brought in a bill for preventing the spreading of Small-Pox infection; which was read a first and second time, committed, and ordered to be printed as amended. Lord Folkestone thought the bill ought to stand over till the next session of parliament—; to which Mr. Fuller acceded. The bill was reported and ordered to be read a third time this day three months.

having given notice of a motion for leave to bring in a bill to regulate and restrain the issue of Promissory Notes reissuable, stated, that on consideration ha was disposed to coincide generally in the representations of those who were of opinion that this credit, as well as every other, ought to be left as free as possible. But much mischief and confusion arose from, the frequent issues of very small notes to the amount of 15 or 20 shillings, the abuse of which was very general. To obviate this evil, he moved for leave to bring in a bill to prevent the issue of promissory notes under the amount of 20s.

represented the propriety of guarding against the issue of checks by one partner of a banking house on his fellow partners for ten or fifteen shillings.

was aware of the variety of shapes in which the abuse existed, and: had taken proper advice previous to the framing of this bill, as to the best means of discovering every species of abuse.

represented the variety and extent of frauds formerly practised by the issuers of notes under 1l. in Ireland; and was therefore desirous that a remedy by proper restriction should be applied in this country as soon as possible.

said the circulation of these small notes was owing to the deficiency of silver coin, and wished ministers to apply the only effectual remedy, which was a new silver coinage.—Leave was given to bring in the bill.

pursuant to notice, rose to move for leave, to bring in a bill to amend the constitution of Courts Martial. He was aware of the objection against interfering with the prerogative. But the interference that he proposed would be far from infringing on the just rights of the crown. In no age had the crown the power of managing the whole administration of the army, at its unlimited discretion. The high constable and earl marshal in antient times regulated the affairs of the army under due responsibility. On the attainder of Stafford, duke of Buckingham, high constable in the reign of Henry VIII, that monarch assumed and exercised the whole powers of the superintendance and government of the army. But the arbitrary principles of that monarch, and his immediate successors, rendered these practices no precedent for the justice of modern times. After the Revolution, when better principles and juster notions prevailed, William III. conceived that by the prerogative he had not powers to punish the mutiny of a Scotch regiment at Dumbarton, on the appointment of a foreign officer, the duke of Schomberg, to be their colonel. King William applied to parliament for powers adequate to the case, parliament passed the Mutiny Act, which was a standing precedent for parliamentary interference in the judicial administration of the army. He allowed that Courts Martial were, generally speaking, so constituted as to form the most proper tribunal for judging military cases. But he considered it as a defect, that the legal officer who attended to do justice between the prosecutor and the crown, in the management of the prosecution, was, in fact, an officer of the crown. The power of that officer ought, therefore, to be under proper guards. He admitted, that if no abuses had existed in consequence of the right of revision, it would not have become him to propose any alteration in a system of things so long established; but he feared too many instances had occurred, that would go to justify the proposition he had to submit to the house. When he first had the honour of a seat in that house, a paper was laid upon the table, relative to the proceedings of a court martial, whose sentence, had been changed from a sentence of acquittal into a sentence of censure. He adverted also to a recent case, that of the hon. Cochrane Johnstone, in which that gallant officer had been honourably acquitted, and yet in consequence of that right of revision, that gallant officer was passed over in a course of general promotion, and all his professional prospects and hopes closed and blasted for ever. He did not mean to deny the undoubted right of his majesty to employ or to dismiss what officers he pleased. But when a Court Martial was employed, it was right that its decisions should be carried into effect, or proper reasons be given to the contrary. He adverted to the superior situation of the Navy on this head, and cited the case of captain, now sir Isaac Coffin, tried at Halifax by court martial, and ordered to be dismissed his ship. The Admiralty assumed the right of dismissing capt. Coffin from the navy altogether. But capt. Coffin appealed by memorial to his majesty against the decision, and the Judges to whom the matter was referred, consisting of persons not inimical to the crown, among whom were lord Kenyon, lord Lough-borough, sir James Eyre, and sir Francis Buller, reversed the decision of the Admiralty, and re-established the right of capt. Coffin to be employed in his profession. He saw no reason why a similar controul and revision should not exist in the army. The special duty of military officers to the crown, and their looking for promotion to the crown only, devoted them particularly to the crown, and rendered their decisions at least not properly open to be enforced in rigour by the crown. He then adduced the case relative to the Perthshire fencibles: a charge had been brought against some subalterns, who, after a long and impartial trial, had reason to expect (and it was publicly expected) that they would have been honourably acquitted, but from that day to this no man could say he had official knowledge of that sentence, for it was totally suppressed, and there was great reason to suspect, that that suppression was owing to the great interest exerted on behalf of the colonel who had brought the charges, and whose character would have been seriously impeached in the acquittal of the accused, and the manner of that exculpation. He asked, then, if a system so liable to abuse did not imperiously require parliamentary interference to correct and improve it? He submitted, then, to the consideration of the house, with great humility, the following motion, which had long occupied his most serious attention. He moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to expedite the decisions of Courts Martial, and to prevent any undue interference in impeding or delaying the result thereof."

represented that the measure proposed could not possibly be entertained in the present session, as it was incompatible with several provisions in the Mutiny Act, particularly with that which bound members of Courts Martial to keep their decisions secret till they should be revised by the crown. But, in answer to the general reasoning of the hon. member, he should argue, without going back to the times before the Revolution, which afforded no precedent applicable at present, that the interference proposed would be injurious. The hon. gent, allowed that his majesty ought always to have the power of judging what officers he should employ, and what officers he should dismiss. He would ask, then, what difference the alteration proposed in the powers of Courts Martial could make in the case alluded to; namely, that of the hon. Cochrane Johnstone? Supposing him acquitted by the court, the hon. member allowed his majesty might still dismiss him. The immediate promulgation of the sentences of Courts Martial would be, in many cases, cruel to the officers themselves; for it would deprive his majesty of the exercise of that beneficial mercy by which he often remitted a censure or reprimand, in consideration of matters that were specified with honour to the officer in question, so as to leave him still in the service with unimpaired, and sometimes even exalted character. The naval service and the military were distinct in character, constitution, and government. The laws applicable to the one were frequently inapplicable to the other. There was no good ground for interfering with that system, by which the army had now been governed for a century. Any other system would, he was sure, be attended with injury. The annual revision of the Mutiny Act was the proper parliamentary controul, and it was amply sufficient for every good purpose.

from the obvious fact of naval discipline being adequate to every good purpose, saw no reason why the more just and equitable constitution of naval Courts Martial should not extend to the army. He adverted to the case of col. Cochrane Johnstone, and insisted on the hardship of punishing that gentleman after he had been acquitted by the Court Martial. A similar influence might again be put into action for the injury of some deserving member of society. No other hopes of advancement should be held out, but those dependent on exclusive merit and military pre-eminence. The greatest possible injury that could be done to the character or feelings of an officer, who had been honourably acquitted, was to pass him over in the list of promotions, except that which went so far as to reverse the sentence of the court by which he was tried. Seeing, as he did, the necessity of reformation, and the wide door which had been opened to abuses, he should certainly support the motion.

observed, that the measure proposed would go not only to alter the Mutiny Act, but also the Articles of War. The navy was the characteristic and constitutional force of Britain, and might therefore be governed more by the regulations of the legislature. But the army was a new force, arising out of the 14extraordinary exigencies of modern times, and, from every consideration of expediency and necessity, must be left under the controul of the crown.

was ready to admit that Courts Martial required a reform to render the constitution of them and some of their forms of proceeding, more consistent with the general spirit of British law. But the present proposition went too far. If the power of the crown was too much relaxed, the army would become highly dangerous to the people and to the crown also. He allowed the extreme hardship of col. Cochrane Johnstone's case, and would have been happy if it had been in his power to remove the hardship that gent, had suffered. But as the power of the crown was unlimited, and very properly proposed to be left so, as to what officers it would employ, he did not see how the exercise of his majesty's discretion could be remedied by any measure proposing not to meddle with it. The commander in chief finding by the letter of the Judge Advocate, that col. Johnstone was not an officer agreeable to his majesty, abstained from recommending him in his turn for promotion. The only thing that was open to remedy on that proceeding, was to render the Judge Advocate responsible for the advice he should give to his majesty, and that had already been done by a clause in the Mutiny Act, adopted by the house on his suggestion. The system of the navy was inapplicable to the army in many cases. For instance, a captain of a man of war had the power to order a man to be flogged without a trial. The first officer in the army had no such power, and he should be sorry to think he had. He allowed it was desirable that the powers of the Judge Advocate should be defined and understood; and recommended to the hon. gent, who filled that office, to introduce himself some measure to that effect.

consented to withdraw his motion, though he could not help observing, that his wish had been misinterpreted, as well as some of his words. He was not desirous to trench on the royal prerogative: his Bill would only have referred to general Courts Martial, and in this point of view he could not see what distinction could be drawn between naval and military courts. He might at some future period bring forward his motion, when he hoped to render it more palatable to the house.

opposed it, on the principle that all political interference of the legislature with the industry and general pursuits of the country was bad. He would allow that particular circumstances might occur which would justify such interference. It might be allowed under well-founded apprehensions of scarcity, or as a measure of temporary policy. He knew, however, of no scarcity either existing or to be apprehended, which called for the present measure. Wheat, which might be considered as the principal food of man, was hardly ever known at a more steady price than it had been for several months past. In case, however, a scarcity should actually take place, he then wished that the crown should possess the power to stop the distilleries by a proclamation. Wheat had for a long time been at a low price, and a price so low as to be hardly adequate to repay the farmer. He therefore felt it his duty to resist the second reading.

said that as to the general principle of leaving agriculture to itself, and not interfering with it by any legislative provisions, that principle would, in justice, be as applicable to the interests of the West India planters, or to the commerce of the country, as to its agriculture. But it was known that the interests of the West India merchants had, in point of fact, been much interfered with by the legislature. Although by the contract under which our islands were cultivated, the planters were to have the monopoly of supplying the empire with sugar; yet, when we occupied St. Domingo, we received 100,000 hogsheads annually from that colony, in competition with the produce of our own colonies, and in violation of the contract made with them. Again, when it was represented that the planters held up the price of their sugar too high, parliament interfered, and let in East India sugar in competition with it. At the time that parliament resolved on this measure, he did not recollect that a single country gentleman raised his voice against the interference of the legislature with the price of the produce of the West India cultivation. If the principle was good in the one case, why was it not also good in the other? Those country gentlemen, who now laid it down so broadly in their lectures on political economy, never thought of such a principle, until their own interests were touched. One hon. gent, a great land proprietor (Mr. Coke, of Norfolk), had on a former occasion, compared the West India islands, in value, to ozier islands in the Thames. He would tell the hon. gent, however, that the commerce of the West Indies did most materially increase the wealth and prosperity of this country, and that the increase of national wealth and prosperity had increased very much the rents and value of his great estates. The country gentlemen who oppose this bill seemed not only to have formed a system of political economy for themselves, but they had formed a new mode of arithmetic for themselves. By the common notions of arithmetic, the more you subtracted from a thing, the less remained; but by the arithmetic of the country gentlemen, the more you took away from the stock of corn in the market, the more you destroyed in distilleries, or in any other way, the more would be left to secure the country against scarcity. They knew, however, that this was proposed merely as a temporary measure, and that if any practical ill effects should follow from it, ministers would have it in their power to suspend the operation of this act at any time. He thought, that when the measure was brought forward as a West India question, it was brought forward as a British question; for he conceived that the planters and cultivators of our West India colonies were as much British subjects as the inhabitants of the metropolis. Although the Atlantic rolled between us and them, yet their interests were united with ours; their habits and feelings were British; they were proud of being governed by British laws. It was in this country that they looked to end their days; their affections were turned to Britain, and they called it their mother country. He hoped, then, that the mother country would not act the part of an unnatural parent. At present there were but about 35,000 hogsheads of sugar at the West India docks, but by October, when the next crop came in, there would be above 300,000. The average produce of our settlements for many years had been 270,000 hogsheads, and 30,000 would surely come in from the Danish islands we had lately captured. The consumption of the British empire had never been more than 200,000 hogsheads annually, and therefore it was most evident that the planters must be reduced to great distress as long as the accustomed. markets were shut against their produce. Against the next year, both the West India cultivators and the British farmers would know how to calculate the exertions that they should make. The great objects of Buonaparte were, first, to ruin our commerce through our colonies; and secondly, to starve the people of this country into submission. If relief was refused to the West India merchants, it was probable that both these objects would be obtained. The colonies would certainly be ruined, and the first bad harvest might go near to starve the country, as long as there was no place to import from. He thought that the measure would not at all prevent the farmers from getting a fair price for their Corn, although it might prevent them from getting a most exorbitant price.

contended that the present situation of the world, was the strongest argument against any discouragement of agriculture. It was most impolitic to narrow the market, and thereby diminish the production of grain. From the Report of the Committee itself, it appeared that it was improper to extend the measure to Ireland. The distress of the West India colonies was said to spring from the stoppage of the intercourse with the continent. Ministers affirmed that the Orders in Council would open this. These Orders had been six months in operation, and what had they done? The intercourse had only been more effectually put an end to, and the distress of the planters augmented. The best measure of relief would be to open the intercourse direct between the colonies and other nations, while the present state of things continued. He concluded, by declaring his opposition to the measure.

thought that the general principle which was laid down respecting the impropriety of legislative interference, must be applicable only in general cases. The same principle was equally applicable to the commerce of the country as to its agriculture; and yet, in practice, it was found absolutely necessary for the legislature often to interfere in the affairs of commerce. The evils under which we laboured at the present moment were these: we were excluded from importing, (as we had been accustomed) the surplus corn of other countries to meet a failure of the harvest, and at the same time we were pressed with a glut of West India produce. Those temporary evils could not be remedied by the appli- cation of any general abstract principle. He thought the present measure well calculated to relieve the West India planters, and at the same time to diminish the alarm which prevailed in some parts of the United Kingdom of a scarcity.

objected to the measure, as he thought the interference of the legislature, upon any occasion, with the agriculture or commerce of the country, was highly injurious; excepting in cases of scarcity, of which at present there was not the smallest appearance.

hoped that ministers would not press a measure, when their majorities were so very small, and when the minority was so respectable. It was true, that perhaps they might derive more support from the manufacturing and commercial interests, but he hoped that consideration would not prevent them from doing justice to the landed interest. If he had ever used the term 'gambling speculations' to the cultivation of the colonies, he had certainly never meant to apply the term in an offensive sense; but he was surprised that none of the West India gentlemen ever spoke without using the word monopoly, which was a term that had not been applied to them; and yet he could not conceive how there could exist any great monopoly of corn in this country; whereas there might easily be a monopoly of sugar, as that was an article which was kept in few hands. He thought it was absolute nonsense to think of fixing a maximum in the price of corn. The bad effects of attempting a minimum in the price of labour had been already felt. As to the profits of farmers, he thought it but reasonable that if one part of their crop failed, as it notoriously did at the last harvest, they should charge something more on that part which had not failed. This was the only mode by which they could pay their rent, taxes, and other expences.

said, that if he thought the measure before the house was at all calculated to affect the interests of agriculture, or to produce that scarcity which it was intended to prevent, he should be one of the last men in the world to vote for it. The landed interest had taken a false alarm on the subject. He highly approved of relieving the West India merchants, from which the landed interest would ultimately derive the greatest benefit.

was of opinion that the interest of the planter and the interest of the farmer were not only compatible; but inseparable. The manufacturers of the populous county which he had the honour to represent, were enlightened enough to be completely convinced of this fact. So far was this from a rash and injudicious interference with the interests of agriculture, that he was satisfied the measure under consideration would operate as a protection to them; and he felt, and believed the country at large would feel, that his majesty's ministers had exercised a sound discretion in the support of this bill.

adverting to the clamours about high prices, observed, that if we were to raise our own supplies, the farmer must have a price that might render it worth his while to cultivate poor as well as rich land.

deprecated the tampering with the agriculture of the country, and declared, that this measure would be of the most fatal consequence to the tillage of Ireland, which was becoming a great source of supply to Great Britain. Every thing that he had heard only confirmed his objection to the measure. To prove that there was no actual scarcity, he stated from competent authority that the price of grain was falling in those places where from the stoppage of intercourse with the neighbouring districts, it had risen to the greatest height.

spoke in favour of the bill, which was absolutely necessary to prevent the ruin of the colonies.

spoke as follows:—Sir, after all the attention in my power to bestow on this subject, and after mature consideration of every argument that has been urged in its favour, I cannot say that it appears to me either necessary or expedient. No case whatever has been made out to justify such a dangerous interference with the agriculture of the kingdom; it has not even the ground of probability to support it, and rests its dependance solely on the apprehension that a measure of this kind may become necessary hereafter. Now, sir, if merely upon the bare possibility of a change becoming necessary in the law of the land, we are to proceed and make a most serious innovation on conjecture alone, not on any established fact, are gentlemen aware of the mischievous consequences that may and will arise from the establishment of such a fatal precedent? To sanction this bill we ought to have a strong case before us; none such appears, and I must contend that it has not probability in its favour. All the accounts from the country afford reason for us to expect a plentiful harvest, and in addition thereto we hear from all parts of the cyder counties, that the produce of apples and pears is likely to prove abundant. Every one knows that a good cyder year depresses the barley market, that com therefore is not likely to bear a price adequate to the expence of cultivation; if, contrary to all these more favourable expectations, an unforeseen calamity should happen to blast the ensuing harvest, then the ministers may avail themselves of the king's prerogative to stop the distilleries, by proclamation, and no member of this house will object to a bill of indemnity. I cannot help noticing, sir, the charge of inconsistency urged against the farmers. All the bad consequences they predicted are said to be imaginary, because corn has risen in price since the discussion of this measure. Why, sir, it is in consequence of such discussion within these walls that an advance has taken place, and every man expected it who knew any thing of the subject. The distillers have bought an unusual quantity; speculators have been at work; the advance is temporary; serious mischief will follow, and depression take place at the next harvest. The last harvest was in many places scanty with respect to barley and pulse, yet we have gone on well: it has given us a sufficient supply, and at a moderate price. If we let the fanner alone, we shall provide sufficient corn without any importation. With respect to wheat, we have obtained a very considerable increased supply from the introduction of threshing machines. Much corn used to be left in the straw when the flail was only used; it was wasted; now every grain is brought forward in aid of the consumption. Being therefore of opinion that no justifiable reason has been offered in support of this bill, that it is adverse to the true interest of our country, it must have my decided opposition.

stated the fact, that in Feb. 1802, the price of wheat was higher at the opening of the distilleries than now when they were to be shut; and then there could not be a prospect of an abundant harvest, which we at present had. This fact was a complete answer to all that had been said respecting a scarcity.

said, we had been told from, the throne that the eyes of Europe are upon us. The landed gentlemen who sat in this house would do well to recollect, that the eyes of the British empire, the eyes of their constituents were upon them. He had not the honour to represent a county, but his feelings were the same as if he did. Were he to acquiesce in this measure, or willingly to miss any opportunity that occurred of opposing it, he should be conscious that he had abandoned rights which he was bound to defend, and that he had contributed to lay the foundation of future famines.

said, that as he had expressed his sentiments pretty fully upon the subject before the house the last time it was under consideration, he should not then long intrude upon their patience, but he could not help entreating the hon. gentlemen opposite, that at least they would state some specific reasons to justify the apprehensions which had been declared of a scarcity of grain in the country. The hon. gentlemen would make no reply upon a topic which had been again urged, and had been particularly referred to, by an hon. baronet, (sir G. Warrender), namely, the market price of corn, of wheat in particular, at which it was then proposed to prohibit the grain distillery, as compared with what it was upon former occasions, when the same measure was adopted. Wheat was then at the time he was speaking only 72s. in 1795. It had arisen in July to 84s., and in August to 108s.; in Dec. 1800 it was at 125s. barley at 71s. before the suspension was determined upon, and it was taken off at a time when it was higher than at the moment it was then proposed to be put on. Not one of his majesty's ministers, nor any other hon. gent. had thought proper to make any answer to, nor any comment upon these observations, but he trusted he should hear something stated upon the subject in the course of that night's debate. Mr. W. said, he begged the house to consider, if they sanctioned the proposed measure upon the only grounds that had yet been stated, what circumstances they could expect to arise that would render it less necessary next year or the year after. The loss of the foreign supply was in truth the only reason that could be fairly insisted upon. Did they then mean to say that they expected the ports again to be open next year, or were they sanguine enough to believe that without the foreign supply, corn would be cheaper than it had been this year? He, for his part, could hardly ima- gine it would; oats might be somewhat cheaper, and so might peas and beans if the crop was better, but he hardly thought it likely that wheat would, or that upon the whole we should be more plentifully supplied with grain than at present. There was no probability that the same reasons would not exist, if reasons they could be called, for stopping the distilleries next year, which prevailed at that time. He then observed that several gentlemen had remarked, that it was extraordinary the landed interest should so much complain of the loss of the distillery market, when at the same time they were so patient under and so little complained of the animal importation of foreign corn, and which operated to the full as injuriously upon the agriculture of the country as the proposed measure could possibly do. But those hon. gentlemen Mere compleatly mistaken in their ideas upon that subject. The landed interest did sensibly feel the injury done to British agriculture by the facility of importation of corn of foreign growth, but they felt also the impropriety and impolicy of making these topics the subject of frequent parliamentary discussion. Had those hon. gentlemen forgot that only four years ago an act passed to check the importation of foreign corn in consequence of the strong representations of the landed interest upon the subject at that time? Had they forgot the clamour that was raised against that measure, and the difficulty there was in overcoming those clamours, notwithstanding the support it received in parliament, and the very limited extent to which the principle of that bill was confined? The landed interest did certainly feel strongly that nothing could be more injurious and more impolitic than encouraging the agriculture of foreign countries at the expence of our own. We had all the means of providing for our own subsistence, we had lands, capital, industry, agricultural science, nothing was requisite but proper encouragement, and proper security. It was the height of absurdity to continue such a system of laws and regulations relating to the corn trade as in truth operated to depress the agriculture of our own country, and encourage that of foreign nations; even now, since the passing of the act of 1804, the British markets had been constantly open to foreigners, and the British growers as constantly deprived of any reciprocal advantage. It was true that the provisions of that law were such that the importation would have been checked had the average price fallen to 66s. per qr. wheat, and that was a considerable advantage in the security to the farmers against an excessive depression, compared with the act previously existing, but it ought to be stopped at a much earlier period. The prejudices of the people however were strong upon these subjects, and unfortunately their opinions were too generally mistaken and operating against their own object and interests. In the year 1795 the table of the house was covered with petitions signed by thousands of persons, praying the repeal of that law, and expressing their desire in very urgent terms. Neither the administration of that day, however, nor the majority of the house, thought it advisable to comply with the wishes of the petitioners, and it was very fortunate they did not, for the repeal of that measure would have materially damped the spirit of improving agriculture, and we should have now had to deplore the effects. In this instance there was another proof of the different policy which then prevailed, contrasted with that which seemed to govern his majesty's ministers at the present moment; the price of wheat was higher by above ten shillings per quarter when these petitions were presented to the house than it was then, when the grain distillery was about to be prohibited. These circumstances altogether proved, that the landed interest was not indifferent to the importation of foreign corn, though solicitous at the same time to avoid the agitation of questions of such a nature as had always been found to create a considerable degree of uneasiness in the minds of the people.

expressed his surprise at the silence of ministers on a question of this importance. He wished to know, whether they considered themselves as responsible for this measure, which was brought forward under such suspicious circumstances. He asked, whether it was wise or politic to restrict agriculture in the present circumstances of the country? The proposition appeared to him inconsistent with common sense.

objected to it, on the ground that it would make the measure bear heavily upon the lower classes, whilst it would operate lightly on the higher classes. If personal service was enforced in every instance, the measure would not operate so unequally. But as substitution was not allowed, he thought that the lower classes should be permitted to relieve themselves from the pressure of the fine by insurance, as otherwise the measure would be odious in the country.

was surprised at the opposition made to this clause, because it would go to the whole of the bill. This clause was absolutely necessary to render the bill operative, as, if insurance was allowed, the bill could never take effect. The burthen of the service could not be heavy, or the number of volunteers who offered themselves to serve as local militia, would not be so great as the fact proved it to be.

thought this clause most highly objectionable, because it imposed a heavy partial burthen upon individuals of the lower class, without allowing them to secure themselves against it by insurance. The measure ought either to enforce in every instance personal service, or insurance should be allowed, because in every case the lesser evil would be preferred. In the lower classes the fine would be a greater evil than personal service, and they of course must serve, whilst with the higher classes the fine would be the lesser evil, and they of course would pay it, and not submit to their personal service. The service would be ruin to many persons in business, who must serve, and if the service would be ruin, the fine which went to compel it must be equally ruinous. No option therefore was given, as was stated by the noble lord, because either alternative must be ruin to the industrious classes, whom it would be most desirable to protect.

stated that there were only two ways of mitigating the severity of conscription by ballot; mitigation by fine, or mitigation by substitution. He preferred the mitigation by fine, and was not surprised at the opposition of the right hon. gent. because he was most animated in resisting every principle that was borrowed from himself; the fine being the principle of his Training bill, which did not admit of substitution. The insurance he looked upon as injurious to the military service. In the case of insurance offices, the office keeper endeavoured, as was natural, to obtain the men on the cheapest terms, and so far interfered with the recruiting for the army. The same effect was produced by the insurance clubs, and by the assistance afforded by the parishes to individuals of a particular description. The insurance, if allowed in this instance, would have the effect of withdrawing the men from the service. The service under this bill was different from that under the permanent militia establishment; for whilst persons could not enter into the latter, without destruction to all their domestic habits and prospects in life, the service under the former would not be attended by that ruin which the right hon. gent, apprehended. The permission of insurance would have the effect of throwing the whole burthen of service upon the poorer classes, by withdrawing all those whose means enabled them, by insurance, to cover themselves from the personal service. He was convinced, that insurance was at complete variance with the principle of the measure, and therefore he could not consent to allow it under any circumstances to interfere with the operation of this bill.

thought that the clause, as worded, appeared to be too severe; because it would seem that in every instance the fine was to be the property of the person paying it, whereas he was of opinion that parents should be allowed to pay for their sons, and masters for their apprentices or servants.

did not approve of permitting persons to insure, and thought 10l. a very proper sum to be paid in the way of fine. For if the fine was very low, and insurance was permitted, the consequence would be that every person would insure, and the fine would be paid by the insurance offices.

contended, that by insurance they who insured would not do it to: withdraw themselves from the service of the country, but to enable them to meet an option held out to them by the legislature. He insisted also that it was the middle class of industrious persons that would, by the prohibition of insurance be ruined, either by the fine, or by personal service, to the utter destruction of their business or professions. He entirely disapproved of the clause.

acceded to the principle suggested by Mr. D. Giddy, and had no doubt that a proviso might be prepared to allow fathers to pay the fine for their sons, and masters for their apprentices or servants, without interfering with the general operation of the bill.—A division then took place, when the numbers were, For the Clause, 106; Against it, 16.—Majority, 90. The other clause was then agreed to, and the house having resumed, the report was brought up, when the Speaker informed the house, that the whole report was now before the house, and that the question would be that the amendments of the committee be agreed to, which passed in the affirmative.—The amendments having been gone through, lord Castlereagh proposed Wednesday next for the third reading of the bill.

expressed his surprise that the noble lord should be so anxious to precipitate the last stage of the bill, the more so, as it had this night been allowed to proceed two stages.

felt no less surprised at the surprise of the right hon. gent., for surely no hurry had taken place in the progress of the bill; on Wednesday last the bill was in a committee, and then the only clauses to which the right hon. gent. had objected, were again under consideration. There was now to occur an interruption of business for three or four days, and during that period, the right hon. gent, would surely be able to make up his mind with respect to any further objections which it might be his intention to offer against the principle or the provisions of the bill. Mr. W. Wynne, Mr. Tierney, and Mr. Calcraft, were exceedingly anxious the third leading of the bill might not be pressed for Wednesday next, especially if the Curates' bill was to take precedence of it. The bill was unquestionably of more importance than any of those which were said to stand in the way. It was therefore their wish that the bill should take the precedence of any other, if not on Wednesday next, at least on Thursday or Friday. Lord Castlereagh and the Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that the business which stood for those days could not possi- bly be postponed. The second reading of the Curates' bill was to have come on immediately after the recess; and the Dublin police bill was with universal consent fixed for Thursday, it being utterly inconvenient for many Irish members to attend after that day. Mr. Windham and Mr. Calcraft still pressed their objections to Wednesday, when the question whether the bill be read a third time on Wednesday, before the discussion on the Curates' bill, was put, and the house divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 7.