presented a Petition against the Bill for building a new Gaol, Bridewell, and Court houses for the county of Kent. Sir Edward Knatchbull presented several Petitions in favour of the Bill, in addition to those previously presented, which were signed by nearly 8,000 inhabitants of the county. The order of the day for the second reading of the Bill being read,

rose to support it: but he said, as he understood that those who were adverse to the Bill, did not mean to oppose its going into a committee, he should not occupy the time of the House by discussing it at length at present. The object of those who had introduced this measure, was to preserve the county of Kent from an enormous and unnecessary expence in the erection of the new gaol. He did not mean to contend that such a building was not wanted, but he did most strongly object to the enormous sum that it was proposed to levy on the county for that purpose, amounting to between 2 and 300,000l., when he was convinced that 100,000l. would be amply sufficient.

supported the Bill, but said, he should reserve what he had to say till another stage.

took this opportunity to object to the principle of the Bill, which he stated to be highly worthy of the attention and jealousy of parliament. It proceeded upon allegations of illegal proceedings on the part of the magistrates of West Kent, which he could not but consider, and trusted he should be able hereafter to prove, to be charges utterly unfounded. The law had reposed in the magistrates the discretion and power which they had exercised: and he trusted that no ex-post-facto legislative enactment would undo what under the authority of the law they had done. But could it seriously be believed that the petitioners themselves thought the magistrates had acted illegally? If they did, had they not an easier remedy than application to parliament? The court of King's-bench would, if applied to, have instantly, in that case, stopped the proceedings now complained of. But perhaps the petitioners act in the opinion that the powers entrusted to the magistrates are too great! Let them then, ask that the Act of the 24th of Geo. 3 should be repealed. While that Act remains in force, they surely will not expect that powers which are granted to the magistrates of the rest of the kingdom, should be denied to that of the county of Kent! before they do that, let them shew that these magistrates are unworthy of the trust reposed in them! let them shew that the rich, populous, and enlightened county of Kent, rich in its gentry, as in its yeomanry and inhabitants, cannot or does not, produce magistrates worthy to fill that exalted office! But this is not the only objection to the principle of this Bill. It alters the law of the land in another most important matter. It changes part of the burden which the law has said shall be borne by the occupier, to the shoulders of the landlord. Will the House lightly and without due examination suffer this important change? Industry, which it is impossible to approve, has been exerted to create the most erroneous impressions regarding this Bill. It has been represented for purposes too obvious, to be a petition of the East Kent bench, against the West Kent bench of magistrates. What a gross misrepresentation is this? It is a petition of the occupiers of land in the county against its magistracy. It is true, indeed, in point of fact, that the measures complained of have been done by the West Kent bench. The petitioners themselves do not complain that the East Kent bench have had any concern in them. Will the magistrates of East Kent be content with this individual acquittal? They must not, they cannot thus be blinded. The principle of this Bill is to bring magistracy into contempt at a time when there is most need of upholding its authority. Whatever the East Kent bench may think as a body (for whom it is not pretended there is authority to answer), Sir Egerton said, that for his own part, as well as for more than one member of the East Kent bench besides himself, he could venture to assert, that this Bill, after the most minute and continued reflection, ought to be both opposed and reprehended. This was not a stage in which it would be proper to object to the details and provisions of the Bill; whenever that period arrived, he felt confident he should be able to shew very powerful grounds of objection to many of its most important clauses, as at once nugatory, injurious and absurd!

said, that as there was a general disposition to let this Bill go into the committee, he would not oppose it. He contended, however, that the petitioners for the Bill had not acted respectfully towards the magistrates, for they wanted to take out of their hands those powers which the law vested in them. If those persons had come with their complaints to the sessions, they would have met with the fullest attention.

said, he was sure there was not the slightest intention on the part of those persons to shew any disrespect to the magistrates; but the fact was, they were in a manner driven to the wall, and they had no other mode of redress left them but the one which they had adopted. He saw nothing in their conduct that was disrespectful or derogatory to the character of the magistrates, and he was sure, that when the House considered the situa- tion in which they were placed, it would not blame them for corning to parliament for redress. As it seemed the general wish not to debate the Bill in that stage, he would not then discuss its merits, but he would ask if it was not monstrous that 18 acres of land should have been purchased for the erection of a prison, and that, for the same purpose, an expence of between 2 and 300,000l should be incurred? It might, perhaps, be said, that those who proposed to lay this enormous burthen upon the county had agreed to diminish it to a certain extent, but that was by no means the case; they had, indeed, offered to suspend a part of their plan, but not to abandon it. It had been said that the allegations of the petitioners in favour of the Bill were not founded in truth; that was a harsh expression, but as the Bill was going into a committee, it would soon be seen whether or not they had truth on their side. With respect to what had been said about the petitioners having a legal remedy, he begged to state that that assertion was founded in a mistake, for they were so situated that parliament alone could afford them redress. He concluded with expressing his wish and his hope, that this business might still be adjusted to the satisfaction of all parties.

The Bill was then read a second time and referred to a committee.

said, he had a Petition for Peace to present from between 5 and 6,000 inhabitants of Nottingham. He stated that there was at this time in Nottingham a parish of 27,000 persons, one third of whom received parochial relief. The pressure on the remaining inhabitants was consequently great, the poor rates amounting to 25s. in the pound. Notwithstanding this distressing state of that town, the petitioners did not wish that unfavourable terms of peace should be acceded to, but they put forth their present prayer because they had seen it avowed in journals, supposed to be under the influence of the ministry, that peace was not to be concluded on any terms with the present ruler of France. This Petition had been adopted with more unanimity than any political measure which he ever remembered in the town in question.

The Petition was then brought up, but the Speaker perceiving that it was printed, said it was contrary to all the rules of the House that such a Petition could be received. It was accordingly withdrawn.

rose for the purpose of presenting a Petition from William Cruchley, esq. Deputy Prothonotary of the Marshalsea and Palace Court. This Petition related to a transaction which had come under the consideration of the House last year upon the motion of an hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Lockhart). Its contents he had read with great attention, and was of opinion that the matters to which it referred were of a nature extremely proper to be brought under the view of parliament; and therefore, in obedience to the wish of the petitioner, who was a constituent of his, he had taken the liberty of presenting it to the House. The subject to which it referred, was the extortion of certain illegal fees in the Palace Court. As, however, the gentleman whose conduct was implicated was not present, or any person for him, he should abstain from any comment on the facts stated, and content himself with giving notice, that, at an early period after the holidays he would submit a motion to the House upon the charges contained in the Petition. He then begged leave to move, that the Petition might be received.

observed, that it was necessary the grievance of which the Petition complained should be slated.

that the grievance complained of was, that Mr. Burton Morice, steward, and one of the judges of the Palace Court, did illegally raise the amount of fees in that court, for the purpose of contributing to his own private emolument, as well as to the emolument of others practising in the said court, which he did contrary to the Acts of Charles 1, and 2, under which the fees of that court were regulated.

wished to be informed whether the petitioner was personally injured?

answered, that he had been deprived of his situation as Deputy Prothonotary of the court, in consequence of his having remonstrated against this arbitrary and improper regulation.

suggested the propriety of postponing the consideration of this Petition, as a proceeding at Jaw was now taking place, relative to the suspension of Mr. Cruchley.

said, he was only desirous that the Petition should be received and laid on the table. He should not propose any measure respecting it until after the holidays, by which time the proceedings to which the hon. gentleman had alluded would, in all probability, be brought to a conclusion.

simply wished to deprecate the agitation of any question in that House, respecting Mr. Cruchley, at a time when a proceeding at law had taken place, in which his character was involved.

The Petition was then brought up, and ordered to lie on the table.

rose, pursuant to notice, in order to submit a Resolution to the House, having for its object to abolish one of the offices of Joint Paymaster of the Forces, the existence of which he stated to have been declared useless, in the Report of the first committee on Sinecure Offices. The salary of the Paymaster was 2,000l. per annum, that of his deputy 500l. per annum. The abolition of the office had been declared expedient by the committee adverted to, and he was, he conceived, entitled to say, that the Resolution which he was now about to found on their Report, was perfectly justifiable, inasmuch, as the right hon. Charles Long, whom he now saw in his place, and who was one of the paymasters, having been examined before the committee, had deposed, that the duty of the office could be performed as well by one as by two individuals. Lord Charles Somerset, the other paymaster, had been also examined, and having perused the deposition of Mr. Long, had stated his perfect concurrence in it.—Now he conceived that this was evidence perfectly irresistible. It was argued, indeed, that it was necessary to have two paymasters instead of one, on account of the great responsibility of the person or persons holding the situation; but on the other hand, it might be contended that less risk arose from trusting one individual than two. It again was argued, that no saving could arise from the proposed abolition; but even if this were the case, he should still have an object in view in promoting it; his object was to abolish what he would designate by the name of parliamentary places. He did not conceive what necessity there existed for the presence in that House of a military place-man, no part of whose duty it was to explain the accounts of the army. He had been advised by a noble lord, some little time since, to await the result of the progress of a Bill then passing through the House, in which the office in question was included. But the noble lord who had given this advice had afterwards voted himself against the Bill. But the Bill, after all, had passed last night. He would now state his reason for attacking, notwithstanding that circumstance, the place which was the object of the motion he was about to make, in the shape of a resolution. He was satisfied that the Bill would not pass into a law. It was much too good a Bill to pass, It went to destroy too much parliamentary influence. There were in all parts of the empire too many good things under the head of sinecure offices, in the enjoyment of which members of parliament would be well pleased to admit of its passing. Now, perhaps, among these, there was none, the existence of which constituted a greater abuse, than that to which he had drawn the attention of the House. He should like to hear, what a man of plain common sense, but not versed in state affairs, would think of it. He could easily suppose that such an one on being informed of the amount of the noble lord's emoluments as joint paymaster without having any duty to perform, would immediately surmise, that it was granted to him as a reward for some signal services performed at Talavera or Salamanca, or some other of those places which had witnessed the triumphs of the British arms. On being assured that such was not the case, that the noble lord had never signalized himself on foreign service, he would conjecture that he had performed some remarkable service at home. O, certainly, it might be replied, the noble lord is appointed to act against the French as commandant of the Sussex district—and of course he has nothing for this! O yes, he has 5l. a day, the pay of a general officer, besides very ample allowances. He has, for instance, an allowance for 15 or 16 horses, together with means to keep them so appointed as that they shall be always fit and ready to enable him to scour the country, and give chase to the enemy. The noble lord, it might be added, never did any business in the office from which he received 2,000.l per annum. On further inquiries as to the grounds on which so large a salary was given to the noble lord, it might be suggested that he was always to be found in his place in parliament; that he was a member of a great and powerful family in the country, who with their friends, had the power of disposing of many seats in parliament; that they at present happened to hold a set of opinions very similar to those of the existing ministers of the crown; and that these ministers thought the best manner in which they could reward this useful congeniality of sentiment, was by giving to a distinguished member of the family 2,000l. a year for doing nothing, together with the command of a district, and 500l. a year to his deputy. Upon this just exposition of the case, he would contend, that any reasonable man would without hesitation pronounce that a monstrous abuse existed; and he would think right; he himself was entirely of that opinion, and of opinion that a reform of the above was absolutely necessary. Such abuses were to be done away only by such measures as that he would now propose. The hon. member then moved a Resolution, importing that it appeared right to the House that the office held by lord Charles Somerset should be abolished, inasmuch as the Select Committee on Sinecure Offices in 1810, had recommended the abolition thereof, grounding such recommendation on the evidence of Mr. Long and the noble lord himself.

observed, that the hon. gentleman who had moved the Resolution, had not stated any sufficient reason why the opinion of the House on the subject of the abolition of that office should be altered. If in 1810 it had been thought that the office was unnecessary, there were very strong grounds why that opinion should now he changed. A Bill had passed through the House, in which the office was mentioned as one of those which should be abolished; it was, therefore, very strange that after this the hon. gentleman should propose such a resolution. But the reason which he had assigned was, that he was certain that the Bill would not receive the assent of the Lords. The hon. gentleman would have done well, at least, to have waited until he found whether or not this was the case. The hon. gentleman had been pleased to say, that he (Mr. Long) had said that the office was unnecessary, because its duties might be discharged by one person as well as by two. He begged to remind the hon. gentleman that he had never rested his opinion on any such ground. On the contrary, he had stated, that on looking at the state of the office, he had found, that for the last century, its labour and responsibility had very much increased, and that its salary had never been augmented. Mr. Burke reformed the office, and very properly had taken away from it the custody of public money, at the same time reducing the salary to 4,000l. a year. The office had also been considered by a committee appointed to inquire in what offices the salary could be reduced without detriment to the public. On the subject of this office the Committee reported, "that considering the state of the Pay-office, and the pressure of business; considering also that the salary had been reduced by Mr. Burke, it could not be further reduced without detriment to the public service." What had happened since the time of that report? The duties of the office had increased fourfold. Under these circumstances, did the House think that with a view to the public service, the salary of the office could be reduced? Assuredly not. It had been said that he had reported that lord Charles Somerset did none of the duties of the office. This was another mistake; for he had not said that his lordship did none, but that he did not do much of the duties of the office. No important step was ever taken without consulting him. And all that part of the duty which related to Chelsea hospital, and which was by no means inconsiderable, his lordship took upon himself; and it was but justice to state, that he had always of himself proposed to take charge of any of the duties of the office which might be thought necessary. He did not conceive that the House could agree in opinion with the hon. gentleman, while the office which it proposed to abolish was included in a large plan. The hon. gentleman had said, that he did not wish that the office should be abolished, so much on account of the salary, as because it was a parliamentary office. He would wish that the hon. gentleman would say how many parliamentary offices he would wish to exist, and that he would bring forward a motion for the abolition of those which he might think unnecessary. For his own part, he thought that the Bill which had passed through that House, and which included the office in question, could not serve any good purpose; for it had long ago been given up as a measure of economy. He would ask the hon. gentleman whether it was not said out of doors that the abolition of sinecure offices would be the means of saving a great deal of public money, and of course afford additional resources for supporting the war? This certainly was an opinion which was very prevalent among certain classes, and it was encouraged by the supporters of the Bill, although it was a gross deception; because the object of the Bill was to establish another system, namely, that of substituting pensions for sinecure places, which would cause considerable additional expence to the public. No man could approve of the plan of Burke and Pitt on this subject more than he did; but the Bill went on principles totally different. The proper remedy would be revise sinecure offices, and to abolish those that might be thought unnecessary. This had the sanction of Mr. Burke, who had declared that sinecures were to be preferred to pensions. It would be absurd (to call it by no other name), to agree to the motion of the hon. gentleman, while there was a Bill going to the other House, in which the office in question was included.

said, he could not conceive how the House could refuse the motion of his hon. friend, when they recollected that a committee, selected by themselves, had declared useless the offices to the abolition of which it went. That motion, he thought, had derived considerable support from the speech of the right hon. gentleman who had spoken last. He had admitted that he had given it as his opinion in evidence, that the continuance of the office was unnecessary; and had, moreover, exhibited great jealousy of all interference on the part of his colleague in office. He had insisted, indeed, on the inexpediency of diminishing the salary attached to the office; this he was not disposed to deny, but this was a point quite distinct from that which his hon. friend had in view. He did not see any ground upon which the House could refuse to adopt the resolution proposed: they ought to agree to it injustice to their committee; and if they did not, he could only say that the labour of select committees, generally speaking, was a mere mockery, when their Reports were liable to be thus slighted, after they had been engaged in toilsome and laborious enquiries with respect to subjects on which the feelings of the country were deeply engaged. For his part he felt extremely grateful to his hon. friend for having brought the subject before the House; and he conceived that the measure he had recommended was one which the House ought to adopt with respect to matters coming under their cognizance, whenever they found that any other, designed to remedy an evil, was not of sufficient efficacy.

opposed the motion of his hon. friend, contending, that the Bill which had been passed the other night and sent to the Lords, contained a schedule of offices to be abolished, among which was that to which the Resolution of his hon. friend applied. He did not pretend to the foresight of his hon. friend. He could not predict what the Lords would do with that Bill. He was willing to give their lordships credit for a disposition to act right with respect to it; and under this impression he felt bound to leave the question in the course into which the House had thought proper to put it.

also declared himself to be inimical to the proposed Resolution, as involving the principle that the House of Commons should legislate with a view to the abolition of the office in question, or of any other office, without the concurrence of the House of Lords. To agree to such a Resolution would in his opinion be to establish a precedent that might be very injurious in its consequences. He saw no reason for asserting that the Lords would not adopt the Sinecure Bill. To agree to the Resolution would be to furnish any noble lord who might be in hostility to that Bill, with the argument that the proceeding of the House of Commons, in sending the Bill up to them, was a mockery, as before the discussion of the measure in the upper House, the House of Commons proceeded to legislate for the abolition of an office, the abolition of which was provided for in the Bill itself. If the present Resolution were agreed to, why might not other Resolutions be proposed, for addressing the crown to abolish the other objectionable offices? And yet so to proceed, would be for the House of Commons to take the whole power of the state into their own hands. As to the particular office itself, the opinion which he had recently delivered upon it had been only confirmed by the speech of his right hon. friend on the same side of the House (Mr. Long.) He trusted that the two paymasterships would be consolidated, and that the two existing salaries would be given to one efficient and responsible officer. Reverting to the Sinecure Bill, he maintained that it was a measure of economy. As a measure of economy it had been recommended by the committee of that House—as a measure of economy it had received his cordial support.

would not follow the example of several hon. gentlemen by saying any thing on the merits of the departed Bill, which had certainly undergone sufficient discussion during its progress through that House. He confessed, however, that he was one of those who despaired of its success in another place. If it should be agreed to there, he owned that it would be to him an agreeable surprise. The House had heard several admissions from the right hon. gentleman opposite, and he (Mr. W.) was willing to make several admissions in return. He admitted that there could not be a more acute individual than the noble person who was the co-adjutor of the right hon. gentleman. He admitted that the salary attached to the office was not inordinate. But, on the other hand, the right hon. gentleman must admit, that the original office had been split for the mere purpose of parliamentary influence. He gave the right hon. gentleman great credit for his official exertions, and particularly for the economical reform which he had introduced into his department of the public business; but the needlessness of two offices was apparent, from the declaration of the right hon. gentleman, that having by his side an individual of co-ordinate authority, of great discretion and discernment, and an exceedingly able calculator, he would not permit him to interfere in the arrangements he had thought necessary to make. He by no means thought with the hon. gentleman who had just spoken, that it was improper for the House of Commons, in extreme cases, to interfere by way of address to the throne; he was of opinion, that if the Sinecure Bill should be thrown out of the House of Lords, the House ought to address the throne against the office in question, not merely on the score of economy, but on account of the parliamentary influence for which it had been created; for nothing could be more evident than that in proportion to the extent of that influence on the part of the crown, must be the diminution of the guardianship of that House over the public purse. He wished his hon. friend, however, to give his motion a fairer chance of success than it could at present experience. If it were that night negatived, it could not be repeated during the present session. He recommended to his hon. friend, therefore, not to throw away his shot, but to withdraw his motion for the present; thereby leaving to himself the power, in the event of the rejection of the Sinecure Bill by the Lords, to bring the subject again under the consideration of the House of Commons before the close of the session.

in explanation, denied that he had ever said that in no case whatever would it be proper for the House of Commons to interfere by an address to the throne.

declared himself perfectly ready to acquiesce in the suggestion of his hon. friend to withdraw his motion. He should watch the progress of the Sinecure Bill in the other House, and should his predictions with respect to it be verified, he would repeat his present motion.

The motion was then withdrawn.

rose, in pursuance of his motion, to call the attention of the House to the consideration of the Bankrupt Laws. He observed, that he had deferred his motion from time to time in order to give an opportunity for a more deliberate reflection on the subject, and for the production of the returns which were now on the table; all which tended to confirm in his mind the necessity of some alteration both in the system itself, and in the administration of it. Although in the course of his remarks he might find it expedient to advert to several acts of parliament on the subject, he hoped that it would not be necessary for him to occupy the time of the House at any considerable length.

Our ancestors in the establishment of the bankrupt laws, and in the provision which they had made for the administration of those laws, conceived that they had devised the most effectual means of depriving the bankrupt of all his property and of distributing it among his creditors. They had not foreseen that the day would come when those laws and that administration would turn out to be so beneficial to the bankrupt that bankruptcies would no longer be avoided, as in their time, but be sought with avidity. They had constructed a great system of insolvent law, without those checks and guards which were indispensable against abuse. In support of his opinion on the subject he quoted a passage from Blackstone, the substance of which was "that the existing system of bankrupt laws encouraged prodigality and extravagance, for that the most prodigal and extravagant persons received the greatest benefit from those statutes, they being unaccompanied by proper conditions." What were the conditions annexed to these statutes, as those by which a bankrupt's certificate was to be obtained? On his last examination before the commissioners the bankrupt was to disclose how he had disposed of his effects. If he made what appeared to be a true statement of what he had done with that part which was gone, and gave up the remainder, the law said that three-fourths of his creditors in number and value consenting, and the lord chancellor allowing, the bankrupt should be discharged from all his demands, not only on his personal estate but on his person. There certainly were other statutes in existence, for instance there was a statute existing, that if a bankrupt could be proved to have gambled in the funds or at any game to a certain extent, or to have given a portion of 100l. to a daughter, he should not be allowed his certificate. But this and similar statutes had long been obsolete.

As the practice of the law now existed, a bankrupt might be a person who had begun business without any capital, who had obtained credit on false pretences, who had led a life of perpetual falshood, who had despoiled confiding individuals of their whole property, who had conducted himself in the most profligate and extravagant manner, and who nevertheless, if he could obtain the consent of three-fourths of his creditors in number and value, could notwithstanding all his enormities, avail himself at a small expence of the benefits of the statutes without any other check whatever. This absence of a sufficient guard, did, unquestionably, operate as a great encouragement to dishonest proceedings. It did also manifest injustice to an honest bankrupt. Far was it from him to condemn commercial enterprize, founded on fair and probable expectations. But an extravagant and profligate individual, whose life had been one scene of fraud and dishonesty, ought not to receive the same reward of exemption as the fair and open, but unfortunate trader. The existing system compelled the public to view every bankrupt with the eye of suspicion. But it was grievously unjust that the honest and the dishonest should thus endure a common and indiscriminating reproach. To such an evil it was fitting that a remedy should be pointed out.

In order to consider what should be the nature of this remedy the House ought first to look at the examination of the bankrupt. What was the examination that the law now required? The person claiming a certificate, had merely to discover and surrender his remaining property. This was insufficient. The commissioners ought to be told how the bankrupt obtained credit, with what capital he had commenced business, whether he had preyed on the property of others, how he himself had lived. If it should be discovered that his conduct had for a series of years been reprehensible, in these respects, he ought not to be entitled to his certificate; nor should he be permitted to have any allowance. But on the other hand, if the commissioners found that the bankrupt had failed in consequence of a fair and honest commercial enterprise, then not only should his certificate be granted him, but his allowance should be increased as a testimony to his good behaviour.—There was in existence an obsolete statute—the 19th of James 1, section the 7th, by which it was enacted that if any bankrupt could not make it appear to the commissioners that he had sustained some casual loss, which he had been unable to foresee or guard against, he might be indicted for his conduct at the assizes or general sessions, and if convicted, sentenced to stand in the pillory for two hours. The severity of this law had defeated its object. But it by no means followed that because this statute, from its severity, had never been acted upon, and had become wholly obselete, that there ought not to be any punishment for improper conduct. It would require a great deal of consideration to determine who ought to be the judges of the bankrupt's conduct. He himself entertained very serious doubts as to the creditors being the fit judges. In his opinion, it would be infinitely better that the commissioners should decide whether or not the bankrupt ought to have his certificate; for in the other case, many innocent individuals might be deprived of their certificates by the irritation of their creditors, and many guilty individuals obtain their certificates by the partiality of their creditors. Justice in this respect, as well as in every other, ought to be administered on a fair and immutable principle; and the administrators ought to be influenced by no motive but a consideration of what was due to the parties and to the public.

Bankruptcy frauds had been rapidly increasing from the time of lord chancellor Apsley, who, in the year 1774, issued an order to the commissioners carefully to examine the reality of the debts attempted to be proved before them, stating that many commissions were taken out with the sole, view of fraudulently deceiving the creditors. These evils arose from the bankrupt law—a law which disagreed from the law of the land—which disagreed from every other law of insolvency—which disagreed from the principle of the Insolvent Bill on the table. If this last should pass, there would be two great insolvent laws in the country, acting in direct contradiction to each other. By the present system, bankruptcy was not compulsory but elective. A trader wishing to become a bankrupt, had only to get together a few friends, under the name of petitioning creditors, and, at the expence of 60 or 70l. he might procure a commission of bankruptcy to be sued out against him. This was an evil rapidly increasing. Connivances, and frauds of every kind, debts attempted to be proved which had never before been heard of, &c. were perpetually occurring. In illustration of this opinion the hon. gentleman read a passage from the opening speech of Mr. Gurney on the celebrated trial of the Folkards; the assertions in which passage he declared to be in his opinion strictly founded in truth.

Under all these circumstances it appeared to him to be extremely necessary to revise the system of bankrupt law, and—which brought him to his second head—to revise the administration of that system. He was happy to see in the House honourable gentlemen who were themselves commissioners, and who he hoped would declare whether the evils of the system and of the administration of it required remedy, or whether it was the best possible system, and the best possible administration that could be devised, equally incapable of any amendment. Far was from him the intention of throwing any stigma or imputation on the character of the commissioners, with many of whom, he was in habits of personal intimacy, and for all of whom he entertained those sentiments of respect which their talents, learning, and integrity inspired. But this he would state—that from the vast accumulation of bankrupt business, it was utterly impossible for seventy persons, forming fourteen lists of commissioners, to get through it properly, unless new regula- tions were made for the purpose of compelling the execution of commissions in such a manner as by a strict examination into the circumstances of every individual case, should prevent the possibility of fraud being successfully practised by the bankrupt. To elucidate this part of the subject, he had moved for several returns which had been, in consequence, laid on the table, and which had been, by his motion, limited to the space of one month, as affording the fairest, means of forming a judgment on the case. These returns he held in his hands, and the first thing that struck him in them was, that the commissioners executed commissions only on two days in the week—that was, they did a main duty of their office on those two days alone. It was impossible, therefore, considering the vast recent increase of business, that they could accomplish it in those two days, especially when it was considered that they sat only from eleven to one, or, as he was told it was to be understood, from twelve to two. It appeared by the returns, that in some instances the gentlemen on one list had to execute twelve or thirteen commissions in that short period of three or four hours. He appealed to the House whether it was possible that under such circumstances the commissioners could strictly perform all the complicated duties of the office? It was true that some bankruptcy cases were of a trifling nature, but others were highly important, and demanded the most serious and deliberate attention. One of the principal duties of the commissioners was to watch the proof of debts. For owing to the increase of dishonest bankruptcies, and the great press of business, it frequently happened that debts never due had been attempted to be proved by persons who had never before been heard of. If so many cases were disposed of in one morning, how was it possible for the commissioners to attend with sufficient vigilance to the accuracy of every particular proof?—If any hon. member who heard him would take the trouble to go to Guildhall, he would also observe a total absence of solemnity in the proceedings before the commissioners. The bankrupt, the creditors, the witnesses, and the individuals connected with the administration of the Jaw, were all huddled together, without any distinction of persons; and the bankrupt was not expected to feel that just sense of shame, which it was extremely fit that all individuals in that situation should feel, and the apprehension of which would operate powerfully on many minds to stimulate them to such exertions as might save them from being subject to it. There was nothing, however, of all this. The bankrupt sat by the side of the judge, in perfect familiarity one with another. There was not even any distinction of dress. In his opinion the commissioners ought to wear their professional habiliments as one means of imparting more gravity and solemnity to the scene. It was in the power of the Lord Chancellor to declare that the commissioners should sit on every day in the week, and not on two days only. The Lord Chancellor might also prevent that which frequently happened—if it were otherwise, the hon. and learned gentlemen present would contradict him—namely, more commissions than one being executed at one and the same moment?. Was it not true, he asked, that many commissions were executed at once? Was it not true that the examination of a bankrupt was carried on by one set of commissioners, and the proof of debts by another at the same moment? Was it not true that the multifarious operations attendant upon a commission were proceeding at the same hour, or in the same class of hours? If all this was true, it ought to be remedied. For however trivial the incidents, no court of justice could by possibility be trying the merits of two causes at once with any expectation of a fair and impartial determination.

Another objection to the existing administration of the bankrupt laws was, that the commissioners were paid by the number of commissions which they executed. It was most unwise to remunerate a judge in such a manner that he was compelled to compress a great deal of business into a very short space of time, in order to reward himself sufficiently. Such a practice induced every kind of irregularity and absence of attention; and frauds thus proceeded, not only from the bad system of the laws, but from the imperfect administration of them. At present the fees were too small. Three pounds divided among five persons of talent and learning was not an adequate compensation for their labours. Let workmen be well paid, and it might then be justly expected that the work should be well done.

So much for the evil. It was not his intention at present to propose any explicit remedy. He might, it was true, move for the introduction of some reme- dial Bill on the subject. It really, however, would be imposing too heavy a burden upon him to load him with the endeavour to effect such material alterations as those which were suggested in the whole system of the bankrupt law and its administration. But he knew that there were hon. and learned members of that House who were eminently qualified to afford great assistance towards the attainment of this most desirable object. He should, therefore, abstain, in the motion with which he should conclude the speech which the House had so indulgently heard, from proposing any immediate remedy; but, having stated what he conceived to be the evil, and hoping to hear explanations on the subject from hon. and learned gentlemen who were necessarily more conversant with the facts than himself, he should content himself with moving a resolution—"That this House will, in this session, take into consideration the acts of parliament relative to bankrupts, and also the administration of those laws." The motion was agreed to.

said, that the question which he was about to bring under the consideration of the House involved a great constitutional principle. In the year 1808, the government thought proper to take certain duties, and apply them to the support of the Light-houses on the coast of Ireland; and in 1811, a duty of 1d. per ton was imposed on all vessels passing those Lighthouses, for similar purposes. At the time of the impost he thought that duty much too great; the majority of the House differed from him; but that he was right afterwards appeared, as the House in the following session found it necessary to reduce that duty from one penny to one farthing per ton. On the 22d of April, 1812, the parliament then sitting, an order was issued from the Treasury suspending the collection of the duty altogether, until the collectors should receive further orders from the Treasury board. This was the violation of which he complained; and, however admissible it might be to issue an order of Treasury on any great and pressing occasion when the parliament was not sitting, he thought it was altogether unconstitutional to issue such an order while it was sitting and ready to legislate. It was usual, in such cases, to come to the House for indemnity for such acts, even if sanctioned by necessity; but in the present case no indemnity had been asked for, nor had any notice been taken of the circumstance, until the 19th of June, 1812, some days after the order had been laid on the table of that House. It might be said, that the duty was enormously disproportionate to its object—and it appeared that the collectors had anticipated the Treasury order, for in the port of London not one shilling had ever been collected under either of the Acts; and in other ports of England and Wales, the collection had been irregular, and oftentimes neglected. He did not see how the amount of the duty could justify the order, which was a direct violation of an act of parliament. In all the ports of England and Wales, 5,292l. had been collected, and of that little more than 1,000l. had been remitted to the commissioners of the Irish Light-houses. It was worthy of remark, that the duties had been collected in Ireland even while the collection of them was suspended in Great Britain; and though in Liverpool 2,000l. had been collected, no part of it had been remitted to Ireland; for this the right hon. baronet could not account. He had looked into the Bill for reducing the duty, but he found no clause respecting indemnity for the Act to which he had alluded, and therefore he would move the four following Resolutions:

1. "That, by the 51 Geo. 3, cap. 66, certain tonnage duties were imposed on all shipping passing the light houses on the coasts of Ireland, and directed to be collected and paid over by the several collectors of the customs in the ports of the United Kingdom to the board entrusted by the 50 Geo. 3, cap. 95, with the erection and maintenance of light houses on the coasts of Ireland; and the said collectors and other officers were forbidden to admit any ship or vessel to entry in the said ports until they had received such duties from such ship or vessel, which rate of duty was varied by the 52 Geo. 3, cap. 115, and then directed to be collected and paid over in like manner. 2. That it appears, from a return now before the House, that no duties whatever have been collected under the provisions of either of these Acts in the port of London, and that, in most of the other ports of England and Wales, the collection thereof has been most strikingly defective and irregular, and of the sum of 5,292l. so collected, no more than 1,084l. has been paid over to the board entrusted with the care of the said light houses, who have continued to receive the tonnage duties in the several ports of Ireland without interruption. 3. That the Board of Treasury did, by an order dated 22d April 1812, signed by three lords, direct all officers of the customs in Great Britain to suspend and desist from the collection of the duties so imposed by the authority of parliament until further orders, and did not communicate the said order, or make any application to parliament then sitting at the time of issuing such order respecting the same until several weeks after the date thereof. 4. That this House views with extreme surprise and regret this assumption of authority, in contravention of law, by the Board of Treasury, and this neglect of duty by the officers of the custom department of England."

regretted that the loss of the late Mr. Perceval prevented a full elucidation of the subject; but he would briefly state the circumstances of the transaction. The duty was found to be a great grievance to the shipping interest, and he, in consequence, received an order from the first lord of the Treasury to suspend it, until a Bill could be brought into parliament to reduce it. That Bill, it was true, was not brought in till June, but he understood it was delayed in consequence of some discussions with the ballast board of Ireland, With respect to the second charge, against the collectors of the customs in the several ports of England, a fundamental mistake pervaded the whole of the right hon. baronet's speech, and was even visible in his motion, arising from a partial view of the Act of the 51st of his Majesty. The right hon. baronet had read three lines of the 7th section of that Act, but he had not recited the 4th line, which omission had caused the misconception in his mind. The section to which he referred, said, "And be it further enacted, that the several duties payable by ships or vessels passing the said light-houses, or the floating-light, on the Kish-bank, on the south-side of the port of Dublin, shall be collected by the different port-collectors, or other persons, appointed by the corporation of the ballast-board." In what situation, then, were the collectors placed? On the passing of this Act, copies of it were sent to the different ports; but, from the clause which he had just read, the collectors could not know whether they were the parties who should collect the duty or not, as it was an alternative whether those commissioners should receive the toll, or whether other persons should not be authorised for that purpose by the ballast-board, more properly denominated the corporation for improving the harbour of Dublin. Those gentlemen never signified to the collectors, whether they, or other persons to be by them appointed, should receive those duties. To some of the collectors, the corporation had transmitted maps of the coast of Ireland, with instructions as to the description of ships which would be subject to the duty, and calling on them to collect it; but such maps were not sent to all the collectors. What mistake had taken place, in consequence, he could not say; but much of the error must be attributed to the conduct of the ballast-board. None of those maps were transmitted to the port of London, where, it was evident, a great proportion of the duty would be collected. He would also draw the attention of the right hon. baronet to the 2d section of the 51st of the King, which set forth "that from and after the time when a floating-light should be placed on the Kish-bank, on the south side of the port of Dublin, certain other duties shall be collected." Now, was it possible, he would ask, for the collectors of the customs in England or Scotland, to know, by mere intuition, when this floating-light was placed on the Kish-bank, and when, in consequence, the additional duties were to be received? If they were not apprised of this, it was impossible for them to know what they were to demand. Therefore, the right hon. baronet was not justified in throwing blame on the collectors of the customs in England for negligence; which, if it did exist, was occasioned by the supineness of the ballast-board, whose cause he advocated. They were the parties from whom instruction was to be derived on the subject, and, by going to sleep on the business, they left the collectors in such a situation, as prevented them from deciding whether. they should proceed under the act of parliament or not. After June, 1811, when maps were sent to some of the ports, the ballast-board, for 10 or 11 months, took no farther steps in the business. The right hon. baronet had observed, that a very small part of the sum of 5,292l. collected under the Act, had been remitted to Ireland. Now, this was not wonderful, for no person had been appointed to receive it. The ballast-board at length found that some of the links of their chain were defective, and they commissioned a person of the name of Darley to receive the sums collected. He, therefore, saw no reason whatever for attaching blame to the collectors; and, as to the conduct pursued by the Treasury Board, he was sure that the motives of his deceased friend were good; and, had they been impeached in that House, in his life-time, he would have been fully capable of justifying himself.

said, that the conduct pursued by the Treasury Board, prior to the passing of the Act of last session, was, in fact, a benefit done to the trade of this country. The Act of 1812 found the light-house duties so high, that it was deemed necessary, by the operation of that Act, to lower them three fourths; and at the very time his late right hon. friend (Mr. Perceval) gave the order to suspend the payment of the duties, a measure was in contemplation to reduce them. The hon. gentleman then shortly defended the conduct of the ballast-board from the observations made by the preceding speaker, and proceeded to argus, that, when parliament, by the Act of 1812, provided that three-fourths of the duty paid by any vessel, after a certain day, under the Act of 1811, should be returned, when they had not merely recognised the exorbitance of the duties, but had absolutely framed an ex post facto law, to correct the evils which the former Act had occasioned—the right hon. baronet could not suppose, that it would have been right to direct the collection of the duties to have continued.

said, if the right hon. baronet was determined to persist in his motion, he should feel it his duty to move the previous question. After the full explanation which the transaction had received, the House, he was sure, could not conceive a circumstance which less required the interference of parliament than the present. When so much difficulty and intricacy appeared in the mode of carrying the Act into execution, he did not think the House would be willing to visit very severely those officers, who really did not appear to have received instructions by which they might be directed. He would not support a doctrine so unconstitutional, as that the Treasury Board had a right to interpose to prevent the provisions of an Act of Parliament being carried into effect, except on occasions of extraordinary importance; but when the exposition of the reasons by which they were influenced was so satisfactory, as in the present instance, he thought sufficient was stated for their justification. He should have no objection to a Bill of lndemnity being brought in, to obliterate those ministerial inaccuracies, but he could by no means agree to the right hon. baronet's proposition.

observed, that the Act of 1812, had its operation from the day preceding that on which the order was issued; and therefore was intended to legalise that order.

supported the motion.

said, that he had not made any mistake, as was stated by the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Wharton) in consequence of having only read three lines of the seventh section of the Act; and he requested the right hon. gentleman to go a little farther even than the fourth line, and he would find that a duty was imposed on the collectors by that Act, which they had no right to shift from themselves. The Act recited, "that they shall not, after the commencement of said duty, permit any ship or vessel to enter their respective ports, till the said duty shall have been paid." The Act said, that either the collectors or some other persons should receive a duty, and that they should not admit any vessel to an entry until it was paid. The inference therefore was, that it became the duty of the collector to enquire whether any other person was ordered to collect this toll; and, if not, that he himself should collect it. The hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Peel) had observed, that the Act of the 52d of the King recognized the greatness of the duties which were imposed by the 51st. He was aware of that; he knew they were enormous. He stated the same thing in 1811; and he believed the House would recollect, he then told them, that they were passing that which would be found more than commensurate to the object. Still, however, it was the law; and, in his opinion, no member of that House should come forward and state, that the Act was not carried into execution, because its provisions were too extensive. Were they in a British House of Commons, or were they not? If they were, how could a member of that House, and a confidential servant of the crown, stand forth and tell them, that the duties to be levied under an act of parliament were enormous, and therefore had not been collected? On the subject of a Bill of Indemnity, he recollected enquiring, when this subject was before mentioned, whether the noble lord (Castlereagh) intended to bring in a Bill to indemnify the Treasury Board, for what he must call their misconduct. The noble lord, it was true, had, on the present occasion, merely spoken of ministerial inaccuracies; but those inaccuracies were nothing less than doing away with the law of the land. It might be supposed, because those duties were legally applicable in Ireland, and must be principally paid in the ports of Great Britain, that there was less necessity for a regular collection of them, as they would be appropriated to an Irish object. He would only say, that, as they were applicable by law, it was incumbent on the officers of his Majesty's government to see them properly collected. At the same time, he denied, that those sums were only applicable to Irish purposes. Was it merely an Irish object to preserve the light-houses in St. George's Channel? Or was the safety of the trade to Liverpool or Lancaster only an Irish object His great object in making this motion was, to prevent persons from exercising an arbitrary right to alter the laws, by which James 2 lost his crown. He was determined to persist in his motion; but, if the three first Resolutions were suffered to stand, he was willing to allow the third to be modified. He had no objection to the introduction of a Bill of Indemnity; but he bad an insuperable objection to suffer great constitutional errors to pass, without being marked by the reprobation of the House. The death of the late Mr. Perceval was assigned as a reason for not bringing the matter sooner under the cognizance of parliament. Now, after that melancholy and ever to-be-lamented event, three weeks elapsed before any notice was taken of the business. Why did not the Board of Treasury, during that period, come down to the House, and state that an arrangement was on foot to remedy the evil, and pray for their concurrence in suspending, for a time, the collection of those duties? But no notice was taken of the circumstance till the 19th of June, and the subject was then introduced in consequence of what he (sir John) said on the preceding day.

The three first Resolutions were then put and negatived without a division. On the fourth being put, and a loud cry of "No," coming from the ministerial side of the House.

expressed a wish to divide the House, observing, "Then, I suppose, the noble lord does not consider the violation of an act of parliament by the Treasury Board a matter of surprise or regret." He did not, however, persist, and the Resolution was also negatived.