rose to put a question to the right hon. gent. respecting our relations with the United States. They had been given to understand in the Regent's Speech, at

said, it was true that the American minister had that day had his audience of leave, but that the negociations were finally broken off, he had yet to learn of the hon. gent. Though the American minister was about to leave this country, he was not quitting it under such circumstances as the hon. gent. supposed. He would leave behind him a charge d'affaires to carry on a diplomatic correspondence, and so far from the negociations between the two countries being interrupted, a gentleman had just been appointed envoy extraordinary to. America. There was nothing in the manner in which the American minister, now about leaving this country, took his departure, that could give reason to any one to suppose such an interruption had occurred. Under these circumstances, he saw no reason for advising the Prince Regent to cause any papers on the subject to be laid before the House, which would not otherwise be produced.

was glad to hear an answer so contradictory of what he had understood to be the case, but confessed, at the same time, that it was not sufficiently satisfactory to his mind, and that he must, therefore, reserve to himself the right of giving notice on some early day, of a motion for the necessary papers on this subject.

in

of Dublin, rose to second the address, and in doing so, begged leave to assure the House, that no case could possibly come before them which had stronger claims on their attention and their justice. They would recollect, that from the month of June, 1808, to the month of March, 1810, the distillation from grain had been prohibited; the natural consequence of this was, that at the end of that period, there remained upon hand a very considerable stock of spirits distilled from sugar. The allowance of the distillation from grain must have sensibly affected the value of this stock bad that allowance been duly foreseen, but it took place contrary to all fair expectation; its operations on the price of the sugar spirits were, of course, not only strong, but sudden; and not only was the allowance granted, but the duty was reduced from 5s. 8d. to 2s. 6d. and consequently no time afforded for the disposal of the large stock of sugar spirits on hand, though the invariable rule was, that whenever any additional duty was put on spirits, the stock on hand was always excised, and therefore the persons concerned in the trade expected some regulation in case of a reduction of duty. In this case, however, there had been none, and therefore the stock became in general so much dead loss; and he need scarcely remind the House of the sad effects of this was manifested in so melancholy a manner, by the unprecedented increase of bankruptcies last year in Dublin. The speculation in sugar-spirit had been very extensive in consequence of the confident and general expectation of the continuance of the prohibition; all the speculators were severe sufferers, and those of them who had not large and extensive capitals, found themselves suddenly involved in inevitable bankruptcy. For these reasons he trusted the House would see the necessity of resorting to the speediest and most effectual means of compensating those who had suffered at once so extensively and so unmeritedly.

called the attention of the House to the subject matter of the proposition about to be submitted to them. There was a standing order of the House, that no petitions for money should be received, unless recommended by the crown. This was a motion co obtain compensation. Without the form of a petition, the same effect was intended to be produced.

opposed the motion. No man could say mat the reduction of the duty upon spirits imposed any hardship upon any of the distillers. As it was done by act of parliament, it afforded them a fair notice of what was intended to be done. The stock of spirits was taken upon the same day the prohibition was enforced, and there were found to be 115,000 gallons; and only 50,000 gallons were distilled under the higher duties. There was not then enough of spirits to answer the market in Ireland, so that the distillers found greater benefit in supplying it, instead of exporting their spirits. There were not spirits equal to two days distillation in the whole of that country; so that these distillers had a sale for their spirits which amply indemnified them for the duties they paid. The duty was altered from 5s. 8d. to 2s. 6d. per gallon; but they were not on that account entitled to a drawback of 3s. 2d. as they now claimed. The utmost they could claim, by his calculation, was 4½d. per gallon; but he saw no reason for making any allowance whatever. If any drawback were to be allowed, it might with equal propriety be allowed to all the other holders and dealers in all foreign spirits, a thing which would be extremely impolitic. In looking into the Journals, he found five petitions presented upon this subject formerly, and after it was discussed they were rejected. It was indeed contrary to the practice of the right hon. gent. himself, when in 1795 he brought in a bill into the Irish parliament for encouraging the brewing of beer, by taking off the excise duties, but there was no drawback allowed for the stock on hand. Under all these circumstances, he considered that there was this solid objection to the motion; that there was no document produced to shew that any investigation whatever was necessary. He thought such a question should go through a committee of the whole House, before such a motion could be made.

thought that it was but justice to allow a diminution of the duty upon the stock on hand, as well as that to be distilled. His complaint was, that there was no interval of time left for them to get rid of their stock. If there were only two days consumption of spirits in the country, there was surely the less difficulty in doing the necessary act of justice. As this was an age of precedents, they ought upon this occasion to follow that of the Tea Commutation Act, by which the duties were diminished, but a period of three months was allowed the dealers to dispose of their stock on hand; and it was on that account that no allowance of drawback was given to them. If the distillers had no other mode of redress but by petition, it was leaving it in the power of any financial minister to withhold his consent, on account of his being the individual who imposed the hardship complained of. He therefore agreed in the propriety of the line that had been adopted by his right hon. friend, as the proposed address prayed for an investigation, and not merely that money should be paid them.

said, that in his opinion there was no ground for compensation whatever; for, in the first place, the distillers had proved no loss. These distillers had enjoyed a monopoly; and it did not appear that they had not sold every gallon of their spirits as high as ever they could have done, had there been no alteration of the duty.

had no doubt, that if the House agreed to the motion, they would be able to decide what was the amount of the loss these distillers had sustained. In 1783, when the duties upon French wines were equalized, the holders of these wines had a drawback granted to them, and such ought to be their conduct in the present instance. He did think the matter ought to be investigated by the House, as many failures, he understood, had taken place in consequence of the losses they had sustained.

repeated his objection to the mode of proceeding, as contrary to the established rule that had existed for a century. The identical case had already been submitted to the House in the form of a petition, and rejected on account of its not being regularly recommended on the part of the government, and it would be rendering their rule of no avail to receive it in any other form.

approved highly of what had fallen from the Chair. It had been said that if ministers thought proper to refuse their consent to any petition, it was impossible to procure redress; now, he did not think it had been usual to refuse such consent, for they had been more reproached for giving it too easily than for withholding it. They often gave their consent to petitions which they were convinced ought not to be received, as it still lay with the House to grant or refuse the prayer of them. This address seemed merely to be substituted for a petition that was rejected.

was of the same opinion as formerly, for if such was the form of the House, it must sanction great injustice. He did not think that this present mode was by any means disrespectful. What he complained of was, that ministers had it in their power to withhold their consent, or to make it an act of favour. He should not however persevere in stating his opinion contrary to the sentiments of the House.

then put it to the right hon. gent. whether he would not wish, under these circumstances, to withdraw his motion.

accordingly consented, and the motion was withdrawn.

then moved, that the Bill be committed, and said, that he would not trouble the House with any observations in the present stage, as he was sure that a measure which met the approbation of so large a body of merchants would at least be permitted to go into a committee.

said, that after the frequent discussions upon this subject, and after what had fallen from the counsel, he should not enter much into it at present; but he only rose to observe, that the most proper mode would be to refer the subject to his Majesty's privy council, for the discussion of it in the House was an irregular interference with the prerogative of the crown. He should therefore oppose the motion for going into a committee.

denied that the Bill was a mere speculation. The real question before the House was, whether the increase of trade since the institution of the corporations or companies said to be injured by the Bill, might not require a different system? The measure should have his support, as he believed its operation would be to throw open insurance at the lowest rate.

said that this Bill must be considered with regard to its ultimate object, which was, the establishment of a great combination, to do away every other mode of insurance. At present, there was a monopoly dc jure, But not de facto; if this measure succeeded, there would be a monopoly de facto, though not de jure. Such a company might command the rate of premium. Their interest would be to delay payment as long as possible, and their correspondents would encounter intolerable hardships. Instead of 1,500 individuals, as at present, there might be 20 companies whose secretaries might understand each other, and settle the premium at their pleasure. The companies, it had been proved, were a dearer resort, and their solidity was not such as afforded any compensation. All this was the effect of speculation taking the place of sober industry. He himself had a share in one of the fire offices (all of which would become marine insurers, if this Bill passed) for which he paid 500l. He had been offered 2,000l. for it, subject to the passing of this Bill. Companies, in short, would start up like the lottery insurance companies in every street, and would be. here to-day and gone to-morrow. Losses to the amount of six or seven millions had been lately paid, on account of the critical state of trade. What would have become of their million capital, if but nearly this sum had come upon it? He should therefore oppose the motion.

controverted the opinion of Sir T. Turton on the, subject of the charters, and contended that the road to redress was open to these petitioners in the mode pointed out by the act, and consequently that their application to parliament was improper. On petitioning the King, the matter would go through the Privy Council to the Attorney General, who would hear it as a cause; and, on his report, the decision of the executive would be given. If the charters of the existing companies were found to be objectionable, by this mode they would be rescinded, and all the petitioners required by the present Bill would be accomplished. Yet, though this road had been pointed out to them last session, they had preferred coming again to parliament, where their claims, from the nature of a popular assembly, were not likely to be so accurately discussed. He condemned the original motives of the petitioners, and much as he was averse to new charters, he would rather agree to one of them, than to an anomalous copartnery like the present. He then pointed out many inconveniences that would arise were the present Bill to be passed, and so large a body established, which could only be sued in the name of their secretary, whose person would be all the insurers would have for their risks. On all these grounds he was hostile to this application.

thought that the right hon. gent. had mistaken the state of the question, and that no part of his observations applied to it. A grievance had been proved to exist, and the object was to apply a remedy. The Bill did not propose to dissolve any charter, but merely to say, that the system of solitary insurances should no longer be the law. The grievance complained of was, the insecurity of insurances; and the measure submitted, was the doing away of that clause in the acts which prevented others from joining in companies. Therefore he thought that the argument of the right hon. gent. did not apply.

opposed the Bill, the object of which, he said, was, if not to destroy the charter, to take away one of the greatest advantages arising from the incorporation of those companies.

contended that his Majesty's power applied only to the total repeal of the charter; but not to any particular modification, such as was now proposed. He was of opinion that the Bill should go into a committee. After some further observations from the Solicitor General and Mr. Stephen, who spoke against the Bill, and from Mr. Morris and Mr. Baring, in favour of going in a committee, the House divided, when the numbers were,