presented a petition from certain foreigners confined in the Fleet prison, and in the King's-bench, praying that the benefit of the Insolvent Act should be extended to them. They hoped that the House would be the more inclined to view their case with favour, from the consideration, that they were the subjects of other countries, where they would not have been exposed to such severity of treatment. As he understood that the Act, passed in the last session, was to be suffered to expire, he perhaps owed some apology to the House for presenting a petition, claiming the benefit of an Act which was about to expire. He had really been surprised, at hearing that the Act was impossible to be carried into execu- tion He believed that it had not been tried yet, and that the first sitting of the judge appointed under it would be next Friday. He wished to know whether there had been any attempt to carry it into execution in Ireland? He had heard a great deal of the complex machinery of this Act, which made its execution impossible. He could not believe that the difficulties were so great as had been represented. As to what was called, the machinery of the Bill, it had been introduced by the noble and learned lord who originated the Bill. As his ideas, in this respect, had been acquiesced in by the very highest authorities of the law in another place, he had made no opposition to it. He felt, however, convinced, that there could not be any such faults in the machinery of the Bill, as it would not be easy for parliament to provide remedies for.

said, that if he did not bring forward the Bill for the speedy discharge of the insolvent debtors, he thought it necessary to state his reasons shortly. He never had intended to repeal the present Bill; but he wished to give a concurrent jurisdiction to the quarter sessions, for the purpose of accelerating the object of it. He wished much that the Bill should be fairly tried; but he was afraid that he might be doing an injury instead of a service to those insolvent debtors who expected a speedy discharge, if he were to bring in a Bill now, which might not be passed in the present session.

assured the hon. gentleman, that there would be no time lost in considering how to relieve the insolvent debtors. He thought it was likely that this day would not pass without a motion being made by a noble lord in another place.

then observed, that he might be allowed to say, he was assured that, a measure affording speedy relief to the persons who were aggrieved by the delay under the present Act, was in preparation, and would be passed before the recess. For himself, he did not find that there was any thing objectionable in the principle of the Bill; and if time were given, he conceived it might be made a very, wholesome law. But he agreed that it was necessary to do something, immediately, and for that reason he was anxious that some temporary expedient should be devised and adopted.

postponed bringing forward his motion on the subject till Monday.

(member for Hellestone) rose and said, he should feel it a dereliction of his duty to himself as well as his constituents, if he did not state his objections to the present measure. In doing so, however, he acted solely from the individual conviction of his own mind, without concert with any persons in or out of the borough. The borough of Hellestone had been long in possession of the exclusive right of sending two members to parliament; a right not arising out of any usurpation on the privileges of others, or in prejudice to them; but arising out of the law and constitution of the country, and standing on the same basis as the best and most sacred of our institutions, or as the right and authority of that House. It was natural, then, for the burgesses of Hellestone, and in some measure a duty incumbent on them, to make a struggle for the preservation of such a right. He was at the same time not insensible, that this privilege was the last which ought to be considered as private property; that it had high and important duties connected with it; and that if any gross abuse were proved in the discharge of those duties, it was then the business of parliament to interfere and strike at the root of the corruption, provided the municipal law did not reach the evil. It would, however, be the duty of the House to proceed cautiously, on the fullest evidence, and to take care that in aiming to secure the purity of election, they did not destroy that which was the foundation of it, the elective franchise itself. This Bill might form a precedent by which hereafter, in times of faction and turbulence, or of extreme corruption, rather the quality of the members returned, than the corruption attending their return, might be made the ground of similar disqualifications. Thus far his remarks were general: he would now proceed to apply them more particularly to the Bill in question. This Bill stood upon the ground of the special Report only, or of that and the evidence delivered at the bar of the House. Now the terms of the Report stated, that there had subsisted a certain illegal agreement between a noble duke and a majority of the members of the corporation of Hellestone, with regard to the return of members to serve for that borough. And he understood, that the committee had in this case inserted the word 'illegal,' purposely to exclude the word 'corrupt,' which they did not think applicable to the transaction. There were three views under which the subject might be viewed:—1. The nature and extent of the offence. 2. Who were the offenders. 3. The punishment. With respect to the first, the committee having decided that the agreement was illegal in its nature, this alone was a sufficient reason why it should not be referred to parliament; for if the transaction was illegal, there was a legal, remedy, and an adequate punishment for it: any thing more must be unjust. To go beside the law, would be an irregularity; to go beyond it, an act of oppression. But granting that the offence was great, and the punishment deserved, yet he would contend that it ought not to be inflicted on the present parties. If the majority of members of the corporation of Hellestone had offended, that was no just ground why the whole body should be disfranchised. The corporation acted as trustees for the borough; they were the organs and depositaries of its interest; an unnamed majority of them had abused their trust, and disregarded the interests of the inhabitants—ergo, what? Not that the offenders should be punished, but those against whom the offence had been committed, the people of Hellestone, who were the first persons that had suffered by this violation of the law. After again disclaiming any personal communication with those who were interested in the Bill, the hon. and learned gentleman concluded with expressing his decided disapprobation of it.

complimented the last speaker on the delicacy and discretion with which, in the difficult situation in which he was placed, he had treated the question. But in all the arguments of the hon. and learned member, he was so unfortunate as to differ from him. The Report, indeed, stated, that the transaction was illegal; but it also went on to state, that it was one contrary to the law of parliament, and to the purity of election. If this then was not a case in which it was proper for parliament to interfere, he did not know what was. He also differed from the learned member, who seemed to suppose that this elective franchise was held by the corporation for the benefit of the people of Hellestone, but in his opinion it was held for the benefit of the people of England. But it was said, we had punished the whole body for the offence of the majority only. This, however, was unavoidable. We had pursued only the common course. It was not in a single instance, in the last election only, that the most unwarrantable abuses and corruption had taken place; but a regular system had been long pursued, by which the right and independence of election had been bartered away, to secure certain profitable exemptions for the town and borough of Hellestone. What then could be more just than to take away a right which was placed in such improper hands? From the whole evidence it appeared, that they never discovered the slightest anxiety to know what members were to be returned for them, but only to know whether the wages of their corruption would be paid. It did not follow because the offence was illegal, that the punishment annexed to it by law was adequate. It was the object of the legislature not merely to punish the offence, but to provide against the recurrence of it in future; and for this purpose he thought some such enactment as the present highly expedient and necessary.