said, he had a Petition to present to the House from Mr. Daniel Lovell, the proprietor of the Statesman newspaper, who had been confined for three years and a half in Newgate. The period for which he was sentenced to be imprisoned had expired some months ago; but he was still in confinement, and was likely to continue so for life, unless the mercy of the crown were extended to him, as he had no means of paying the fine of 500l. which had been imposed upon him, nor of procuring the securities required for his future good behaviour. The Petition was then brought up, and read, as follows:

"To the Honourable and Right Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom in Parliament assembled:—The Petition of Daniel Lovell, a prisoner in Newgate,

"Humbly sheweth,

"That your petitioner, who is the proprietor and publisher of the Statesman newspaper, has suffered an imprisonment in his Majesty's gaol of Newgate of four years, in consequence of convictions and sentences upon three prosecutions, under ex-officio informations, filed by his Majesty's Attorney-General, for offences arising out of the following causes, which your petitioner begs to state to your honourable House:

"That the first prosecution was for copying literally from a morning paper, called The Day, and publishing in the Statesman of the 9th of April, 1810, an account of the tumults in Piccadilly, at the time when sir Francis Burdett was, by the warrant of the Speaker of your honourable House, ordered to be committed to the Tower:

"That your petitioner entered a plea of Not Guilty, under an impression that he had not offended the laws of his country, by the insertion of an article of intelligence relating to the conduct of the military upon that occasion, and which was reported to be true: your petitioner had received several letters corroborating such a report, and would have produced evidence to that effect, had he not been informed by Mr. Harry Phillips, one of the proprietors and chief manager of The Day newspaper, the original source of the article in question, that he had reason to believe, from his own private information, that the prosecution would not be pushed to an extremity; in consequence of which, he had advised the solicitor to suffer judgment by default against the printer and publisher of The Day:

"That your petitioner, therefore, relying on this information, was induced to withdraw his plea, and suffer judgment to go by default:

"That your petitioner was called up for judgment, together with the printer and publisher of The Day, and they were all sentenced to twelve months imprisonment in Newgate:

"That the editor of The Day was also prosecuted for the same offence; but, when called up for judgment, he declared, that the political principles of the paper were changed, and had become ministerial, and that he (Mr. Roche) had never approved of the opposite line of politics espoused by the paper, and therefore he hoped the court would be lenient in passing judgment upon him. The sentence on Mr. Roche was, that he should be confined nine months in the King's-bench prison:

"That the second prosecution was for publishing in The Statesman, of the 17th May, 1810, an advertisement, which had previously appeared in two Manchester papers, charging the commissioners of taxes, for the township of Salford, with employing unnecessary rigour in the exercise of their duty towards one individual:

"That your petitioner entered a plea of Not Guilty of any intentional offence, and intended to take his trial for the alleged libel, when your petitioner was informed, that the prosecution commenced against the proprietors of the two Manchester papers had been discontinued, or never was intended to be further carried on against them, they having made an apology to the commissioners, which had been deemed satisfactory; and that your petitioner was advised by Mr. Wm. Cowdroy, one of the persons prosecuted, to follow his example, under a persuasion that it would be accepted by the commissioners:

"That your petitioner, conceiving that a manifestation on his part of publicly evincing an earnest desire to do justice to all parties, would have weight with the commissioners in petitioner's favour, accordingly withdrew the plea, and suffered judgment to go by default, casting himself upon the lenity of the commissioners, to whom he dispatched a messenger, for the express purpose of delivering a letter, addressed to Mr. Otho Hulme, one of the said commissioners, containing an apology, and offering to make a public atonement, if required; and that your petitioner was informed by his agent, that the said Mr. Otho Hulme had expressed himself perfectly satisfied with such apology, and should endeavour to prevail upon his colleagues to accept the same, and stop the prosecution:

"That your petitioner did, in a few days afterwards, receive another letter from his agent in Manchester, stating that he had waited upon Mr. Otho Hulme again by appointment, and had received for answer, that he, Mr. Hulme, had not been able to prevail upon his colleagues to accept the apology proposed; but, on the contrary, that they were resolved to let the law take its course:

"That your petitioner did accordingly receive notice to appear for judgment, when the court sentenced him to twelve months' imprisonment in Newgate:

"That the proprietors of the two Manchester papers were not called up for judgment, nor has any sentence been since passed upon them for the same offence, although they were the first to publish the said advertisement:

"That the third prosecution was for the publication of a letter in The Statesman, of the 19th of March, 1812, charging the commissioners of the Transport Board with misconduct towards the French prisoners of war in England:

"That the said letter was published without the knowledge and consent of your petitioner, as proved by the affidavits of the editor and printer, who then had the management of the paper, and which was corroborated by petitioner's own affidavit:

"That your petitioner made several apologies, both of a public and private nature, to the honourable commissioners of the Transport Board, under a firm persuasion that such apologies, as they were calculated to satisfy the public mind, of the incorrectness of any unfavourable misrepresentation which petitioner had unintentionally been made the instrument of propagating, would, at least, have been received in mitigation of punishment, under the peculiar circumstances in which your petitioner was placed by his confinement in Newgate, which had subjected him to the responsibility of the insertion of the offensive article, over which, at the time, he had no control:

"That your petitioner suffered judgment by default, and was called up to receive the sentence of the court, which was, that your petitioner should be confined 18 months in his Majesty's gaol of Newgate, and pay a fine to the King of 500l., and to find two sureties in the amount of 500l. each, and himself in 1,000l. to be of good behaviour for three years:

"That the term of your petitioner's adjudged imprisonment expired on the 26th of May last, since which period your petitioner has been confined on account of his inability to pay the fine, and give the sureties required:

"That your petitioner is greatly embarrassed in his circumstances, owing to the heavy losses occasioned by the long period of confinement, which has prevented him from superintending, in person, his own concerns, and subjected him to a numerous train of equally distressing privations and afflictions:

"That your petitioner has laboured for some time past under severe attacks of an asthmatic and pulmonary complaint, which have been greatly increased by his long imprisonment, and the health of your petitioner in other respects is much impaired; all of which allegations petitioner is prepared to prove, by evidence, if required, at the bar of your honourable House:

"That your petitioner having thus presumed to submit his case to the attention of your honourable House, confidently relies on its justice and humanity to afford him that relief which to its wisdom shall seem fit; and your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray,"

, in moving that this Petition should lie on the table, which was the only motion he at this time intended to make, could not help calling the attention of the House to the extreme hardship of the petitioner's case. He thought there was no man (however anxious he might feel that the offence of libel should be severely punished), who would not think imprisonment for the long period of three years and a half, and that extended, by inability to pay the fine, to nearly four years, was a sufficient expiation for almost any libel, however atrocious. In two instances, the articles which the petitioner had published were copied from other newspapers; and, in one instance, a strange partiality appeared on the face of the proceedings. An article copied from a Manchester paper had brought severe punishment on Mr. Lovell, while the original author and editor of it had not been called up for judgment, on their doing what Mr. Lovell had done, offering an apology, and suffering judgment to go by default. In the third instance in which he had been prosecuted, he stated himself never to have seen the libel for which he was tried till after it was published, having been inserted without his knowledge, while he, from being in confinement, and was unable to superintend his publication. But notwithstanding this, after suffering a two years imprisonment, Mr. Lovell had been called up for judgment, and sentenced to be further imprisoned one year and a half, to pay a fine of 500l. to the King, and to find securities for keeping the peace for three years, himself to be bound in 1,000l. and two other persons in 500l. each. He was aware that that House was not the place to which a person in Mr. Lovell's situation should apply, in the first instance, for remission of punishment, as it was not in their power to grant it; but he had to inform them, that this unfortunate person had made an application to the Secretary of State, at a time when his health was so impaired that his life was in danger; but though this was certified by a physician in the regular way, lord Sidmouth, under all the circumstances of the case, had declined to interfere. He had then submitted a petition to the lords of the Treasury; but this, after a lapse of many weeks, remained un-answered. Having stated these circumstances, it was for the advisers of the crown to consider if the case of Mr. Lowell was not one in which they would do well to recommend an extension of the royal clemency—to remit the fine, and dispense with the required securities. He knew this person was still the proprietor of a newspaper, and therefore it might be urged that it was in his power to pay the 500l. But he had made inquiries on this head, and Mr. Lovell had declared, that if he possessed the money, or could by any means procure such a sum, at his time of life, and after the confinement he had endured, he would part with his last shilling to get restored to that liberty of which he had been deprived so long, and which, from the injury his health had sustained, he could not, in all probability, enjoy for a very extended period. In a letter to him, Mr. Lovell had made such an exposure of his circumstances (it might not be fitting that he should read this letter), that to him it appeared he remained in Orison, not from unwillingness, but from absolute inability to pay the fine. Mr. Whitbread said, he had now done his duty to the unfortunate petitioner and to the public, in bringing this subject under the consideration of the House. It was for the legal advisers of the crown to consider whether this was not an occasion on which they could recommend the extension of that mercy which he thought the case imperiously demanded.

observed, that it must always be a painful task to say any thing that might indispose the House to an indulgent consideration of any petition. It was not for him, holding the office he did, to suggest advice in cases of this description, before it should be required. There were two or three of the hon. gen- tleman's statements which he wished merely to correct, and to show, in point of fact, what the reasons were which had restrained the exercise of mercy in this case. The hon. gentleman had spoken of the imprisonment of Mr. Lovell for three years and a half, in such a manner, that those who had not carefully attended to the whole of his speech, might so far misunderstand him, as to suppose that this sentence had followed one conviction.

complained of this statement, as he had enumerated the several offences for which Mr. Lovell had been punished.

knew he had done this, and that those who had carefully attended to the whole of his speech could not fall into the error; but still the manner in which he had treated the subject was such, that by some he might be misunderstood on this point. Mr. Lovell was convicted of a libel in 1807, and sentenced to be imprisoned in the King's-bench; yet after this he had been convicted a second, and a third, and a fourth time, of a similar offence. [It was here observed, that Mr. Lovell had been tried but three times.] The hon. and learned gentleman repeated, that four convictions had taken place. He had been convicted of a libel in Trinity Term 1807, and sentenced to pay a fine of 50l. and be committed to the custody of the marshal of the King's-bench for one calendar month, and to give security for keeping the peace for the next three years, himself in 500l. and two securities in 250l. each. While under these recognizances, in Easter Term 1810, he had been convicted of a libel on the commissioners of the Property Tax. The hon. gentleman had said there was a strange partiality displayed in respect to the original editor and author for which Mr. Lovell had been punished. He would explain the circumstances alluded to. It was true that the editor of the Manchester paper had not been punished: on being called upon by the commissioners, he had given up the author of the article, and made such an apology as was deemed by them satisfactory. The Attorney General of that day (he himself had not the honour then to be in office), had no object but to protect the commissioners, and, so that they were satisfied, did not consider it his duty to proceed against all who had been in any way concerned in the publication of the libel. But the hon. gentleman was misinformed with respect to the au- thor. He was prosecuted, and had been punished. In the case of Mr. Lovell, his apology (if he made any) was not satisfactory to the commissioners, and they had called upon the crown to proceed against him. He was then sentenced to twelve months imprisonment, and ordered again to give security for three years, himself in 500l. and two others in 250l. each. The next libel for which he was punished, was one reflecting on the conduct of the troops employed in Piccadilly, at the time an hon. baronet was committed by that House to the Tower. Of the publication of this libel, it was said Mr. Lovell knew nothing till it had gone forth to the world. This, it was well known, could not in law remove from him that responsibility which attached to him as proprietor and publisher of a newspaper, which, while he was in confinement, was thus made the vehicle of calumny, from which he derived a profit. In the Michaelmas Term, 1812, Mr. Lovell was proceeded against for a paper on the subject of the treatment of prisoners of war in this country. A more mischievous and flagitious libel than this—one more likely to produce dangerous consequences to our fellow countrymen, then prisoners of war in France, could not be imagined. He was not there to justify the judgments passed on Mr. Lovell, those from whom they proceeded needed not vindication from him, as it was universally known, that justice tempered with mercy uniformly attend their decisions; but he would say, such a libel could not lightly be passed over. For that he had been sentenced to be imprisoned one year and a half, to pay a fine of 500l. to the King, and to give security for his future good behaviour, himself in 1,000l. and two others in 500l. each. With respect to the circumstances of Mr. Lovell, he, on inquiry, had found he still possessed the property of the Statesman. This was a profitable concern (he spoke of newspapers generally); and not only was Mr. Lovell able to conduct this paper while in prison, but he had set up a new weekly one, called 'The Constitution.' Yet possessing these, he stated himself unable to pay the fine. He (the Attorney General) submitted, that where a person was unable to pay the fine imposed upon him, and had remained in prison beyond the period named in his sentence, it might become the duty of the advisers of the crown to say, "the time is now arrived when the clemency of the crown may be properly displayed." But, in the case of this individual, it had been seen that repeated sentences had had no effect on his conduct. He had still the means of circulating his libels in his hands, which he had retained during the whole period of his confinement in Newgate. He could not give securities for his future good conduct. These were called for, not to punish him, but to protect the public peace; and they were now told by Mr. Lovell himself, that no two persons would come forward to answer for him. Under these circumstances, if he were called upon by the crown for his advice, he must of necessity state, that the court in the case of this individual had found that a lenient punishment had not the effect of imposing any salutary restraint on his conduct, and severity had been found necessary. Wishing, as he sincerely did, that the punishment of every one should be as lenient as possible, consistently with the public security, there was a great difficulty in recommending it to the crown, to give up those securities which the supreme court of judicature had considered Indispensably necessary; and necessary from the circumstance of former punishments having failed to impose a proper restraint on this individual. These considerations threw difficulties in the way of giving that advice to the crown which the hon. gentleman wished to be given. He, for one, should be glad if they could be satisfactorily removed.

could not help saying, that the observations of the hon. and learned gentleman were such as would have done him more credit delivered to a tribunal, before passing of sentence, than in that House, in answer to an application for mercy at the end of nearly four years imprisonment. It was almost impossible not to suppose that the sentence in this case must have appeared extravagantly severe by the court who inflicted it. What offence was there on earth for which a three years and a half lingering imprisonment was not a sufficient explanation? What human transgression was there which could merit a severer treatment? A sentence of death was mercy when compared with it. But what was the offence for which this severe punishment had been awarded? It was one which unavoidably grew out of a free government. The freedom of discussion, without which no country could be free, made it frequently a difficult matter to avoid the commission of what was termed a libel. The laws on the subject of libel were of such a nature that they were frequently more honoured in the breach than the observance." But, whatever might be the policy of the law, the imprisonment in this case had already continued beyond even the long term of the sentence; and the question now was, whether a period should not at last be put to the sufferings of this unfortunate man. He hoped that at some future period of the session, if a period were not put to his imprisonment, the subject would again be brought before the House, and that his hon. friend would not relax in his efforts.

said, the hon. gentleman opposite would do well to take this case under consideration, and recommend a compliance with the prayer of the petition. It was not usual for the House to interfere with the sentences of judicial tribunals, but it was authorised in doing so when there was an appearance of unnecessary rigour or injustice. This interference was not at present craved—a petition for mercy, on the plea of long and extraordinary suffering, was what called for attention, as no other means for the attainment of relief had proved effectual; and all that the House had to do was merely to give expression to their wishes, and these he thought should be in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Lovell's case was confessed to be a hard one; he might deserve the name of a turbulent man, but that was matter of opinion. He himself, Ice suspected, was considered by the gentlemen opposite rather a turbulent person; and so perhaps might all the gentlemen on his side of the. House; but that was only matter of opinion with the other side. There was, however, too great a disposition with these gentlemen to consider all who differed in opinion with them of a turbulent cast; but the exercise of authority in suppression of political sentiments, or relating to any thing connected with the preservation of the rights of men, was not to be silently regarded. He could not but deprecate the way in which those who were held to be guilty of libels were punished. There were some species of punishments awarded to persons pronounced offenders in this particular, which certainly were worse than death. For in many cases, these persons, who were generally men of education, were treated as the worst of felons, and made companions of the most dissolute and reprobate criminals; nay, they were often made to suffer an addition of punishment, which was never contemplated, as gaolers sometimes thought it meritorious to add every severity in their power to the sentence of the law. He did not mean to say that this was the case in the instance of the present petitioner, but he knew of such cases of hardship. The hon. baronet mentioned the cases of Mr. Cobbett being at first put among the felons in Newgate, and that of Mr. Finnerty's treatment at the castle of Lincoln. This place, from its comparative extent and advantage of situation, was fixed on as one where the prisoner might naturally expect to enjoy as great comforts as were compatible with his imprisonment; but what was intended as mercy to the prisoner, was, through the rigour of the gaoler and the interference of tyrannical magistrates, converted into a punishment infinitely beyond what was in the contemplation of the Judge at the time when the sentence was passed. To this fact he could speak from his acquaintance with that part of the country. He had no difficulty in saying, that endeavours were but too often used to render the situation of persons suffering for libel as uncomfortable as possible; and that too often there was a rigour extended beyond the law. He thought that government would do well to apportion a part of the immense resources they had at their disposal, to the erection of a prison, to which persons confined for libel might be sent, instead of being mingled with the common herd of vile and wretched malefactors. With respect to the petition now presented by his hon. friend, he should not attempt to injure its merits by any observations of his own, but should be satisfied with earnestly recommending it to the consideration of ministers.

observed, that the hon. baronet had made a mistake when he stated Mr. Cobbett to have been classed among the felons in Newgate. Mr. Cobbett had carried on the publication of his paper during the whole period of his confinement, and had shared in all the indulgences which were ever allowed to other persons in his situation. In the course of his duty as a magistrate, he had visited the room in which Mr. Lovell was confined; and he believed, from other particulars which had come within his knowledge, he could speak to the petitioner's situation. From all that he perceived or could learn regarding Mr. Lovell's affairs, he was convinced he was unable to pay the fine inflicted upon him. He was certainly not living in affluence; he had nothing but articles of common necessity about him, and his circumstances, he was persuaded, were those of a distressed person, which was not surprising at the end of four years confinement. From the conversation which he had had with Mr. Lovell, be was firmly of opinion that, were it in his (the petitioner's) power to raise the fine, he would readily lay it down to procure his liberation; and that being the case, he was of opinion that the sentence ought to be mitigated. He believed Mr. Lovell was not looked upon by those who knew him, as so dangerous a character as that he could not procure some sort of security for his good behaviour. Let his Majesty's government remit the fine, and content themselves with security to the extent of 200l., and it would, he had no doubt, be obtained. He had seen several letters in the possession of Mr. Lovell, in which the writers, highly to their honour, offered to raise the money requisite to pay his fine by subscription, on receiving an assurance that he would abstain from offences of a libellous nature in future. He was well assured that it was not in his power, except by a subscription of that sort, ever to regain his liberty. He should hope that this would induce his Majesty's government to mitigate the punishment by remitting the fine, when they considered too that he had already suffered an additional imprisonment of five or six months.

observed, that all judicial characters concurred in the doctrine of the Bill of Rights, that excessive fines ought not to be inflicted. If reference were made to the court previous to the promulgation of its sentence, of the inability of the party to meet a pecuniary mulct, the court were bound to forego that part of the sentence. It was generally agreed, that the present petitioner was suffering under the infliction of an excessive fine, which he was wholly unable to pay; he had already suffered five or six months beyond the expiration of a long imprisonment inflicted by the court. With respect to the sureties, there was nothing in which a court should be more particularly careful. If it inflicted a demand beyond the capability of the party, it became guilty of a positive hardship; and in the present case, both the fine and sureties were of that description, as far as the statements went; and if those were not wholly discredited, the petitioner was obviously entitled to merciful consideration.

thought the only consideration necessary to be attended to in the case of such a determined libeller as Mr. Lovell was, whether the time of his imprisonment since that prescribed by the sentence, was such as to be deemed sufficient to countervail the quantum of punishment intended by the fine. But the fine was the least consideration in this petitioner's case. If he could not find securities for his good behaviour, to remit the fine was useless; and what must be the character of a man in Mr. Lovell's situation in life, who could not find two persons to answer for his future conduct?

shortly replied. He believed Mr. Lovell could not pay the fine, and that if his imprisonment were continued much longer, it would be likely to terminate in his death. He again expressed an anxious hope that mercy would be extended to him. In moving that the Petition should lie on the table, it was his hope that there it would continue to lie, and that its prayer would be attended to.

The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.

rose, and spoke as follows:—The House need not be informed, Sir, that yesterday a notice was given of a renewed discussion relative to the proceedings of the Court-martial on colonel Quentin, and the conduct of government towards the officers of the 10th regiment of light dragoons. I was not aware, at that time, that I was at all implicated by the paper to which the hon. colonel alluded; but when it was afterwards put into my hands, I found that my conduct had been called into question to the full as much as that of the hon. colonel. So far I differ from him upon this occasion, that I think the sooner that paper^* is noticed the better; and for that purpose I beg leave to call the attention of the House to a subject on which, considering the part I have taken, it may naturally be supposed that my feelings are very much alive. It is a paper of which I do not mean to complain, in the harsh sense of the word. I know that all public men are liable to animadversion; and had it purported to be the opinion of the editor of The Courier, the journal in which it was published, I should not have troubled the House upon this occasion; but the document is given as from authority, and although I do not mean to state what that authority is, under the circumstances, I suppose there is not a gentleman present who does not feel certain that it is no ordinary authority. It gives a contradiction to a statement I felt it my duty to make to the House, of facts which I adduced in support of my argument, as to the hard situation in which the officers of the 10th Hussars were placed by the conduct of government. The passage to which I particularly advert, is the following:—"In the same paper, Mr. Tierney is made to say, that colonel Quentin applied to the officers at the mess, demanding, as he stated, by the authority of the Regent, that the letter should be delivered to him; but this demand was not complied with; and upon reference to the Regent, it was found that no such authority had been given to him. That, on a subsequent audience, the Regent demanded this letter from Colonel Palmer, and it was accordingly surrendered to his Royal Highness, through whom it found its way to the Horse Guards and colonel Quentin.' And Mr. Tierney is also made to say, That colonel Robarts, for the gallantry and good conduct of the regiment under his auspices, while subject to the inspection of the duke of Wellington, had been raised to the rank of lieutenant-colonel, from his station of major.'" As to the latter words of the paragraph, I do not comprehend what is the difference between what I am represented as having said, and the subsequent statement given from authority. If it be thought that I meant to deny the kindness of his Royal Highness towards the officer named, my relation, I was certainly misunderstood, because I expressly added, that nothing could make me forget the sentiments of gratitude that ought to be felt. It is asserted, from authority, that colonel Robarts was raised to the rank of lieutenant-colonel by the unsolicited favour of the Prince Regent, to whom, as colonel of the 10th Hussars, he presented himself immediately on his return from the Peninsula. The fact is, that there had been an action, in which colonel Robarts had distinguished himself; but, at the same time, I admit that it was an act of favour on the part of the Prince Regent: I never have, and never will deny it. It is only mentioned in this account from authority, to show that I was endeavouring to detract from the kindness of his Royal Highness on this occasion, when, but for the favour of his Royal Highness, colonel Robarts would not have been promoted. The truth is, I have understood, from several military gentlemen, that where an officer has had the command of a regiment, and had so distinguished himself as to induce the commander of the forces to mention his name in the dispatches, it is the uniform practice to advance that officer one step in rank. But, whether this be or be not the rule, it makes no difference, since colonel Robarts had, until this affair, received many marks of the kindness and favour of the Prince Regent. As to the former part of the paragraph which I read, I am most anxious that the House should be made distinctly to understand, that I did not, at least wilfully, state any fact on the former night which was not borne out by the evidence. I know that, in making my statement, I trod on extremely delicate ground; but I trust the House will do me the justice to think that I did not bring forward as fact, that which I did not believe to be so, or without sufficient evidence, which, if called upon, I could adduce. The thing denied by me is, that this letter was, by the desire of the officers of the regiment, given to the Prince Regent. I re-affirm it: I maintain that the letter was not given by colonel Palmer to the Prince Regent at the desire of the officers. The direct contrary was the fact, for the officers of the 10th were most anxious that the letter should not be given to his Royal Highness. I re-affirm, that when colonel Quentin made the demand for the letter as from the Prince Regent, the officers refused; and I call upon my gallant friend behind me (colonel Palmer) to state, whether he had any authority to give the letter to the Prince Regent, and whether he was not, on the contrary, desired to consider the letter as cancelled? Whether, although it had been signed, they did not wish to withdraw it? This is a most material part of the transaction, because upon this, give me leave to say, turns the whole evidence against the officers. There is nothing but that letter, which some persons have called a round-robin, against Colonel Quentin. The order from the Horse Guards states, that the whole proceeding originates in that letter, which would not, and could not have been produced, if that conduct had been pursued, which it was supposed would have been pursued. I therefore call upon the hon. gentleman to state, whether, when Colonel Quentin made an application to the officers to give up the letter, having, as he said, the command of the Prince Regent to require it, the officers did not unanimously refuse to resign it? Is it, or is it not the fact, that Colonel Palmer did afterwards go with the letter to the Prince Regent, by whom he was commanded to give it up, and without which command he would not have resigned the possession of it? The consequence was that the letter was put into the hands of Colonel Quentin, and the officers were visited by the dreadful punishment which has since been inflicted upon them. I wish the House distinctly to understand, that what I asserted on a former night, is borne out by the fact, that the officers never did consent that the letter should be delivered to the Prince Regent; on the contrary, that they wished it to be considered as if the letter had never been written. The truth is, that his Royal Highness being made aware of the existence of such a letter, did command colonel Palmer to give it up; and that his Royal Highness did take the letter from his hands, and did thereby furnish evidence to the prisoner, on which his Royal Highness felt himself justified in passing that most severe sentence upon the officers of the 10th Hussars. It is not my intention, upon this occasion, to go into an argument upon the subject, or to provoke any new discussion: it is the last thing I have in contemplation. I had hoped that there would be no occasion to trouble the House at all; but, placed in my peculiar situation, charged, as I am, "from authority," (and no man can doubt what that authority is, especially when the words are printed in italics), I feel that I am bound in duty to my own character to call upon the hon. colonel to state, whether, in the assertion I made, there is one single syllable which is not established by the fact. As to what passed between the gallant colonel and the Prince Regent, there can be no other testimony but his own. With respect to the officers refusing to deliver up the letter in the mess-room, I can adduce every officer who was present; but what I call upon the hon. colonel to state is, whether he, by desire of the officers of the 10th Hussars, had not put the letter into the possession of the Prince Regent; and whether his Royal Highness did not avail himself of his situation to furnish the prisoner with evidence against the officers by giving up that letter, which was made the foundation of their punishment?

^* The following is a Copy of the Article in the Courier, above referred to:

"With regard to the letter which had been transmitted to his Royal Highness in the first instance, he (colonel Palmer) begged to state, that it had been procured by colonel Quentin on false pretences, and delivered to the Prince Regent by him, as colonel Palmer had been informed by his Royal Highness himself.

"He had become the prosecutor not only by order of the commander in chief, but of the Prince Regent himself. He had never so far committed himself, as he was aware, as to render it necessary.

"In the same paper, Mr. Tierney is made to say, that 'colonel Quentin applied to the officers at the mess, demanding, as he stated, by the authority of the Regent, that the letter should be delivered to him; but this demand was not complied with; and upon reference to the Regent, it was found that no such authority had been given to him. That an a subsequent audience, the Regent demanded this letter from colonel Palmer, and it was accordingly surrendered to his Royal Highness, through whom it found its way to the Horse Guards and colonel Quentin.'

"And Mr. Tierney is also made to say, That colonel Robarts, for the gallantry and good conduct of the regiment under his auspices, while subject to the inspection of the duke of Wellington, had been raised to the rank of lieutenant-colonel, from his station of major.'

"With reference to the latter paragraph, we have authority to state, that colonel Robarts was raised to the rank of lieutenant-colonel by the unsolicited favour of the Prince Regent, to whom, as colonel of the 10th Hussars, he presented himself immediately on his return from

the Peninsula, and by whom a recommendation, that he should have that promotion given to him, as a mark of the sense which his Royal Highness entertained of the gallantry and conduct of that officer, was transmitted to the commander in chief the same day.

"With reference to the other paragraphs, we have also authority to state, that his Royal Highness never informed colonel Palmer, whether the demand made by colonel Quentin, that the letter should be delivered to him, was or was not made under the authority of the Regent.

"Further, that the same letter was not procured by colonel Quentin under false pretences, and delivered by him to the Regent: but that colonel Palmer, in the presence of colonel Quentin and general Bloomfield, being asked by the Regent, whether colonel Quentin was in possession of the letter itself, (the substance of which his Royal Highness had previously understood to have been communicated several days before by colonel Palmer to colonel Quentin,) stated the letter to be in his hands, and that he was desired to deliver it to his Royal Highness: that colonel Palmer did deliver it to his Royal Highness, who immediately read it aloud, together with the letter which is under the signature of colonel Robarts alone, and purports to be written by desire of the officers who signed the first, and which had the same morning reached the Regent: that colonel Quentin immediately demanded a court-martial, with relation to the imputations contained in both the letters; putting his demand, at the time, into the form of an official letter, which he presented to the Regent as his colonel; and that the Regent immediately, in the presence of the officers above named, enclosed the three documents in a cover, and transmitted them to the adjutant-ge-

neral, to be laid before the commander in chief.

"We have also authority to say, that the Prince Regent gave no orders respecting the nomination of colonel Palmer as prosecutor, nor in any shape interfering after he had transmitted the papers above-mentioned to the adjutant-general. That colonel Palmer requested his Royal Highness to make application to the duke of York to rescind the nominations in question; but that his Royal Highness declined, in any way, to take part in the transaction, otherwise than as the channel through which his lieutenant-colonel's application for a court-martial should regularly pass to the commander in chief; his Royal Highness conceiving that colonel Palmer, by communicating, in the first instance, the substance of the officers' letter to colonel Quentin, rendered a court-martial indispensable, either on the demand of the lieutenant-colonel, to whom dishonourable conduct was imputed, or on that of the colonel, who was bound to investigate such an imputation."

stated, that he came down to the House in consequence of a note from his right hon. friend this morning; and, after what he had said, found it necessary to enter into an explanation, which he should have wished to have avoided, until he entered into the whole of the circumstances. With respect to the letter in question, he knew nothing of it until it was delivered to him by the officers of the regiment, to be used at his discretion. He had felt it right, in the first instance, in point of fairness and honour, as any gentleman present would have done under such circumstances, to communicate it to colonel Quentin; but considered that it was a matter of confidence between that officer and himself; nor did he conceive himself farther bound to colonel Quentin than to communicate the complaints of the officers to his Royal Highness, which he did immediately afterwards, as commanding officer in the absence of colonel Quentin; when he thought it his duty to wait upon the Prince Regent to inform his Royal Highness of the state of the regiment, but did not say any thing regarding the letter.—Colonel Quentin was at that time absent, but he unexpectedly returned, and was present during the rest of the conversation. Colonel Palmer said, he was desired to go to the officers of the regiment, and deliver the commands of the Prince Regent, that they should prefer charges against colonel Quentin. While the officers were considering the subject, Colonel Quentin came to the mess-room and demanded the letter. The officers refused, asserting that the letter had not been delivered, and was in effect cancelled. Colonel Quentin then said that he had the order of the Prince Regent that they should deliver it up, and stated his intention of enclosing it to his Royal Highness. The officers replied, that they would not disobey the Prince Regent's commands; but requested Colonel Palmer to go with the letter, and learn expressly from the Regent, whether his Royal Highness had in truth authorized Colonel Quentin to demand it. Colonel Palmer went in consequence, and told his Royal Highness the exact circumstances under which the officers had been induced to give it up; and added that if his Royal Highness demanded the letter, it was at his service. His Royal Highness denied, over and over again, having authorized colonel Quentin to demand the letter; nor would colonel Palmer have parted with it, if the Prince Regent had not asked for it; and it was not to be supposed that he could make a condition with his Royal Highness in presenting it to him, though he should have done so, if he could have entertained the slightest idea that it was to be used to the prejudice of the officers. This letter was certainly read in the presence of colonel Quentin, but not the letter signed by colonel Roberts, as stated in the Courier, for it was not even written at the time, as that was in answer to the Regent's commands to bring forward charges; neither were the whole sent to the commander in chief by the Regent, as he understood colonel Robarts afterwards saw the first letter in the possession of colonel Quentin, and felt inclined to throw it in the fire, considering the means by which it had been obtained. With respect to the Regent's not having interfered in any shape in making him (colonel Palmer) the prosecutor, the hon. member stated, that if he was not absolutely commanded, the Regent had expressed his sentiments and wishes in a way that was tantamount to a command. He had waited on his Royal Highness expressly to say, that he would not undertake the prosecution, though commanded by the duke of York; as be did not conceive his Royal Highness could insist on it, he (colonel Palmer) having been in no way implicated in the business; but that the Regent, in a conversation of nearly two hours, pressed him to it in a way that he could not refuse, by saying, that his declining it would be considered as a desertion of their cause by his brother officers; and in consenting to undertake it, colonel Palmer told his Royal Highness, that he should consider it his duty to exert himself to the utmost to bring home the charges against colonel Quentin, entrusted to him by the officers: the necessity of which the Regent admitted. Colonel Palmer concluded with regretting that his right hon. friend did not approve of postponing the motion on the subject till after the recess; but conceived that the object he had in view would be best obtained by the delay, as it would give him time to circulate the papers, and enable him to lay the case fully and fairly before the public, whom he trusted he should satisfy, that his brother officers had been most harshly and unjustly dealt by.

. It is unnecessary to confirm the statement of the honourable officer, and I hope the House is now satisfied that I was warranted in making the assertions I did make on a former night. The hon. colonel was not desired by the officers to deliver the letter to the Prince; on the contrary, it was strongly resisted by them. So that the statement in the paper is a direct falsehood. It now appears distinctly, that colonel Palmer was not desired to deliver the letter to the Prince Regent, but that it was obtained by his Royal Highness solely by the influence of his high station, by his command that the letter should be delivered up. (Hear, hear!)

only rose to state the circumstances under which the letters in question had been produced before the Court. It was obvious he could know nothing of them until they had appeared in the course of the proceedings. They had been put in by colonel Quentin on his defence, and shewn to the hon. gentleman himself, by whose testimony they had been authenticated, and who had stated to the Court, that it was necessary he should apprize them of the circumstances under which they had been obtained by colonel Quentin. He had listened attentively to the hon. gentleman's statement, both at that time and tonight in the House; and as far as he could charge his memory with it, he thought it was exactly the same, if not as to words, at least entirely so as to substance. He had then said, as he now did, that the letters had been demanded from the officers by colonel Quentin, in the name of his Royal Highness, and that he had ascertained such authority had not been given to colonel Quentin. Mr. M. Sutton said, he only mentioned this, in order to inform the House, that the Court were fully possessed of all the circumstances detailed this evening, when they came to their decision. The hon. gentleman had said, that he hoped, when the subject should again be brought forward, that he (Mr. Manners Sutton) would be prepared with a more satisfactory answer. He regretted, and feared he should then have still to regret, that it was not in his power to make a more satisfactory reply. If he had failed in answering the hon. gentleman, it must have been because he misunderstood the case, and not through a wish of keeping back any thing where there was nothing to conceal.

inquired, whether any motion was to be proposed?

was not aware that any was necessary. Had the statement of which he had complained come only from the other side of the House, he should not have thought it necessary to make any remarks upon it; but purporting to be given from such high authority, it required some reply. That reply, he believed, was satisfactory. [Hear, hear!]

The subject was then dropped.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter the time for submitting to parliament the accounts of the civil list. As the alteration which he wished to make in the law on this head was very simple, few words would suffice to describe it: indeed, it was hardly necessary to preface his motion with any observations, as the object of it was well understood, and he had the satisfaction of knowing it was not likely to be opposed in any quarter. From the late period of the session at which it had been customary to produce the accounts of the civil list, a practical evil had arisen, which it was desirable to correct. Though, when they had the Act before them, various modifications might be made in its provisions, it was at present his intention merely to propose, that the date should be altered at which the papers were to be produced. As the law now stood, when the papers came before the House, there was not suf- ficient time for them to appoint a committee to examine them, and for that committee to report, so that they could deal with them as they might think necessary for the public good in the course of the same session. The Act now in force had been passed in the month of February; and as it was thought desirable that it should take effect as soon as possible after it had passed, it had commenced with the next quarter from the 5th of April. This being the time fixed upon to which the accounts were to be made up, they could not be produced till about a month after; and then a new delay having occurred before the appointment of a committee, it had happened in the two last years, 1812 and 1813, that the report of the committee had not been received in the former till the 7th of July; in the latter their resolutions had not been laid on the table of the House, and ordered to be printed, till the 21st of July. Much of the inconvenience now complained of would be avoided, if the accounts were in future made to the 5th January, instead of the 5th April. He had thought of making provision for the production of the accounts of three quarters of the present year, up to the 5th January 1815; but this, as it would be attended with some difficulty, he had not thought absolutely necessary, and should not persevere in his design. He concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Act of the 52 Geo. 3, c. 6, for making provision for the better support of his Majesty's household, during the continuance of his Majesty's indisposition."

, though he did not consider the inconveniences complained of inevitable under the existing law, was of opinion the subject could be more conveniently brought under the notice of the House, if the accounts were made up to the time named by his hon. friend, instead of that to which they had been usually made up. He had therefore no objection to the motion. But as some inconveniences might have arisen from the accounts for three quarters of the present year being called for, as the right hon. gentleman had thought of doing, he felt obliged to him for abandoning this intention. He, however, wished it at the same time to be understood, there was no indisposition on his part to take the commands of the Prince Regent, to give the accounts for three quarters of the year be, fore the usual time.

agreed to the motion, but did not see there would be any great difficulty in giving the accounts of the civil list up to the 5th of January. Why could they not be made up for the year ending on that day, as it was proposed should be done hereafter? He wished it to be remembered, that he could only feel satisfied with the present motion on an express understanding that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bring down the accounts for the three quarters of the year shortly after the recess. He wished the time at which these would be given to be more distinctly specified than it had yet been that they might not again come round to the old disputed point of what was, or what was not a reasonable time for the production of them. If the right hon. gentleman would say he would cause them to be produced in the month of February, he should be satisfied.

declined pledging himself to any particular time, but to every disposition to consult the wishes and convenience of the House. They should be at any rate produced in the course of the quarter.

thought he had a right to complain of the treatment he received, when, after repeatedly giving way, as he had done, he only asked that the House should in substance have the advantage of the Bill about to be brought in shortly after it shall have passed, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should refuse to do more than promise the accounts he (Mr. T.) had called for in the course of the ensuing quarter. It was not necessary that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should refuse to comply with a request so reasonable, to show that he (Mr. T.) had little or no weight in the House; if the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished for a triumph over him, he had it already; as every one knew very well, that, had not the hon. gentleman near him (Mr. Bankes) taken up the business for him, he could never have succeeded in accomplishing the object he had in view. He had no right to ask that hon. gentleman to, stand by him again; but he was sure if he were to say but half a word for him, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give up his opposition.

had no wish unnecessarily to oppose the right hon. gentleman: all he desired was, not to be tied down to any particular day. He should honourably redeem the pledge he had given, but he wished to be allowed to exercise his discretion as to the precise time.

thought the right hon. gentleman had forgot what he had stated to be the object of his motion on a former night, which was the production of the accounts sufficiently early in the session for a committee to sit on them, and make a report before its close. His right hon. friend had engaged for the papers being forthcoming, and ought he to suffer himself to be farther tied down?

explained. The right hon. gentleman who had just sat down, he remarked, had said, and the assertion was accompanied with a loud cheer, that the month of May was, of all others, the best month for the production of these papers. He again asserted, that nothing could be more easy, as nothing was more reasonable, than to produce these accounts in February. He had no wish to renew the contest with ministers; he should be content to have the worst of it, provided the country was not the sufferer. He willingly admitted the prowess of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and acknowledged he had fought like a dragon [a laugh]. Of all the cautious gentlemen he had ever known on the subject of the civil list, he had never met with one who moved with such wary steps as the right hon. gentleman. All he should now add was, that if not produced in February, he should move for the accounts.

denied having said that May was, of all others, the best month for the production of these accounts. He had accounted for the delay which had been complained of on a former occasion, as arising, not from the late period at which the committee was appointed, but from their having waited a considerable time for some gentlemen who did not attend.

recollected perfectly well that the right hon. gentleman had said the month of May was that in which the fullest attendance might be expected. If the committee referred to, had lost time in waiting for gentlemen who did not attend, those who composed the committee must have uncommon patience, as the gentlemen who absented themselves had previously given notice, when it was found they were not to have the power of sending for persons and papers, that it was their intention to stay away.

Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

rose, in pursuance of notice, to submit a motion to the House upon the subject of the Fees taken in Courts of Justice. Preparatory to his motion, he moved "That the several entries in the Journal of the House, of the 28th of June and the 11th of July, in the last session, of the Address agreed to by this House to be presented to the Prince Regent, that he would be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a report of all proceedings had by virtue of a commission under the Great Seal, for examining the duties, salaries, and emoluments, of the several officers, clerks, and ministers of justice, and for reporting what regulations may be fit to be established with respect to the same; for the institution of which commission an humble Address was presented to his Majesty by this House, on the 13th day of June 1799;—and of his Royal Highness's Answer thereto, that he would give directions as desired by the said Address, might be read," and the same were read. He also moved, "That the several entries in the Journal of this House, of the 28th of June and the 11 th of July, in the last session, of the Address agreed to by this House to be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he would be graciously pleased to issue a commission under the Great Seal, for examining the duties, salaries, and emoluments of the several officers, clerks, and ministers of justice in the United Kingdom, and for reporting what regulations may be fit to be established respecting the same; and to direct that the proceedings of such commission may be laid before parliament as early as may be after the commencement of the ensuing session;—and of his Royal Highness's Answer thereto, that he would give directions as desired by the said Address, might be read." The same being read accordingly, the right hon. baronet said, that having understood from the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Bathurst) that no commission had been appointed, and bearing in mind the fate of a similar address in 1799, in consequence of which no effectual steps had, in fact, been taken, he had given notice of the motion which he should then bring forward. The ministers of the crown had had four or five months to appoint the commission, and yet no commission was I said to have been formed. A sufficient reason for a most minute investigation Into the fees taken in the courts of justice was contained in this extraordinary fact, that the poundage actually taken on money paid into courts was at present one shilling, while by a resolution of the House of Lords of 1732, it was fixed at 6d. Such a crying enormity was a sufficient ground, even if it had been a solitary one, for the Address which had been voted. But it mattered not what were the grounds for the Address, it had been voted by the House, and graciously answered by the crown; yet the ministers were determined that the intentions of the House should not be fulfilled. It was said, that no commission was made out, but the names of some of the persons to be appointed commissioners were known. Among them were two masters in Chancery. These masters in Chancery were to inquire into the exactions of officers of justice—into their own exactions. He could very well conceive how the intentions of the House had been frustrated. In the minority against the Address there went out of the House three cabinet ministers, and among them the right hon. gentleman opposite him (Mr. Bathurst), the one most immediately connected by affinity to the head of the department to which the execution of the resolution of the House belonged. The fate of the address of 1799, and the present delay would, he trusted, persuade the House of the necessity of exercising their rights, and of shewing that there was no power in the country that could successfully frustrate a public inquiry. His intention was to follow up his present motion, by moving that there be entered on the same Journals which contained the answer to the Address, which stated that the wishes of the House should be complied with, a resolution that the Prince Regent's ministers had frustrated his gracious intentions, with such further censure as should appear expedient. He concluded by 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, a copy of the Royal Commission issued under the Great Seal, appointing commissioners to inquire into the state of the Courts of Justice of Great Britain and Ireland, with respect to the several matters specified in the Address of this House of the 28th day of June last past, and his royal highness the Prince Regent's most gracious Answer thereto of the 11th of July, and a summary account of such proceedings as may have taken place under the said Royal Commission."

conceived that the imputations thrown by the hon. baronet upon his Majesty's ministers were altogether unfounded and unwarrantable. There was no disposition on their part, and he was sure there could be none on that of the principal officers of justice in this country, to frustrate the intentions of that House. The right hon. baronet had, however, not appeared to be aware of the difficulty of the task of inquiring into the duties of all the courts of justice in the kingdom, as well as the fees taken by all the ministers of justice. Such an inquiry would require great ability in those who were to report upon the duties of all the courts of justice; and if it was meant to comprehend all the ministers of justice, constables as well as others, it would be an inquiry of great extent. He did not understand that the rate of poundage alluded to by the right hon. baronet, existed in this part of the united empire. The proposed inquiry was not merely as to fees, but embraced the whole administration of justice. It required some time to consider how it was to be divided and executed, and to select persons fit to make the investigation. They must of course have some knowledge of the laws, and yet neither practising barristers nor judges could be appointed. If the right hon. baronet objected to masters in Chancery, against whom he never knew till now that he meant to make any charge, he certainly must still less wish that practisers in courts should be employed. The choice must, therefore, be confined to those who, having attained eminence and fortune, had retired from the duties of their profession. But would they accept of such an office? The commission was ready to be issued in England, as soon as a sufficient number of fit commissioners should have been found. Even within the last two days, one of those appointed had declined the office. With respect to the other branches of the United Kingdom, the only delay was occasioned by the necessity of waiting for the return of persons to whom applications had been made, as government had no power to impose the task upon them. He should not object to the motion.

thought the House would not be satisfied with the statement of the right hon. gentleman. His Majesty's ministers would not have acted as they had done, if they had wished to pay respect to the House of Commons. The intention of the House clearly was, that a committee should be appointed without delay; and the reason why the clause in the resolution, pressing for a speedy compliance with the wishes of the House, had been inserted, was, the culpable contempt which the Address of 1799 had experienced on the part of the advisers of the crown. It had been said that there had been difficulties in drawing up the commission, and in the choice of persons to act under it. As to the commission, the simple course was to have framed it in the words of the resolution; nor would there have been any difficulty but with persons disposed to start objections, and shew themselves wiser than the House of Commons. As to the persons, he did not see why practising barristers should not be appointed, as they were the most disinterested and most competent persons that could be fixed on. He did not doubt the honour or the respectability of the persons appointed to act under the commission, but the public would expect to see persons perfectly disinterested; and indeed it was a most invidious situation for judicial persons to be placed in. The motion for an Address was carried by the vote of a master in Chancery, who voted for it, because his own office was to be inquired into; and now a master in Chancery was to be made a member of the commission employed to inquire! He hoped, if further delay took place, or if the commission was not properly acted on, the House would take the matter into its own hands, and appoint a committee on the subject.

was surprised that the hon. and learned gentleman who had spoken last should object to the appointment of persons in judicial situations to execute the duties in question. In 1732, when a commission of a similar description was appointed, founded on absolute accusations, the supreme judges of the court of King's-bench, court of Common-pleas, court of Exchequer, Ecclesiastical court, and Admiralty court, were selected as the persons most competent to perform the duty; that the hon. and learned gentleman should object to any person in a judicial situation being now appointed to execute the office, therefore, excited his utmost astonishment. At that time he was sure they would not have agreed to a resolution which went directly to throw a slur on all the courts in the kingdom, from the court of Chancery down to the court Baron, without a statement of facts having been laid before them. It could not perhaps be said, that amongst the number of persons who were connected with the courts of justice, there were not some who would receive fees that they were not entitled to; but he was convinced, if any such transaction were discovered, and brought before the court in which it took place, the party concerned, would be punished as far as the power of the judges allowed them to proceed. With respect to the observations which had been made relative to the impropriety of placing two masters in Chancery on the commission, he was sure it could not be supposed, although expedition fees were demanded in the masters office, that such demand was sanctioned by them. The suspicion thus expressed, struck him as proclaiming to the world that the masters were not worthy of their situations;—such must be the inference, when it was insinuated that they ought not to be intrusted with the examination of abuses said to exist in their offices. It was admitted, that they were the persons best capable of judging of the manner in which their business should be conducted; and yet it was said that they ought not to be employed on the commission, because part of the investigation affected the offices which they held. As to the charge made against his Majesty's ministers, that they had endeavoured to frustrate the effect of this resolution, it was utterly groundless. If the commission had even been settled the day after parliament closed, it would not have been possible to have made a report at this time worth laying on the table of the House. Whoever the persons appointed to execute the business might be, their duty would be one of immense labor; since they would have to investigate the duties, and examine the fees of every court of justice in the kingdom. On a former occasion, though a separate body of persons was appointed to inspect the different courts of justice, as well as the ecclesiastical courts, it was found almost impossible to make any progress. A commission has now been prepared, two of the member; of which were undoubtedly masters it Chancery; but it was too much to assume therefore, that the ministers of the crown wished to frustrate the intentions of the House. The nature of their office did not disqualify masters in Chancery from being employed on such an occasion, any more than it had prevented the judges, who were attached to the commission of 1732; who formed, however, rather the ornamental than the acting part of that commission. In his opinion, there was no necessity for the present application of the right hon. baronet; since it had not been shown that any member of the government harboured a wish to frustrate the commission to which it referred.

denied that he had said, or meant to say, that the masters in Chancery ought to be excluded from the commission, because they would be called upon to examine matters which concerned themselves. His only reason for wishing that those gentlemen should not be employed on the commission was, because all the parties connected with it ought, in his mind, to be totally indifferent; and he did not wish to see any of them placed in what he thought, and stated to be, an invidious situation, which called upon them to examine into the nature of fees received in their own offices by persons employed under themselves.

said, that his observation did not refer to the hon. and learned gentleman's speech, but to what had fallen from the right hon. baronet, who asserted that the ministers of the crown were endeavouring to frustrate the intentions of parliament, by calling on masters in Chancery to examine into the abuses of their own department.

expressed his surprise at the soreness evinced by the hon. and learned gentleman on the other side, and by so many of his friends, upon the subject of the resolution which gave rise to the debate. There was so much sneering and cavilling against this resolution, as to leave no doubt with respect to the feeling which it excited. But he trusted that the House would still persevere in maintaining its resolution, and that the hostility which it experienced would determine them to increase that perseverance until the salutary object in view should be effectually attained. The House were called upon to consider, first, whether the delay in complying with the resolution of the House had been sufficiently accounted for; and second, whether the persons about to be appointed to execute the commission were the most eligible that could be chosen. With respect to the delay, he contended that there had been a direct breach of the order of the House; which the hon. and learned gentleman had failed to disprove, by stating that no report could have been made at so early a period. The order was that a commission should be named, and that the proceedings had under it should be laid before the House as soon as possible after the commencement of the ensuing session. The object of parliament was, that no time should be lost in acquiring a knowledge of what had been done under the commission; a conclusive report was by no means contemplated; and there was nothing to prevent the House from obtaining partial information on the subject. As to the second point, it was argued, that judges were very improper persons to place on such a commission. The answer given to this by the hon. and learned gentleman was that, on a former occasion, the judges were so employed, and it would be wrong to arraign so grave a precedent. But the hon. and learned gentleman destroyed his own argument, by observing, that the judges attached to the commission of 1732, belonged to the ornamental, not to the working department. If they had been actively employed, it would have been extremely wrong; for, however respectable their characters might be, it was not very customary to appoint persons to investigate abuses supposed to have taken place in offices to which they were themselves attached. With respect to the two masters in Chancery who had been named on the commission, he knew them both to be most correct and honourable men. To one of them he owed great obligations, and he entertained for him a very warm esteem; but he sincerely wished, for that inestimable individual's sake, that he had declined to accept the appointment. When a master in Chancery was appointed to such a situation, he became, in fact, both witness and judge. If abuses were alleged to exist in the masters office, who could be called on to prove or rebut the statement, but the masters themselves? Under such circumstances, to nomiate to the commission two masters in Chancery out of five persons who were to compose it, appeared to him very objectionable. He meant not to impute any thing improper to the persons who were thus placed in an invidious situation; but he hoped the present discussion would have the effect of making them re-consider the decision they had come to in accepting the office of com- missioners; and, if not, that it would cause government to review the selection they had made.

stated, that it was extremely difficult to find persons calculated to fill the situation: it called for a combination of qualifications. From his own personal knowledge he could declare, that, for the last three months, unremitting exertions had been made to procure efficient commissioners: some had declined on the overture being made; others demanded time to consider of it; and a gentleman of great ability, whose services were confidently anticipated, had that very day stated his inability to accept of the office.

, after observing that Ireland was, notwithstanding the remark of a right hon. gentleman, entitled to the same consideration from the legislature as Great Britain, expressed his astonishment that the commission alluded to had not been sooner appointed, in compliance with the Address of that House. Whether it was or was not wise to adopt this commission, he would not stop to argue: it had been formed, and therefore, on that point, all argument would be superfluous. Although it might be a fortunate measure, he was sure, to some gentlemen, it was a most unpleasant one, and they had left no means untried to prejudice the House against it. With respect to the resolution then before them, he was convinced that the House could not come to a vote more useful to the public or more consonant with the public interest. He referred particularly to Ireland, where this vote would give the greatest pleasure. There were, he knew, persons in that country, to whom this measure was not agreeable, for he had made particular inquiries on the subject; but to the enlightened part of the Irish public, no measure could give greater satisfaction. As to its being difficult to find commissioners, he would only observe, that if his Majesty's ministers took the advice of his hon. and learned friend (sir S. Romilly), he would provide them with a list of persons calculated for the situation, against whom no objection whatever could be urged.

disclaimed any intention of asserting or insinuating that Ireland did not, since the Union, possess as much right to the consideration of that House as any other part of the empire.

observed, that he had before remarked upon what the right hon.

gentleman had said, but he now understood what he meant to say.

The motion was then agreed to.

then said, that he had to move for a return of fees in an office, the fees of which were specifically prescribed by act of parliament; and the object of his motion was to ascertain whether any, and how much more than the legal fees, were exacted. The office to which he alluded was that of register of deeds in Ireland, in which he understood that a considerable augmentation of fees had taken place, especially within the last two or three months. According to his information, indeed he might say within his knowledge, that the fees of this office, which six months ago were three or four-fold beyond what was allowed by the Act referred to, had within the last two or three months been doubled under a gentleman who had succeeded by reversion to the office of register. The right hon. baronet concluded with moving, "That there be laid before this House, an account of the rate of fees demanded or taken in the office of register of deeds in Ireland, for entries, certificates, or copies of deeds, under or exceeding the length font hundred words; distinguishing the same severally, and also noting whether such fees are payable to the register or his deputy, and whether any and what alteration has taken place in such rate of fee during seven years last past." He also moved, "That there be laid before this House, an account of the number of writs of latitat issued out of the several law courts of Ireland during seven years last past; distinguishing each year, and whether for sums under or above the amount of twenty pounds." The right hon. baronet dwelt upon the oppression to which individuals, especially of the poorer order, were subject through the operation of these writs; and he expressed a hope, that when the facts were before the House, it would see the necessity of adopting some remedy for an abuse Very generally complained of in Ireland.

The motions were agreed to.

animadverted at some length on the right hon. gentleman's new system of imposts, and contended, that the proposed assimilation of English and Irish duties must have the effect of crushing Ireland. He particularly applied his observations to the Timber Act, which he considered oppressive and injurious. In England, the farmer might have recourse to the home timber for his necessary repairs, and was consequently exempted from paying any duty. The case was very different in Ireland: the farmer must there purchase what he wanted at the timber-yard, and on this he paid an extravagant duty. The impost on timber had also a very serious effect on the provision-trade; that trade which principally enabled Ireland to pay for British manufactures. On the article of staves, so necessary for that trade, the duty was carried up, at one step, from 7d. to 25s. The consequence was that the right hon. gentleman now found it, necessary to modify the enactment of last session. The right hon. baronet then argued strongly on the impropriety of hurrying, measures of such magnitude through the House, without any previous communication from those who were interested in them; and expressed his intention, if no other gentleman interfered, to move for a standing order, by which a proper period for communication between the Irish representatives and their constituents would be allowed, before any measure of importance to the sister country was suffered to pass. He was perfectly certain, that if this assimilation system were pursued, they would find an increasing taxation, but a decreasing revenue. It was futile to think of a similarity of taxes, without a similarity of advantages.

said, that he felt himself called upon to observe on what had fallen from his right hon., friend; but it would not be necessary for him to trespass long upon the time of the House, nor perhaps justifiable, after the patient hearing with which he had been honoured on a preceding occasion, when he called the attention of the House to the subject now before it. With respect to what had been said of the pressure of these duties upon the lower orders of the people of Ireland, he appealed to the House, he would appeal to the right hon. baronet himself (with whom, although they were frequently politically opposed, he had the pleasure of many communications upon the subject of public business), if he had not, upon every occasion, expressed himself deeply sensible of the weight of those burthens, which the unexampled expenditure of the country, and the efforts made by all parts of the empire, had rendered it necessary to impose upon Ireland. He had repeatedly stated, and stated with regret, that the day was fast approaching, when it would be incumbent on parliament to take a general view of the financial situation of that country. He had avoided as long as possible to recur to those measures of direct taxation, by which she would be called on to contribute her share of the common burthen. The right hon. baronet had said, that the burthens upon the people of Ireland were already so great, that it would be impossible to go any further in the way of taxation. Without stopping to examine the accuracy of that assertion, it must at least be admitted, that it afforded some justification of the duties which he had proposed, because it removed that part of the argument which imputed to him, as a blame, that the measures would bear heavily on some parts of the community; and convinced he was, that if either of the right hon. gentlemen opposite filled that situation which he had the honour to hold, they would feel, as he did, bound to propose some plan to defray that share of the joint contribution, which, by the articles of the Union, Ireland was bound to provide. If the right hon. baronet had thought last session, when these taxes were proposed, that the burthens on Ireland were then so great that they would not admit of any augmentation—if he had thought that the time was then come, when we should have been justified to review the measure of the contribution which Ireland was bound to furnish, he was sure the right hon. baronet would not have shrunk from saying so in his place in parliament. The right hon. baronet, however, did not think it necessary to take any such step; and the leading objections to this, along with the other impositions which he (Mr. Fitzgerald) had made, had been anticipated by himself; but on the grounds on which he had urged them, they had received the unanimous concurrence of the House. The object of the present Bill was, to establish, by an act of legislature, those modifications which the Irish government had found it expedient to make (upon its own responsibility) in the act of last session, in consequence of the difficulties encountered by individuals, who had made shipments under the law as it stood before.

Gentlemen would see, in this case, the difference between a mere augmentation of duty and an alteration of the scale, for which latter, persons might not be prepared. The lords of the Treasury of Ireland felt that they ought to take that responsibility upon themselves, and apply to parliament for a justification, rather than suffer the inconvenience and loss to individuals, which must otherwise have resulted from the strict execution of the act of last session.

When he introduced those duties, he had stated, amongst the grounds which induced him to propose them, his wish not only to equalize the duties of customs in Ireland to those of England, but to assimilate, as far as possible, the mode of collection in the two countries. In his view of that subject, he had the good fortune to meet with the general approbation of the House; and it was a principle, of which, generally, he was sure that his right hon. friend would not disapprove. He also stated another principle upon which these duties were founded; viz. that of contributing, as far as was consistent with the internal improvement of Ireland, to the great and general interests of the whole empire. Amongst the most important were our colonial trade, and the encouragement of our shipping. He certainly would not interfere with the particular interests of Ireland to promote these objects; but where he could make these interests concurrent, bethought it his duty to do so.

He had upon a former occasion, when his right hon. friend was not present, adverted to the great misunderstanding and misrepresentation that had prevailed upon the subject of some of these duties, which had by no means been increased to such an extent as the gentlemen who, we were told, were about to petition parliament, had been led to believe. There was one material circumstance which he had before stated, and which, if his right hon. friend had known or had recollected, would, he was sure, not have escaped his acuteness in argument, or his candour in debate; viz. that for five years before these duties were laid on, when an intercourse with the Baltic was interrupted by the war, the price of timber in Ireland was higher than it was at present, inclusive of the old and additional duties; and yet no complaint was then made. It had been urged, and not unfairly, that, after having borne the privations which had arisen from the war, the people had a right to enjoy the advantages resulting from peace; and that therefore it was wrong to impose those duties upon timber, the effect being to keep up the price as high as it was during hostilities. To the former part of the proposition he was ready to assent, but the necessities of the country did not permit him to act upon it. It was indispensably necessary that Ireland should make great sacrifices. He saw no prospect of a diminution of her burthens; and those who, like the right hon. baronet, well knew her financial state, would not be surprised therefore that peace had not brought with it to Ireland all the advantages which, under other circumstances, would have resulted from it. But it appeared to him, that the most favourable moment for imposing these duties, was the one when the price of the article was about to decline, because it prevented their imposition from being severely felt.

The right hon. baronet had adverted to one or two other topics, upon which it would only be necessary for him to say a word or two: the first was, the proposition for interposing, by a standing order, a certain delay in the progress of Tax-bills relating to Ireland. That inconveniencies might ensue, in some instances, from bills of that description being passed without the means of communicating with Ireland, he did not deny; still less would he deny the respect which was due to the sense of his constituents, by every one who had a seat amongst them; but it was a principle quite new to him, and he believed quite new to the House, that whether representatives of the people were as sembled, or ought to be assembled, it was necessary to impede the progress of public business, in order to have communication out of doors. His right hon. friend would he was sure, upon a little reflection, set the serious inconvenience that must result from the adoption of such a measure. With regard to the very Act which it was now proposed to modify, an Act imposing duties of customs, if the delay propose by the right hon. baronet had taken place it would have led to such an extent of speculation, and produced so many other inconveniencies, that parliament would have felt itself bound to interfere to remedy them. [Mr. Ponsonby said, that the stock in hand might be surcharged after the passing of the Act]. Mr. W. Fitzgerald said, that in many instances it might, in some it was the case; but there were many articles that could not be surcharged in that manner, and timber was one of them; not one out of fifty, which were the objects of the Custom Duties Bill, had been so charged, nor was it usual to charge them: that suggestion, indeed, would apply to whatever there was, of which excise had been usually taken. But it was not necessary now to enlarge upon this subject; it would be time enough to discuss it when the proposition was made. If the statement which he had made was not satisfactory, he should lament it. He should have gone perhaps into greater length, if he were not aware that almost every gentleman who now heard him was present upon a former occasion, when he went more into detail upon this subject. If he were called upon further, he might, he hoped, though it were irregular, be permitted to answer. He would just say, and he had almost forgotten to advert to it, that his right hon. friend had entirely omitted to observe, that timber, the growth of British America, was admitted almost free; that the staves of Quebec, which had been tried by the victualling board, had been deemed at least equal to those which had been generally used. He looked yet to British America as a great source of our supply, and as the means of still preserving our provision trade, which, after the restoration of general peace, must fail miserably, if the British shipping interests were not upheld. Another result he anticipated would he, as soon as competition was opened, the diminution of the native prices in Sweden anti in Norway; such had been the result of the high duties in this country for a short interval, and it would have been the result in a greater degree, if the differences with America had not added the great freight and insurance to the expense of transport.

The particular instruction to the committee, on which the question was now to be put, was a modification of the duty on staves: the small class were to be admitted at five shillings, and the colonial at one. The other point (he begged pardon for this desultory mode of debate), which had escaped his right hon. friend, was that which he had noticed before, that one third of these duties are to cease on the repeal of the war duties in Great Britain; and there was a provision in the Bill to that effect. He should only now repeat, that the object of the present Bill was merely to modify the duties of last session; and if the gentlemen thought it necessary to bring these duties under the consideration of the House in any other, shape, the adoption of those modifications would not prevent them.

thought it would be better to let the measure stand over, until communications could be received from the people concerned in the trade. As to the general principles which the right hon. gentleman had stated, he admitted them to be true; but particular circumstances might alter the application of those principles; and the case of Ireland, he thought, was precisely the one in which those circumstances were to be found as relative to the present tax. He put it to the British members who had visited that country, whether the small quantity of timber was not remarkable, and particularly in the growth of fire? The fact was that this latter kind was in great disrepute at home; they would rather give a much higher price for the foreign. He could state a ridiculous instance, in which this fact was proved by an experiment of a friend of his. During the continuance of hostilities in the north, his friend wished to dispose of some old fir-trees; but the timber-merchant having offered him what he thought much under their value, on the ground that they were of home growth, the expedient adopted by the gentleman was, to ship them off to Cork, and then back again; after which he sold them at his own price, under the denomination of foreign timber. Mr. Ponsonby said, he knew the critical situation in which any man stood who had to tax Ireland: she was not in a situation to afford what was expected from her. As to the manner of estimating the proportion of contribution on the part of Ireland, which was adopted at the time of the Union, nothing could be more fallacious. The quantities of wine, spirits, and beer consumed, as compared with the consumption of the same articles in this kingdom, was taken as furnishing the proportion of their respective means; but any matt who knew any thing of the habits of Ireland, must know that an individual possessed of any given property there, would consume much more than one possessed of the same fortune in Great Britain. But it was chargeable with another fallacy, that consumption was supposed to continue, though the very Act of Union brought many of its most wealthy residents to this country. He was solemnly of opinion, that Ireland was unable to supply her proportion, as regulated by his estimate. They ought now to see what the permanent good of Ireland required, and that required that the article under consideration should be kept as low is possible. The habitations of the peasantry were known to be small and dirty; the gentry of Ireland had manifested a great disposition to remedy this evil, and therefore it was a matter of vast importance that so desirable an object should not be impeded by any additional tax upon an article so necessary to its success.

said, that it would be impossible to adopt the advice of the right hon. gentleman. The sound interpretation of the Act of Union he deemed to be, that no tax could be imposed in Ireland upon a subject not taxed in England [here Mr. Ponsonby and sir J. Newport signified their dissent], nor could any article be taxed higher in Ireland than in England. He was surprised that the right hon. gentlemen had not taken the same view that he did; and he confessed, that he should seek the authority of a resolution of that House, before he acted on their interpretation. But he really was not aware of any articles that could be taxed, or of any old one that would admit of such an increase of duty, as would supply the deficiency of revenue which must arise, if the House dissented now from the opinion which it had held before.

said, that he principally rose with the view of noticing two observations which had fallen in the course of this debate from the right hon. gentlemen opposite to him. In those observations he fully concurred, and he had heard them with great satisfaction. The right hon. baronet has said that though the peasantry of Ireland was badly lodged, yet that they were well fed; that if you offered them wheaten bread, they would prefer their present diet to it; and that penury and scarcity must not be inferred, because they lived principally upon potatoes. The right hon. gentleman had said that this was an improper season for laying heavy duties on timber, when the landed proprietors and landholders of Ireland evinced such a desire to ameliorate the condition of the peasantry, and to administer to their comforts and their happiness. He had heard these observations with real satisfaction, and for this reason, because they were in direct contradiction of certain unfounded and inflammatory statements which had proceeded from a quarter from whence they might have been least expected, and which they least became. He was glad to find that the two right hon. gentlemen came forward, though not perhaps with that intention, to correct the gross delusion which prevailed in the country upon this subject, and to contradict, on authority which could hardly be questioned, the still more gross misrepresentation by which it was attempted to keep alive and propagate that delusion. He was glad to hear them tell this House and this country, that it was not true, as had been asserted, that the peasantry of Ireland were in a worse condition than English swine; and that it was a libel upon the landholders of Ireland, to publish to the world that they had no interest in the prosperity of their tenantry, and that their sole object is to extract from the wretched peasant a rent which he cannot afford to pay. Mr. Peel concluded by saying, that he wished most sincerely, and every friend to Ireland must wish, that the comforts of the peasantry should be increased; he believed they were badly lodged, but he had every hope that their condition was in this respect improving. With regard to fuel and to food, he was perfectly satisfied that there were many parts of England in which the lower orders were infinitely worse provided with these essential articles of life than the lowest description of peasantry in Ireland.

declared, that there was a great and radical objection to a tax of this nature; it not only prevented improvements in habitations, but also in agriculture, and other branches of industry. There was a manifest spirit of improvement in Ireland, which this tax would check and diminish. No tax could be more injurious; and he could not agree that there existed no means of raising the sum upon a different article.

could not understand why the duties on timber should be so modified as to meet the purposes of agriculture in Ireland more than in England. He had always considered, from the moment of the Union, that the greatest care should be taken of the prosperity of Ireland; but there was no reason that any particular preference should be given to it. The measure of the right hon. gentleman appeared to him to be very just and proper.

It was then agreed, that it should be an instruction to the committee to make a provision pursuant to the said resolution.

said, he had no objection whatever to the principle of the measure; but he wished that, in conformity to the ancient law of England in this respect, the vicinage on which the provisions of the Bill were to operate, should be more distinctly marked. In many cases the disturbance might exist in a single parish or townland; but by the use of the vague word barony, it would frequently happen that a large district, in which no fault had been committed, would nevertheless be visited with punishment.—The House then resolved itself into the committee.

expressed his concurrence in the propriety of the observations of the right hon. baronet. The fact was that the Bill was introduced for the express purpose of lessening the burthens of the original measure. An inconvenience might arise, however, from confining the operation of it to a too limited a district. Indeed, it could hardly occur that a disturbance should take place in a single parish or townland; and if it did, the expense that would fall on that spot would be too enormous. Perhaps it might be well to give the lord lieutenant power to declare a 4 'part,' or 'parts,' in a state of disturbance, leaving the extent to his discretion. He would not actually pledge himself to the support of such a proposition; but he should like to hear what could be said in support of it; and it might be embodied in a clause, and annexed to the Bill at a subsequent period.

said, that the mode hinted at by the right hon. gentleman met his ideas perfectly. His object was to narrow the visitation of the measure in any way that should make it commensurate with the district in which the fault had been committed.

The Bill then went through the committee.