presented the following Report from the Committee on the Petition of the High Bailiff of Westminster.

The COMMITTEE to whom the Petition of Arthur Morris, bailiff of the liberty of the dean and chapter of Westminster, was referred, to report the same, as it should appear to them, to the House, together with their observations thereupon; and also, the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them;—and to whom the Report which, upon the 11th day of June, 1811, was made from the Committee appointed to enquire into and examine the nature of the office of High Bailiff of Westminster, and the Duties and Burthens incident thereto, was also referred;—

Have, pursuant to the order of the House' examined the matters to them referred; and have agreed to the following Report:

That, in pursuance of the recommendation contained in the Report which has been referred to your Committee, an Act was passed in the 51st year of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, "An Act to extend an Act made in the 18th year of his late majesty king George the second, to explain and amend the laws touching the elections of knights of the shire to serve in parliament England, respecting the expences of hosting and poll clerks, so far as regards the city of Westminster;" whereby, after reciting that there is no convenient public building within the said city wherein to hold the election, and to take a poll in writing of the electors, in the event of the same being legally demanded; and that, by reason of the populousness of the said city, the taking of a poll in writing is attended with considerable expence, front the number of clerks necessarily employed therein; and that controversies had of late arisen as to the payment of the expences attending the building of a convenient booth or hustings, heretofore usually erected for the holding of such election, and of the expences attending the clerks employed in the taking of a poll when demanded; it was enacted, "That at all times, from and after the passing of the said Act, upon every election of a citizen or citizens to serve for the said city of Westminster in parliament, the bailiff; or in his absence his sufficient deputy, should appoint, make, or erect, or cause to be appointed, made, or erected, at the expence of the candidate or candidates, a convenient booth or place for holding the election; and the said bailiff or deputy should, in case of a poll being demanded by any of the candidates, or any two or more of the electors, appoint a convenient number of clerks, not exceeding in the whole the number of 26, to take the poll (which said clerks should be at the ex-pence of the candidates as aforesaid, and be paid not exceeding one guinea per day for each clerk:) And it was further enacted, That in case any such bailiff; or his deputy as aforesaid, should willfully offend against or act contrary to the true intent and meaning of the said Act, such bailiff or deputy should be liable to be prosecuted by information or indictment in his Majesty's Court of King's-bench at Westminster, in which no noli prosequi or cesset processus should be granted; any law, custom, or usage, to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding: and it was lastly enacted, That the said Act should continue and be in force from the passing thereof until the 1st day of August, 1813."

That by a subsequent Act passed in the 53d year of his present Majesty, the said Act was continued until the 1st day of January, 1819.

It appeared to your Committee, from the evidence of Mr. Tooke, the deputy high bailiff of Westminster, that the costs and extra costs in the actions mentioned in the Report of June, 1811, amounting to about 300l. are due to him in his professional character as attorney to Mr. Morris.— That since the passing of the Act of the 51st Geo. 3rd. an action was brought in October, 1812, by the high bailiff, by the advice of an eminent counsel (Mr. Richardson) against lord Cochrane, pursuant to that Act, for his share of the expellees of the hustings at the last general election, and he suffered judgment by default, and a verdict was then obtained for 225l. and costs, which have since been paid; and in that action the extra expences came to 20l.—That in that election, the whole of the high bailiff's expences amounted to 550l.; but the jury, under the direction of the sheriff, assessed lord Cochrane's proportion at 225l., being the expence of hustings only, exclusive of poll clerks re- tained, and other expences incurred by the high bailiff—That if a poll had taken place, he could not have been ready to have complied with the Act, unless he had had a sufficient number of poll clerks retained before hand, and paid on such retainer; as it is the invariable custom in elections for Westminster, to proceed to the poll after an adjournment of two hours only.—That he consulted Mr. Richardson, and took his opinion, whether an action could be maintained against one of the candidates severally; and laid a case before him, in which he inserted the following statement:—"Mr. Brooks, junior, informed Mr. Tooke, that it was the intention of the committee of the electors of Westminster to nominate sir Francis Burdett, but that they had not yet determined who the other candidate should be. Mr. Tooke accordingly, on the next day, went to Mr. Brooks's, where he was introduced to the committee, to whom, at their request, he gave the information they required, as to the time appointed and probable expences, &c. which was minuted down by them in writing; and he was then informed, that lord Cochrane having, by letter, explained his political sentiments to their satisfaction, he would be put in nomination jointly with sir Francis Burdett." And again, "No Act can be proved to have been done by sir Francis Burdett, for securing his election; indeed he put an advertisement in the papers disclaiming any intention of accepting a seat in parliament; the only circumstance to be relied on, therefore, is his having taken his seat, and thereby sanctioned the nomination of him by his friends, and thus acquired the name and character of a candidate within the meaning of the Act, as held by his lordship in the action between the same parties, tried at the sitting after Hilary Term, 1808, and reported in I Campbell.

Upon which statement, Mr. Richard-son's opinion was as follows:

"I think that the bailiff is entitled, under the late Act, to recover the necessary expences of the hustings, as being a convenient booth or place for holding the election, which he by the Act is required to appoint, make, or erect, at the expence of the candidates. But I do not think that he is entitled to recover the expence of the poll clerks, because no poll was demanded, nor any of the other expences. It way be a question, whether the action ought to be joint against the two candidates, or against each for his proportion. I should be inclined to bring a separate action against one, in which if he should not plead in abatement, the whole may be recovered if the liability is joint; and if it should be held, that a moiety only can he recovered, that will be an authority for bringing another action for recovery of the other moiety.—As to the evidence, the writ, precept, and return, should be admitted or proved: that the plaintiff acted as high bailiff; that the hustings were erected in the usual way, and were paid for by the plaintiff; that the defendant took his seat for Westminster."

JOHN RICHARDSON."

"Middle Temple, 15 Jan. 1813.

After the verdict in the sheriff's court against lord Cochrane, the under-sheriff saved the point of law as to the joint liability of the candidates to the whole of the demand, and on that point so reserved, Mr. Tooke applied to the court, and the result appears, by Mr. Richardson's letter to have been, "That the court held that, as there was no joint interest in the two candidates, nor any joint employment by them of the high bailiff, the liability created by the Act was several."

That after the action against lord Cochrane was brought, on the ground of the opinion given in that case, an action was commenced against sir Francis Burdett, for his moiety; and before such action commenced, Mr. Tooke's attention was called to the liability of a person who was an involuntary candidate, as appears by the passage already quoted from the case stated. That he consulted with Mr. Richardson repeatedly, and was governed by his advice throughout the whole course of the proceeding.

On the trial of the issue against sir Francis Burdett, no other evidence of his having the character of a candidate being adduced, than the circumstance of his having taken his seat, lord Ellenborough directed a nonsuit, subject to a point reserved. In the ensuing term, after a consultation with the Attorney General, Mr. Park, and Mr. Richardson, a rule nisi to set aside the nonsuit was granted, which, after solemn argument, was discharged; the whole court agreeing with the Lord Chief Justice, That the defendant's costs of the nonsuit were taxed at 30l., which were paid by Mr. Tooke to the defendant's attorney. The plaintiff's costs of that action, on a very reduced scale, amounted to the sum of 150l. or thereabouts; and the proportion unpaid of that election was 325l., being 225l. expence incident to hustings only, and 100l., poll clerks and incidental expences.

Your Committee further find, from the examination of Mr. George Giles Vincent, chapter clerk to the dean and chapter of Westminster, that he had examined the archives of the church of Westminster, and seen a paper which mentions the circumstance of the elections of the representatives of the city of Westminster being held in Tothill-fields, and when contested, the meeting was adjourned to the porch of Covent-garden church; that as well as he can recollect, it is mentioned only in allusion to what had been the case, not that it was so practised at that time of day; and the paper was of the time of the usurpation.

Your Committee further find, that at the contested election of Trentham and Vandeput, and which was the most remarkable for its duration, there were hustings erected at that time, and the candidates or their friends paid the expences of them; and that Mr. Wishart, a gentleman aged about 64, and whose father and himself had always resided in Westminster, and interested themselves in its elections, knew that the candidates or their friends, nearly down to the present time, had paid such expences; and that he himself paid all the expences, including the hustings fee, to the high bailiff, and a bond to the parish of Saint Paul Covent-garden, at the late Mr. Fox's last election; and that it was customary to give a bond to the church-wardens and overseers of that parish, for any damage that might be done to the church by the eruption of the hustings. That he had himself witnessed five or six contested elections, and was convinced that the hustings were absolutely necessary for carrying on the election, and for a due scrutiny of votes, which could not otherwise be carried on with safety to the voters themselves. That if the high bailiff had taken upon himself to neglect erecting hustings, there could have been no contested election carried on; the whole would have been a scene of total confusion, a great deal of mischief must have been done, many lives lost, the peace of Westminster would have been endangered, and aged and infirm persons could not have got up to the poll.

Your Committee, with a view of ascer- taining whether any duty at common law was imposed on returning officers, to erect convenient buildings for taking the poll at elections when necessary, and to employ a competent number of poll clerks, where the right of election might be vested in a numerous body of voters, have referred to such law authorities as might be found in the books on this subject, and they have also looked into the statute law, with a view of discovering, if any declaratory enactments existed with regard to the duties of returning officers, whether for counties, cities, or boroughs; and they find. that the uniform course of authority, opinion, and of the statute law also, excludes the idea of any duty at common law resting either on sheriffs or other returning officers, to take upon themselves the burthen of such heavy expences as might be incurred in providing for such, though perhaps necessary, arrangements, except so far as it may have been their duty to appoint a competent number of poll clerks for county elections. In the case of Morris v. sir Francis Burdett, the lord chief justice Ellenborough held, that the Act of the 18th of George 2, c. 18, not extending to cities or boroughs, the returning officer for the city of Westminster might have taken the poll either in the Guildhall of Westminster, or in the open air; and even under the statute of the 18th Geo. 2, c. 18, Mr. Serjeant Heywood, a writer of considerable authority on the law of elections, is of opinion, "That if none of the candidates require any booths or places for taking the poll, to be erected three days at least before the commencement of the poll, as directed by the 18th Geo. 2, c. 18; or if no candidates are declared previous to the election, but a contest comes upon the sheriff by surprise, when the freeholders are not to make their choice, the sheriff is not empowered to erect any booths or polling places at the expence of the candidates, but must take the poll in some open or public place, and pursue the regulations of the 7th and 8th Will. 3, c. 25, exactly as if the 28th Geo. 2. had never passed; except that, by the ninth section, he must allow a check-book for every poll-book, as where booths have been regularly erected." By the 7th and 8th of king William the 3d, the elections in counties are to be holden at some convenient place, and the sheriff is commanded to appoint a competent number of poll clerks. By the 10th of queen Anne, the sheriff of Yorkshire is directed to appoint seven tables for taking the poll; and by the 18th of Geo. 2, before recited, booths are to be erected and poll clerks appointed, at the expence of the candidates.

Your Committee, on referring to the Petition of the high bailiff; and to the Report made by the former committee, think it their duty to point out, that the prayer of such petition refers to losses sustained by the high bailiff, at distinct periods and under different circumstances. The first head of losses, amounting in the whole to the sum of 1,569l. 10s. 2d. being the sum of 1,269l. 10s. 2d. specifically stated in such report, together with 300l., or thereabouts, being the costs and expences alluded to therein, of the high bailiff in endeavouring to substantiate his supposed claim at law, and which loss of 1,569l. 10s. 2d. was incurred by him at a time when no law existed, compelling him to erect hustings, or to employ as it seems above one poll clerk; and when no right was vested in him to recover any part of the expences of such arrangements against any of the candidates or other persons, except such right as might result from any special promise made for such purpose. The second head of loss, amounting to 525l. was incurred after the Act, of the 51st of his present Majesty, had cast the indispensable obligation of erecting hustings, and employing poll clerks on the high bailiff, and had enforced that obligation, by punishing the failure of its discharge as a misdemeanour. With regard to this latter head of loss, your Committee observing, that as it was the clear object of the last-recited Act, not only to provide suitable conveniencies for taking the poll at Westminster, with order, regularity, safety, and justice, but also to indemnify the high bailiff against any expences which might result from his complying with these regulations; and as the Act was deficient, inasmuch as it did not provide for the case of an involuntary candidate, or for the indemnification of the high bailiff from any other source; and as the public have derived the whole benefit intended to be effected by these enactments, but at the cost and charges of the high bailiff; he has, on these grounds, made out a good title to the favourable consideration of parliament, of this part of the prayer of his petition, to the extent of the whole of the loss set forth in such part of it. And with regard to the first head of loss, amounting to the sum, of 1,569l.10s. 2d. your Committee observe, that though it does not stand precisely on the same ground for consideration and indemnification, it does nevertheless present itself to their view, in a light which appears to them so strong, as to justify their recommendation of it to the attention of parliament. It was at no time (as is clearly shewn) the duty of the high bailiff to erect any hustings whatsoever nor is it certain that he was ever bound to employ more than one poll clerk; he might have taken the poll in the Guildhall of Westminster, or in any open place, or in the fields: he might have refused to have acted upon any special promise whatever, for indemnification for the expences of any hustings, or the employment of 26 poll clerks, which your Committee learn have lately been necessary to be retained. But, had he so proceeded to take the poll, it is manifest, that all the consequences described in Mr. Wishart's evidence, must have followed; riot, confusion, and disorder, and a total want of justice to all parties. The aged and infirm would have been excluded from exercising their rights; and if any proceedings in the form of a poll, could have been carried on, the effective rights of election would have been exercised by the most violent and the least opulent. And at conclusion of such a proceeding, no return could have been made which could have satisfied the due execution of the laws, or any of the candidates of electors; excepting those who might have contrived to have availed themselves of a scene of confusion, riot and injustice. That the maintaining good order and uniformity of proceeding within the city of Westminster at elections, is of great consequence to the whole kingdom; is not only obvious in itself, but is expressly declared in the Act of the 51st of his present Majesty. The high bailiff has then preserved that good order, previous to the passing of the Act, but at his expence, and to the injury of his private fortune. He has done that at all times heretofore, which this last-mentioned Act has declared necessary to be done hereafter; but he has not been remunerated for it, as the same Act has declared that he ought to be. And the public, interested in the regularity of these proceedings, have derived all the benefit from his past arrangements, but at his expence and loss, which this Act contemplated would be secured to it, by rendering the continuation of the same precautions imperative on him for the future. Under these circumstances, your Committee, having distinctly noticed the two separate grounds on which these two distinct claims stand, do not hesitate to recommend this head of loss also to the favourable consideration of parliament. At the same time observing, that from the whole of the evidence it does appear, that the probability of such heavy losses never entered into the contemplation of either the predecessor of the high bailiff, or of the high bailiff himself at the time he purchased his situation: or that the fees and emoluments of the office were either adequate to or intended to cover them. Your Committee further notice, that both heads of loss include the costs of actions brought against candidates to recover a compensation for the above expence. But they also observe, that if the high bailiff had not taken every means in his power to procure reimbursement from the candidates, according to the provisions of the last-recited Act, it would have been most justly objected to him, that he could have no title whatever to public indemnification, if he had not first attempted all those modes of private reimbursement, which either custom seemed to warrant, or a positive statute to direct to be adopted.

said, he was instructed by the corn Committee to state to the House, that the Committee had met from day to day to collect evidence on the important subject referred to their enquiry, that a considerable number of witnesses, summoned by the Committee, had been examined; but that hitherto no person had offered himself to give evidence in support of any of the allegations contained in the numerous petitions referred to the Committee; that the Committee was desirous to obtain every possible information on the subject, and to give every facility to the petitioners to be heard before them, and that it was therefore the wish of the Committee, that gentlemen who had presented petitions on this subject, either from their own immediate constituents, or from any other body of the community, should apprize the parties that the Committee was ready to hear them, and any witnesses to be produced on their behalf, in support of their respective petitions.

said, as the hon. gentleman, he supposed, did not intend to make any motion on the subject, the only course of proceeding was, to inform the Committee, that they were now at liberty to make their Report forthwith.

reported at the bar, from the committee appointed to wait on his grace the duke of Wellington, to know what time he would appoint, at which, to receive the congratulations of the House; that his grace had expressed his gratitude for the honour which it was intended to confer upon him, and had signified that he was desirous of expressing to the House his answer in person.—(Hear, hear!)

Lord Castlereagh suggested, that a quarter before five to-morrow, would be the best time, and the Speaker intimated that the honourable members would take that as a notice.

, with a view to save the time of the House, asked the right hon. gentleman opposite, whether he had it in contemplation to bring forward any motion relative to the restrictions upon the payment of specie at the Bank of England? The right hon. gentleman's answer would determine him what course to pursue with respect to the motion of which he had given notice.

replied, that it was his intention to move to-morrow, for the continuation of the restrictions on the Bank, until the 25th of March, with a view of seeing what operation peace and other circumstances might have on the money market. Parliament would at that period take what course it thought proper. For his part, he would abstain from giving any opinion at present, as to the probability or improbability of the necessity of any further restriction, at the time to which he had alluded.—He subsequently gave notice, that he would tomorrow move, that the House should resolve itself into a committee on the Bank Restriction Act.

said, that, notwithstanding the explanation given by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the preceding evening, it appeared that the intention of exhibiting a sea fight on the Serpentine-river was not abandoned. The whole squadron, amounting to three two-deckers, and several frigates, remained at their moorings—and, he understood, that a launch had taken place that morning. (A laugh)—If the peace establishment of the Parks was to be kept up so high, he thought it was necessary to lay some information, on the subject, before the House. It did not appear to him that the scale of preparation in the Parks was at all contracted. He was happy, however, to perceive, that the activity, formerly observable, was a little abated. The persons employed did not now, as heretofore, work on Sundays, during the performance of Divine service. But still, new towers, and new alcoves, continued, on other days, to be hourly erected. He should be glad to know under whose directions these preparations were making, and what would be the probable expence. He was of opinion, that, while the allied sovereigns remained in town, their reception should, in every respect, be grand and splendid; but now they had departed, be could see no use in prosecuting those works. If the amusements were planned by the Lord Chamberlain, he certainly thought his taste must be very bad, to think of exhibiting a sea-fight on the Serpentine river, and a regatta on the Canal.—(A laugh.)

hoped, the hon. gentleman was not chagrined, because the Lord Chamberlain had superintended the preparations for the sea-fight, instead of the first lord of the Admiralty. With respect to the question put by the hon. gentleman, he believed the expence of the buildings would be 10,000l. A general direction had originally been given, by the Treasury, to construct them, in consequence of the arrival of the allied sovereigns. At the time of their departure, several of those temporal y buildings, some of them for fireworks, had been erected; and, as all the materials were prepared, it was thought advisable to proceed with them, as the expence would be very little additional.

said, they had been told by the right hon. gentleman that the buildings were erected for the purpose of entertaining the allied sovereigns. Now, he should be glad to know, as those illustrious characters were gone, and were not likely to return, why the buildings were still carried on? The right hon. gentleman said, that, as the frame work was prepared, it would not cost much to put it together. Certainly it would cost no more than the expence of putting it up and afterwards taking it asunder. He wished to be informed, what the great buildings in Carlton-gardens were intended for?

answered, that the buildings alluded to by the right hon. gentleman having been forwarded in a considerable degree, before the allied sovereigns left town, it was not deemed expedient to abandon them. Because, it was presumed, though they were not necessary, with respect to these great personages, yet they might be useful, if an entertainment were given to any other illustrious characters.

observed, that the right hon. gentleman's explanation amounted merely to this, that, because it was intended to give an entertainment to the allied sovereigns, who had left town, it was considered necessary to give a treat to somebody else.

said, when he was first called upon to give directions for the making of fireworks, he had adopted such a plan as was most likely to prevent accidents. For this purpose, the houses from which the fireworks were to be displayed, looked to three different parts of the Park, by which the pressure of those who came to view them would be divided, and the danger would be lessened. The subject of these fireworks had already afforded much amusement to the House, and, he hoped, when they were exhibited, they would afford much more. In a conversation he had with his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney), in the Park, he had stated, that 15,000l. would cover the whole expence. His right hon. friend had therefore misunderstood him, when he said it would take that sum to furnish the fireworks alone. He believed the fireworks would cost about 4,000l. It had been proposed, to raise a sum of money, by admitting individuals to see the fireworks, which sum might be appropriated to some great public charity, to be expended in a manner commemorative of recent events; and it had also been proposed to admit the better class of inhabitants of the metropolis, whose peaceful demeanour was conspicuous on all occasions, to view them, gratis, inside of the Park railings; but nothing had yet been determined on. With respect to what had been said of the folly of the design, if most of our amusements were considered abstractedly, that quality would be found to form a component part of them. He hoped however, that the hon. gentlemen opposite might be induced, on this occasion, to re- lax a little from the severity of their wisdom, and not to visit a little harmless amusement with very heavy censure.

said, on a great and pressing occasion, he would not oppose necessary works being forwarded on the Sunday; but where the object was a matter of mere public amusement, he conceived it to be a gross infraction of decorum and decency to employ men in active labour on that day. In forwarding the preparations in the Park, the people employed were obliged to work on Whit-Sunday, and were exposed to the observation of all orders of persons, going to and coming from, their respective places of worship. He should say no more on the subject, but merely express his hope, that such a proceeding would never be resorted to again.

presented a Petition, which had been put into his hands, but for the truth of the allegations of which he considered himself by no means responsible. It was from Mrs. M. A. Clarke, confined in the King's-bench prison, complaining of oppression on the part of the keeper of the said prison.

The Petition was read by the clerk. It stated, that Mrs. Clarke had been confined in the prison of the King's-bench, on the 7th of February last; having been convicted of a libel on the right hon. W. Fitzgerald; that she had suffered great partiality and oppression from William Jones the Marshal, to whose ill treatment she attributed her present ill state of health. She was confined in a cell nine feet square, of which her bed occupied a considerable part, and which had but one small window, barricadoed with iron. The approaches to her room were so obstructed that even her medical attendants found it difficult of access. Underneath was a place to which the crier, and other subordinate officers of the prison, resorted, and from which she was annoyed with the fumes of tobacco, lamp oil, and other effluvæ equally nausious and disagreeable. At ten o'clock, contrary to the ordinary regulations of the prison, her cell was locked, and no one, not even a physician, was permitted to visit her. Her illness had brought on a nervous fever, by which she was so enfeebled as to be hardly able to walk; but although requiring air and exercise, she could not obtain the usual indulgence in these cases—an indulgence which had been granted to Mr. Alexander Davison, Mr. Manners, Mr. Draper, Mr. Bell, and a number of others, under circumstances similar to her own, but who had been permitted to reside without the walls of the prison. She would not have delayed her appeal to the House so long, had she not observed that a measure was in progress in parliament, from which she had in vain expected relief. She prayed that the House would take her singular case into consideration, and direct an enquiry into the cause of her having been so treated.

On the motion that the Petition be laid on the table,

said:—Perhaps, Sir, I am not called upon to say any thing on the subject of the Petition which the hon. member has just brought up. I am sure that I should not be justified in saying much. But I have been referred to, though not by name, yet obviously in that statement which is about to be laid upon your table, and I feel that I owe it both to myself and to the House, not to remain silent. To those who know me, I trust, that I need not disclaim any vindictive feeling. Sir, when the application which is alluded to was made to me, I felt, as I believe every gentlemen even under the circumstances would feel, for a female suffering confinement under the sentence of a court; but having taken these proceedings which I had adopted from a sense of what was due to my own character, as well as to the laws, I felt also that it would ill become me to interfere, even if I were competent to do so. I felt that such a course would hardly accord with the respect which is due to the administration of public justice.—The marshal of the prison appeared to me to be the person with whom it was to rest, whether to grant or to refuse the indulgence prayed for. But I did desire it to be communicated, both to that officer and to the petitioner, that I was the last man in the world: who would interpose to prevent any indulgence being extended to her which her situation admitted of, or which he might deem it consistent either with his duty or the practice of the prison to grant. Sir, I need say no more; I hope the House will forgive me for having said so much.

The Petition was then laid on the table, and Mr. Bennet gave notice, that he would to-morrow move that it be referred to a committee.

said, the House would be surprised to find, that by a private Bill they were pledged to give the sum of 200,000l. of the public money, for the erection of a new Post Office, on the city of London taking down certain buildings adjoining to Cheapside. In the committee up stairs on this private Bill, there were few but the city members who attended. If this subject was enquired into, the House would find, that the removal of the Post Office was contrary to the wishes of all the merchants of the city. A right hon. gentleman, not now in his place, had stated last night, that they were precluded from extending the Post, Office in its present situation, from difficulties regarding the tenures of the property. Now he had counted up in this private Bill no fewer than 500 persons who had had their possessions taken away from them. Yet an objection was made as to enlarging the present Post Office, which would not take away the possessions of above half a dozen people.

wished, before the hon. gentleman proceeded farther, to know what his object was at present?

said, he wished to move that the drawings and plans of the intended Post Office, and the estimates of the expences of building, be laid before the House.

assured the hon. gentleman, that no committee above stairs could pledge the House to any grant of money. If they agreed to any such proposition, the report must be submitted to a committee of the whole House.

After a desultory conversation between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Baring, alderman Atkins, alderman Combo, and Mr. Home Sumner, Mr. Baring postponed his motion till next week.

moved, that the House should resolve itself into a committee on this Bill, and suggested that it would be more convenient that counsel should be heard in the committee. He also moved, that it should be an instruction to the committee, to consider what countervailing duties should be laid on Irish spirits imported into this country.

, before the Speaker left the chair, was anxious to know, whether the counsel employed by the petitioners against the Bill, would be allowed to deliver their observations, as they respected the principle of the Bill.

said, the counsel were at liberty to state their objections to every part of the Bill, but they must admit the necessity of some such measure.

said, as the Bill was now drawn up, a greater injustice was inflicted on the British manufacturer, than existed under its provisions originally. This Bill was intended to suspend the countervailing duties. Now, the spirit distilled by the British manufacturer, had paid a duty of 10s. 4d. a gallon, and must therefore be sent to the Irish market under this disadvantage. On the other hand, the Irish spirit, which, on being entered or warehoused for exportation, paid no duty whatever, might, in the absence of the British countervailing duty, be introduced here completely unburdened.

said, if the hon. gentleman supposed, that Irish spirits would be admitted into this country without a countervailing duty, he was completely mistaken.

The House then resolved itself into the Committee, and counsel were called in. Mr. Adam and Mr. Scarlett were heard at the bar, on the part of the Scotch and English distillers, who petitioned against the Bill.

remarked, that great weight was due to the arguments of counsel so eminent in their profession, and, indeed, they had been in some measure anticipated by the government, whose intention it was to put all the three parts of the empire on the same footing. He should move a clause, which might be printed and discussed on some future day, that Scotch and British spirits might be manufactured for exportation duty-free, and that a drawback should be allowed on the stock now in hand. He was most anxious that essential justice should be done to all parties; this was the way to fulfil both the letter and the spirit of that immortal Act of the Union, which had consolidated the empire into one mass with the same interests.

said, that nothing could be fairer than the proposition and the principles of the right hon. gentleman. He might himself be supposed to feel some partiality for one part of the United Kingdom, but he would never consent that advantages should be allowed to Ireland which were not equally extended to Scotland and England.

was glad to hear these sentiments from his right hon. friend, and hoped that all the members from Ireland would act upon the same principle. For his own part, he desired nothing but what was equal and impartial for England. He then proceeded to point out an advantage which the Irish distiller had over the English one: which was, that the Irish distiller was compelled by law to furnish only 10 tons of spirits out of 400 of wash, though he could produce 15 tons; whereas the English distiller must produce 15.

contended, that the hon. gentleman had greatly exaggerated the circumstances, and had assumed, that the Irish distillers were desirous of committing a fraud, which he contended they were not; and he complained, that the hon. gentleman had not dealt fairly by them.

A long discussion ensued between sir J. Newport, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Vansittart, and Mr. Huskisson, who moved an amendment, that the operation of the Bill should not take place till the 1st of October. The amendment was lost by 54 to 49.