moved the second reading of the Gold Coin Bill. He observed, that having stated the nature and object of the measure on a former occasion, he should not trouble the House with many explanations; but he could not help observing, that its object was, to prevent the gold coin of the realm from being sold at a price beyond its nominal value. Hitherto every breach of the law on this subject had been pursued under the Bill, and occasioned by the Bill itself; but in future, although it were not possible to prevent offences, they might be diminished; as the intent of the Bill was not so much the punishment of crime, as the deterring from its commission by the fear of the penalty.

did not expect that what he could say would have any influence; but he could not help repeating, that all the experience as to the operation of the Bill fully justified the theoretical views which had before its enactment been exhibited on the subject. It appeared from the prosecutions in pursuance of the Act, that the offences had been committed by persons entrapped by the informers: it had not, therefore, been effective to the prevention of crime, but had created an offence for the sake of punishing it.

said, he was certain that a Bill of this nature could not exist without producing serious effects on the country. Much had been said of the good effects that would result from it in its former shape; not any of which had appeared. On the contrary, the evil went on; and his right hon. friend opposite was perfectly non-plus'd when called on to tell the House what benefit it had produced. It was clear that he had not looked over the Statute-book, or he would have found that an Act to effect all that was required was still in force. By a law of Ireland, any man who buys a guinea or half-a-guinea, at a depreciated price, is subject to a penalty of 50l.; and if he buys any number, the penalty is 500l. So that, when the present law has passed, any person in Ireland may be punished if he purchase a guinea for either more or less than its nominal value. The hon. gentleman contended, that this Act would not have been necessary if the country were not overburthened with paper money; but at all events, if it were suffered to pass, the other should be removed from the Statute-book.

could see no contradiction in telling the public that they might give an exact fixed value for a thing; but that they must not give more or less.

said, that as gentlemen would probably wish to have further information before they debated this subject, he would at present merely give an outline of his intention. It was the opinion of those who directed his Majesty's councils, that it would be improper to extend to the East India shipping all the benefits and privileges with which British ships were invested: it was, therefore, his intention to permit ships built in the East Indies to be registered for China and for Great Britain, but not for general foreign trade. In other respects, it was thought proper that these ships should be subject to the same restriction as other ships not British.

observed, that the shipping interest was of great magnitude, and deserved the most serious consideration of the House. For this reason, he thought that all the information which could be procured should be laid before the House. He should, move, therefore, for the number of ships built by the merchants during the last three years: there was also another paper which had formerly been laid before the House after the battle of Camperdown: by which it appeared, that in that engagement several merchant ships had been taken into the line, and mounted from 64 to 70 guns. If this paper were not still upon the table of the House, he should wish it to be again produced.

agreed with the hon. alderman, that on a subject of such importance as the shipping-interest of the country, no measures should be taken till the fullest information was obtained.

thought the request of the two preceding speakers highly reasonable; and he conceived that the best method of effecting the object in view would be, to appoint a select committee as soon as possible; where any information that any gentleman could give would be readily received.

suggested, that the committee could have nothing to do till some papers were produced.

said, that there was already a large mass of papers, and the committee might with great propriety discuss what further papers would be necessary for their decision.

said, he should reserve whatever observations he had farther to make on this Bill, and merely move that it be committed pro forma for to-morrow, and re-committed on Tuesday next.

said, he held in his hand a Petition from Mr. Wright, the informer; but he had some doubts how far it could be received, on account of the allegations of the petition being in print, in a pamphlet attached to it.

, in explanation, said, that certainly the objection would not be to the papers being printed; but he had never heard of a petition's being received with the allegations attached to it. If such a circumstance was in the recollection of any member, he might state it. Such a circumstance was not in his own recollection. The way was, to present a petition, containing a particular allegation, and begging that the House would hear evidence upon it. The House had then the option either of going into the case, or of dismissing it at once.

agreed with the doctrine of the chair; but as the petition had been put into his hand just as he was coming into the House, he thought it better to state the circumstance, and leave it to their discretion. He then moved that the Petition might be presented alone.

said, that the Petition referred perpetually to the documents annexed, and was in itself incomplete and unintelligible. It would be better for Mr. Wright to take it back, and put it into a more concise form.

then presented another petition from William Wright, of Bridge Court, Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, gentleman; setting forth, "That, in consequence of a letter received from the reverend Saint John Priest, bearing date the 12th day of March 1810, the right reverend the lord bishop of Norwich, on the 5th day of April following, granted licences to permit him to be nonresident for his livings therein mentioned; and that, with the approbation of the lord bishop of Norwich, the petitioner wrote a letter to the said reverend Saint John Priest, requesting to be informed of the state of the parsonage houses on his preferments, in order that he might, if possible, be saved the stamp duties on his said licences; and that, in consequence of the enquiries made by the petitioner, one of such licences was, as he believes, issued for a cause which exempted the same from such duty; and that the said licences, so granted on the 5th of April 1810, continued in force for two years, and remained in the custody of the petitioner, as he believes, until in or about the month of April 1811, when, after repeated applications for the fees due to the petitioner thereon, being at length paid, the same were sent by the petitioner to the reverend Saint John Priest, in pursuance of his directions; and he believes the same were, in due course, received by him, the petitioner not having heard, from that time until the time of his petition being presented to the House, that the same were not regularly delivered; and that the licences so sent to the said reverend Saint John Priest expired on the 5th day of April 1812, and no application was made for their renewal until after the petitioner had commenced an action at law against him for recovery of the penalty to which he had exposed himself, that is to say, in the month of October 1813; and praying, that the reverend Saint John Priest may be called upon by the House to substantiate the allegations contained in his said petition; and that the petitioner may be at liberty to adduce such evidence in opposition thereto at the bar of the House as he may be advised.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to make the freehold estates of persons dying indebted, liable for the payment of simple contract debts. He believed there would be no opposition to the leave for bringing in the Bill; but as the subject was new to the present parliament, he would state shortly the substance of his measure. By our law, the non-payment of debt was visited with great severity. Unlimited imprisonment was the punishment which the law inflicted on persons unable to pay their debts, whether the individuals were in fault or not. Some relaxation had lately been introduced by a most beneficial Act; but still, under certain circumstances, a person might be imprisoned for life; and thus a man in a state of bankruptcy, was punished as severely as if he had committed a capital offence. But while the law was thus severe against the persons of debtors unable to discharge their debts, what seemed very inconsistent, the property of a debtor might, without any difficulty, be subtracted from his creditors. A man might owe debts to any amount, and leave a considerable property behind him at his death to his heir, with his debts unpaid; and the law would suffer the heir to enjoy the property and to revel in all the luxuries of life; while those very persons whose credulity, perhaps, contributed to the acquisition of that property, might be sent to prison for want of power to recover their debts, and see their wives and children doomed to a workhouse.—It was this anomaly in the law which he now proposed to remedy. Till the Statute of Frauds parsed in the time of king William, even special debts could not be made good against devises; and it was to be regretted, that the alterations introduced at that time were not carried somewhat farther. It sometimes happened, that men who had contracted debts, and who had purchased freehold estates, from an unjustifiable kindness to their relations, and for the very purpose of preventing a commission of bankruptcy being taken out against them, had put an end to their existence—These were cases of such injustice, and calling so loudly for remedy, that he wondered any objection could be made to the Bill, though he knew that objections would be made to the measure in a future stage. The objections which had formerly been made were now, in a great many instances, completely removed. It was now seven years since he had proposed to the House a measure exactly similar to the present.—It was brought forward under some advantages which the present would want; for he was then his Majesty's solicitor-general, and the Bill had the countenance of the government; though, before it was disposed of, the countenance of the government was of no great importance. It had been formerly said, that the Bill, if passed into a law, would be attended with great difficulty in the execution, and would lead to endless litigation and expence. But this objection had been since proved by experience to be unfounded. For though the House did not then adopt the measure when it was suggested, they adopted another with little or no opposition, for subjecting the freehold estates of persons engaged in trade to the payment of their debts. Now it so happened, that almost all the objections applied as much to traders as to those who were not traders. With respect to litigation, to expence, and to innovation on the ancient doctrine of the law, the objections were as applicable in the case of traders as in the case of others; and he would undertake to say, that this law had not been attended with the smallest difficulty in the execution. The smallest difficulty of construction had not been experienced. Instances had occurred where estates of 200,000l. of freehold property, belonging to one house, had been attached, and where the debts would not have been paid if it had not been for that Act. There was one remarkable case, where the Act had not directly, but indirectly been the means of subjecting a large estate to the payment of debts. Sir Roger Kerrison, a banker, in Norwich, was engaged in business under the firm of himself and son; and he had issued notes to the extent of 600,000l. At his death, he left little or no personal property but real property to the extent of 500,000l.; and had not that been made liable, not one of his debts would have been paid. The Act in question, however, did not operate directly; as it happened that the son's name, though he had not interfered in the business, was in the firm; and sir Roger dying intestate, the property devolved to this son. Several gentleman in the House knew very well the case to which he alluded. It had also been said, that the measure would weaken the aristocracy of the country. It appeared astonishing to him that such an objection should ever have been made. He was utterly at a loss to see how the rank of any body of men could be supported, by allowing them a liberty of committing injustice, and the power of injuring the lower orders of society with impunity. Another objection seemed to him equally groundless:—It was said, that such a law would facilitate the means of contracting debts in the case of young men recently come to their estates. It seemed to him quite improbable, to suppose that tradesmen, in furnishing goods to persons of this description, looked forward to the demise of the debtors. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded with moving for leave to bring in a Bill for subjecting the freehold estates of persons dying indebted, to the payment of their simple contract debts. Leave was given accordingly.

rose with an intention of moving, that a table of the fees received in the civil and ecclesiastical courts of Great Britain and Ireland, the augmentations of them which had taken place during the last 20 years, and the authority under which they had been imposed, should be laid before the House. By this mean, the House would come to the knowledge of the alterations in the fees which had been demanded in courts of justice. If the rate of fees was not controllable in parliament, he knew not how the matter could be reached any where else. Parliament would have the means of judging if any increase had taken place; and if so, on what ground the alteration had been made. That such augmentation had taken place in many instances, he was not disposed to assert; but he knew that it had in some. He should suppose that it was the wish of the House, that the doors of courts of justice should be thrown open as widely as possible, that no class of subjects might find any difficulty in obtaining redress; but if, besides the augmentation of expence from the stamp duties on proceedings, there could be additions made to the fees of the judges and offices of court at pleasure, the poorer classes of the community might be almost completely shut out from courts of law. Not being able to see on what ground this motion edit the resisted, he would reserve himself till he heard what was urged against it. It appeared to him, that those who were most interested in the matter—namely, the judges and other officers of court, could have no objection to what he proposed; as it would enable them to justify the augmentation where it had taken place, or wipe away all suspicion of it where it had not taken place. He therefore concluded with moving for a return of the rates of fees demanded and received in the several superior courts of law, civil and ecclesiastical, in Great Britain and Ireland, by the judges and officers of court, during the last 20 years; together with the authority by which these rates had at any time been varied and altered.

said, if the right hon. gentleman had stated any specific instances, the House would know how to set about the enquiry; but so far from this, he had not even stated whether the cause of complaint lay in England or Ireland. As to the judges, it was known that they were perfectly independent; and although they were the receivers of the fees, they were not personally interested in the receipt of them. It was impossible to surmise any thing wrong on their parts; for they had not only to administer justice with impartiality, but also to look to popularity. On the whole, as he could see no good reason for the motion, he should move, as an amendment, that the House proceed to the other orders of the day; at the same time, he certainly should not object to any rational motion on the subject.

said, that as this was one of the days on which notices had precedence of orders, and there was another motion to be made, the right hon. gentleman was debarred from moving the other orders of the day. It was a prevalent opinion, that the fees had been augmented both in England and Ireland; and he had much difficulty in obtaining information on the subject, from the fears of the practitioners, lest by making any disclosures they should incur the displeasure of their respective courts. This was a case that called for information; and justice would be denied to the public, if it were not fairly brought under their view.

contended, that the hon. gentleman had not given reasons to be- lieve that there was the slightest suspicion against the officers of the superior courts; and yet the integrity of the whole jurisprudence of the country was to be called in question, without knowing upon what foundation. He ridiculed the idea, that the practitioners in the courts would be afraid to tell how and when the fees were raised; and insisted, that if the hon. gentleman had made any enquiry on the subject, he could not have been in the dark about it half an hour.

said, his right hon. friend had by his motion imputed no improper conduct to the judges. The House had certainly a right to enquire if the fees had been raised, though it should afterwards appear that they had been raised by proper authority. He had no doubt that the increase of fees was proper, to keep pace with the increasing expence of living. But the high opinion he entertained of the judges, was not to lead to a blind confidence in his capacity of member of parliament. In the reign of Geo. 2, a similar enquiry had been made, and the judges of that day were inferior to none that had ever presided in the courts of England. Should the present motion be opposed, grounds of suspicion would arise.

suggested, that all objection could be removed by shaping the motion so as to require a return from those courts where the fees had been augmented during the last 20 years.

had not the slightest objection to that alteration, since his whole object would thereby be answered. The original motion and the amendment were then withdrawn; when sir J. Newport moved for a return of the rate of fees in those courts, civil and ecclesiastical, of England and Ireland, in which an increase had taken place within the last 20 years; together with a statement of the authority under which such an alteration had been made. On this motion being put,

said, he did not rise to oppose the motion, as now worded; but he could not suffer it to pass without making his protest against the manner in which it was originally brought forward; from which it could not but be presumed, prima facie, that suspicions had been incurred, that the officers of the courts in England had been parties to injustice, in raising the fees of such courts without due authority, which could not fail to bring those courts into disrepute in the opinion of the public. Whatever might have been the case in Ireland, to which the right hon. baronet had acknowledged he meant originally to have confined his motion, he believed there was not the smallest cause for such suspicion in this country; and therefore he could not suffer the motion, even as altered, to pass, without having so far expressed his sentiments on it.

said, he thought such suspicions as those mentioned by the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last, might certainly be entertained. For his own part, he should never have thought of any such suspicions, had it not been for this day's debate, and the manner in which the motion had been resisted in its outset by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was glad, however, that the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman had put the matter in such a light, as should answer every purpose of his right hon. friend who brought forward the motion.

observed, that the present were extraordinary times, as hardly a day passed which did not introduce some perfectly novel proceeding in that House. They were now told, they ought not to enquire into the amount of sums raised from the people of this country; it would be to insult the judges, by seeming to attach suspicion to them. Formerly they were told, it was the first duty of that House to enquire what sums were raised in any way from the people. They had an undoubted right to enquire into any increased expence thrown on the public. If it should be proved that an increase had taken place in the fees paid in the several courts, that increase might appear to be justifiable and necessary; but of this the House could not judge till they had called for information on the subject, and an answer had been given. But a learned gentleman had said, it would consume so much of the judges' valuable time to make the returns called for, that, on that account, the proposition ought not to be entertained. How much of their time would it consume if no increase in the fees had taken place? How long would it take them to return "nil" to the application made? The House had never been more jealous of any infringement of their authority than of any attempt to raise money from the people without their direct interference. In refusing to allow the enquiry to be made which the right hon. baronet had recommended, the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer had done what no minister had done before; and he ought to feel much obliged to his right hon. friend (Mr. Rose) for extricating him from the awful situation in which he had placed himself.

agreed with the last speaker, that his right hon. friend (Mr. Rose) deserved thanks; but contended, these ought to come from the right hon. baronet (sir J. Newport), and not from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the right hon. gentleman spoke of the little trouble the judges would have in returning "nil" he was talking of the proposition of his right hon. friend (Mr. Rose), and not of that of the right hon. baronet (sir J. Newport).

contended, that the objections made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if applicable at all, applied with equal force to the motion as amended at the suggestion of Mr. Rose, viz. that there was something in it that implied suspicion as to the conduct of the judges, and that the House could not adopt it unless a specific charge were introduced. The Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore could not, with any regard to consistency, agree to the amendment: all that the amendment did was, to require a return from the courts in which the fees had been augmented; and the augmentation was the ground of suspicion; it seemed as if the right hon. gent. (Mr. Rose) had charitably interposed to save his friend from opprobrium. Thus, then, a double novelty was to be observed; first, that such a motion should be resisted at all; and, secondly, that ministers had changed their opinions without any substantial change in the motion to authorize it. The right hon. bart was perfectly correct when he said that these augmentations were considered as a grievance in Ireland; they formed, in some cases, so great an obstacle, that in some instances persons had refrained from seeking justice, not being able to sustain the increased expence. Supposing this, however, not to be the fact, one salutary object would be answered by removing all suspicion.

said a few words in favour of the amendment.

explained.

said, his reason for bringing forward the motion in such general terms was, to take away every idea of attaching the smallest suspicion to the conduct of the judges. The way, however, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had opposed the motion, was the only one which could attach such suspicion to those high characters; and, therefore, he felt himself obliged to the right hon. gentleman for the amendment he had suggested, which certainly enabled him to attain every object he had in view in bringing forward the motion.

said, that in the early part of the evening it had been stated, that there was not likely to be any opposition to the principle of the Bill; that it would only be objected to in the detail; and that therefore there would be no debate on the second reading, as the entire examination of the measure would be reserved for the committee; he, however, had at that time different intentions; and he had been anxious to catch the eye of the Speaker, in order to give notice of that difference. So much did he object to the general principle of the Bill, that he felt himself obliged to oppose the second reading, even in that thin state of the House. All the general arguments which applied to precipitate Bills applied to that before the House; such Bills were usually rather the effects of feeling than of reason. His chief particular objection to the Bill arose from the injury it would do to an individual. The Act passed about twelve years ago, regulating the residence of the clergy, held out inducements to persons to commence actions for any breach of the provisions of that Act; and under the sanction of King, Lords, and Commons, the prosecutor had a vested interest in the penalties attached to its violations. The Bill went to destroy that vested interest, It would be an ex post facto act to deprive an individual of his right, and to indemnify others who had been guilty of a breach of the law. Feeling had been called in to aid this cause, and the worst feelings that could be employed; prejudice had been resorted to; and the odious term of informer had been used, to excite hatred against the prosecutor of the actions which gave birth to the Bill, and pity and sympathy for those who were the objects of them. It had been said, that Mr. Wright had entrapped those persons whom he had prosecuted into the very offences for which he had prosecuted them; but how was it possible that he could have so entrapped them? Although he had a vested interest in the penalties, yet that interest was subjected to the verdict of a jury and the decision of a court, and therefore it was impossible that he could entrap them; for if the prosecutor had caused them to commit the offence, they could have proved that fact on the trial; and indeed, any facts operating in their favour might also have been proved in a similar manner; and if sufficiently strong, not only would the prosecutor have lost his penalties; but he would also have been liable to the costs of the defendants, as well as his own. Much calumny had been afloat, and the term 'informer' was constantly applied to Mr. Wright; but it would be remembered, that this calumny originated with those who had been injured by him, and who had also been guilty of breaking the laws. He was not of opinion that the clergy had any pretensions to indulgence; if they had been a body remarkable for an assiduous discharge of their duties, he would not be one to punish them for a neglect of forms; but were they so? Another reason which had been stated for the Bill was, the great amount of the sums which might be recovered by Mr. Wright from some of the non-residents. But surely this was a singular case, if the extent to which the transgression of the law had been carried was to be a ground for not inflicting its penalties. It was said, too, that the penalties in many cases had been incurred by neglect or ignorance of the law. How was this argument, he would ask, listened to in other cases in courts of justice, even when pleaded in behalf of the lowest and most unlearned members of the community? Here, however, there was a body of men, the learned and affluent, who had broken the law, and yet prayed to be excused from suffering under it. It was said, that the ruin of several individuals would be the consequence of enforcing the law. That such ruin should take place, he should be as sorry as any man; but why should this calamity be averted at the expence of Mr. Wright alone? It might be a preferable course to indemnify those who were subject to the penalties, out of the produce of certain sincere places, or some such source. From the reasons he had stated, feeling it impossible to approve of the Bill, he protested against the second reading.

said, that not only the present Bill, but every Bill of Indemnity, was an ex post facto law. That the per- sons indemnified by the Bill had committed any real offence he denied; they being liable to the penalties, in most cases, because they had neglected to send in a notification of their non-residence. The law involved in it a most flagrant absurdity, by making people liable to such severe punishment for the most trivial inadvertencies; for in nine cases out of ten the penalties were incurred on account of mere omissions of form. This being the case, the House was to look to what it had done on similar occasions; and it would be seen that by the 43d of the King, the clergy had been indemnified against the consequences of neglect, similar to that against the consequences of which it was now proposed to secure them.

said, he should give his vote for the second reading of the Bill, though he could not help feeling the weight of those objections which were urged by his noble friend behind him, and which he thought were not sufficiently answered by the learned gentleman opposite. It could not be denied, that the informant had, by the Act of the 43d, a vested right in the writs he had taken out under that Act; and that the provisions of this Bill, if passed into a law, would deprive him of that right. The justification of such a measure could only be found in the peculiar circumstances, and the necessity of the case. It was a choice of difficulties in which the House was involved; but it was quite clear that the clergy ought not and must not be left without adequate relief, where no moral culpability whatever could attach. Mr. W. said, he thought the statement he had made was due to the character of the clergy in general, and concluded with saying, he should give his assent to the second reading of the Bill.

would, as he supposed the noble lord would press the question to a division, give his reasons why he felt obliged to vote against the second reading of the Bill. It was not from any affection to informers; for he knew no class of persons whom he more inveterately hated and despised, than those who obtained money by practising informations; nor because he was not aware that the church was suffering great injuries in consequence of the Bill regulating residence; but he would not consent to relieve the clergy by the present Bill, because it would trench on the provisions of an act of parliament, and illegally destroy a vested interest; and he was astonished to find the Bill re- ceive the sanction and support of the gentleman opposite. When he or any other person proposed to abolish any sinecure held by patent or otherwise, either at home or abroad, he was always answered, "Oh, you can do no such thing—such a one has a vested interest in it,"—and so forth; but now, when the matter was different in regard to the persons concerned, there was no hesitation to destroy a vested interest, although it was fenced by an act of parliament. The produce of the information was a vested right; and though the very name of "informer" was odious, he most support the interest of one, notwithstanding the hardships under which the prosecuted clergy laboured.

defended the Bill. That breaches of the law had been committed, was not denied; but he maintained that the quality of the offence was not that against which the legislature had most to provide. A Bill indemnifying a person from penalties incurred by the omission of a matter of form (Mr. Grant, jun), had just passed without opposition. From the language held by the noble lord, it should seem he would allow of nothing of this sort. He would not admit that a breach of the law could in any way be qualified by circumstances; his language would be

"Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum."

For his part, it appealed to him, that the present was a case in which legislative interference was imperiously demanded. It was, however, not intended to save the clergy at the expence of Mr. Wright. He would be allowed his costs; and where the law had been broken, so as to involve a moral offence, he would be enabled to proceed for those penalties which, in such cases, the legislature had intended should be paid. All that was desired by the present Bill was, to secure those from ruin who had unconsciously offended against the letter of the law, without violating its spirit.