presented a Petition from Mr. St. John Mason, setting forth "That the petitioner was admitted a member of the Irish bar in Trinity Term 1803, and that in August thereof, the petitioner was, when on circuit, arrested at the distance of seventy miles from Dublin, to which he was directly conveyed, and committed to the prison of Kilmainham, where he was detained in close and rigid custody for more than two years; and that the instrument by virtue of which the petitioner had been 80 committed, was a state warrant, signed by Mr. Wickham, then chief secretary for Ireland under the earl of Hardwicke's administration, and by his excellency's command, containing a sweeping and general charge of treason; and that the said warrant did not specify that the said charge was founded on any information given upon oath; and that the petitioner and his friends have applied to the Irish government in every shape, both personally and otherwise, respecting its oppressive treatment of the petitioner, soliciting examination, and claiming to be informed of the cause of the petitioner's having been so deprived of his liberty for more than two years; but that all such applications have been wholly unavailing, in consequence, as the petitioner doth firmly but most respectfully assert to the House, of the absolute inability of that government to state with truth, any just cause whatsoever for such rigorous and cruel imprisonment of the petitioner; and that, as it is impossible for the petitioner to prove the negative of an undefined and unspecified charge, the petitioner can, in general terms only, most solemnly declare his innocence, to establish which, he had also during his imprisonment, when he was at the mercy of vile and corrupt informers, repeatedly, but in vain, demand-ed from the said government of Ireland, that right which the constitution gives to every subject of the land against whom accusation bas been laid, namely, a trial by the laws of his country; and that the infringement and suppression of justice, which had been exercised in the case of the petitioner, not coming within the scope or cognizance of any legal tribunal, he begs leave, with the most becoming respect, to approach the House for constitutional redress, and, as an injured subject of this realm, in whose person the general rights of the community have been violated, humbly to appeal against such violation and suppression of justice; and, fortified as well by the rectitude of his conduct as by a firm confidence in the protecting justice of the House, the petitioner begs permission to present his complaint against that officer of the state, under whose government such violation had been committed, and whom the petitioner, however elevated might have been the trust and station to which that officer had been exalted, cannot constitutionally consider as divested of responsibility for the acts of that trust as exercised in his administration in Ireland; which said complaint the petitioner most humbly begs to present to the House as his duty, in the last resort to society and to himself, challenging all inquiry, and defying all imputation on his probity and honour; and that the petitioner doth therefore distinctly and directly charge the government of the earl of Hardwicke, when that noble earl was lord lieutenant of Ireland, with injustice and oppression, by having, in the person of the petitioner, abused, to the injury and destruction of the subject, the discretionary powers of that trust which had been granted for his protection; and further, that the said earl of Hardwicke has since continued to deny that humble measure of justice to the petitioner, the acknowledgment of his innocence, of which the petitioner cannot but think his lordship is now convinced; and the petitioner now humbly prays, that the House, which the petitioner looks up to as the grand depositary and guardian of the public rights, according to the structure of the constitution, will be graciously pleased to grant to the petitioner, who is now in humble attendance awaiting the pleasure of the House, such means and opportunities of substantiating his said allegations as may, in its wisdom, appear best calculated for the attainment of such his object, and for the accomplishment of justice; the petitioner so praying, not only for the purpose of vindicating his character, but also, under the protection of the House, of guarding by his humble efforts, the rights of the subject against similar infractions, which rights have been so unconstitutionally violated in the person of the petitioner."

had no doubt that lord Hardwicke had sufficient grounds for procuring the arrest of this gentleman. The information upon which he had been taken up was secret, and from his knowledge of that information, he had no hesitation in saying, that lord Hardwicke had not only grounds for what he did, but that he would have been guilty of a gross dereliction of his public duty, if he had not done so. He had no objection, however, to the Petition lying upon the table.

gave notice that he would on an early day in the next session move for leave to bring in a Bill to declare vacant the Seats of all Members of Parliament who should be proclaimed Bankrupts, and should not pay their debts in full within six months after the date of the commission. [Hear, hear!]

brought up the Militia Interchange Bill. On the question that it be read a first time;

lose, and apologised for so unusual a proceeding as that of opposing the first reading of a Bill; bur the principle of the present Bill was so hostile to every feeling of his mind, that his opposition to it could not be removed by any subsequent modification of the provisions of the Bill itself. He should even have opposed the motion for leave to bring in the Bill, had he not been kept from the House by the illness of a near relation. He objected to the Bill, first, because it involved in its consequences a direct breach of faith with the Milita, inasmuch as the Militia had enlisted for service confined to the soil [here Mr. Secretary Ryder intimated across the table, that with respect to those already in the Militia the interchange would be altogether optional.] This mode, though not so objectionable, was yet, in the opinion of the noble lord, one that ought not to be adopted. It would put the officers at the mercy of the men; for, according as the men determined in that country so must the officers. This Went to affect the first principle of subordination. Another objection was, that if one pan of a regiment volunteered, and the other did not, there would be two distinct services; the evils of which were obvious. He further objected to the measure upon a constitutional ground. The Militia was a species of military force, that might be said to be independent of the crown: it was a force independent of the Standing Army. Besides it might deprive the service of the talents the ablest of the Militia officers; and without meaning any thing invidious, it could not be forgotten that it was a different thing to an English country gentleman to go over to Ireland, and to an Irish country gentleman to come over here with his regiment, where he must have come at ail events to attend his parliamentary duties.—He like-wise objected to the measure, because it would destroy the means now resorted to of recruiting the regular army. The Militia had of late years been a kind of preparation for the regular service. The effect of the proposed interchange would, however, he, to render necessary a higher bounty to recruits for the militia, as the nature of their service was to be extended. A great burden would also be imposed on the counties by the necessity of providing for the wives and families of those Militia men, who left their respective islands. It was a bad return for the sacrifices which the Militia officers had always been so ready to make, to propose a measure of such an injurious nature.

defended the Bill from the imputation of a breach of faith. That tie Militia was a constitutional force which ought to be revered, and to the feelings of which the greatest attention ought to be paid, he was most willing to admit; but he denied that it was independent of the crown, or that any officers of the Militia could be appointed without having the royal approbation. He denied also that the proposed measure would have the effect of disuniting the officers and the men. They were both put on the same footing. He did not believe that many Militia officers would be induced to quit the service in consequence of the proposed interchange; but he was prepared to say, that much as he should lament such an occurrence, it was a sacrifice which he for one would rather make, than abandon a measure which he was satisfied was pregnant with the most important advantages to the empire.

in explanation of his statement respecting the independence of the Militia of the crown, said, that what he meant was, that the Militia was not officered by the crown. His Majesty had only the power of approval.

supported the Bill. He did not See how it would add to the power of the crown, except indeed, by making the army more formidable to the enemy. As for the recruiting for the regular army, the measure would much facilitate it; for men who had already passed over a sea, would be more likely than others to offer themselves for general service.

strenuously opposed the Bill. If the Militia officers were told at once, "We have no further occasion for your services, and we dismiss you," they would have nothing to complain of; but they had a right to complain, when they were put in a situation which compelled them either to quit the service, or very probably to expose themselves to the resentment of the crown, for not carrying the projected measure into effect.

asked whether any clause was to be introduced into the Bill, protecting the catholic soldiers of the Irish Militia from being compelled to attend the established church, when in England?

replied, that the operations of the Bill would be such as to render it impossible for the Militia of the two countries to be placed, in that respect, in any situation different from that in which each stood in its respective country. The Bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be read a second lime on Thurs-(day, and to be printed.

rose to make his promised motion on the Exemption of the Funded Property of Foreigners from the Property Tax. When the Bill in which this ex-emption originated was first proposed, it was contended, that without the violation of a precise act of parliament, no duty could be imposed on Funded Property. It appeared to him that this argument proceeded from a misapprehension of those acts; for it never could have been intended by the legislature that income arising out of whatever description of property, should be exempted from the general contribution necessary to the security of the state. In 1803, the Bill for collecting the Income Tax on Funded Property at the Bank passed, and in 1806 it was amended, still leaving the clause which exempted from the tax the Funded Property of Foreigners. To this clause he now wished to call the attention of the House. It had been argued in 1806, that the exemption would operate as an invitation to foreigners to place their money in the British funds. This expectation, however, had proved unfounded; for the Funded Property of Foreigners had remained nearly the same ever since that period. The hon. gentleman next stated the manner in which the drawback on this tax was obtained, namely, by a power of attorney granted by the foreigner resident abroad, to whom the stock belonged; and exposed the opening which was thus afforded to the most flagrant abuses. It was not, however, so much on the impolicy and inconvenience of the exemption, that he founded his objection to it, but on the injustice of the measure. Let us examine, said the hon. gentleman, into the relation in which the foreigner stands, who residing abroad, possesses property in our funds. Let us examine under what conditions be became possessed of that Stock, what faith has been either expressed or implied, what honour pledged to him under which he can derive any colour of right to be placed on a different footing from the general mass of stockholders. In the first place, none of the government loans have been contracted with foreigners. The loan is necessarily completed before the stock is created. There is then no pledge on the part of government towards foreigners. Why then, there can be no violation of national faith—there can be no sacrifice of public principle; and I call upon the advocates of this clause of exemption to shew the contract, if it exists, by which any exception is taken, or any exemption secured, or even promised, to the property of aliens. I can find no such contract. Foreigners become stock-holders by purchase. The stock is in the market before they can become proprietors. They can only purchase that right in it which the seller was possessed of; and by that purchase they are placed in the same situation, subject to the same regulations and liable to the same contin- gencies with the original subscribers. If then you break no faith in taxing the annuities payable to natives, you break none to foreigners. Taxing natives and exempting foreigners is a gross injustice.—The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That the account of the Amount of all of all Exemptions granted to Foreigners in respect of the duty on dividends in the various funds of Great Britain, and on the dividends of the East India and South Sea companies, under the Property Tax, from the quarter ending in October 1809 to the quarter ending in January 1811, be referred to the Committee of Ways and Means."

opposed the motion, not so much because the abolition of the exemption would be impolitic, as because it would be inconsistent with good faith. An act of parliament distinctly stated, that persons who lent money to the public should never have that money taxed. In conformity to this pledge, when the Property Tax was first imposed, it was not deducted from the dividends: but it was afterwards found convenient to lake it at the period of paying the dividends, rather than at any other time, and, in his opinion, with great propriety. But a foreigner who had property in the British funds stood in a very different situation. He was not taxable. If parliament taxed him, they must tax him as the holder of stock, which they were pledged not to tax at all.

did not think, if the Property Tax were a new measure, that it would be any breach of faith to tax the Funded Property of foreigners; but the question was, whether, having granted the exemption in the first instance, and having confirmed that grant after various discussions, it would be honourable for parliament to take advantage of that property which they were not sure would now be in the funds, but for the security from duty to which the holders of it conceived the British parliament was pledged. If the exemption were with-drawn, the period of withdrawing it must be fixed for a distant day. The state of the world and a variety of circumstances combined to render it necessary for the House to be very circumspect in such a proceeding. It was the great object of the enemy to embarrass our finances. Thus attacked, it was due to the British character to show that this country would not resort to any mean shifts—that it would not, for the paltry advantage of gaining 50 or 60,000l. violate its faith, by doing that which all preceding governments and parliaments, since the origin of the measure, had refused to do. It was not probable, that any great fraud could be practised on this subject, the amount of stock held in the name of foreigners being nearly the same as formerly. But even such a consideration would be trifling, compared with the honour of the country, which was deeply implicated in the transaction, and which, he trusted, parliament would preserve unblemished.

contended that ministers ought to have some regard for what might be the feelings of the English, as well as for what might be the sentiments of foreigners. Our former forbearance was no reason why the exemption should be continued. We had granted them the indulgence a long while, and now the circumstances of the times rendered it necessary that it should cease. He thought we might call upon them without being guilty of any breach of faith. The parties themselves would, he thought, be the last to complain of such a measure; and he would ask if it was not due to the people of this country, to name some period, however distant, at which this distinction should be done away?

was surprised that any gentlemen who knew the laws of the country, as the hon. baronet did, could think such an alteration as that proposed, could be made without a breach of the public faith.

in reply, contended that foreigners were not lenders of money to the state, but purchasers of property in it. He should like to know why that property which Was taxed while in English hands, should be exempt from taxation when transferred to hands of a foreigner? No pledge to that effect had been given. When a foreigner came here, we protected him and his property too; and when he went hence, he left us to defend his properly in his absence. Was it not then reasonable, that he should pay a something for this protection? And as to what had been said of what might be advanced by our enemies on our taking such a step, could it be imagined that Buonaparté would calculate on our situation, from any regulation we might make which might add a few thousands to our annual revenues, when he knew that in the Peninsula we carried on the war at an expence of not less than a million per month? he, however, was willing to with draw his motion with an understanding that the subject would be again brought forward on a future day. He was confident the right hon. gent. must ultimately feel the justice of that which he would suggest; and so long as he (Mr. Howarth) had a seat in that House, he would bring the business forward year after year, till redress was obtained.

again called the attention of the House to the situation of Suitors in Chancery, He had brought forward their case twice already. In the first instance he motion had been negatived, on the ground of notice having been given of a motion on the subject elsewhere; and in the present session, when he renewed his motion, it was met by the previous question, and he was told, it would be proper to wait till the result of the proceedings in a Committee of the Lords was made known. He was now told, that a something might shortly be expected from them in the shape of a Report; this, however, he felt confident would not remedy the evil. He then proceeded to state the hardships experienced by Suitors in Chancery. He would propose that three commissioners or judges should be appointed to decide on their claims, which he thought ought not to be attached to the great seal. He concluded by moving, "That a Committee be appointed to enquire into the causes that retard the decision of suits in the high court of Chancery."

thought, as the subject was postponed some time till the result of the inquiries making by the Lords was known, there was no reason for doing any thing now, as their report had not yet been published, and was expected shortly to appear. Under these circumstances he would move the previous question.

spoke in favour of the original motion.

thought it might be advisable to suspend their decision, and would, if permitted, move an adjournment for a week. The Chancellor of the Exchequer withdrew the previous question, and Mr. Lock-hart moved that the debate should be adjourned to Thursday.

spoke in favour of the motion of his hon. friend, which he thought from the knowledge he had of the circumstance, did not deserve to be met either with the previous question, or by the motions for an adjournment.

thought that all opinions should be reserved until the House was in possession of the plan itself, and that there would be an impropriety in going into the consideration of the evil, without a view to some remedy.

said he saw no reason why the House should refuse going into a Committee, the evil being admitted upon all hands.

agreed in the amendment; and contended that they should wait the result of the inquiry which was known to be going forward in another place.

observed, particularly with respect to the appellant jurisdiction, that it would be necessary to clear off the present arrears, and nothing more; the evil was but temporary, and required but a temporary remedy.

spoke in favour of the amendment.

supported the motion. After a few observations from Mr. Pole Carew, who supported the amendment, and Mr. Ponsonby, who maintained that a sufficient cause for delay was not made out, the House divided, when there appeared, For the amendment 40. Against it 19; Majority 21.