said, in consequence of a statement in a newspaper which he held in his hand, purporting to be from authority, he gave notice that it was his intention, after the recess, and in the fullest period of the session, to bring the subject of the court-martial on colonel Quentin again before the House. In the newspaper to which he had alluded, a contradiction was given to an assertion which he had made in the House when he brought forward the former motion. He knew not by what authority this statement was made, but he could say that it was wholly without foundation. In the motion for the proceedings of the court-martial, he had avoided entering on subjects connected with the case, under the idea that they would come with more propriety before the House when they were in possession of the whole of the proceedings. But now that the House had refused to agree to the Address for these papers, it was his intention to lay before them what he would have done had this Address been acceded to; and he should feel it his duty, when he brought forward his motion, to move at the same time a call of the House.

Mr. Serjeant Onslow's Bill for Securing the Liberty of the Subject

, agreeably to notice, moved for leave.: to bring in a Bill "for more effectually securing the Liberty of the Subject." The learned serjeant went into a history of the origin of writs of Habeas Corpus. Originally these writs could only be issued by the court of Chancery and the court of King's-bench. The statute of Charles gave a similar power to the court of Common Pleas; and the act of Charles 2, extended it to all the superior courts in criminal matters, both in term time and vacation. In 1758, sir John Cust, Speaker of the House of Commons, introduced a bill for still further ex-. tending the power of issuing writs of Habeas Corpus; but this Bill was very property thrown out in the House of Lords, as it had a tendency to degrade the judges, and convert them into mere ministerial instruments.^* After the rejection of this Bill, lord Hardwicke moved the House of Lords, that instructions should be sent to the judges to prepare a bill to regulate the issuing of writs of Habeas Corpus. A bill was accordingly prepared by the judges, but, for some reason or other, it was never proceeded in. That Bill, however, was the foundation of the Bill which he was now about to bring in; which, indeed, with the exception of a few verbal alterations, was much the same. The object of the Bill was to extend the power of granting writs of Habeas Corpus to the lord chancellor and all the other judges, in term time and vacation; and ordering not only returns in vacations, but also allowing process for contempt—a power which was not at present possessed; and also giving a power to the chancellor, or the other judges, to inquire into the truth of the case, and to award issues accordingly.

^* For an interesting account, by Dr. Birch, of the Debate in the House of Lords, May 9, 1758, on this Bill; and also for a Paper, instituted, "Heads of Objections to the Bill for extending the Habeas Corpus Act," copied from the MS. notes of lord chancellor Hardwicke, see New Parliamentary History, vol. 15, pp. 897, 923. See, too, p. 871 of the same volume.

Mr. Serjeant Best having seconded the motion, leave was given to bring in the Bill; Mr. Serjeant Best, Mr. Serjeant Onslow, and sir Samuel Romilly, were ordered to prepare and bring it in. Mr. Serjeant Onslow accordingly presented the Bill. On the motion, that it be read a first time,

asked, if its provisions extended to Ireland?

said, he had not extended it to Scotland, as that country possessed art act against wrong us imprisonment; nor to Ireland, as he was not sufficiently acquainted with the laws of that country, to be adequate to such a task.

said, that the law of England was also the law of Ireland. He hoped, therefore, that the Bill would not be pressed forward so as to preclude such amendments as might allow it to be extended to Ireland. He trusted, that the further stages would not be gone through till after the recess.

said, it was his intention to move the second reading on Monday next; but he would take no further steps in it till after the recess.

said, the country were extremely indebted to the learned serjeant for his Bill. When he said so, he did not mean to commit himself to any premature approbation of its contents; but the statement of the learned serjeant was a great recommendation of it, namely, that it was taken from a bill which had been framed by the judges. If it were true, that the laws of England and Ireland were the same as to writs of Habeas Corpus, the provisions of this Bill ought certainly to be extended to Ireland also. He regretted extremely, that, as the law now stood, this Bill could not be extended to his own country. He believed, that a person acquainted with the law of that country, could not confer a greater benefit on his countrymen, than by revising the Act relating to wrong us imprisonment. As the law now stood in Scotland, the remedy was neither so efficacious nor as prompt as it was under the existing laws of this country, narrowed as the Act of wrongous imprisonment had been by the recent decisions of the Scotch judges. He felt anxious that some person properly qualified should undertake the task of assimilating, as much as possible; the remedy to be given in that country to what it would be in this.

said, the provisions of this Bill ought not to be extended to Ireland in a separate act, but the whole ought to be incorporated in the same statute. If they wished to fill the people of Ireland with a respect for the laws, it would not be by enacting separate statutes for that country, but by extending one general rule to the whole of the United Kingdom, unless there was some cause to the contrary. This was the only way of perfecting the union between the two countries. In almost every instance, the statute law of Ireland and England were the same; and if in some cases the parliament of Ireland had not gone so far as that of England, it would have been desirable that they had gone farther.

The Bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Copy of Mr. Serjeant Onslow's Bill for Securing the Liberty of the Subject

The following is a copy of the Bill, as brought in by Mr. Serjeant Onslow:—

"A BILL for more effectually securing the Liberty of the Subject.

"Whereas the writ of Habeas Corpus bath been found by experience to be the most beneficial method of restoring any person to his liberty, who has been unjustly deprived thereof:

"And whereas extending the remedy of such writ, and enforcing obedience thereunto, and preventing delays in the execution thereof, and ascertaining the proceedings thereupon, will be greatly beneficial to the public:

"And whereas the provisions made by an Act passed in the thirty-first year of king Charles the second, initialed, 'An Act for the better securing the Liberty of the Subject, and for Prevention of Imprisonment beyond the Seas,' only extend to cases of commitment or de- tainer for criminal or supposed criminal matter:

"Be it therefore enacted by the King's must excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That where any person shall be confined or restrained of his or her liberty, otherwise than for some criminal or supposed criminal matter, or imprisoned for debt, or by process in any civil suit, within that part of Great Britain called England, dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and the isles of Jersey, Guernsey, and Man, it shall and may be lawful for the lord chancellor, lord keeper, lords commissioners of the great seal, for the time being, or any one of them, or any one of his Majesty's justices of one bench or the other, or the barons of the Exchequer, of the degree of the coif, and they are hereby required, upon complaint made to them by or on the behalf of the person so confined or restrained, if it shall appear by affidavit or affirmation (in cases where by law an affirmation is allowed) that there is a probable and reasonable ground for such complaint, to award in vacation time a writ of Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum, under the seal of such court whereof he or they shall then be judges or one of the judges, to be directed to the person or persons in whose custody or power the party so confined or restrained shall be, returnable immediately before the person so awarding the same, or before any other judge of the court under the seal of which the said writ issued.

"And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if the person or persons to whom any writ of Habeas Corpus shall be directed in pursuance of this Act, upon service of such writ, either by the actual delivery thereof to him, her, or them, or by leaving the same at the place where the party shall be confined or restrained, with any servant or agent of the person or persons so confining or restraining, shall willfully neglect or refuse to make a return or pay obedience thereto, he, she, or they shall be deemed guilty of a contempt of the court under the seal whereof such writ shall issue; and it shall and may be lawful to and for the said lord chancellor, lord keeper, lord commissioner, justice, or baron, before whom such writ shall be returnable, upon proof made of such service, to award, in the va- cation time, process of contempt under the seal of such court, against the person or persons guilty of such contempt, returnable before himself in the vacation time, who shall proceed thereon as to law-and justice shall appertain: provided, that if no such writ shall be awarded so late in the vacation by any one of the said justices or barons, that, in his opinion, obedience thereto cannot be conveniently paid during such vacation, the same shall and may, at his discretion, be made returnable in the court of which the said justice or baron shall be a justice or baron, at a day certain in the next term; and the said court shall and may proceed thereupon, and award process of contempt in case of disobedience thereto, in like manner as if such writ had been originally awarded by the said court: provided also, that if such writ shall be awarded by the court of King's-bench, or the court of Common Pleas, or court of Exchequer, in term, but so late that, in the judgment of the court, obedience thereto cannot be conveniently paid during such term, the same shall and may, at the discretion of the said court, he made returnable at a day certain in the then next vacation, before any judge or baron of the same court, who shall and may proceed thereupon in such manner as by this Act is directed concerning writs issuing in and made returnable during the vacation.

"And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That in all cases provided for by this Act, although the return to, any writ of Habeas Corpus shall be good and sufficient in law, the said lord chancellor, lord keeper, lord commissioners, justice, or baron, before whom such writ be returnable, shall, as soon as conveniently may be, proceed to examine into the truth of the fact set forth in such return, and into the cause of such confinement or restraint, by affidavit, or by affirmation (in cases where an affirmation is allowed by law), and shall do therein as to justice shall appertain: and if such writ shall be returned before any one of the said justices or barons, and it shall appear doubtful to him on such examination, whether the material facts set forth in the said return, or any of them, be true or not, its such case it shall and may be lawful for the said justice or baron to let to bail the said person so confined or restrained, upon his or her entering into a recognizance with one or more sureties; or in case of infancy or cover- ture, upon security by recognizance, in a reasonable sum, to appear in the court of which the said justice or baron shall be a justice or baron, upon a day certain in the term following, and so from day to day as the court shall require, and to abide such order as the court shall make in and concerning the premises; and such justice or baron shall transmit into the same court the said writ and return, together with the said recognizance, affidavits, and affirmations; and thereupon the said court shall proceed, order, and determine touching the discharging, bailing, or remanding the party, as to justice appertain, either in a summary way by affidavit, or affirmation, in cases where by law affirmation is allowed, or by directing one or more issues for the trial of the facts set forth in such return, or any of them; whereupon such proceedings shall be had as in other cases of issues directed by that court.

"And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that the like proceeding shall be had in the court for controverting the truth of the return to all writs of Habeas Corpus awarded for or on behalf of any person confined or restrained of his or her liberty, otherwise than for some criminal or supposed criminal matter, or being imprisoned for debt or by process in any civil suit, although such writ shall be awarded by the said court, or be returnable therein.

"And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that the like proceedings, as to awarding issues, shall be had in cases where the said writ shall be awarded by the lord chancellor, lord keeper, or lord commissioner of the great seal for the time being, and be returnable before him or them.

"And be it further enacted, that by the authority aforesaid it shall and may be lawful for the lord chancellor, lord keeper, commissioners of the great seal, court or judge, proceeding on any writ of Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum, awarded in cases of confinement not for criminal or supposed criminal matter, nor imprisonment for debt, nor by process in a civil suit, to make such order in regard to the payment of the charges and expenses of bringing up the party so confined or restrained, and for carrying him or her back to his or her place of confinement, in case of remanding, as to such lord chancellor, lord keeper, commissioners of the great seal, court or judge, shall, upon examination thereof, seem meet; and, for non-payment thereof, to award process of contempt; whereupon such proceedings shall be had as in other cases of contempt for non-payment of costs."

"And be it declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that an Habeas Corpus, according to the true intent and meaning of this Act, may be directed and run into any county palatine or cinque port, or any other privileged places, within that part of Great Britain called England, dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick upon Tweed, and the isles of Jersey, Guernsey, and Man, and also into any port, harbour, road, creek or bay, upon the coast of England or Wales, although the same should lie out of the body of any county; any law or usage to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding.

"And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that the several provisions made in this Act, touching the making writs of Habeas Corpus, issuing in time of vacation, returnable into the said courts, or for making such writs awarded in term time, returnable in the vacation, as the cases may respectively happen, and also for awarding process of contempt in the time of vacation, against the person or persons neglecting or refusing to make return of such merits, or to pay obedience thereto, shall extend to all writs of Habeas Corpus awarded in pursuance of a certain Act passed in the 31st year of the reign of king Charles the 2nd, intituled, "An Act for the better securing the Liberty of the Subject, and for Prevention of Imprisonment beyond the Seas," in as ample and beneficial a manner as if such writs and the said cases arising thereon had been hereinbefore specially named and provided for."

regretted that he had not arrived sufficiently in time to introduce the subject on which he was about to address the House, before its agreeing to the report of the Army Estimates. To show that he had not made the statement which he did last night, without having previously taken every pains to inform himself of its correctness and authenticity, he now held in his hands a printed copy of the treaty of alliance between the reigning king of Naples and the emperor of Austria, by which the possessions of the former were guaranteed to him; and, by a secret article to the same treaty, an accession of territory was promised to him from the dominions of the pope, on condition of the immediate co-operation of his army with the army of the allies. This treaty was acceded to on the part of the British government by lord William Bentinck; and a note signed by him bore that, in case the Neapolitan government should not exact the entering into a written treaty, but, relying on the word of a British minister, should be contented with a verbal engagement, the undersigned was instructed officially, on the part of the British government, to approve of the treaty concluded between the emperor of Austria and the king of Naples, and of the addition of territory therein specified to be taken from the dominions of the pope; and if the English government refused to sign a regular treaty, it was from sentiments of delicacy and honour towards an ancient ally. Believing this to be an authentic copy of the treaty, and of the note of lord William Bentinck, he was bound, in justice to the House and himself, to substantiate, as far as he could, the assertions he had made. He was entitled to consider this as authentic, until it was properly contradicted on the part of government; but he believed the time would never arrive when the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or his colleagues, would be able to disprove its authenticity. There was only one thing, with respect to which he was not positively certain, and that was, whether the assent on the part of lord Castlereagh was in writing or not. He had been told that it had been seen by many persons in writing; but the not being reduced to writing made not the smallest difference with respect to the manner in which this country was bound. Before he consented to vote any given sum of money, he should wish to know what were the engagements entered into on the part of the crown. Lord William Bentinck had also engaged the British government towards another state, where British troops were at present quartered. In a proclamation which he had taken the liberty of reading to the House last session, lord William Ben tinck promised to the Genoese the restoration of their independence and of their ancient form of government; and instead of this promise being performed, that state was to be delivered up to the dominion of the king of Sardinia.

said, that whatever degree of authenticity the papers cited by the hon. gentleman might be found to possess, it was clear from these papers themselves, that they had only a reference to a negotiation which was pending, and not to a treaty already concluded. The House would find whenever an investigation into the subject took place that the British government had fully acted up to every treaty which it had entered into. There was nothing in the treaty to prevent us from defending the possessions of our ancient ally, the king of Sicily. Sicily, as appeared from these papers, was the only impediment to entering into a written treaty with the king of Naples. He repeated, that whenever an investigation took place, the government of this country would be fully justified.

said, the right hon. gentleman had either chosen to misrepresent the papers which he had read, or he had not heard them. The note of lord William Bentinck did not relate to a negotiation pending, but to a treaty concluded: it stated, that the English government entirely approved of the treaty concluded between the emperor of Austria and the king of Naples, and consented to the addition of territory therein stipulated, on condition of his immediately co-operating with the army of the allies.—[Go on, said the Chancellor of the Exchequer across the table.]—It stated, that if the British government refused to enter into a regular treaty, it was from sentiments of honour and delicacy towards an ancient ally. Was the right hon. gentleman so casuistical a moralist as to maintain, that there was any difference between the signing a treaty and a minister's pledging his honour in the extent to which the country was bound? It had been stated in parliament, that Buonaparté paid no regard to treaties and that the word of an English minister would be taken in preference to the most solemn engagement from him; and was an English minister now to draw a difference between a treaty and a verbal engagement? If that which he had recited to the House was not a clear and positive engagement, there was none existing in the world.

said, the note itself assigned a reason for refusing to enter into a treaty; and it never surely could be contended, that the faith of the country was so pledged, under such circumstances, as in the case of a regular treaty: but, at all events, when circum- stances were fully known, it would turn out that this country had fully performed all its engagements.

said, it was true there was no actual treaty signed; but in the same breath the minister of the country said, although he would not sign a treaty, he pledged his honour and the faith of the nation to the execution of his engagement. The honour of the country was as much given to Naples as if the most solemn treaty had been entered into. That there might be no doubt as to the nature of the engagement, there was a statement of it reduced to writing. If this was a genuine paper, and there could be now but little doubt of its authenticity, lord William Bentinck had, on the part of this country, fully acceded to the treaty between the emperor of Austria and the king of Naples. But there was an important consideration arising out of this business. It had been stated last night, on the part of government, in that House, that ministers possessed no information whatever of any accession on the part of lord William Bentinck or lord Castlereagh to the treaty between Austria and Naples. The denial was not as strong to day as that which they had heard yesterday. But, at all events, he hoped the House would not forget, that if there was any accession to this treaty on the part of this country, ministers were in utter ignorance of it: if there was any such thing, they were altogether strangers to it. With respect also to the order of Prince Repnin for the surrender of Saxony, they had no official information respecting it. It had been stated, that lord Castlereagh had given his sanction to this order. If so, the right hon. gentleman ought to have had official information of it. A secretary of state had, in this instance, been sent abroad, instead of one of the description of persons hitherto delegated. It would be extremely inconvenient to the House and his Majesty's ministers in general, if persons holding high ministerial offices should be sent abroad, who might not think fit to communicate regularly with the government at home, and thus keep his colleagues from being officially informed of such important proceedings as the accession on the part of this country to the treaty between Austria and Naples, and the order of prince Repnin for the transfer of Saxony to Prussia.

conceived, that the present situation of affairs was such as to call for the confidence of parliament in his Majesty's ministers. The hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last, had no right to assume that the noble lord now absent at Vienna, and who had been also abroad during the former negotiations, kept his colleagues in ignorance of the transactions in which he was concerned. He begged to state, that if lord Castlereagh had given his assent to the order of prince Repnin, that this did not relate to a transfer of Saxony to Prussia, but merely to a military occupation of that country, which was a very different thing. By that order, the military occupation was merely taken from the Russians and given to Prussia; but there was no annexation to Prussia, or any thing beyond what he had stated.

was convinced the first information which gentlemen opposite had received of the treaty with the king of Naples, and the accession to it by this country, was that which he had given them himself.

wished ministers to have the goodness to state at once, that they had received no official account of lord Castlereagh's having sanctioned the military occupation of Saxony by Prussia. This important step had been taken without the knowledge of this country; nothing had been done to prevent it; and a measure by which the interests of our fellow creatures was so deeply affected, had not met with the smallest opposition.

thought it would be extremely prejudicial to the interests of the country, if the time of the House were to be taken up with the proceedings of a negotiation which was still pending.

said, if the fact of the military occupation of Saxony by Prussia was admitted, was it unreasonable, in discussing whether they were to allow 75,000 men to government, to take it for granted that this military occupation was the result of the negotiation of the Congress?

said, that there was a necessity last session for not interfering with government during the important proceedings which were then taking place on the continent: but the state of things was very much changed, and bore no sort of similarity to the former. This country had become a party to the treaty of Chaumont, by which each of the four contracting powers bound themselves to keep up a corps of 75,000 men, for the purpose of arranging the interests of Europe, and in the language of the treaty, for doing those things simultaneously. Now, if it was not denied that this order was a genuine instrument, and if it was one of the proceedings in carrying into execution the treaty of Chaumont, and if the treaty between Austria and Naples, acceded to by this country, could also not be denied, things were very different from what they were last year, when every thing remained secret till the time of performance. If the House were not allowed to ask one question, they would be placed in a most humiliating situation indeed. Was this country to pay a force for the purpose of enabling the other powers, who were parties to the treaty of Chaumont, to execute their own views, without the House being allowed to ask ministers any questions union the subject? He had no hesitation in saying, that the military occupation of Saxony by Prussia, was as violent and flagitious a measure as any of the measures of Buonaparté.

The conversation here ended.

rose, to bring forward his motion relative to certain persons who had taken refuge in the garrison of Gibraltar, and who had been most unnecessarily and most inhumanly given up, at the instigation of sir James Duff, by general Smith, to the government of Spain. He should not trespass long on the attention of the House. The act to which he was about to call the attention of the House, was, he conceived, altogether without justification. This was not a motion of course; matters could not rest there; and it must be followed up by other proceedings. Every body, he was sure, knew, and every body felt, that the whole conduct of Ferdinand the seventh was one display of the greatest folly and ingratitude which had ever been exhibited by any monarch to the eyes of mankind. During his stay at Valentia, a resolution was taken by him of getting rid of the cortes, thus removing the only obstacle to his rendering his despotism all powerful; and on the night between the 10th and 11th of May, those atrocious and scandalous arrests of the members of the cortes took place, which had excited such abhorrence throughout Europe. Some of the members were dragged from their homes to prison, others fled for refuge to different quarters of Spain, and several of them escaped from their pursuers to England. The Spanish government in their nefarious designs were greatly assisted by the active vigilance of sir James Duff, the British resident at Cadiz, who had made himself busy in many other cases besides those which were before the House. The judges whom Ferdinand employed in carrying through his designs were three persons, two of whom had been in opposition to the patriotic government of Spain at the commencement of the revolution, and the third had been distinguished for his violent opposition in the Cortes to the measures of the persons who were now the victims of despotism. One of these three persons distinguished himself as an active agent of Buonaparté at Saragossa, in endeavouring to persuade the people there to submit to the usurper. Another of them, while the marquis of Matarossa, who came over to this country as a deputy from the Asturias, was endeavouring to excite the flame of patriotism in his native province, busied himself in endeavouring to frustrate that object. The third person, who has been constituted a judge against these unfortunate individuals, was the chief organ of the police of Joseph Buonaparté, at the time he resided in Madrid. Such were the persons who would have had to try the conde Torino, had he not fortunately escaped persecution. The Conde Torino had nobly conducted himself in Spain against the invaders of his country; he had exposed his life and expended his fortune for the restoration of Ferdinand, who was now hunting him down like a wild beast. First he fled into Asturias; from thence he was chased into Portugal, and from Lisbon he was fortunate enough to take ship for England. The consequence of a dreadful state of anxiety for her son had produced, in the mean time, the death of his mother.

The charge against the persons who had been delivered up at Gibraltar was, that they had been engaged in writing seditious publications in the Journals; but the fact was, that they had never edited, written, or published a line in any of the newspapers of Spain. One of them was a retired officer, the friend of a person who had conducted a journal at Cadiz, in which were inserted some severe and unjust aspersions upon the English army under lord Lyn dock at St. Sebastian's. The other individual had not been in the habit of mixing in politics: he was the author of a Hebrew grammar, and of a book entitled, "The Inquisition Un- masked,"—that was his crime. [Hear, hear!] Upon these two persons who had fled to Gibraltar, sir James Duff made a report to General Smith, who delivered them to the agents of the Spanish government. One, Mr. Whitbread understood, was still in prison, but the other had been released. Their situation, while in their dungeons, was deplorable beyond belief. Ferdinand might have learnt to pity those in confinement from the imprisonment he had himself suffered, which was painful, though he was never deprived of the conveniences of life; but these two wretched persons had been cast into cells not longer than to hold a bed; all communication with their friends was prevented; the common air was excluded; for so refined was the cruelty practiced, that the doors of their dungeons, which had been at first allowed to remain open, were afterwards closed. Such was the conduct of those who were the active ministers of Ferdinand! The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was misinformed when he told the House, on a former evening, that these persons were seditious; that they had been libelers of the British army, and that they were dangerous in the garrison of Gibraltar. He had also mentioned that there had existed between this country and Spain a sort of compact, that persons who had been guilty of very atrocious crimes should reciprocally be given up; and on inquiring into this subject, some other important facts, Mr. Whitbread said, had come to his knowledge, which had convinced him that persons in authority at Gibraltar, at various times, had lent themselves too much to forward the plans of the ruling powers of Spain.

Upon matters like these it became the House of Commons to express a decided opinion, that the world might know in what detestation it held such conduct. It was true, that, before the treaty of Amiens, there was an understanding with Spain, that all criminals, such as murderers, robbers, and deserters, should be mutually resigned, with the condition that the deserters should not be punished. In favour of some individuals, this agreement had not been strictly observed; for a baker at Cadiz, who had murdered a magistrate at his bench, and had then taken refuge in Gibraltar, was not given up on demand: in another instance, the count de Tilly was given up to the ruling party a few years ago, as well as some prisoners who had been taken in South America, and had escaped from Ceuta to Gibraltar: in another case, between 300 and 400 peasants, who had sought protection, were put into the power of the existing authorities of Spain. All these acts were contrary to justice; and it might be almost said, that it was fortunate that the present complaint had originated, since it would lead to inquiry and reformation upon this important point. He could see nothing to excuse, or even to extenuate, the conduct of Sir James Duff; making himself, as he did, the active instrument of the Spanish government. A most signal instance of misconduct was given on the sailing of a convoy for England; and in order to prevent the escape of a single Spaniard to this country, he issued orders, and summoning the captain of every vessel, compelled them to make oath that they had not a native of the country on board. So effectual were his measures that only one man did escape, of the name of Estrada, who was now in Great Britain. This intelligence was obtained from the best authority it was a fact which showed that sir James Duff had acted in defiance of every principle of justice, in defiance of his own character, and of the character of the country he represented. [Hear, hear!] Upon the subject of the two persons whose case was now before the House, all that was known was, that to a question regarding them, put by a noble viscount (Morpeth) on the 22nd of July last, "lord Castlereagh had denied the public authority upon which he was interrogated, and disclaimed any knowledge of the fact: yet, on the 24th of the same month, lord Bathurst had written to general Smith, the governor of Gibraltar, requiring explanation. He did not mean to contradict the noble lord (Castlereagh), but the interval between his denial and lord Bathurst's letter was certainly very short. And when the question was repeated to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the beginning of the present session, he had entirely forgotten the subject. Circumstances certainly bore the construction that some support or approbation had been given to these measures by ministers, but he hoped that they would satisfactorily explain their conduct. When the matter was before the House on the former day, another right hon. gentleman (Mr. Pole) had requested that in this case, if possible, the interference of parliament might be dispensed with; but although the House might not in this case interfere for good, it was necessary to take care that the agents of government did not interfere for evil. Mr. Whitbread concluded with moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this House, copies of all communications made by the British consul at Cadiz to the officer commanding the fortress of Gibraltar on or about the month of May last, touching certain Spanish subjects supposed to have taken refuge in that garrison; together with an account of the proceedings of the officer in command at Gibraltar thereupon; and extracts from any correspondence between the said officer and his Majesty's government respecting the same."

said, the hon. gentleman had, in the course of his speech, entered very largely into the conduct of the Spanish government. Now, as this country had nothing whatever to do with the internal affairs of Spain, he should make no observations on the remarks that related to them. This, however, he should state, that it would be grossly calumnious to suppose that the government of this country ever abetted any of those acts of oppression which the hon. gentleman had reprobated. Whatever they did was directly on the other side: They had always endeavoured to afford protection to the oppressed; they never had lent themselves to afflict the Spanish population. With respect to the transaction to which the hon. gentleman had called the attention of the House, he would not enter at any length into it, as all the circumstances with which it was connected might be examined without any detriment to the public service; for this purpose, government were ready to produce such copies and extracts of documents as would give the House full information on the subject. He knew that the feelings of the House were always deeply interested, wherever a complaint of oppression was made: nothing, he knew, was more natural for them than to be guided, on such occasions, by those principles of humanity and benevolence which formed a distinguishing trait in the British character; and therefore it was not surprising that the statement of the hon. gentleman had created a powerful sensation.

He should now, as briefly as possible, advert to the circumstances which had given rise to the present motion. At the end of June last, lord Bathurst, for the first time, learned that certain Spanish refugees at Gibraltar had been given up. In consequence of which, his lordship, in the month of July, sent out a dispatch, cautioning the governor of that fortress, major general Smith, against any repetition of such conduct. [Here he begged leave to read an extract from his lordship's letter.] The letter was dated the 24th of July, and the part of it which referred to this transaction, set forth in substance" That it had been stated to his lordship, that general Smith had given up certain Spanish subjects to the governor of Cadiz, without having consulted the British ambassador at Madrid on the propriety of the measure; the persons thus given up not having been guilty of murder, or of any other enormous offence. His lordship was unwilling, as the statement might have been exaggerated, to offer any comment upon it; but wished general Smith to forward to him any correspondence which might have taken place, between him (the general) and the governor of Cadiz, or any other person, on the subject. And that he might not be hereafter misled by the urgency of similar representations, his lordship had the Prince Regent's commands to inform him that he should not give up any person in future, without first having a communication with the British ambassador at Madrid." The dispatch was answered by general Smith, on the 31st of August, 1814, who wrote, "that he had the honour to acknowledge the receipt of his lordship's dispatch of the 24th of July; in answer to which he begged leave to state, that, on the 18th of May last, he received the two enclosed letters; the one from the governor of Cadiz, the other from sir James Duff" Here, said the right hon. gentleman, it would perhaps be the best mode to read the letters alluded to. That from the governor of Cadiz, was written in the Spanish style of hyperbole, and it would therefore be merely necessary to go through a part of it. This letter bore date the 16th of May, and stated in substance, "that the governor of Cadiz, possessing information that there were in that city certain turbulent persons, who, being moved by evil passions, endeavoured, by their writings and conversation, to inflame the public mind, had given orders for their arrest, but that they had succeeded in making their escape. Amongst these was one Carrea, one Cabrera, one Puigblanc, and other similar characters. The governor, knowing their crimes and the punishments they deserved, hoped his excellency general Smith would see the necessity, should they take refuge in the fortress which he commanded, of delivering them up to the disposal of the governor-general, or else of sending them directly to Cadiz; by which means he would render an essential service both to his country and to the Spanish government." In consequence of this letter, the persons in question were given up; for it would be seen by the letter of sir James Duff, that he had advised the governor not to let them into Gibraltar, but did not call upon him to give them up to the Spanish government. The letter of sir James was dated on the same day with that of the governor of Cadiz, and was to the following effect:—"I have to acquaint your excellency, that the following persons have either left or are about to leave Cadiz. It is probable they will proceed to Gibraltar; should that be the case, you will do, with respect to them, what you judge best. The persons are, Cabrera, the author of several seditious publications; Don Antonio Puigblanc, author of "The Inquisition Unmasked"—[Hear, hear!] Lopez, the editor of the Duende, a paper which contained repeated calumnies against the British troops, and many other scurrilous libels; and Carrea, the author of various similar publications. It is probable that these persons may be followed by others of the same description."

The right hon. gentleman having gone through the enclosures, now proceeded with the remainder of general Smith's letter. It went on in substance thus: "A short time after the receipt of these letters, I heard that two persons had, by fictitious names, made their way into the garrison without my permission. In consequence, I gave orders for their immediate arrest. They were taken up in the course of a few hours, and they proved to be two of the persons described in the advices I had received. I then directed a letter to be sent to sir James Duff, apprizing him of the circumstance; and soon afterwards the Spanish governor wrote to me, demanding the persons arrested. They were, in consequence, given up. I now beg leave to explain my motives for so doing. In February last, I received a letter with a similar request as that con- tained in the communication from the governor of Cadiz, in obedience to which certain persons were taken up. Having been but a few weeks in the command, and not knowing any reason for acting differently, I adhered to a practice which, as I understood, had been uniformly and reciprocally pursued by the two governments. These considerations will, I trust, satisfactorily account for my conduct towards the governor of Cadiz. The injunctions contained in your lordship's letter shall be strictly complied with."—With respect, continued the right hon. gentleman, to the other transaction mentioned in general Smith's letter, government, on hearing it, immediately ordered an application to be made to the Spanish court, and the parties were in consequence liberated.

. When was this?

answered, in the month of August last, soon after lord Bathurst had sent out the instructions to general Smith. As far, therefore, as the government at home were concerned, he hoped the House would see, by lord Bathurst's letter, that they had acted with propriety; and, as far as the circumstances permitted them to interfere, had prevented the Spanish court from acting contrary to the law of nations. With respect to the conduct of general Smith, he did not mean to justify it; but the error was one which very naturally arose from the state of the general practice that prevailed, and from the caution with which the affairs of the garrison were administered. Even in time of peace, if a foreigner arrived at Gibraltar, he was obliged to go to a particular office to procure a permit, enabling him to remain there; and persons taken up without such permission, became subject to military examination; and if nothing appeared against them, were ordered to depart in peace. He admitted, that general Smith should have permitted those Spaniards to depart in peace; and, in not doing so, he had acted erroneously. He thought the House would hardly be of opinion, that, in the garrison of Gibraltar, they ought to receive persons who were suspected by their own government. Surely, if the Isle of Wight were in possession of another power, the governor would not be permitted to make it a depôt for all persons who were obnoxious to this government. The recurrence of any circumstance like that complained of by the hon. member could not take place in future. With respect to all the other points of the case, the House would have a distinct and deliberate opportunity of examining them when the papers were printed; and therefore he thought he should be acting wrong, if he went into any farther statement. He had done enough to them, that no act of oppression took place with the concurrence of this government; and that they lost no time, when the occurrence came to their knowledge, to apply a remedy which would prevent such a transaction in future. The right hon. gentleman concluded by expressing his acquiescence in the motion provided the word 'copies' was altered to 'extracts.'

inveighed strongly against the conduct of sir James Duff. No man, he said, deserved the name, much less the character of Briton, who could lend himself to such abominable proceedings. General Smith might have been betrayed into error; but sir James Duff could plead no such excuse. What defense did he offer? That, when the murderer was pursuing his victims, he had only ordered the door to be shut against them! No proposition was ever so monstrous as that advocated by the right hon. gentleman, that, when individuals were prosecuted by their government, no refuge was to be afforded them. Such a principle might suit the policy of Ferdinand, but was utterly unworthy of a free government.

observed, that there was scarcely a syllable uttered by the hon. gentleman in making the present motion, in which he did not agree. The hon. gentleman could not feel more deeply for the sufferings of the persons who had been given up, than his Majesty's ministers did; who, the moment they heard of the circumstance, took every method to prevent the recurrence of such an event. He would not have said a word on the present occasion, if it were not for what fell from him on a former night, in answer to what was observed by the hon. member, who seemed to think that his Majesty's ministers were privy, or rather friendly, to what had been done by king Ferdinand since his return from captivity. He wished on that occasion to give this insinuation the most decided negative the English language could afford. He had himself passed ten days at Madrid, since the return of Ferdinand; and was pretty well acquainted with the state of affairs in that country. But he owned his astonishment was such, when he heard the suggestion, that he began to fear there was some lurking reason on which it was founded. He had, however, that day examined very minutely the whole of the correspondence of the British ministers at the court of Madrid, from the time of his first meeting Ferdinand at Valencia, up to the period when that monarch revived the Inquisition; and he could assure the House, that not one opportunity had been avoided of setting his face against every act that was directed against the liberties of the people. There was nothing in the shape of representation or entreaty which the ambassador had not employed on such topics, nor would he ever act otherwise. Was it to be supposed that the person who had been on the spot throughout the whole contest, who had traversed the country, and seen the exertions of the people to expel their invaders; who had stimulated, encouraged, and gloried in those exertions, and who had the same blood in his veins as the conqueror who had led that people to victory; was it to be supposed that he, who had been so active in putting down the tyranny of Buonaparté, would lend his connivance to establish an almost equally iniquitous and horrible despotism? So far from this, he would assert, that even if it were possible that he could have been desired to abet any such repugnant measures, he would have resigned his situation sooner than have complied with such instructions,

said, he had heard with great pleasure the consoling assurances given by gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. He was not surprised at the energy displayed by the last speaker; but no imputation had been thrown upon the conduct of his illustrious relation, who, it appeared, had done all in his power to stop the progress of the system of tyranny that was now re-establishing in Spain. It was necessary for him, however, to remark upon what had fallen from the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was an abomination to the House of Commons. He had contended, that persons were still to be given up at Gibraltar—that they were not entitled to the protection of Great Britain; if so, why was not the conde Torino delivered over to his implacable enemies? He had no more claim upon British protection here, than the other individuals had upon British protection at Gibraltar. All persons were not given up: the brother of the day of Algiers, who was charged with treason, murder, and other crimes, was protected; and other exceptions might be produced. The unfortunate individuals, one of whom had committed no offence, and the other written a book against the horrible Inquisition, were to be put into the hands of these merciless tormentors; they were to be consigned to dungeons, like the unfortunate Valdez and the patriot Arguelles. The disposition of the present government of Spain was almost diabolical: their tyranny was the tyranny of Buonaparté sublimed—sublimed by folly. A tribunal was established at Barcelona, to judge all persons who even spoke upon the affairs of Spain; the sentence was to be executed in twenty-four hours after it was pronounced, while the poor sufferer was imposed upon by the mockery of an appeal to the king at Madrid, a distance that could not be traversed in the time allowed between the pronouncing and execution of the sentence. Was not this enough to raise an insurrection throughout the whole country? Could such a government stand? Impossible! Insurgents would arm themselves in every province; and God assist and protect their sacred cause! God grant that they may destroy this hateful tyranny, and punish such base ingratitude! The tyranny of Buonaparté was justice and mildness compared with that of Ferdinand. Had this gallant nation for six years fought and bled to be thus rewarded? He concluded by calling upon ministers to make further inquiries into the conduct of sir James Duff, with regard to the transaction that was the object of his motion.

found that the hon. gentleman understood what he had stated in so extraordinary a manner that it was necessary he should give some further explanation. The House must feel the importance of such a place as Gibraltar. The possession of that fortress, on the territory of another power, could not fail, even in time of peace, to be an eyesore to that power. It required the greatest management on the part of its government to avoid giving any cause of offence, where offence was so likely to be taken. He did not mean to say that pérsons not criminal should be given up, but he thought it most necessary that the government of Gibraltar should maintain the strictest police, and should abstain as much as possible from uselessly offending that of Spain. As to sir James Duff's supposed conduct, he said nothing, because he knew nothing, and he hoped the hon. gentleman had not ventured on slight information to make his charges on the conduct of that gentleman.

only wished the right hon. gentleman should inform himself on the subject.

The question was then put, and carried.

said, that from some omission in the present acts of parliament which enabled magistrates to search for defective weights and balances, they were left without power to inflict penalties on persons possessing defective measures. His object in rising was to move for leave to bring in a Bill for supplying this defect. In the last session, an hon. member moved for a committee to consider, in a more extended manner, the subject of weights and measures; and the report went into all the branches of the subject, and pointed out a mode of reducing weights and measures to a state of simplicity. The Bill which he intended to introduce, would not at all interfere with any more extensive measure which might be taken in consequence of that report, since it would be applicable under all circumstances. Mr. Whitbread then moved, "That the Acts 35 Geo. 3, c. 102, and 37 Geo. 3, c. 143, for the more effectual prevention of the use of defective weights, and of false and unequal balances, might be read;" and the same being read, he next moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the provisions of the said Acts to false measures."

did not rise to oppose the motion; he wished only to say, that the part of the country which he represented felt highly interested in having the report of the committee on weights and measures carried into execution, as they experienced many inconveniencies from the difference existing in various places in the regulations respecting those objects. He hoped the session would not pass without some measure being proposed on the subject.

assured the House, that it was the intention of the members of the committee to pursue the recommendation of the report Considerable progress had already been made, and in the course of the present session he had no doubt but a satisfactory measure would be proposed on the subject.

Leave was given to bring in a Bill.

rose, for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a Bill "for preventing corrupt and illegal practices, and securing the freedom and purity of election, in the borough of Hoopeston." The hon. gentleman observed, that the necessity for the measure was founded on the report of a committee of that House made in a former Session, and the Bill which he intended to introduce was similar to one which had already been before them.

hoped the hon. gentleman would not press the second reading of the Bill, the provisions of which were not the same with that formerly submitted to them, until after Christmas.

understood the hon. mover to say, that they were precisely similar.

said, the former bill had been thrown out in the Lords, in consequence of an objection made to the preamble. The present Bill, except that this error was removed, was exactly the same as that of last session; therefore he could see no reason for delay.

Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

made some remarks on the novelty of subjecting to excise in Ireland an article not of Irish manufacture, and on the hard situation in which those merchants would be placed by the present Bill, who had imported glass under the encouragement of the former Acts, after having incurred, by freight, breakage, &c. 75 percent loss on their goods. He also objected to the clause which forbade glass to be re-exported from Ireland, except in the original packages, with the excise seals unbroken, since the goods could not have remained in the original packages except in a contemplation of a change of system.

thought it was not necessary strictly to attend to the interest of the glass importers, who had created a monopoly in the Irish market, and who had bought up for that purpose the only glass manufactory in Ireland. Far from suffering a loss, the exporters of glass to Ireland had a drawback exceeding by 15s. 9d. the sum paid by them as duty; and who charged the people of Ireland 7l. for the articles which cost them 2l. The proprietors of glass in Ireland, though of course unwilling to give up their great profits, were not otherwise dissatisfied with the Bill.

After some further conversation, the House resolved into the committee, and the Report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow.