, whilst so many of the ports of Europe are closed against us, rendering it impossible to procure a supply of corn from the continent of Europe, whilst in addition to this, the embargo which has taken place in the united states of America precludes us from obtaining any importations from thence, and whilst it remains an undisputed fact that this country has for many years past been dependant upon foreign supply for a considerable part of the subsistence of her inhabitants, more particularly in the populous town of Liverpool and county of Lancaster, the petitioners cannot but think it a measure of wise and prudent precaution to prevent the unnecessary consumption of the produce of our own soil, and, by a well-timed restriction, to guard against an evil of so great magnitude as must result from the failure of the usual means of supply; and therefore praying, that the house may proceed in the proposed measure to suspend the use of grain in the distilleries of the united kingdom, for such period, and under such restrictions, as to the house shall seem most proper and expedient"—The said Petitions were severally read and ordered to lie upon the table.

presented to the house, pursuant to their order, a Copy of the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Committee in the last session of parliament, to whom the Petition of John Palmer, of the city of Bath, esq. was referred.—The same hon. gent, then moved, "That there be laid before the house, an Account of the per centage due to Mr. Palmer on the Nett Revenue of the Post Office beyond 240,000l. from the 5th of April 1793 to the 5th of Jan. 1808, deducting the produce arising from increased postage and restriction in franking, and also the sum of 3,000l. a year, received during that period."

objected to the word "due" in the motion.

informed the hon. baronet that the house had declared it "was due."

rose to make the motion of which he had given notice, for some amendments of the Criminal Law. He was aware that from part of the public, and particularly that part of it whose opinion might be supposed to have most influence upon his conduct, a person who had such amendments to propose could hardly expect praise, but must consider it enough if he meets with excuse. His apology must be, that he had not taken up the matter lightly or on a sudden; that the subject which he presumed to bring before the house, was one which had occupied his thoughts for many years of his life. He had long ago promised himself, that if ever he should have the honour of a seat in this house, he would bring forward some measures for reforming the criminal law; and recollecting this, he could not but feel that he ought rather to apologise for having delayed the proposal so long, than for bringing it forward now.—In the criminal law of this country, he had always considered it as a very great defect, that capital punishments were so frequent; and were appointed, he could not say inflicted, for so many crimes. No principle could be more clear, than that it is the certainty, much more than the severity of punishments, which renders them efficacious. This had been acknowledged ever since the publication of the works of the marquis Beccaria; and he had heard, he could not himself remember it, that upon the first appearance of that Work it produced a very great effect in this country. The impression, however, had hitherto proved unavailing; for it has not in this country, in a single instance, produced any alteration of the criminal law; although in some other states of Europe such alterations have been made. Indeed, if one were to take the very reverse of the principle, that would be a faithful description of the criminal law of England; in which punishments are most severe, and most uncertain in their application. It is notorious, how few of those who are condemned, actually suffer punishment. From returns which are to be found in the Secretary of State's office, it appears, that in the year 1805 there were 350 persons who received sentence of death, and of whom only 68 were executed, not quite a filth part of the number; in the year 1306, 325 received sentence of death, of whom 57 were executed; and in 1807, the number was 343, of whom there were executed 03. If we deduct the number of those who received sentence of death for crimes for which pardon is never, or very rarely, granted, and take the number of those who are convicted of felonies, which have been made capital for some circumstances, which are not in truth circumstances of aggravation, perhaps it will be found that of 20 persons condemned to die, only one suffers death. The question is, whether the administration of justice should be suffered to continue in such a state, where the execution of the law is not the rule that is observed but an exception to it, and where it has been lately said in language, which one would expect to hear rather from the lips of a satirist than from the seat of judgment, that the "law exists indeed in theory, but has been almost abrogated in practise by the astuteness of judges, the humanity of juries, and the clemency of the crown."—His present purpose was to call the attention or the house to one class only of these severe statutes that had, from the change of circumstances, acquired a severity which was not originally intended: those in which the capital part of the change depends on the amount of the property stolen; such as the statute of Elizabeth, which punishes with death the stealing privately from the person of another property to the value of 12 pence; the act of William and Mary which makes privately stealing in a shop to the amount of 5 shillings a capital felony, and many other statutes of the same kind. Such an alteration had taken place in the value of money since those statutes passed, that it was astonishing that the law should have been suffered to remain in words the same to the present day; the offences, in the mean time, having become altogether dif- ferent. Perhaps there was no case which could render more striking the truth of lord Bacon's observation, that time was the greatest of all innovators; for in proportion as every thing which contributed to the support, the comfort, and the luxuries of life had grown dearer, the Life of man had become cheaper and of less account.—There were many mischievous consequences, resulting from such a state of things, which did not strike one at first; but which became more evident, the more they were reflected on. Such laws cannot be executed. Juries are placed in the painful situation of violating one of two duties; they are reduced to the alternative of violating their oath, or what they are sometimes mistakenly induced to think more binding on them, the dictates of humanity. Often against the plainest evidence, juries find the property not to be of the value of which they and everybody else know it to be; and this comes to be considered, as Blackstone somewhere expresses it, as a "pious perjury," words which one is sorry to see ever put together: for nothing can lead to more immoral consequences, than that men should familiarize themselves with the violation of a judicial oath. The law ought not to remain so. Offenders are often acquitted against the clearest evidence: and the very severity of those laws, by a necessary consequence, holds out an encouragement to crimes. While there are thus two laws, one upon the statute book, and another in practice, a total change has taken place in the nature of that which is considered as the most valuable prerogative of the crown; the prerogative of shewing mercy. The true state of the case is, that, in exchange for that prerogative, the crown has the painful duty imposed on it, of selecting those upon whom the judgment of the law shall be executed. In London and Middlesex this is done by the privy council, but upon all the circuits this duty devolves upon the different judges of assize; and it is felt by them to be the most painful of their duties. No rules are laid down to govern them in the discharge of it; but they are left to their own discretion, which must necessarily be as various as are their different habits and sentiments and modes of thinking. It may be the opinion of one judge, that punishments ought to be inflicted most strictly when crimes are most frequent; another, with the same anxiety for the discharge, of his duty, thinks that it is most useful to be rigourous when crimes make their first appearance. One judge is more influenced by humanity; another more swayed by a sense of what is due to the safety of the community. And thus, their discretion is apt to be exercised under motives, not only different, but often quite contrary. The question was, what should be the remedy? Being sensible that, when a private individual takes upon himself to propose alterations in the law, it becomes him to proceed very cautiously, to do at first too little rather than too much, to alter and yet not seem to innovate, and to have the test of experience in favour of his first essays at improvement, before he proceeds to propose all that he would have established; being strongly impressed with this, he had at first intended only to move to repeal the statutes, and to propose others in the same words, only with sums equivalent to the value of what was originally fixed by the legislature; and by re-enacting the laws such as by the authors of them they were meant to be, to repeal those statutes which time and a change of circumstances had imperceptibly substituted in their place. But, when he found that he would thus be enacting capital punishments for offences, in which there are no circumstances of aggravation, he could not bring his mind to do it, and he determined to propose the simple repeal of all those statutes. As, however, they will require different considerations, he judged it most expedient to bring them one by one under the review of the house; and he proposed, therefore, to begin with the most objectionable, the 8th of Elizabeth, chap. 4. which made stealing privately from the person a capital offence: declaring it at the same time to be his intention, and wishing it to be understood, that he will at proper times bring forward a repeal of the others. The unnecessary severity of the 8th Elizabeth, its absurdity and want of logic, made it a disgrace to the statute book. (Read the preamble and first enacting clause.) Reciting that the offence was sometimes committed under circumstances which were an aggravation, therefore it enacts that in all cases, and although there was no aggravation, clergy should betaken away. In his time, he never had heard but of one single instance in which an offender, convicted under this statute, suffered death; it was a case upon the northern circuit, where a pick-pocket detected in court was immediately tried and left for execution. It was a solitary case as far back as he could re- member, and even if that had been omitted, it would have been no great misfortune. Under this statute, from the strict construction which the judges observed of the word "privily," that very violence which would bean aggravation of the offence, if it is not such as to amount to robbery, saves the offender.—There was another subject which, he thought, required the interposition of the legislature; it was to provide, in certain cases, a compensation to persons tried and acquitted, after having been long detained in prison. At present they have no compensation, except by an action for a malicious prosecution, where the judge is satisfied there was no probable cause. If suspicion of having committed a crime falls upon an individual in the labouring class of the people, whose family depends upon his daily wages for subsistence, he may be eight months in gaol; for that is sometimes the interval between the summer and lent assizes; and in the four northern counties, he may be imprisoned above a year. His family in the mean time is, probably, consigned to the workhouse, and when he returns home after an acquittal which completely establishes his innocence, he finds them ruined in their health or corrupted in their morals. If, for the convenience or utility of the public, private property is ever interfered with by the authority of parliament, full compensation is carefully made to the owner; but what is that loss which is thus compensated to the opulent, compared with the injury suffered by the poor man in the case he had mentioned? It will be said, that such a case does not happen often, but it sometimes happens, and in such cases a remedy ought, no doubt, to be provided. The difficulty was, that it is not every person acquitted who deserved compensation; because many persons were acquitted who are still guilty; acquittals from defects of form being unavoidable, even under the best ordered laws. Another difficulty was, that if such a remedy were given by law, it might have a mischievous effect towards those very persons, who are the objects of redress; because in some cases the evidence was so nicely balanced, that if the jury felt themselves reduced to the alternative of convicting or of giving a reward to the prisoner by acquitting him, this consideration might have the effect of determining them to convict. The discretion of saying in what cases compensation should be given, could only be reposed in the jury or in the court; and he thought that there could be no hesitation between those two. The jury ought not to have their attention diverted from the single point of ascertaining the fact, of guilty or not. Fortunately, there was already in our statute book, an act which he should take as a model. Till the year 1752, no compensation was made by law to prosecutors for their expence and trouble in bringing offenders to justice; a circumstance which one might be surprised at, if; such circumstances did not come very seldom before the legislature. Before such compensation was allowed, it often happened that the prosecution was by much a I greater evil to the person, whose property had been taken from him, than that loss of property by the offence. The 25th Geo. 2. chap. 36. § 11. placed it in the power of the court, upon consideration of the prosecutor's circumstances, to grant him an order upon the treasurer of the county for his expences, and a reasonable allowance for his time. He meant to make this the model of the bill he proposed to move for leave to bring in. He hardly thought it necessary to anticipate any objection to this compensation, as being a new burden upon the county. Perhaps it might be thought, that the same reason existed for granting a similar compensation in cases of misdemeanour; but he meant to confine it to felonies, following the principle of the act of George 2. and to give compensation to persons acquitted only in the same cases where it was already by law given to the prosecutor. He moved, in the first place, for leave to bring in a bill to repeal so much of an act made in the 8th year of queen Elizabeth, as takes away the benefit of clergy from persons convicted of stealing privily from the person of another.

said, he was one of those who approved of the laws, and he thought that very good grounds ought to be laid down before any innovation was made upon them. He disapproved, in particular, of the proposal for making compensation to persons who had been tried and acquitted. He suspected that, in Ireland, many indolent persons would reckon it no hardship to be confined in a comfortable prison.

differed so completely from the hon. gent. who had just sat down, that he declared he had experienced the most unmixed satisfaction at what had fallen from the hon. and learned baronet. He well remembered that a great and la- merited public character (Mr. Pitt), at an earl period of his life, had intended to have a digest made of the whole of our criminal code, with a view of lessening, in a great degree, the number of capital punishments which it contained, and the objections to which it was impossible to confute. He congratulated the house and the country that an individual so well qualified for the task by his ability and experience as the hon. and learned bart. had turned his attention to this most important subject.

said, he could not help expressing surprise at what an hon. gent. (Mr. Herbert) had stated as to Ireland. He was at a loss to know in what part of Ireland the prisons were so comfortable, as to prove an inducement, to indolent persons wishing a confinement. He believed the gaols were so far from being commodious, that they rather excited horror and detestation, and many instances had occurred where men's toes were eaten by rats: was this the accommodation the hon. gent, thought so agreeable as to be prized by the Irish people?

, in explanation, said, he still believed there were many persons who led a life of idleness, who would think themselves well accommodated in the gaols of Ireland.

contended, that in Ireland, and particularly in the province of Ulster, there was as much humanity on these subjects as in England.

, professing, as he felt, the most unfeigned respect for the ability and zeal of his hon. and learned friend, who brought forward the present motion, was by no means satisfied that it would produce the benefit expected from it. He was not, indeed, prepared to say whether the good or evil it might produce was likely to preponderate. In this situation he should only lay in his claim to approve or disapprove of the measure, as, on more mature reflection, he, should be of opinion it merited. Whether the attempt to grant compensation to persons acquitted of offences imputed to them, might not be productive of greater evil than good, was not now the question. He was certainly inclined to think, that however plausible the theory, the practice would be very injurious.

felt himself bound to pay the tribute of his testimony and approbation to the ability and motives of the hon. and learned baronet, by whom this motion had been made. Part of it, however, appeared to him to be so contrary to what he had always understood to be the constitutional principles of this country, that he could not sit still in the house, and, by his silence, seem to give a tacit acquiescence in the propriety of the proposition. He thought it his duty, therefore, to say, that from what he had heard, he was by no means impressed with a favourable opinion of the bill proposed to be introduced. It was to his mind a grievous consideration, that after a verdict of acquittal by a jury of his country, it should be possible to tell any man that he was not honourably acquitted, but that an imputation of guilt still attached to him. What a grievous responsibility must, in this case, attach to the judge, who was, after a verdict of acquittal by the jury, to determine whether that acquittal was honourable or not. If this doctrine was to be sanctioned, in his opinion it was contrary to all the old established principles of the constitution of this country, and as such could not meet with his approbation.—Leave was then given to bring in the bill.

then again rose. He was sorry that he had been so much misunderstood by the hon. baronet, who seemed to conceive that, in the motion which he was about to submit to the house, any thing was included but the general question, whether persons accused, tried, and acquitted, should or should not be entitled to compensation for the injury which they sustained. The mode of deciding to whom this compensation should be awarded, or whether it should be given to all indiscriminately (which he should prefer to withholding it from all) would be open for discussion when the bill was brought in. He moved for leave to bring in a bill to provide in certain cases compensation to persons tried and acquitted in a criminal court, for the damages sustained by them, in consequence of having been detained in custody and brought to trial.

repeated, that in the view which he had of the subject, the evil would preponderate over the good. If the judge refused to give compensation, it would be indicative of the unfavourable opinion which he entertained of the innocence of the person by whom it was demanded; and he would thus be placed in a very invidious situation. Besides, suppose a person were acquitted on an error in the indictment before the merits of his case were investigated, how could the judge then decide on a claim of compensation? As a novelty, this proposition ought to be watched with jealousy. It appeared to him to be impossible to execute it, without much mischief. If the compensation were to be made out of the county rate, it might prove a great discouragement to prosecutions, or in the event of a trial, that circumstance might operate on some minds against the accused. He should vote against the bringing in of the bill.

declared his surprise that his hon. and learned friend should resist the introduction of a bill, of the provisions of which he must necessarily be ignorant. With respect to the proposition being a novelty, it was to be regretted that there had not been more novelties of a similar description.

said a few words, in the course of which he expressed a wish, that his hon. and learned friend would withdraw his opposition to the introduction of the bill.

General acquiesced.

entered his protest against being thought favourable to the principle of the bill, because he did not oppose its introduction.

approved of the measure.

would certainly not oppose the bringing in of the bill.

also declared that he would not resist the introduction of the bill, although he wished that the hon. and learned baronet had stated more fully the grounds on which he proposed it, and the provisions which he meant that it should comprise. He was of opinion that the remedy proposed would be more injurious than the evil complained oil

was afraid that by the introduction of such complicated arrangements, people would be so puzzled that they would not understand the law at all.

applauded the humanity of the hon. and learned baronet, but hoped he would pardon him for stating that county stock ought not to be touched except in extreme cases.

defended his hon. and learned friend from the charge of innovation. As to the measure being a novelty, every improvement was a novelty.—Leave was then given to bring in the bill.

, adverting to the statement made on a recent evening by an hon. baronet (sir Francis Burdett) when he was not present, hoped the house would allow him to make some observations upon that statement. He trusted that they would the more readily agree to this, when they considered how much the character of the noble lord and of the country at large was implicated in that statement. He understood that the hon. baronet had been advised by the chair to postpone any further agitation of the subject, until the judgment of which he complained should be followed up by some legal proceeding. He was disposed to think that the house would hear no more of this business from the hon. baronet, in which case the imputations that had been cast on the conduct of the noble chief justice of the King's-bench, would remain unanswered, and——

spoke to order. Unless the hon. gent. meant to conclude with some motion, his observations were very irregular.

was not prepared to make any motion; but as the hon. baronet had made his statement, he trusted they would allow him to make a counter statement, under the same circumstances. He was proceeding, when he was again called to order by

, who observed, that unless the hon. gent, would move for some paper, such observations could only lead to disorderly discussion.

then stated, that he would conclude by moving for the production of an order of the court of king's bench, for the discharge of a rule moved for in that court for a new trial in the action brought by the high bailiff of Westminster against sir Francis Burdett.—On the suggestion of the Speaker, however, who intimated that it was usual to give a formal notice of such a motion, Mr. Leycester abstained from any further remarks, and gave notice, that he would move for the production of this paper to-morrow.

was desirous of postponing his motion for taking into consideration the Report of the committee on the distillation of spirits, until to-morrow, if an hon. gent. whose notice stood for to-morrow, would consent to put it off.

replied, that he had been that morning applied to, to postpone his motion to-morrow, relative to the Dardanelles, for the purpose of allowing the Local Militia bill to be proceeded with. Considering the investigation of the subject of his motion as of the utmost importance to the character of the country, and having already frequently postponed it, he could not consent to postpone it any longer.

reprobated this sort of hocus pocus by which the house was kept ignorant of what business would come before it. If the arrangement that seemed to have been made was carried into effect, then it would happen that the gentlemen who came down that night to listen to a discussion on the distilleries, would find themselves engaged in a debate on the local militia; and that to-morrow, those who would come to debate the Local Militia bill, would be surprised at finding themselves in a distillery.

denied that there was any thing more in this circumstance than what frequently occurred, namely, that when the first notice on the order book was not proceeded with, the next was taken in its stead.

observed, that some disappointment must certainly exist in consequence of the postponement of the noble lord's motion; the more so, as in giving the notice on Monday, the noble lord had declared that the motion would certainly come on this day. With respect to the motion which stood for to-morrow, it related to a subject, the investigation of which it was most desirable no longer to defer.

, after an eulogium on the industry and talents displayed by the noble lord in the chair of the committee, observed that he had been given to understand that a disposition had been manifested in a certain quarter to bring the parties who now differed so widely, nearer to each other in opinion. He thought, therefore, that the house would consult its own convenience, by allowing an opportunity for any arrangement to be made upon this subject.

was proceeding to state his objection to the report, when he was called to order by

, who observed, that the subject before the house was merely the time at which the report should be discussed.

said, if a right hon. gent, would postpone the Dublin police bill from Friday, he would willingly bring his motion on that day.

, if any thing like an accommodation was in view, of which he declared himself perfectly ignorant, thought that Friday would be a better day than to-morrow.

lamented that the noble lord had not determined upon this postponement last night. Hail he done so, the discussion of the Local Militia bill would not have been brought on so unexpectedly, and in the absence of several gentlemen who were anxious to deliver their sentiments upon it.

was of opinion, that the state of the country might be such, with relation to other powers, as to render it a precedent to adopt the recommendation of the committee.

requested that the discussion might be postponed till Monday, as his colleague and he would have an opportunity before that day of learning the sentiments of their constituents. A public meeting in the county of Surrey would be held on Saturday, and he should be sorry that the debate should come on before that time.—After some further conversation, in which sir J. Seabright, sir S. Romilly, lord Binning, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Barham, Mr. W. Taylor, sir A. Wellesley, and Mr. Windham, participated, it was agreed that lord Binning's notice should stand for to-morrow, and Mr. W. Taylor's for Friday.

, in the absence of some hon. friends of his, felt it his duty to impress upon the house the necessity of postponing the further proceedings on this bill till next Friday. There was a very general feeling entertained, that the question on the distilleries, which had the precedence for discussion, would have prevented the order, which referred to the Local Militia, from being moved, at least at so early an hour of the night. Under that impression, and knowing that it was the intention of some friends of his to submit certain amendments and clauses in the committee, he should certainly move the postponement of the order till next Friday.

pressed the house to proceed; and contended that there were future opportunities for those members, who were then unfortunately absent, to submit their opinions to the consideration of the house. Indeed, he did not expect a fuller house on the Local Militia Bill than he then saw.

said, that notwithstanding the easy, self-satisfied way in which the noble lord expressed himself, he should have recollected that if the house was full, it was filled by gentlemen who came down to the discussion of another business, which had been positively fixed for that night. A measure stood for that night, on which a great deal of discussion was expected. Without any reason assigned, save an undefined assertion of convenience, it was postponed. The result was, that another measure, which was not expected to come on, was pressed before the house; and when causes were stated to postpone it, the noble lord replied, that the motion was unnecessary, because, after the details were gone through, there were other opportunities for the discussion of their merits. The question, however, turned upon this consideration, that by agreeing to the amendment moved by his noble friend, the only inconvenience which was likely to result was, that hon. members would have another day to attend their duty in that house, whereas if the house then proceeded, no future opportunity would be offered to them to state their objections.—The house then divided: Ayes 81; Noes 37. Majority 44. On readmission into the gallery, we found the house in a committee, and in a discussion upon that clause, which determines the ages between which individuals are liable to the ballot.

thought that the period of eighteen was certainly the fittest time for young men to commence military service, and that every year after they became less and less fit. He was of opinion that if the ballot was confined to young men between eighteen and nineteen, a sufficient number would be found to answer the purposes required, without carrying the ballot to men of more advanced years. He thought the age of thirty-five much too far advanced.

admitted, that in some counties the principle of the hon. baronet might answer, and produce even more men than were wanted for the particular district, but in many others it would not at all produce the number required, and the age must be extended.

thought the range of years stated in the clause too extensive, as it would give a greater number of men than were required.

answered, that the numbers were calculated by the population of each county; and a narrower limitation would not give the number of men required.

observed, that last year's Militia Bill excepted numbers on the ground of being volunteers; but in this bill, every county was ordered to find its quota, without any regard to the number of its volunteers. Neither was any exception proposed on account of the number of a man's children, however great; and in this respect he thought that carrying the ballot so high as thirty-five years of age, would be extremely oppressive to numbers of poor men with large families depending on their industry. He therefore suggested an exception in favour of men having more than three children; and he also thought the hardship much greater on men after thirty than before; more especially a poor shop-keeper, or any man settled in life, of small capital, whose income did not exceed 100l. a year, who. must in this case be driven to the necessity of serving to the ruin of his business, or paying a fine equal to one-fifth of his income, besides his liability to the income tax, which was already intolerable.

thought that by making the term from eighteen to thirty, about one in five would be drawn for service in the county where he lived; but the clause as it stood would take two out of three of the male population.

said, that the committee, on considering the measure maturely, would find that it would on no account be so oppressive as seemed to be apprehended. To the working manufacturer who could earn six shillings a day, undoubtedly the service would be objectionable. But it would be no great oppression upon the head of a family to be obliged, during a period of four years, to devote one month in each to make himself serviceable to his country; and with respect to the burthen apprehended by parishes for allowances to the families of poor men during their absence on service, it was groundless, as such allowance was to be reimbursed by the paymaster-general. As a measure of national expence, he had now reason to believe it would not be nearly so expensive as he at first imagined, from the number of volunteers who were coming forward in every part of the country. It was only in counties where volunteers did not come forward in sufficient numbers. that the ballot was to be adopted at all; and as to the alteration proposed, he had no objection to accede to this amendment, and substitute the, age of thirty, in the place of thirty-five, the service to commence from the age of eighteen, provided it was agreed to extend the period of volunteer service to forty years of age.—The proposition, was agreed to, and the amendment made accordingly.

cabled the attention of the house to the operation this bill would have on those young men at Eton, Winchester, Westminster, and other places, who were educated with a view to holy orders. The resident members of universities were already exempted, and in the same spirit the exemption ought to be extended to persons of the description just mentioned. The fine, he understood, was to exempt only for two years, and persons who could not possibly enter into the militia might be liable to pay it three times in all. He also adverted to the situation in which young Roman Catholics would stand; especially such as were educated for holy orders. If they were liable to serve at all, of which there were doubts, they would be subject to the Mutiny Act and the articles of war, which commanded the marching to church, &c. Their situation was quite different from such of the Roman Catholics as enlisted voluntarily. He therefore moved an amendment, exempting young men engaged, bona fide, in education for holy orders in any seminary public or private, with the masters, &c.

did not object to the principle, but, if admitted, it would open a door to the most, enormous abuses, and the mischief which would thus result from allowing the exemptions would far overbalance any inconvenience that could arise from leaving the matter as it stood. With regard to young men educated for Roman Catholics, it was but fair, that they should at least contribute to the public service by fine, as the Quakers did, whose religious principles prevented their giving personal service. His lordship also observed, that the pressure here was much less than that of the regular militia service.

thought the amendment of the hon. baronet well worthy of serious consideration. But leaving that, he called the attention of the noble lord to the difference between this and other services, especially that proposed by the Training bill, by which the people were not to be incorporated nor subjected to any inconvenience that could render exemptions almost in any case of much consequence. Yet the teachers of schools had been there exempted. And as to the regular militia, the expence of a substitute might be much greater than 10l. but the noble lord must recollect, that by insurance that was reduced to very little, and here no insurance was allowed against the fines, so that this bill must stand on its own merits, without reference to other services.

adverted to the exemptions which were allowed to dissenting clergymen, which, in this bill, was qualified by the words,' and not carrying on any other trade.' He admitted that many-frauds had been committed by persons who got exempted by pretending to be dissenting clergymen. But there was a numerous sect called Baptists, whose teachers had in many instances, so little salary, that they became booksellers or stationers, being, however, really clergymen. The operation of these words would be peculiarly hard on them, and he would propose an amendment to remedy this inconvenience on the Report.

objected, that nothing was more usual than for masons, bricklayers, and other handicraftmen, to setup for spiritual teachers, and hence a clause like that wished to be introduced, would most erroneously include these unworthy objects within its provision. After a few words from lord H. Petty, sir J. C. Hippisley and Mr. Lee Keck, the amendment was negatived without a division.

adverted to the clause, refusing exemption to apprentices, and contended that this was most injurious to the young men themselves, as they would be taken from their employments, the knowledge of which they might not have sufficiently acquired, and fall into habits inconsistent with their occupations, while the masters would be most seriously injured in their property, the young men being taken from them at the age when they would be of most use to them. It was known that the permanent duty of the volunteers did much harm in this way.

observed, that as the master would probably not come within the age fixed by the bill, it would be no great hardship on him to have his apprentice called out, particularly as the twenty-eight days service was not intended to be successive, and as the apprentice in no instance was to be permitted, during the continuance of his indentures, to enlist in the line.

persisted in taking the sense of the house.—After some further conversation, strangers were ordered to withdraw, but no division took place.

adverted to the words in the same clause, that 'no poor man who has more than one child' should be exempted from this service, though exempt from the regular militia; and proposed, in order to make the thing more precise and intelligible, to leave out the words 'more than one child,' and substitute 'less than three children.' This was agreed to.

Stanhope and Mr. Vansittart objected to the scale of gradation in the imposition of fines.

observed upon the necessity of proportioning the fines to the conditions of the different orders of the community: those belonging to what may be called the smaller gentry, would be induced to serve by a fine that would be sufficient to compel persons of an inferior description.

ridiculed the idea of compelling the small gentry to live for 28 days the life of a common soldier, herding with the lowest dregs of society, by a penalty of 30l. On the clause which states, that persons claiming exemption upon the payment of fines, are to swear that they have not insured themselves against such fines, or any part thereof, a long discussion took place. Mr. Windham, seeing that the committee was not likely to come to a determination speedily upon that point, the bill not being half gone through with, and it being then late in the night (about 12 o'clock), proposed that the debate should be adjourned, in order that gentlemen might come to the discussion with their faculties more alert than they could be supposed to be at that time; and that several gentlemen, who were absent, from an idea that the debate would not be brought forward that night, might have a fair understanding of the time of its being discussed. In this proposition, he was supported by lord Milton, sir G. Warrender, Mr. W. Wynne, and Mr. Tierney.

, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and some other members, urged the expediency of proceeding as far as possible that night. The gallery was then cleared for a division, but the further discussion of the clause was postponed, and the committee proceeded to consider of some of the following clauses. It was fixed that volunteers may be enrolled between the ages of 18 and 40. The clause directing that the sum of 2 guineas should be paid to each volunteer, by the parish in which he is enrolled, gave rise to a very lengthened conversation; and, without coming to a determination on that point, the house resumed, the chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow.