, by command of the Prince Regent, acquainted the House, that his Royal Highness, having been informed of the contents of the said Petition, recommends it to the consideration of the House. Then the said Petition was presented and read; letting forth, "That, previous to the American war, many British merchants, under the sanction and encouragement of the laws of their country, carried on a very extensive and in a national point of view, a very important commerce with their fellow subjects in North America, in the course of which debts to a large amount were necessarily contracted, and at the commencement of hostilities a sum of great magnitude remained due from the inhabitants of that country to the British merchants, and others his Majesty's subjects; and that the sudden suspension of all intercourse betwixt the two countries, in consequence of the war, preventing the possibility of using any means for enforcing payment of these debts during the continuance of the contest, the British creditors had no resource but to wart patiently for the return of peace, which they accordingly did, under the full conviction that no treaty could in justice or honour be agreed to by his Majesty's ministers, which did not clearly and unequivocally secure to them the complete recovery of, or ample compensation for all their just demands; and that, by the fourth article of the treaty of peace be-twen his Majesty and the United States of America, signed at Paris 3d September 1783, it was accordingly provided, 'That creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value, in sterling money, of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted,' the American government thereby pledging itself, in the strongest manner that a nation can do, that every lawful impediment should immediately be removed, which might operate as a bar to the recovery of British debts fairly contracted before the peace; and that, in breach of this article of treaty, not only those laws which the assemblies had enacted during the war against the recovery of debts due to British subjects were kept in full force and operation, but new laws were made to the same effect, the American judges, at the same time, either passing over the actions of British subjects when they came into court, or nonsuiting the plaintiffs in such actions, on the plea of British debt', or directing juries, and deciding on every occasion against them: by these means, the recovery of just debts to a vast amount was prevented, and the injured creditors were obliged to resort to their government for protection and relief: the injustice under which British subjects thus suffered being notorious and flagrant, their complaints were attended to by the British government, and much discussion took place between the two governments on the subject; and that, for more than 10 years however, nothing effectual was done, and, during this lapse of time, debts originally good became bad, many of the debtors disappeared, and legal evidence became daily less attainable to support even such proceedings as had been evasively permitted in the American courts on the remonstrances of his Majesty's government, but at length the complaints of his Majesty's subjects, and the encreasing losses they sustained, were taken into full consideration, and a very elaborate article was concluded, which formed the sixth in the treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, concluded between his Majesty and the United States of America in the year 1794, and by which it was agreed, That the United States should make full and complete compensation to the British creditors for the losses and damages which they had sustained by the operation of various lawful impediments to the recovery of their debts from the citizens or inhabitants of the United States since the peace; and that for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of such losses and damages, five commissioners should be appointed, two by each of the contracting parties, and the fifth by those four, three of whom were to constitute a board with full power, provided one commissioner on each side and the fifth commissioner should be present; and that all decisions should be made by the majority of the commissioners present, and their award be final and conclusive, both as to the justice of the claim and the amount of the sum to be paid to the creditor, and the United States undertook to cause the sums awarded to be paid to the creditors in specie without deduction; and that in May 1797, the commissioners appointed for that purpose having met at Philadelphia, proceeded in the execution of this article, and the claimants not only prepared their several claims and statements, including many thousands of debts and different transactions, with the evidence to be adduced in support of them, but they also sent agents to attend at Philadelphia before the board and to assist the general agent, who had been appointed under the authority of his Majesty's government to direct their proceedings; but this solemn article of treaty, with all that had been done under it; was, after a great expence of time money and labour, at once defeated by the conduct of the two commissioners appointed by the United States, for as soon as the discussions had arrived at that maturity which admitted of conclusive determinations on leading points, the commissioners appointed on the part of the United States on every occasion where those appointed by his Majesty and the fifth commissioner were ready to give an opinion and come to a vote different from theirs, or rather (as they expressed it), 'inconsistent with the interests of the United States, withdrew from the board, and at length refused to give their attendance upon any occasion, except on condition that the opinions prescribed by them on the points in question should be the rule, and thus the proceedings of this board came to nothing; and the petitioners, thus sorely disappointed and aggrieved, complained, through the proper channels, to his Majesty's government, by whom the extreme hardship of their case, and the injury they had sustained, were fully acknowledged; and the petitioners humbly conceive, that what thus took place in America amounted to a direct and positive breach of treaty on the part of the United States, for which his Majesty's government had a right to insist on ample satisfaction, such as would have included a full indemnification to his Majesty's injured subjects; and, although it was in the power of government to dispense with that satisfaction, either in whole or in part, and either altogether to sacrifice, or partially to give up, the private rights of the individuals, on such grounds of general policy or expediency, as in their wisdom should appear to be best for the interests of the empire at large; yet the petitioners humbly submit, that the general good ought not, in justice, to be purchased at their private expence; but they are entitled to receive, from the empire at large, such indemnification as will place them on a footing of equality with their fellow subjects; and that, after some delay, a negociation was entered upon at London, on this important subject, and, if his Majesty's government had thought it expedient to insist on full satisfaction, the petitioners would, of course, have been called open for that purpose, to state, and, in some satisfactory manner, to make out their respective losses; but, as they were not called upon to do this, it appeared that his Majesty's government thought it expedient, for the general good, to dispense with the full satisfaction to which they Were entitled, and at once to pot an end to a negociation in its nature productive of irritation between the two nations, by accepting of such a sum of money from the United States as could be obtained from them in an amicable manner; and that a convention between his Majesty and the United States Was accordingly concluded on the 8th of January 1802, whereby it was agreed to, and concluded by the respective plenipotentiaries, that, in satisfaction and discharge of the money which the United States might have been liable to pay, in pursuance of the provisions of the sixth article of the treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, the United States engaged to pay, and his Majesty consented to accept, for the use of the persons described in the said sixth article, the sum of 600,000l. payable in the manner therein mentioned; and that the petitioners presented their protest against being considered as acquiescing in the sum so accepted by his Majesty's government as a full compensation for their claims, and were thereupon advised that they could not, with propriety, urge any further claim at that moment, nor until the precise amount of their losses, and of the compensation to which they might have been entitled under the said sixth article, should be actually ascertained by the result of the inquiry which was then about to be instituted by government; and that a board of three commissioners was accordingly established, first in the year 1802 by a provisional authority, with a view to a commission from his Majesty, and afterwards by the act of parliament before-mentioned, which created a special jurisdiction for investigating and finally deciding on the amount of losses sustained by the persons described in the said sixth article of the treaty of 1794, and for the apportionment or distribution of the money agreed to be paid by the United States according to the decisions to be so given On the merits of the respective claims; and that, by the said act, after reciting the convention, and that "it was expedient that commissioners should be appointed for the apportioning, dividing or distributing such sum of money amongst the several persons who should by such commissioners be found entitled to receive compensation out of the same, in proportion to their several and respective claims, so far as the same should by such commissioners be approved or adjudged to be good: it was enacted, that Thomas Macdonald, esq., Henry Pye Rich, esq., and John Guille-mard, esq. should be, and they were thereby, constituted and appointed commissioners for the purposes aforesaid; and that the adjudication of such commissioners, or any two of them, as to all claims made for compensation out of such money, and also as to the apportionment and distribution thereof as aforesaid, should be final and conclusive;" the time of presenting claims being limited to the 1st of June 1804; and that claims having been preferred under this act to the amount, including interest to the 1st of June 1804, of 5,408,766l. Os. 6l. sterling, and adjudications or decisions having from time to time been made either for or against claimants, the conclusion of the whole, so far as regarded the determination on the merits of the claims, was, that claims were established to the full satisfaction of the commissioners, and finally adjudged good and allowed by them, to the amount of 1,420,000l. which was announced in a general order of the commissioners, dated the 20th of May 1811, stating that 1,420,000l. of the claims preferred to them under the act, had been adjudged by them to be good, in proportion to which sum they were ready to divide what remained, (after deducting the payments already made of 659,493l. being the amount with interest of the divisible fund); and that the petitioners, without referring to the great expence, loss and inconvenience which they have, during the course of so many years, sustained, humbly submit to the House that they are entitled, according to the several adjudications in their favour, to receive respectively from parliament, to the amount of the difference between the above sum of 1,420,000l. the amount of their adjudged claims, and the said sum of 659,493l. which the said commissioners have so distributed, together with interest upon the amount of their several adjudications from the said 1st of June 1804, being the time to which the claims before the commissioners were made up; and praying the House will be pleased to take their case into its serious consideration, and grant them such relief as to the justice and wisdom of the House shall appear equitable and proper"

brought up the Report of the Distillery

said, that he regretted not having at an earlier period called the attention of the House to this subject: he did not mean now to discuss the question at large, of the policy of suspending the distillation from grain, as he supposed that those officers whose duty it was to advise the crown, were better informed than he could possibly be respecting the necessity or expediency of such a measure. He entreated the House to weigh well the nature of a measure which went to prohibit the intercourse between the two islands forming the United Kingdoms; and he referred to the 6th article of the act of Union, by which it was declared that no bounty or prohibition should exist between the two kingdoms. If, however, it was necessary that this article should be altered, it should at least be done with all the mature deliberation of legislative interference; but he thought the principle one replete with danger to the interests of Ireland, because it was capable of being extended beyond the present occasion, and therefore it should be the more cautiously adopted. If, for example, (and he was aware that what he was about to state was an extreme case), it should be judged expedient to suppress for a time the linen manufactory in Great Britain, then, proceeding upon a principle similar to the one now about to be adopted, all importation of linen from Ireland would be prohibited. He lamented that the general interests of Ireland were so neglected in that House; it exemplified the old proverb, that the weakest must go to the wall. It behaved the House, then, to guard against such misconceptions, and to recollect, that of 658 legislators, there were but 100 for Ireland. He knew and respected and valued, a large portion of those 553 members, who represented the other portions of the United Kingdom, but it was natural that they should have prejudices in favour of the interests of that part which they belonged to; and that impression was infinitely stronger out of doors. It was singular that the distilleries should have been a subject of animadversion ever since the Union, at which time it was alleged, that the benefits resulting from the produce of the Irish distilleries finding their way here, constituted one branch of the advantages which were to be derived to Ireland from that measure. It appeared, on examination, that the schedule and the enactment were at variance; and in 1806 the difficulty was felt, when the Scotch distillers carried their spirits to the Irish market. This was contrary to the act, but it agreed with the schedule; and a committee was appointed to examine into the matter, and apply a remedy, while, in the interim, a suspension of intercourse was enacted for six weeks. A dissolution, however, took place, the committee broke up, and the matter was neglected. The first act of the ensuing session was to continue the suspension for one year; from that time there had been further continuances, and it was now proposed that the exportation of spirits from Ireland should be prohibited, not for the purpose of inquiry, but to continue so long as the prohibition of distillation from grain continued here. He felt himself bound to make these observations, from a firm conviction that he was doing his duty, and he warned the House of the consequences which must ensue, if this matter remained unexplained, and if the practice continued to go on without the adoption of any remedy. He would sit down with observing, that among the few advantages which Ireland was promised from the Union, was this of her distilleries, and it certainly was not just that her hopes should be frustrated by legislative interposition; and when he said that this advantage was in the contemplation of the act of Union, he had the authority of a noble lord, who stated, over and over, that Mr. Pitt said that the advantages which would accrue to Ireland from the introduction of the produce of her distilleries into England, would compensate for any other disadvantage.

observed, that before he offered any remarks on what had fallen from the right hon. baronet, he should wish to hear any other observations that might be made, in order to embrace the whole at one view.

said, that he rose for the purpose of submitting to the House a few observations on the subject of this measure in as far as it affected Scotland; as it appeared to him calculated to be essentially injurious to the agricultural interests of that country. The lamentable deficiency of the crop, which had unfortunately pervaded the greater part of the kingdom, was not the only evil of which the farmer had to complain—a considerable proportion of the barley and oats which had not been entirely destroyed, was so much damaged, by the incessant rains which ensued about the time of the harvest, as to be almost, if not altogether, unfit for any other purpose than that of distillation; so that if this measure of substituting sugar for grain in the distilleries, should, meet with the sanction of the House, the greater part of the crop would remain altogether unsaleable on the hands of the grower, or would necessarily be disposed of at a price, below even its comparative value. In addition to this circumstance, it was computed, that no less than 6000 head of cattle were annually fattened for the market from the offals of the grain which was used in the distilleries; and if this supply of food was unexpectedly withdrawn from them (more especially at so inclement a period of the season) a considerable number of these cattle must be brought to market before they were sufficiently fattened for the consumption of the public; or at least it will be found very difficult, if not impossible, to procure sufficient pasture for their subsistence, by either of which alternatives the owner must be seriously affected.—Such was the mode in which this measure would be injurious to most of the farmers in Scotland, one of the most useful, patriotic, and industrious classes of the community. It already required all that energy, all that economy, and all that public spirit for which they had ever been conspicuous, not only to enable them to submit without repining to the pressure of the times, but even, by dint of every exertion in their power, to find the means of satisfying the exorbitant demands of the tax-gatherer. Such a measure as the present could not fail at this moment to be peculiarly discouraging; and, if persevered in, would not only materially affect the landed interest of Scotland as well as the farmers, by occasioning a considerable fall in the rents, but would also be eventually injurious to the public, from the great diminution in the Property Tax which would necessarily ensue, if the income of the landlord and tenant in Scotland were to be curtailed, by so considerably lowering the value of the produce of the country. Well might the farmers complain, if, when the inclemency of the season had deprived them of the one half of their crop, the legislature, instead of adopting any measure for their relief, passed an act of parliament, by which the greater part of the remaining half was rendered unsaleable. The hon. gentleman concluded by saying, that the Bill appeared very objectionable to him in many other respects, but that he should not trouble the House for the present, with any further observations on the subject.

proposed to introduce a clause into the Bill, which should have for its object to prevent the English distillers from defrauding the revenue, by compelling them, under a penalty of 100l. to let their spirits run immediately from the still into a cask or vessel capable of holding as much spirit as could be distilled from a given quantity of sugar wash. Previously, however, to proposing this clause, the hon. baronet entered into some minute particulars, shewing that the declaration of an eminent distiller before the committee, that from a hundred gallons of sugar wash only twenty one gallons of spirit could be distilled, was erroneous, and that he believed 100 gallons of sugar wash would produce 24 gallons of spirit; if so, the duties charged upon the sugar wash were evaded to a certain degree, and the English distiller paid a duty (supposing him to obtain 24 gallons of spirit from 100 gallons of sugar wash) of only 6s. 10d. ½ while the Scotch distiller paid one of 7s. 10d. ½. He proposed, therefore, that the 7th sect, of the 39th Geo. 3 should be so amended as to place the distillers of England and Scotland upon the same footing.

informed the hon. baronet that his amendment and clause would be more properly discussed at a future stage of the bill.

observed, that the proposition of the hon. baronet would have been more regular at another stage, but as the House was acquainted with his arguments, he would take notice of them now. The question to which he alluded had been a subject of long and deliberate consideration, and though there was something very deserving of attention in what had fallen from the hon. baronet, though he concurred with him in thinking that it would be extremely desirable to have the duty simplified, he thought it unwise to embarrass a temporary system without full and deliberate consideration; and with respect to what had fallen from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sinclair), he could assure him that he had received more applications from Scotland for the adoption of this measure, than from any other part of the united kingdom. He felt indebted to the right hon. baronet (sir J. Newport) for the manner in which he had proposed his objections, which did not go to obstruct the present measure, but to establish a less injurious system. He hoped, however, that his apprehensions were unfounded; whatever inaccuracy there had been in framing the act of Union, was a drawback on its advantages, and so much had this been felt, that the original application proceeded from the inconvenience felt by Scotland importing into Ireland. It did not originate in the desire of England, but in the desire of the united kingdom, to remedy an inconvenience which pressed too severely on Ireland. The right hon gentleman then commented on the extreme case quoted by the right hon. baronet, and confessed, that he should, have expected a less extravagant one. He did not conceive how it could apply in the present case, as it could only happen in the total prohibition of the use of linen, and the substitution of cotton. With regard to the prohibition of distilling from grain, he confessed that it would be extremely impolitic to extend that prohibition to Ireland; but while the English market was prevented, from being supplied: with spirits distilled from grain, it would not do to let it he affected by spirit imported from a country where grain was permitted to be used in the distilleries.

said, that the right hon. gentleman had answered the illustration of his right hon. friend by calling it extravagant; but the House would do well to recollect that king William had declared his intention to do all in his power to destroy one of the manufactures of Ireland: this was recorded as an historical fact, and even if it did not exist, he conceived that it was right to argue upon the most extravagant suppositions, and upon the broadest principle, on a question like the present. There was experience of what had been done, and it was not many years since the table of that House was crowded with Petitions, when it was proposed to extend a "mall part of the African trade to Ireland. The right hon. gentleman might senile, but it was nevertheless true, that violent remonstrances were made in the year 1782, and particularly by the city of Glasgow, against this advantage being conceded to Ireland. It was not a fact that the suspension took place in 1806 to guard against the Scotch distillers—it was to benefit the English revenue—it was because the Scotch distillers exported their spirits to Ireland, and not only injured the Irish distillers, but the English revenue. This was a subject of vital importance, and he had invariably resisted the suspension of the intercourse between the two countries; and though it might be acceded to by the Irish distillers, under particular circumstances, yet it violated the terms of the Union, which was enacted on the broad principle of free trade, on equal duty or no duty; and though it might be judged right to suspend the distillation from corn in England, still the right of the Irish distiller to export his spirits remained unimpaired. If the principle of the present Bill was recognised, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might, to-morrow, ruin every species of manufacture. He maintained that every attempt had been made by that House to deprive Ireland of all her advantages. It was of this that Ireland complained. Immediately after the Union, it was discovered by the British minister that Ireland possessed a great benefit in the bounty upon large stills. Accordingly this it was deprived of. Then the Suspension Bill was enacted, which, he repeated, was a direct violation of the act of Union. It was done under pretence of relieving Ireland? Had it relieved Ireland? No. The present Bill was one that ought not to be resorted to without the most urgent necessity; and he concluded by exhorting the minister to endeavour, by conciliating America, to open, again a source from whence we could derive those supplies of grain which had always been found so needful to this country.

repeated, that the measure of suspension in 1806 was not adopted in consequence of remonstrances from Ireland, but in consequence of the danger apprehended to the English revenue from the Scotch distilleries.

thought the two countries should go hand in hand, and spoke shortly in favour of the measure.