, in moving for sundry papers and returns to shew the effect and tendency of the Insolvent Debtors Act, said he could not but observe, that his opinion still was most unfavourable to the principle of the Act. Nothing that he had seen, nothing that he had heard, had altered his sentiments on the subject; but certainly in any thing that he might think it right hereafter to propose, his first and general object would be to relieve and alleviate the distresses of the unfortunate. He then moved, "That there be laid before the House, I. An account of the number of prisoners for debt in the King's-bench and Fleet prisons, on the 10th of July 1812. 2. An account of the number of prisoners for debt in the King's-bench and Fleet prisons, on the 10th of July 1813. 3. A monthly account of the number of prisoners committed to the same prisons every month, from the 1st of January 7813, to the 1st of December 1814. 4. An account of the number of prisoners discharged from the said prisons under the Act of 53 Geo. 3, c. 102. 5. An account of the number of prisoners for debt in the same prisons on the 1st of December 1814. 6. An account of the names, trades, and descriptions, of the several persons who have applied to be discharged, under the acts of parliament of the 53d and 54th years of his present Majesty's reign, for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors in England, with the amount of the debts for which they were arrested, and also the whole sums due and owing by them respectively; distinguishing such of the said debtors as have been remanded and afterwards discharged, and those who have been finally remanded."

said, that without questioning the policy of the Bill, he thought it required much amendment; for he had heard of instances, where a man who owed thousands contrived to get arrested for 100l., and then, by a three months imprisonment, of course succeeded in getting rid of the whole. The injustice of a law which so operated, he thought must be obvious.

felt, that the Act was as yet extremely defective, and he therefore now gave notice, that soon after the recess he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend that Act.

expressed how much he regretted to learn that the hon. and learned Serjeant still remained of his original opinion, that the Act was contrary to sound policy; for he (Mr. Horner) felt assured, that the wisdom of the Act was every day becoming more and more prominent. The objection which had been made, and was making to that measure, was perfectly natural, and what every one must have expected, when it was remembered on what loose principles persons in this country, especially about the metropolis, gave credit to those who chose to become purchasers. Unless that indiscreet mode of giving credit should be altered, the Act might work individual mischief and disappointment; but as the mode of giving credit on such a principle was avowedly condemned, surely that legislative proceeding which would effect a reform in the mode of managing credit, would be a great national advantage. The very dissatisfaction which had been expressed by a numerous body of tradesmen, was a proof of the efficacy of the measure; for one of its objects had been to destroy that indiscreet credit which tradesmen were too much accustomed to give: those creditors now suffered the consequences of their own indiscretion, and imputed to the Act what was the effect of their own folly. He was convinced of the great benefits that would result from the Bill, if its leading principle should be boldly supported in that House.

allowed, that it might be just to punish the careless creditor; but it would be also right to protect those tradesmen who must either trust or lose their business.—The papers were ordered.

moved, that the Bill for repealing the sundry Acts imposing regulations to fix the price of bread by size, be read a second time, again intimating that, after the recess, he should move for a committee of inquiry on the subject of those Acts, previously to moving the ulterior stages of the Bill.

hoped, on a subject of so much importance, and where the people had been accustomed now for about 600 years to the regulations established by king John, that the House would proceed with the greatest caution; for to interfere with the price of provisions was the most feverish of all subjects to which the legislature could turn its attention, and one respecting which the minds of the people were most alive. But he could not see the necessity or policy of this Bill, which went to sweep away all existing regulations. As it was not imperative on the first magistrate of the city of London to settle the assize of bread, from an examination of the prices of corn and flour, would it not be much better to try the experiment of suffering the price of bread to find its own level without fixing any assize, instead of trying it, so far as to abolish in toto those regulations which had existed for so many hundred years? The law not compelling the first magistrate to fix an assize, there was no necessity for abolishing that law to gain the advantage of trying the experiment. It being admitted on all hands how very careful the legislative power ought to be in its interference with the price of provision, as there was nothing so calculated to influence the public mind, he was sure that the House would pause before it acquiesced in the proposition to abolish a regulation, which, in time of scarcity, he believed, had often preserved internal tranquility.

here observed, that the motion could not be put that day; for although the Bill was a measure of great magnitude, it was still a private Bill, being of local operation; and, like all other private bills, a notice must be given before it could be moved any stage, which had not been in the present instance.

The motion was of course postponed.

wished to know whether it was the intention of ministers to disembody the militia previous to the next meeting of parliament?

replied, that he could give no other answer than that they would be disembodied as soon as possible, but when that would be he could not tell.

rejoined, that if it did not take place before the next meeting of parliament, a motion from his side of the House would be made on the subject.

inquired the reason, why certain papers relative to Spain, which were called for, had not yet been laid on the table? He would take that opportunity of asking, whether any, and what sums, had been advanced by way of loan to the court of Spain, since the restoration of Ferdinand?

replied, that the order for the production of those papers had been regularly transmitted; but their speedy delivery was prevented by the necessity of referring to a vast number of documents in the Audit Office. They would, however, he hoped, he ready before the next meeting of parliament. With respect to the last question of the hon. gentleman, he had to reply, that no advances whatever, by way of loan, had been made to the court of Spain.

asked, whether an offer of an advance of money had not been made, either in writing or verbally, by this court to the court of Madrid, since the period of the treaty of amity and alliance?

said, that it would be impossible to answer this question without making disclosures inconvenient to the public service.

next asked, whether the government had any knowledge of a paper delivered by the duke of Wellington to the minister of Ferdinand, after his arrival at Madrid?

No answer was at first given but the question being repeated, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he could give none that would be consistent with public policy.

inquired, whether the sum allowed for the establishment of the Princess Charlotte of Wales, which had been fixed when her Royal Highness was only ten years of age, had been augmented since that period?

replied, that the establishment of her Royal High- ness had been formed in the year 1806, but that it had not been continued since the Princess Charlotte had been taken into the family of her royal father.

wished to know whether he understood the right hon. gentleman distinctly, that on the entrance of the Princess Charlotte into the family of the Regent, the income allowed for her establishment had been merged in that of her father? He observed, that in the public accounts 7,000l. was charged upon the consolidated fund, and he wished to be informed in what way it was applied?

said, that he had not been comprehended, if it were understood that he stated, that the income of the Princess Charlotte was merged in the general account of the civil list. What he had observed was, that the expenses of the Princess now formed a part of those of the Prince Regent. The sum continued to be issued for her Royal Highness.

wished the right hon. gentleman to explain, whether the sum of 7,000l. a year was paid as applicable to and necessary for the purposes of her Royal Highness. By whom was the discharge given?

said, that the money was issued to the treasurer of her Royal Highness.

asked the hon. secretary for the Admiralty, whether it was true that two frigates, lately sent out in frames to America, namely, the Prompte and the Psyche, had been sold; and would there be any objection to the production of any correspondence which the Admiralty may have had on this subject?

replied, that there was no foundation whatever for such a rumour; there did not exist the slightest colour for the notion which the hon. gentleman seemed to entertain; of course, the Admiralty had no correspondence relative to a point which never had existence. One of the two frigates sent out in frames had been sent up to the lakes, he did not know which of them, for the commander there was authorized to affix to either the names alluded to.

wished to know whether there would be any objection to the production of any documents upon this point, if the Admiralty were in possession of them?

said, certainly not; if the hon. gentleman preferred his information to mine, it was fit he should persevere in his purpose.

did not mean to disparage the hon. secretary's information; but he would prefer official documents to any assertions, however respectable.

was anxious to know whether ministers had instituted any inquiry into the conduct of sir James Duff, at Cadiz?

answered, that such inquiries had been instituted by the proper department.

rose, for the purpose of bringing forward his motion relative to the conduct of the naval war against the United States. It was not his intention, he said, to enter into any discussion of the propriety of commencing hostilities, nor of the justice of our demands, since it was generally admitted, that upon the question of the maritime rights of Great Britain, the Americans were the aggressors. Neither did he propose to revert to the recent publication of the documents relative to the negotiations at Ghent, since a day would arrive when a most important decision would be taken of the whole subject. The object of his motion lay clear of both these considerations, since whatever differences might exist as to the declaration of war, or as to the mode of bringing it to a close, there could be no doubt that the conduct of government in their mode of prosecuting it was a question of the deepest interest. There were two points in which it was to be viewed, military and naval; and the latter, to which his motion more particularly referred, again divided itself into two heads: 1. what related to the conduct of the war on the high sea, the maritime war, properly so called: 2. what referred to the conduct of the war on the fresh-water lakes. Subordinate to these was a third consideration of the degree of protection that had been afforded to the trade of the country.

With regard to the maritime war, it had long been, and was still a matter of surprise to the whole nation, that, with the immense naval strength and high naval character we possessed, there yet seemed to be a balance of power between the shipping of Great Britain and America: few would deny that the astonishment was at first well founded, when government had, long before the declaration, received intelligence of the different nature of the American navy, and of the change of system that was required on our part to meet it. Supposing, however, that ministers had obtained no intelligence upon the subject, time enough had surely since elapsed to enable them to complete and bring into service the necessary improvements. It had been in some degree explained why we, in the commencement, sustained so many defeats; but the cornplaint of the country was, first, that those defeats ought to have been foreseen and provided against; and next, that having been sustained, no effectual means had been taken to retrieve the tarnished luster of our character. It was a common remark that all our defeats had been occasioned nearly by the same circumstances; however great the velour and hardihood of our men, the rigging was cut, the masts were carried away, and the vessel being disabled, was compelled to yield. Whether this unaccountable backwardness to remedy the evil arose from the reluctance of our establishments to travel out of the beaten track in which they had plodded, whether with them it had become a matter of faith to make no alteration in their ancient system, would remain for gentlemen opposite to explain. The fact was not to be denied. It had been said, and would doubtless be repeated, that steps had been taken to make such changes as were required in our ships, by cutting down seventy-fours, and by building others more suited to the peculiar nature of the warfare; but parliament ought to have some distinct information upon the subject; and for this purpose, he had framed a motion to bring the necessary intelligence before the House, in which he should be glad of any alterations that gentlemen might deem expedient, for the sake of not making unnecessary disclosures to the enemy. It ought to be proved, that the activity long since promised had been evinced; but he feared that the great error of this government had been to under-value and under-calculate the force of the Americans, which had been the origin of the procrastination and carelessness evinced in the various departments connected with the war.

The next subject, though of minor importance, was the protection which had or had not been afforded to the trade of this country. He was ready to allow, that all the complaints heard upon this subject were nut well-founded; but he was perfectly assured that so uniform, and so long-continued a complaint, could not be without some solid foundation. They ought not to be permitted to pass unnoticed by the House, if un remedied by the government; and another motion which he should offer, would be to bring forward a statement of the representations made from all parts of the country, to ministers, and even to the Prince Regent himself; for of such magnitude was the subject, and so urgent were the demands, that they were even carried to the foot of the throne.

He now came to the most important part of this question, on which the heaviest charges against ministers appeared to be grounded, namely, the want of sufficient preparations to carry on the war on the lakes, In noticing, this branch of the subject, he wished it to be understood, that he should not enter into any discussion that could affect the character of any of the officers employed, in their professional capacities. Such conduct would be cruel and unjustifiable, until the cases were decided by the proper tribunal—such attacks could not be otherwise than disgraceful to any party, whether the partisans of government or of their opponents. Nor was it his intention to anticipate what share of disapprobation ought to be given to particular departments of administration; how much blame rested with the colonial department, or how much with the Admiralty; he should direct his remarks against government in the aggregate, endeavouring to satisfy parliament that appearances were strong against them; and that they had been guilty of a complete neglect of all the means that common prudence would suggest for the defence of our Canadian frontier, and for carrying on the war on the lakes. All persons must be aware that our success in this war must depend upon maintaining a superiority of naval force upon all the lakes, but more especially upon Lake Ontario. A part of our frontier was protected by a military force, upon whose conduct future inquiries would unquestionably he instituted; we had there lost thousands of brave and valuable lives and the military renown of the country, without gaining any possession that could give additional security to Canada. Lake Ontario was the situation where it was of the greatest consequence to maintain our superiority for the defence of Canada, independently of any attack upon the United States: whether the value of the trade, the amount of the property of the inhabitants, or, above all, the loyalty of the people, so well evinced during the last campaign, were considered, it was a colony well worth our greatest exertions. What, then, were the measures of government to secure our superiority on Lake Ontario—an easy achievement, had ministers performed the little that was necessary? When war commenced in June 1812, we had the greater number of vessels upon that lake; and all that was required was, that we should send out a sufficient number of seamen to man them: besides this advantage, we possessed the northern shore, where all the best timber was grown, and where the water was of sufficient depth for the launching of vessels. Before hostilities broke out, these preparations ought to have been made to meet them: the war had long been in contemplation, and the issue had only been rendered dubious by the improvidence of ministers, who did not take advantage of the backwardness of the United States to enter into the war. If the evil was not prevented, it would surely be expected that it should, as speedily as possible, be remedied, and that instant measures would be adopted on the receipt of the declaration; instead of which, from the 30th of July, the day when it arrived in England, to the end of the year, not a single step had been taken by the government of this country, either by giving orders to those abroad, or by sending out such supplies of seamen as were required to man the shipping we already possessed.

The government of this country had been warned, that if merely a sloop of war had been sent to Quebec, the men of which might have been sent to Kingston to man the vessels on the lake, Ontario would have been secure, No ship was sent. Were more vessels built in the summer and the winter on Lake Ontario? Not a single stick was laid. And although at Quebec there were ship-carpenters, who offered to build ships at Kingston, and were ready to set out immediately for that place to begin operations, their offers were refused; and, in one case, the bargain was broken off, on a difference of only 1,000l. on a 36 gun ship. Not one ship was built; and the winter was thus lost to us: but not so to the Ameri- cans. At the beginning of the war, the Americans were without a fleet—without a naval depot. In the course of that winter they created their depot at Sackett's Harbour, and built such vessels as gave them a superiority on that lake. He should be happy that it could be shown that he was wrong in this statement. He had said, that the summer and winter of 1812 were lost to us, but he was not certain whether that was the case; clear it was, that they were lost on the lakes, and on the St. Lawrence; but whether the ships in frames to be built in the Medway were begun in that year, in the ignorance of dates, he could not say. As to the ships so built, he could not help remarking, that the building of ships in the manner which had been stated, was one of the most extraordinary measures that had ever been adopted by persons having the direction of our naval affairs. He could venture to assert, that the expense of one of these vessels, built, and so conveyed to Ontario, was tenfold that which it would have cost to have built them on the spot. The timber must have been brought from Canada; and after having been shaped here, was sent to Canada again, to be put together at the place whence it had been brought. From Montreal to Kingston the expense of conveyance was immense, probably equal to the whole expense of building such vessels; the inland navigation by which they were to have been conveyed, was 700 or 800 miles. The contempt and derision which such a measure must have excited in Canada, would have been unbounded, if it had not been that the safety of their property, that the very existence of the colony, was hazarded by such conduct. Whether the blame of this delay was to be referred to the Admiralty or the colonial department, was to the House immaterial. It was for them to see what had been the consequence on the several lakes, Ontario, Erie, and Champlain. On Lake Ontario the Americans had obtained the superiority; and, in a successful expedition across that lake, they invaded our possessions, and burnt the capital Of Upper Canada; and the richest part of that colony, from York to the south and south-west, was left open to their devastations. He hoped, indeed, that now we should on that lake regain the ascendancy—a great ship had been launched—a ship of prodigious force, as an addition to sir James Yeo's squadron. He should leave it to professional men to judge as to the expediency of building such a vessel. From what he had heard, he was inclined to believe that the same force distributed among smaller vessels, would have been more effectual; at the same time, the safety of our squadron on that lake would be less liable to be hazarded by a single accident.—He hoped, however, that the ascendancy there was restored to us, and that the next news we should receive would he, that of a victory on the part of sir James Yeo over commodore Chauncey. But were we reduced to this, that after two years and a half of war, we had nothing to boast of but the expectation of a victory by sir James Yeo? Neither did he know on what grounds was rested this hope, but in the confidence which was always placed in the valour and enterprize of British seamen—a confidence which had been entertained with respect to captain Barclay on Lake Erie, and captain Downie on Lake Champlain, to whom it would be no disgrace to sir James Yeo to be compared. On Lake Champlain the melancholy event was well known; but, from the want of details, he should not then enter into it. On Lake Erie, captain Barclay, who was sent to relieve general Proctor at Detroit, and in that service being obliged to attack the American fleet, after an action in which all his officers were wounded, his flotilla was under the necessity of surrendering to the enemy. On captain Barclay a court-martial had sat, which was one of the papers which he should move for; not that he questioned the valour of captain Barclay, not that he questioned the sentence of the court-martial, but that, by the judicial evidence on that occasion, he might show what had been the neglect of the government, and the loss of valuable lives which had in consequence been sacrificed. The minutes of that court-martial would show, that to deficient means in the armament and equipment of it, the failure was owing; that the ships were deficient in men and weight of metal, particularly in long guns; and the guns which captain Barclay had were of eight different calibres, so that he was obliged to have eight different magazines to fight the guns [hear, hear!], which were without locks, and were fired off by pistols. [Hear!] These deficiencies were not owing to captain Barclay or sir James Yeo, but to the government here, or to the government of the colony abroad. As to the want of men in particular, it seemed to have been a deficiency which pervaded the whole conduct of the war, as well on the ocean as on the lakes. The American ships of war on the sea were full of choice seamen, while our vessels which were sent to oppose them, were manned in a manner very proper in the case of the ordinary wars with the fleets of Europe, but most unfit to meet the American navy. This neglect to supply a sufficient number of men had been manifested in the refusal which he had mentioned to send to Quebec a sloop of war, the crew of which might have been dispatched to the lakes. It was sufficiently obvious, even to men who were not professional, that to have sent the entire crew of some vessel or vessels would have been the proper course to have pursued, and not to have taken a man from one quarter of the world, and another man from another quarter, who were without knowledge of, or confidence in one another. The House would see that the same deficiencies which were complained of by captain Barclay were lamented by captain Pring, who gave the account of the failure of captain Downie on Lake Champlain. It did not come into question whether General Prevost was justified in his opinion that the co-operation of a naval force was necessary; it was enough, that when naval co-operation was thought necessary, the attempt to afford it was fatal. Captain Downie's squadron and life were sacrificed, and the objects of the war deserted, because the armaments on the lakes were left in the same desolate state in 1814 as in 1813. How did the officer (captain Pring) who wrote the last dispatches, express himself? He said, "When it is taken into consideration that the confidence was fifteen days before on the stocks, with an unorganized crew composed of several drafts of men, who had recently arrived from the different ships at Quebec, many of whom only joined the day before, and were totally unknown either to the officers, or one another, with the want of gun-locks, and the other necessary appointments which could not be provided in this country (hear!), &c. There was not a word in this sentence which was not pregnant with a charge against the administration. It was true, that the necessary appointments were not to be found in that country. Where, then, should they have been provided but from the mother country, by the direction of the mother govern- ment? Instead of being supplied by the government, both commanders had been left quite destitute to struggle against the enemy with what force they could get together. The charge of neglect it would be impossible to answer. If supply had not been sent before the first disaster, why had it not subsequently been sent, when it was known to what deficiencies the first failure was attributable? It would be said, he did not doubt, that supplies had been sent; but when the accounts were given of the supplies which had been sent, he hoped the dates would also he given. But if the government were successful in shifting the blame from their own shoulders, it would not be the less evident that there was blame in some quarter; and he hoped the House would not desist from inquiry until it had succeeded in fixing the blame on the right shoulders; and, he would add, in fixing the punishment also. All the motions which he should snake at present would be preliminary. He should first move, "That there be laid before this House, an account of the numbers of ships or vessels, of any description, that were upon the lakes of Canada and upon Lake Champlain, and fit for service, on the 18th of June 1812, and the 15th of May and 1st of November 1813; with the force of each vessel in guns, men, and boys."

, after expressing a wish that gentlemen would not prejudge his Majesty's ministers on a question of such importance, said, that he perfectly agreed in the propriety of affording information, and fully concurred in all the motions which it was the intention of the hon, and learned gentleman to make, with one exemption. As to the production of the minutes of captain Barclay's court-martial, such a measure would not, for the present, be advisable, since another gallant officer, general Proctor, was on his trial for his conduct in the command of the land forces at Detroit; he should therefore assent to the motion for the production of the minutes of the court-martial on captain Barclay, but with the understanding that they should not be produced until the trial of general Proctor should have terminated, when the minutes of both proceedings might be laid together before the House. There was only one of the motions which had been mentioned to which he saw an objection—it was that which called for minute information as to the equipment of the king's ships, which, as the hon. and learned gentleman would see, would, if laid before the House in an intelligible form, be highly improper. If the hon. and learned gentleman could so construct a motion for the purpose that it might not be seriously objectionable, he had no wish to throw any obstacles in the way of his obtaining the information he desired. As he had no objection to the production of the papers, it would not be becoming in him to enter into the different subjects of the speech they had heard, as it would be best answered by affording information. There were many points on which he could have set the hon. and learned gentleman right, but he thought it would be better to do so by authentic information than by his own assertion.

, the member for Bristol, said, that he was not at all disposed to make any general remarks on the subject before the House, after the speech they had heard. He was surprised that the hon. secretary of the Admiralty had not taken some notice of the subject which had come before the House. Mr. P. said, that his constituents were not well satisfied with the laconic answer which had been given by the secretary to the Admiralty to their representation of the want of adequate protection for their trade, that sufficient force had been provided. The hon. secretary had boldly appealed to the day of trial, and he hoped that then he would prove that he had not been to blame.

wished to say one word as to a mistake of the hon. gentleman who had preceded him. The answer which had been complained of as laconic, had not been given to that hon. gentleman's constituents. No such thing. It was the answer to the Royal Exchange Assurance Company of London, who he did not believe were the constituents of the hon. gentleman; and if it was compared with the letter to which it was an answer, it would be found that it was not at all improperly laconic, but as long, and more explanatory than the letter, The answer to Bristol was full, and afforded as much information as the Admiralty, consistently with their duty, could give. It would be seen, when all the papers were on the table, whether the Admiralty had treated the subject with any improper levity. As all the documents would be laid before the House, he should waste their time and do injustice to himself to enter into his defence without them; but he should repeat, that, when the trial came, he had no doubt of affording full and satisfactory information.

said, that on one branch of the subject of the war with America, the protection of our trade, as an underwriter and chairman of the committee at Lloyd's, he could afford more information than any of the papers which were moved for, or which it was in the power of the government to produce could give. At Lloyd's, it was well known, there was a regular list of captures kept, and since the beginning of the war with America, a se, palate account had been kept of such of our merchant vessels as had been captured by American cruizers. The number of the vessels taken from the beginning of this war to the 1st of the present month was 1175, of which 373 had been re-captured or given up; so that the number taken into port, or destroyed by the enemy, had been 802. This list was subdivided in the following manner:—The first capture in the list was in the end of August, 1812; from that month to the end of October the captures were on the average 100 per month; from the last period to the end of April, 1814, they were 20 per month; from the end of April to the end of October last, they had been 50 per month. The variation in the numbers taken per month was thus explained: at the breaking out of the American war, from the insignificance of the naval force of France, the number of vessels sailing with licences and without convoy was very considerable. The number which fell into the hands of the American private Leers was proportionably great. After the two first months, this frequency of capture ceased. The Admiralty refuse to grant licences, the practice of sailing without convoy became less general, and the captures were reduced to 20 per month. In April last the war with all the powers of Europe having terminated, our trade was thrown into an new entirely next channel. They sailed to ports where we had no naval force, and where convoy could not be afforded them; many vessels were consequently set afloat without protection, and the application for licence to the government became more frequent, and more difficult to get rid of. This has been the cause of the increase of our losses in the last six months; and it could not be diminished until measures had been taken to establish convoys, and until power was given to our consuls at ports where we had no naval officer, to oblige ships to wait for convoy. The causes of the increase of captures it had not been within the power of the Admiralty to prevent, since the captains preferred to sail without convoys, where previous measures had not been taken to oblige them to wait for it. The Americans, too, had, since the conclusion of peace in Europe, adopted a new, and he was sorry to add, a successful mode of annoying our trade. The owners of American privateers, with great judgment sent their ships close to our coast, to what were called the chops of the Channel, and had there committed their depredations with great success. The American vessels employed for this purpose being light-built and fast-sailing schooners, in summer weather and light breezes eluded all attempts of the king's ships to catch them. But when the equinoctial gales came on, they did not attempt to continue at sea, since they would have been captured, or perhaps have been unable to stand the weather; they had all consequently been swept away, and we had not heard for six weeks of any American privateers, except within the last few days, when one had been seen off the Scilly Isles. He had stated these facts, that the Admiralty might not be stigmatized for occurrences which they could not have prevented. True it was, that if in the next year the same number of ships were taken, the Admiralty would be deserving of all the reproach which had been cast upon them. In this he was not actuated by motives in favour of the Admiralty, because there was no individual in the country who would suffer more by the losses of our merchants than himself, nor any one who, if there had appeared to him to have been neglect, would have been more indignant at it. The rate of insurance, he thought, warranted no such gloomy inference as had been drawn from it. It had been stated by an hon. member, as a specimen of the rate of insurance, that the premium paid on a British ship from the Brazils was 24 per cent. whilst that of a Portuguese was 5 or 6. The price of a running ship could not be taken as a fair specimen of the rate of insurance, since, in cases where our ships sailed with convoy, the rate was rather lower than on neutral ships. Neutral ships sailing from Oldenburgh or Bremen to South America, paid 12 or 15 guineas per cent, and British ships to the same quarter 10 per cent, 5 to be returned on safe arrival. French vessels, from France to Martinique, paid in France 3 per cent. In London British vessels paid 2½ per cent. and 2 per cent. at the out-ports. Neutral East Indiamen paid from 7 to 10 guineas per cent, our East Indiamen 5 or 6. Such was the reliance on the protection of our convoys, that the danger of capture was esteemed nothing. He had felt it his duty to state this much on a subject on which great misrepresentation had gone abroad.

said, that with the exception of the bold assertion that the Admiralty had not been to blame, the ministers had not been much indebted to the hon. gentleman who had just advocated their cause. After all the valuable information which had been given to the House by that hon. gentleman, it had come out, that in the chops of the Channel, as it had been termed, that was, in our own seas, the American privateers had come and carried off our vessels; and it had been asked, how was the Admiralty to prevent them? These chops of the Channel were only cleared at last by the equinoctial gales, after the Admiralty had tried in vain. But it was not into the chops of the Channel alone that the Americans had penetrated, they had got into the Irish sea, and endangered the communication between Liverpool and Bristol and Ireland. Such a circumstance was hardly within the memory of man, that with such a naval force as ours, the Admiralty were not able to guard the narrow outlets of the Irish sea. He thought it strange that the secretary of the Admiralty should have taken no notice of the statements which had been made in the House, except as to a mistake of one address for another. The stile, of correspondence of the hon. secretary had certainly given offence, and driven the merchants of Glasgow to address the crown. The hon. secretary had said, that he should wait for documents; but no documents were necessary, the general facts were sufficient to criminate the Admiralty. It was enough to say, that the losses had been occasioned by vessels having sailed without convoy. Was it to be said that vessels should not sail from Liverpool to Ireland without convoy? The details would be quite unimportant; it was no matter whether the Tweezer was here or the Boxer there. No man of common intelligence wanted information to know that the British seas were in- fested, that vessels were left for months cruising in one latitude, and finally vessels had been sent against them, which had sunk when they came along side. They would be overloaded with an immense mass of papers, in which he should be surprised if he found any thing to justify ministers. If, either on the part of the commander or of the government, there had not been some negligence, the ports of America might have been blockaded at the beginning of the war, and the egress of large, and probably of small vessels, effectually prevented. Yet by a list published in America in last July, 1032 British vessels had been brought into American ports, or destroyed by American cruizers. Such a case was undeniable, and it would be a great neglect on the part of the House to adjourn without expressing its opinion on a subject on which England and Europe had already decided. There was one point on which explanation was necessary, viz. how it happened that, as ministers had said, all that was requisite had been sent out to Canada, yet, as our officers had said, nothing that was requisite had arrived? It was true, wood had been sent to Canada—we had sent wood to Canada!—while gun-locks (which, as capt. Pring said, were not to be procured in the country) were not sent. This was as if we should, if Newcastle was attacked, send store of coals to keep the inhabitants warm, and neglect all other provisions. The plan pursued by sir George Provost was obviously one sent out from this country, as no officer who had been in North America could have hit on one so absurd as the attempt to penetrate into New York; and it appeared from the dispatches that this was the fact. The hon. gentleman concluded by stating, that when the documents were before the House, he should enter more at large into the question.

rose to explain what he had said on a former night, as allusion had been made to it. He had then said, that as different opinions seemed to prevail with respect to the conduct of the two services, it would be better to wait till documents relating to both could be laid before the House.

thought that it would have been more becoming in the hon. and learned mover to have abstained from several of his charges, till the papers which he had called for, and which had been granted, should have been on the table of the House. The Board of Admiralty would wait till they were produced before they made their defence, conscious that the contents of those papers would afford them a complete justification in the eyes of the public.

contended, that the hon. and learned gentleman who had brought forward the motion, was perfectly right in making out a case to justify him in calling for the papers. If the statements of the hon. and learned gentleman were criminatory (as indeed they were), the Board of Admiralty must remain under the full weight of that accusation till it was refuted. With regard to what had fallen from an hon. member as to the mode of protecting our trade by convoys, to what justification of ministers did that lead? He was old enough to remember that period of our history when we were at war with France, Spain and America, and he would boldly affirm, that during that war the captures on our own coasts were nothing in comparison with those that had been made in this single war with America. He never knew that a vessel was then captured at the mouth of Dublin harbour, and the crew landed at a place a few miles distant from it, as had been the case only a few days since. But how were convoys to secure the trade in the manner in which that business was conducted? A notice, perhaps, might be sent to Waterford, that the vessels in that harbour must join convoy the next day at Cork; and what security was there that those vessels might not be captured in their passage from one harbour to another? Besides, if the whole trade of the united kingdoms was to be put under the necessity of convoy, what trade, he would ask, could bear the ex-pence? The true method was to keep our coast clear from American privateers. He agreed with what had been said, that so far as regarded the conduct of the war, and the reverses that had been sustained on Lakes Erie and Champlain, the fittest time for discussing those points would be when all the requisite papers were before them: but as to the injuries which our trade had experienced on our own coast, the universal voice of the country proclaimed the fact, and no documents or papers could make it more palpable.

The motion was then carried.

, in proposing his second motion, said, he wished to trouble the House with a few observations. It was certainly proper for the right hon. gen- tlemen opposite to determine in what way they would meet the question; nor had he any fault to find with them, for they had granted him the papers he required, and from their conduct that evening he should consider every charge he had brought against them as undeniably true until they were contradicted. He could not, indeed, believe it possible that men, sitting in their capacities, before parliament and in the face of their country, would patiently endure such accusations if they could refute them, and shuffle off the inquiry for three months longer! What! the ministers of the crown, the ministers of a great nation, ministers entrusted with all the affairs of government, would they, if they could help themselves, say, "three months hence the voluminous papers you require shall be ready for you, and when you have got them you may then fish out for yourselves the information you want?" Novel as their proceedings had been on various occasions during the present session, their present conduct exceeded all that had been before witnessed. But the best times of that House were gone by; they had lost those men who, trusting to their own eloquence, trusting to their own elevation of mind and character, their wisdom and integrity, would have dared their adversaries to the proof of accusations like the present, and not have sought to escape them by petty evasions. Such a scene as was now beheld would not have happened in their days, whose example and precepts the right hon. gentlemen opposite pretended to follow. He would not repeat the name of Pitt—they could not look up so high as that—but in the days even of Mr. Perceval, had a charge of gross neglect in the execution of their duty, a criminal betraying of the interests of their country, been preferred against the administration, how different, how widely different would have been the conduct on the opposite side! Any men, having the feelings of men, any statesmen, having the feelings that belong to their high condition, could not silently brook the imputations now cast upon the right hon. gentlemen opposite, without at least stating, in general terms, that the facts advanced were untrue, and the inferences unjust. [Hear, hear! from the ministerial benches]. He understood the meaning of that cheer; it was a reluctant, a tardy denial; but why did they not speak more intelligibly? Why was it left to the sub- ordinate officers of the Admiralty to say the little that had been said? The charges did not apply to that part of the administration alone; they applied to the whole government, which could not have left every thing to be settled and arranged by the laconic secretary to the Admiralty. If government conducted the affairs of the kingdom in the way they ought to be conducted, all the transactions to which his motions referred must have passed under its notice. As he before said, he should persist in considering his accusations as true, until they were contradicted; and he was quite sure the whole country would join with him in so understanding the silence of ministers. How humiliating had their conduct been! They had called parliament together, obtained the supplies they wanted, huddled over a few motions, and then got rid of the House again, because they found it somewhat too troublesome. The only symptom of vigour they had exhibited was in forcing on a motion of adjournment, in spite of all those important considerations which pointed out the expediency of parliament either continuing to sit, or meeting after a short recess. He would ask the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he really thought the case he meant to make out for the Admiralty could be done by the papers which he (Mr. Horner) had moved for, or whether it would not be indispensably necessary to call for other documents? His charges were principally of a negative description, and went to show that no adequate supplies, no salient preparations had been made. And what would the papers now moved for shew? They must certainly move for others, or their defense would be a lamentable one indeed. He had felt it requisite to say these few words; and should conclude with moving, "That there be laid before this House, a return of the date of sir James Yeo's arrival to take the command of his Majesty's ships and vessels on the lakes of Canada."

rose, amidst loud cheers from the opposition. He said, he hoped the hon. gentlemen would be as pleased with what he was going to say as they seemed to be at seeing him get up. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, that no denial having been made to his accusations, he should consider them as unanswerably true till refuted. The House, however, would do him the justice to recollect, that he had affirmed that government was in possession of more than sufficient information to refute all the facts of the hon. and learned gentleman, but that he wished the justification of ministers to rest upon authentic documents, and not upon his bare assertions; and he would repeat, notwithstanding all that had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman, that he was still willing for the present to rest the case upon that foundation. No doubt it would be necessary to call for more papers; and the House, when all those papers were produced, would then be able to determine, whether it had sufficient documents before it to go into the inquiry, or what further ones would be requisite. With respect to the criminating observations in the speech of the hon. and learned mover, he certainly did think, that when all the papers he required had been granted, it would have been more candid in him to have abstained from them; however, all that he should now say would be a general denial of their truth. If the motion had been for a vote of censure, he should have been more explicit; but to such a motion as was then before them, he conceived the best answer was, to refer to the documents that would be produced.

said, that no consideration on earth should induce him to sit silent under the unfounded charges of the hon. and learned gentleman, and the base aspersions which had been cast upon his Majesty's ministers. The greater part of the last speech of the hon. and learned gentleman was founded upon an assumption which afforded a strong proof of the shortness of his memory: the hon. and learned gentleman had stated, that no denial had been given on the part of his Majesty's government to the charges which he had brought forward but he appealed to the recollection of the House, whether his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not, in assenting to the production of the papers, given a most distinct denial to the hon. and learned gentleman's statement. The hon. and learned gentleman had preferred a number of charges against his Majesty's ministers without a single document on the table to support his case; but he called upon ministers to produce certain papers which he said would substantiate his charges. In reply, his Majesty's ministers denied the existence of the imputed culpability on the part of government, but said that they were willing to produce the papers (with one exception), in order that the House might judge whether the charges were or were not well founded. Under these circumstances, after ministers had professed their willingness to meet the charges, and to afford every facility to a full investigation of the subject, the hon. and learned gentleman had not only thought himself warranted in using the severest language against them, but had. in the most unprecedented manner, called upon the House to consider them as guilty, before the investigation took place, and before the House was in possession of one single document to guide its judgment. The hon. and learned gentleman had declared, that if certain papers were granted him he would prove his charges; his Majesty's ministers had acceded to his wishes, but it would be as unjust to call upon ministers, in the first instance, to enter into a detailed defense of every part of their conduct during the whole of the American war, without having a single paper upon the table to which they could refer to for their justification, as it was to call upon the House to determine now, that ministers were guilty, and to proceed hereafter to investigate the case. Soon after the hon. and learned gentleman came into the House this day, he had shown to ministers a list of the papers which he meant to call for; he was then told that they should all be produced, with the exception of one paper, which was of such a nature that it could not be laid upon the table consistently with the public interest; but, even with regard to that paper, he was told, that if he would so modify his motion as to call only for those parts of it which could with safety be produced, he should have it. His Majesty's ministers had then, he contended, a right after complying with the hon. and learned gentleman's motion for the production of all the evidence which he required, to call upon the House to give them credit for having discharged their duty faithfully to the public, until the inquiry could take place. He begged the House to consider the nature and extent of the charges brought forward by the hon. and learned gentleman, and then to determine, whether ministers could, consistently with what was due to their own characters, enter then into a full justification of their own conduct. He had begun with arraigning the measures of ministers at the commencement of the war in 1812; though, till the present moment, neither he nor any of his friends had thought proper to prefer any charge against government upon the subject. The next point which he had selected for attack was the failure on Lake Erie, an event with which the gentlemen on the other side of the House were long ago acquainted, and yet no motion, no charge was brought forward by them upon the subject. One gallant officer (captain Barclay) had been brought to a court-martial and honourably acquitted, but another (general Proctor) was at present under trial for his participation in that transaction. Could ministers, he would then ask, in justice to that officer or to themselves, now enter into a full discussion of that and every part of the American war before the documents were produced upon which alone the House could decide? The hon. and learned gentleman then expressed his wish that the House would (with the same absence of all information upon the points of which he had accused ministers) come to an immediate decision respecting the failure on Lake Champlain, although it was obvious that the causes which led to that failure must undergo a regular investigation before a court-martial. With respect, therefore, to the harsh language which the hon. and learned gentleman had applied to his Majesty's ministers, it was as unwarranted as the whole of his conduct on this occasion was unprecedented. He wished to ask the hon. and learned gentleman whether, if he (Mr. Pole) was about to impeach him for his conduct for several years past, and had, when he moved for documents to support his accusation, not only called upon that hon. and learned gentleman on the instant, and without a document in his possession, to proceed to a vindication of every part of his conduct, but had also called upon the House to consider him guilty before one title of the evidence on which the charge was founded was produced—he wished, he said, to ask the hon. and learned gentleman, whether he would not consider such a course of proceeding most unhanded and most unjust? The hon. and learned gentleman in justice and in candor might have said, "I have brought certain charges against you, and have called for papers to substantiate them; you have agreed to produce the papers; let the House suspend its judgment till the papers are produced, and then determine whether I have or have not made good my charges." He begged pardon for troubling the House, but he thought he should have deserved his full share of the harsh epithets which that hon. and learned gentleman had so liberally bestowed upon his Majesty's ministers, if he could have sat silent under such unfounded aspersions,—aspersions which he thought the more extraordinary, after the manner in which the papers which he had called for had been granted.

began by congratulating the right hon. gentleman upon that vivacity and energy of manner with which he al always endeavoured to enliven the dullness and insipidity of his side of the House. On the present occasion, however, he had proved himself no less disinterested than facetious, for he was the only one who had nothing to do with the charges brought against ministers, and yet he was the only one who could not bear to hear them, the only one who could not sit still and, he silent. He had taken the pains, too, of broaching a novel doctrine in the course of his speech. According to his system, when papers that were intended to be moved for, were granted by ministers, it was most unhandsome, and quite provoking, to slim the reasons why they were called for. Now, he did not happen to view the matter in the same light as the right hon. gentleman; but thought, on the contrary, that it was a very proper, and a very customary proceeding. But then, rejoined the right hon. gentleman, "have we not given a flat contradiction to all that has been said?" That sort of answer might have been very well if they (the opposition) had said to ministers, you are a set of incompetent bungling fellows; and ministers had replied, we are no such thing, we are very competent clever gentlemen: there would have been assertion against assertion: but here, a grave charge was brought in detail, and the answer to it was all in a lump. Ministers had certainly said, you shall have all the papers you want. And what then? Why then we will adjourn till the 9th of February, and by that time we shall know if we want papers too; and when we have found it out, then the Easter holidays will come, and we shall trust to the chapter of accidents for the rest. The proceedings of his hon. and learned friend were, he contended, perfectly regular and proper; and he should be quite satisfied with those of the right hon. gentleman opposite, if they would not adjourn. He never doubted their willingness to grant papers; every administration had been ready to come down to that House with yards of red tape and quires of papers; but they were not always so willing to grant inquiries. He hoped some part of the fire and vigour displayed by the right hon. gentleman had by that time infused itself into his colleagues, and that they would yet condescend to inform the House wherein the statements of his hon. and learned friend were wrong.

said, he did not rise to give satisfaction to the right hon. gentleman, but simply to justify the course which had been taken by his right hon. colleague, who, he contended, in abstaining from giving any answer to the ex-parte statement which had been made by the hon. and learned gentleman who had brought forward the motion, had, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, adopted the most prudent course. Adverting to the failure on the lakes, he asked whether the fairest way was not to produce information? But the hon. gentlemen opposite said they did not want it, and attributed that failure to want of proper supplies. He contended, that the proofs to the contrary depended materially on the result of the judicial inquiries now carried on. All that had been said with respect to gun-locks, &c. not being furnished, would then, he trusted, be shown to have been unfounded. If he were to produce a letter out of his pocket giving the most positive and satisfactory information on that head, the hon. gentlemen would say, let it be authenticated-, Of what use would then be present defence, unless the official pieces were laid before the House? At least one half of our misfortunes on Lake Champlain was supposed to arise from the loss of captain Downie. Whether or why the locks alluded to had not arrived in time, was a matter of inquiry now. The gentleman who complained that ministers granted all their demands, but forced them to wait two months before they could proceed upon them, forgot that it had teen in their own power to have brought forward the motion long before. Why had they not done it during the last session? Why had they not done it on the first night of the present? Some of the papers might then have been produced; but it might not be possible to present the whole, even when the adjournment should be over, and parliament should resume. The returns of the court-martial on general Proctor might not then have been received; and with respect to the affair on Lake Champlain, it must be put into a train of legal inquiry. It therefore would be impossible that the House should enter into the proposed investigation, even should it continue its sittings earlier than it would do now. As to the loss of the great men whose eloquence and abilities had once been the admiration of the country, it applied equally to the other side of the House. If the measures of the present administration were not defended with the same eloquence as the measures of former administrations, yet he conceived that in the present instance they had as much right as any other, to ask from the fairness and candour of the House, that the bare statement of the hon. and learned gentleman should not be taken as proof against them.

said, he thought the whole of the proceedings on the other side of the House denoted a deep conviction of blame and misconduct, an inquiry into which they anxiously sought to elude. The Master of the Mint, who was blameless, because he did not form a part of the government during the period comprehended in the motion of his hon. and learned friend, stood forth in vindication of his colleagues; yet he remembered when that right hon. gentleman sat by the side of the costly ambassador to the court of Lisbon, and loudly cheered him, when he complained of the want of vigour in carrying on the war, and advised the government to strike home in the outset of the contest. [Hear, hear!] Now, however, he was ready to defend the supineness of that administration; and he could not hear the base, slanderous, and wicked aspersions cast upon it, without rising just to show that he could speak; and then, as if afraid their guilt would come out, opposing the motion for inquiry. With regard to the papers that had been called for, be, for one, saw no objection to their being produced. The right hon. gentleman who spoke last had asked, why the matter was suffered to sleep all last session? If that right hon. gentleman would, for once, only have a little candour, he would see the reason. Last session was a most extraordinary one. Unlimited confidence was then placed, by that opposition which never confided, which never displayed candour, in the wisdom and discretion of ministers. Not a question was agitated that could in any way embarrass them. But, if an accusation of neglect was to be made, would it not equally apply to some who now sat on the other side of the House? There was the right hon. gentleman, the Master of the Mint, for whose acquirements and natural gifts he had a great respect; but nature never did so much for him as when she made him brother to the duke of Wellington. With all his vigilance, with all his activity, with all his knowledge in matters military, nautical and political, why did he not bring the subject forward? Surely he had neglected his duty as much as any other hon. gentleman. Now, however, the time for inquiry was come, and it was to be deferred till the 9th of February. The right hon. gentlemen, were ready to go to trial, and yet the House was to wait till the 9th of February before it could know what papers would be necessary for the investigation; then they-were to wait for the court-martial on general Proctor, and after that, for the court-martial on sir George Prevost; and by the time all those documents were ready, it would turn out, after all the magnanimity of the right hon, gentlemen, that they were laying a plan to escape inquiry altogether. Other momentous questions would then he pressing to their attention. Lord Castlereagh would be returned; the state of Europe would come under their consideration; and a great domestic topic, one which he knew weighed sorely on the mind of the right hon. gentleman, he meant the Income-tax, would be to be discussed. Thus the session would be taken up, and thus ministers hoped they should be able to elude inquiry. He thought his hon. and learned friend had taken a manly, direct, and proper course, in the conduct he had pursued; and even in the first interval that had elapsed between his giving the notice of his motion and making it, ministers ought to have prepared themselves to state what papers they should want, so that at least the earliest opportunity after the recess might have been seized to go into the inquiry. But, on the contrary, their whole course indicated a sense of blame, and an eager desire to shift off the evil day as long as they could, in hopes that something might occur to put it off altogether.

rose merely in consequence of what had fallen during the debate, relative to a right hon. friend of his, who was absent (Mr. Canning); and he was desirous to correct a mistake with regard to what had been his sentiments concerning the American war. The arguments he had employed were confined solely to the outset of the war; and he had expressed his doubts whether it was a wise policy to send an admiral as an ambassador, "with a flag at the main," to use his own expression. He had not, at any time, arraigned the insufficiency of the measures pursued by government; and he would defy any member to state, that his right hon. friend had ever charged ministers with inefficiency in carrying on the war, or in protecting our own coasts. He thought the right hon. gentleman (Mr. W. Pole) had done no more than he ought, in complaining of the attacks that had been made on him and his colleagues by the hon. and learned mover of the question; who, in his speech upon making his second motion, had certainly no right to infer that all the criminality which he imputed to ministers was proved, after the assertions made by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

declared, that he had always paid that attention to the sentiments of the right hon. the ambassador to Portugal which they deserved; and that he perfectly recollected that the right hon. gentleman had stated, that he could not understand the policy of making the war with America, as some would have it made, a war of gentleness and tenderness, With respect to the former observations of his hon, and learned friend, which had been adverted to, they related to the prejudging of the case of officers under trial by a court-martial. But on what ground parliament could be called upon to suspend an inquiry into the policy of government with respect to any enter-prize, because the officers who were charged with the execution of it were yet to be tried, tie confessed himself to be at a loss to conceive. It was of no consequence whether the officers had executed the service entrusted to them skillfully or not; the question was, if it was wise on the part of government to give them such a service to execute? An hon. gentleman had said, that when the papers on which the inquiry into the convention of Contra was founded were moved for, they were granted without any debate. Now, unless his recollection failed him altogether, there had been on that occasion a very long debate. Surely there was some part of the charge brought against government by his hon. and learned friend, which might have been answered without the infliction of injury on any one. For instance, would it not have been easy for his Majesty's ministers, in reply to the accusation of a want of adequate preparation on the lakes, either to declare that there had been an adequate preparation, or to state the causes which had prevented it? Would the reputation of any officer have suffered by such a developement? And would not the character of government have suffered less than it must suffer (whether justly or not he would not say) under the silence which had been maintained? He never recollected any thing like the conduct of his Majesty's ministers on this occasion; and it must inevitably create a strong suspicion in the public mind, that there had been gross and scandalous neglect and misconduct in the various departments of the government.

observed, that although his hon. and learned friend had been apprized by his Majesty's ministers that they had no objection to his motion, yet he would not take his papers without making a speech, and, having made a speech, he wished to show his abilities in a reply; to which reply, however, a previous debate was indispensable. This debate, however, not taking place, his hon. and learned friend chose to impute the silence of government to guilt. How did this consist with the candour of his hon. and learned friend? His hon. and learned friend had allowed that his opinions were grounded on loose information, had requested that the papers for which he moved should be produced, and had declared, that should they prove him to be in the wrong, he would be the first man to acknowledge his error. The papers were given, and then his hon. and learned friend ran away from his pledge, and from the evidence which he had himself demanded. He wished to know how his hon. and learned friend would have acted, had the papers been refused? Could he have said more than he had said on their being granted? Such was the consistency of this arraignment of ministers! Not that he blamed the prudence: of his hon. and learned friend: it was very prudent on his hart to ask parliament to censure his Majesty's government before the production of the documents on which alone that censure could be founded, because; on the production of those documents, it would probably appear that they were not liable to any censure at all. With respect to the opi- nions of Mr. Canning on the war with America, the memory of the right hon. gentleman opposite seemed not very correct. He believed he could set the right hon. gentleman right in that particular. So far was Mr. Canning from thinking that the war with America was not carried on with vigour, that the words be used in the only discussion on that subject, in which he participated, were, "Who ever I bought that Canada was in danger?" This was not the first time that Mr. Canning's name had been dragged unnecessary into the debate in that House. It was at one time asserted, that all his friends were to be provided Mr. It had also been said by the right hon. gentleman opposite, that the right hon. gentleman below him (Mr. W. Pole) owed his present official situation to his connexion with an illustrious individual, of an affinity to whom any man might be justly proud. For his part, he well recollected the exemplary discharge of his official duties by that right hon. gentleman, when serving in an administration, at the head of whom was a person whose virtues and talents he must ever remember with admiration and reverence; and he had no doubt that to his merits alone that right hon. gentleman was indebted for his recent appointment. For his own part, he confessed himself at a loss to guess why that right hon. gentleman had just been made the subject of animadversion on the part of the hon. gentleman, except it was considered a crime in him to have done that which his hon. and learned friend had called on all the members of his Majesty's government to do; namely, to speak when he felt that that government was loaded with unjust aspersions.

The motion was then agreed to.

said, that before he moved for his next paper he Must observe, that I the gentlemen opposite took great credit to themselves for granting all the papers he had demanded, when the fact was, that two of the most important were refused. The proceedings of the court-martial on captain Barclay were refused to be granted until the issue should be known of another court-martial, the period of which no man could tell. Under these circumstances he must confine himself to extracts of the proceedings; and he would therefore move, "That there be laid before this House, an extract of so much of the proceedings and evidence of a court-martial held on captain Barclay, and the other surviving officers of his Majesty's flotilla on Lake Erie, as relates to the state of preparation of that flotilla in point of equipment and armament."

, expressed his acquiescence in the motion.

availed himself of the opportunity to declare, that what had been said by the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Stephen) completely confirmed him in his conviction, that in the only speech made by Mr. Canning in that House on the subject, he had complained of the want of vigour in the conduct of the war with the United States. The very quotation from the right hon. gentleman's speech, which the learned gentleman had adduced, proved this unequivocally; and when Mr. Canning said that nobody could ever think that Canada was in danger, it was impossible that he could have it in contemplation (no mortal could have had it in contemplation) that ministers would tike credit to themselves for economy and wisdom, in not making any preparations to defend Canada, because the American government did not seem to have made any preparations to attack it. With respect to the infirmity on his part to which the hon. and learned gentleman alluded, he was sufficiently sensible of it. His memory was certainly bad, although perhaps some people might wish it was worse. [A laugh]. He should always feel himself at liberty to comment on the political conduct of every public man. But he denied any attempt to cast a slur on the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Wellesley Pole); all he had said was, that his near relationship to the duke of Wellington had, in his opinion, placed him in his present situation, as surely as the blood royal had seated those in whose veins it flowed, on thrones. Of the duke of Wellington's achievements the world was full; he had conquered all that were ever opposed to him; and it had only remained for him to crown them all by conquering the mint for the right hon. gentleman, and he had done it. [A laugh].

said, that the hon. gentleman had several times taken the trouble to attack him in a pointed manner. He knew not the grounds upon which he made those attacks, but whenever he thought proper to make them, he should always find him ready to answer them. The hon. gentleman had repeated smite allusions which he had made on a former night to a right hon. gentle- man now on an embassy: he had stated, on the first night of the session, that he had no connexion with that right hon. gentleman, or any of his friends, which could enable them to state the reason why he quitted office, or why he had now accepted it. The hon. gentleman had insinuated that he held his office in consequence of his being brother to the duke of Wellington, as if it was a matter of charge to be related to the noble duke. But that hon. gentleman was mistaken if he supposed he was in office because he was brother to the duke of Wellington. The House would, he was sure, excuse him, after the manner in which he had been attacked, if he stated that this was not the first time that he had the offer of a seat in the cabinet: that offer which was made to him, and pressed upon him, without the knowledge or concurrence of the duke of Wellington, he had refused. The whole of his political life was before the public; he was ready to answer any question, to meet any charge, which that hon. gentleman or any other might think proper to bring; but that hon. gentleman had no right to turn every debate into a personal attack upon him. If the hon. gentleman thought proper to charge his Majesty's ministers with conducting themselves in a shameful manner, he would not sit still and hear so utterly unfounded an assertion without giving it an answer. The hon. gentleman was accustomed to take a great latitude in speech, but the manner in which he had conducted his attacks that night was neither candid nor just. If he had any charges to make against him, he again called upon him to state them distinctly, and he was ready to answer them.

thought he had as much reason to complain of the right hon. gentleman. The right hon. gentleman had scarcely taken his seat in the House before he attacked him, and had said, that he had so long been witness to the bothering questions which he (Mr. Whitbread) had for twenty years been in the habit of putting to government, that he should recommend to his colleagues how to treat him—never to answer him inhaste, to take twenty-four hours to consider of it. If, however, the right hon. gentleman would put himself forward on every occasion, he must expect to be attacked. If he had said, that the right hon. gentleman was placed in the cabinet because he was related to the duke of Wellington, he had only said what he believed, and what the public also believed. But the right hon. gentleman had denied it: he had stated that he might have been in the cabinet, without the privacy of his relation. A right hon. gentleman (Mr. Huskisson) had said, that he (Mr. Pole) had displayed great ability in other situations; and he (Mr. W.) was willing to allow, that when the right hon. gentleman held subordinate situations, he had been a most useful and active servant of the public: but he could no more have thought that the right hon. gentleman would have had a seat in the cabinet, if he had not been the brother of the duke of Wellington, than he could have supposed that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Huskisson) would have held his present situation, if he had not been connected with the ambassador to Lisbon, who had provided for all his friends before he went. The attack had been commenced by the right hon. gentleman, and those who were so ready to attack, must not be put out of humour if assailed themselves.

thought it necessary to say a few words in defense of himself; and would state exactly how he came to hold his present situation. The earl of Liverpool had sent to him, to know whew then he would accept of a seat in the cabinet. He replied, that he never had any political difference with his Majesty's ministers, and that he would accept of it. He admitted that the duke of Wellington was desirous of his being in the cabinet, but that he had not interfered in his appointment. If the hon. gentleman thought that he owed his situation to such interference, or to the solicitations of any person, he was completely mistaken; he was not mean enough to hold office on such terms.

said, that the story told by the right hon. gentleman, proved the most delicate attention on the part of the earl of Liverpool to the whole of the right hon. gentleman's family. The right hon. gentleman was quite mistaken, if he imagined that he had any wish to supplant him in his office, or that he envied him his distinctions. He was welcome to them all. Nay, he would go further, and reverting to what had been said the other night by a gallant officer about exchanges, he assured the right hon. gentleman he would neither change with his opponents, nor change them: they were entirely to his taste.

The motion was agreed to.—After some further conversation, in which it was intimated by ministers, that the only objection which existed to the production of the papers moved for by the hon. and learned gentleman was, that the titles under which they were described were too comprehensive, and might be construed to include some information which it would be extremely unadvisable to make public, the following papers were ordered to be produced:—1. "An account of all ships of war and armed vessels belonging to his Majesty, which have been taken or destroyed by the Americans since the commencement of the war, with the force of each ship or vessel in guns, men, and boys. 2. A like account of all ships of war or vessels belonging to the United States, taken or destroyed by those of his Majesty. 3. A return of the number of American seamen that have been made prisoners of war since the commencement of hostilities; distinguishing collectively the number of those who have been captured, and those who were detained in ports of the United Kingdom. 4. An account of the merchant vessels taken from the United States of America, or destroyed and reported to the Admiralty since the commencement of the war; specifying the class or tonnage of each vessel, as far as the same can be ascertained; and distinguishing those which were detained in the ports of the United Kingdom. 5. An account of any frigates of a large class, or any ships of a class larger than frigates, and less than line of battle ships, built or fitted out since the 18th of June 1812, as far as the same can be produced without detriment to the public service, stating the periods at which such vessels were respectively fitted out. 6. Copies of all correspondence and orders relative to the Prompte and Psyche frigates, between the lords commisssioners of the Admiralty, the Navy-board, the Transport-board, sir James Yeo, and the Navy-board's agent at Quebec." It was also resolved, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, copies of all petitions that have been addressed to his Royal Highness by any of his Majesty's subjects concerned in the trade of the United Kingdom, complaining of insufficient protection to the trade at sea and upon the coast against the ships of war and privateers of the enemy, since the commencement of hostilities with the United States." Also, "Copies of all memorials and remonstrances, complaining to the same effect, that have been received by his Majesty's ministers, and of any answers that may have been made to such representations."

said, the motion which he was about to make would afford the right hon. gentleman ample opportunity for any statement or observations he might desire to submit. He should move, therefore, "That this House will, at the rising of the House this day, adjourn till Thursday the 9th, of February next."

thought it his duty to oppose this motion, as he could slew that the House must necessarily sit to-morrow. The motion ought rather to have been, that the two dropped orders should stand for to-morrow; as it was quite unusual to adjourn for a length of time, and leave such orders indisposed of. He wished, however, to call the attention of the House to a subject of much more importance, as connected with the adjournment. It was in the recollection of the House, that a committee had been appointed to report-, on the state of the expiring laws; and they had reported, that two laws were on the point of expiring, which related to six millions of money, advanced, in sums of three millions at a time, by the Bank to government; and which sums were to bear an interest of five per cent., if not discharged within six months after a peace. The first of these was one which bore an interest, and which was provided for by the votes of last session; and the right hon. gentleman meant to pay to the Bank the amount of the interest. The other stood on the same footing; but no interest was provided for it. Now, as the act in question expired early in December, he would ask if gentlemen could think it right to adjourn at this time, and leave the interest so to be paid unprovided for? He would not disguise what he had just heard on this subject, which was, that a new arrangement had that day been made with the Bank. But it was remarkable, that though the letter of the right hon. gentleman was dated about a week back, the Bank directors had abstained from calling a general court as soon as they received it; but had fixed on this particular day to bring the question before the proprietors of Bank stock. The fact was, that the House would have to make good, by the 13th of December, the sum of three millions to the Bank of England, or to pay interest for the further loan of it; and no provision was made for either. It was no answer to say, that there was an understanding just come to with the Bank, to let this suns remain outstanding without interest; for the Bank would do what would surprise him, if they did give it without interest. All these indirect proceedings, however, would convince the House there was something behind, which they could not understand. There was also another subject of deep importance, connected with those he had alluded to: he meant the Bank Restriction Act. This would expire next March, and it would be fit that the House should know what would be the result of this event. The Bank directors were no party men: they were the supporters of any and every administration. He believed the right hon. gentleman %vas secretary to the Treasury when the grant of six millions was made by the Bank; and it was thought a very nice thing to get such a sum without interest. This happened at a time when money was particularly scarce. The first act expired when lord Henry Petty (now marquis of Lansdowne) was in office, and he applied to the Bank to renew it; but the Bank said, that the renewal of the three millions could not be made except with interest. But why at that time, when we were involved in war, the Bank should refuse to re-advance this money without interest, and, now we were at peace, should adopt a course the very reverse, was what he could not understand. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, had got this sum renewed, and had not said a word about it to parliament. If, therefore, the House should agree to the adjournment, they would agree to leave the public saddled with an outstanding debt of three millions, and no means to provide for it. He apprehended, that a news contract of this kind, without the consent of parliament, was not sufficient; but that the amount must be voted in the committee of supply, and a grant be made in Exchequer bills. He had no doubt, if the subject had been mentioned earlier, that the result would have been an intimation that there was a debt of three millions outstanding early in December, and unprovided for; but that this was of no consequence; and gentlemen might adjourn, with perfect convenience, to eat their Christmas pies and spend their holidays. He must, however, proceed to explain a part of the consequences of this conduct. He was aware that the subject was a dull one, and he feared that he should scarcely be able to make himself understood; but such gentlemen as disliked, or were tired of it, had better get up and go away. The supplies which had just been voted for the service of the year, amounted to about 24,000,000l.; in addition to which there were 12,500,000l. of Exchequer bills, and also 15,000,000l. of Exchequer bills to make good those outstanding, all chargeable on the aids of the year. The ways and means afforded 3,000,000l. from the land and malt; and 15,000,000l. were still to come in from the war taxes of the year, making together 18,000,000l. This was the whole sum afforded by the ways and means; and thus it was clear, that provision was made for little more than one half of the supplies to be covered. But the great difficulty to be got over respected the sum of 15,000,000l. in the supply; for the right hon. gentleman appeared not to be in possession of one single sixpence in money; he had nothing but Exchequer bills. The question, then, was, how could this enormous amount be provided for? The 15,000,000l. which were to come in from the war taxes, no doubt the right hon. gentleman would tell the House was what he meant to touch as money, but not to pay off with it the outstanding bills of 1814. The Exchequer hills now outstanding, charged on the aids of 1814, were chargeable on the 15,000,000l. still to come in. But if the right hon. gentleman continued in this way to vote the one against the other, nothing was gained at last. He had found it expedient that these bills should not be postponed till another year, but should be paid out of the funds or aids of the present year. It should be recollected, that the Treasury never was empowered to issue any Exchequer bills on the aids of the year, till the Property Tax Act was passed; but it was then found expedient to issue such bills on the security of the grants and aids of the current year; and it was remarkable, that the ministry of that time set out with only 4,500,000l of these bills, which they had annually increased, and which were discharged by the money appropriated for the service of the year. He would defy the right hon. gentleman to produce an instance where any thing had been taken from the sums which have been to come in from the loan, in the manner the right hon. gentleman now intended to take them. The property tax going on while we were at war, the aids for the public service were sufficient. But now, what the right hon. gentleman had to do was, to assume the fact, that the property tax was to be continued. The Exchequer-bill holder then came in on precisely the same footing he stood on before, because he had a safe fund. Mr. Pitt never would have dreamt of laying a sum of 15,000,000l. on the aids of the year, unless under the assistance of the property tax. The property tax was very good security to the holder of an Exchequer bill, so long as he was certain of its continuing; but what certainty could he now have of such a security? There was no other fund to which a public creditor of this class could look. They were all mortgaged, and an additional vote had been granted to the consolidated fund. He did think, though he feared he had made himself, on a very dull subject, very imperfectly understood, that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in taking possession of so large a sum as 15,000,000l., and in charging it on a fund that existed only in his own imagination, has been guilty of a most unjustifiable proceeding.

observed that the right hon. gentleman had opposed the adjournment for reasons so very different from those which he had expected him to urge against it, that he must beg leave to give a short answer to the right hon. gentleman's formal and technical objections, reserving to himself, with the permission of the House, the right of afterwards replying to any other gentleman who might state objections of a different and more general nature. The right hon. gentleman's objections were not only in themselves dry and technical, but as the subject to which they referred was also somewhat complicated, he feared that it would be difficult for him either to command the attention of the House, or to make his statement perfectly intelligible.

The right hon. gentleman contended, that the House could not possibly adjourn until it had made provision for the repayment of a sum of three millions, which would, in a few days, become due to the Bank of England. To understand this subject, it was necessary to remark, that two sums, each of three millions, had been advanced, at different times, by the Bank, for the public service, upon very different conditions. The first of these sums was advanced in the year 1800, without interest, for six years, as a consideration for the renewal of the charter of the Bank. In 1806, when this sum became due, the Bank had consented to continue the advance, until six months after the conclusion of peace, at an interest of 3 per cent.; by which arrangement the public derived an advantage equal to the difference between three percent and the market rate of interest; which advantage could not, at that time, be taken at less than two per cent. For the repayment of this sum, parliament had made provision in the last session. The other sum of three millions, was that to which the right hon. gentleman's observations particularly applied. This advance arose out of the report of the committee of public expenditure in the year 1808. The committee, adverting to the great increase of the balances of public money lodged in the Bank since the renewal of the charter, had reported an opinion, that the public ought to partake in the advantage derived from the increase of those balances beyond their amount at the period of the renewal of the charter. The Bank, upon discussion, had acquiesced in this reasoning; and it had in consequence been agreed, that they should advance a sum of three millions, without interest, until six months after the conclusion of peace. This transaction, and the act of parliament which arose out of it, had not escaped the notice of the Treasury; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had in consequence communicated to the directors of the Bank his opinion, that the principles upon which Mr. Perceval had required that advance from them in the year 1808 were still in full force, and that it would be only reasonable that the Bank should continue to the public the benefit of this advance, as long as the balances of public money in their hands should be equal to their amount in 1808. In order to give time for a full investigation of this subject, the directors consented to recommend to the court of proprietors to continue this advance in the first instance, till the 5th of April 1816. Circumstances arising out of the forms required by the Bank charter, had prevented the court of proprietors from taking the subject into consideration until this day; but he had had the satisfaction of learning, that the court had agreed to his proposition. We had now, therefore, the consent of the Bank to postpone, till the 5th of April 1816, the repayment which the right hon. gentleman had supposed it necessary immediately to provide for. It was true, that this agreement must be carried into effect by the authority of an act of parliament; but he hoped he did not presume too much in anticipating the consent of parliament to an arrangement obviously beneficial to the public. He should, immediately after the recess, propose a bill to this effect; and it was only from want of attention to the Act of 1808, that the right hon. gentleman could have contended that any inconvenience could arise from the postponement of a legislative provision on the subject, till after the meeting of parliament.

It was necessary to attend to the particular provisions of that Act, with respect to the repayment of this sum. It was to bear interest, from six months after the ratification of the definitive, treaty of peace; and in the first instance, both the principal and interest were to be charged upon the supplies of the year; and in case sufficient provision should not be made by parliament out of the supplies, this sum, together with its interest, would become a charge upon the consolidated fund, payable as soon as all other sums appropriated out of the consolidated fund by act of parliament should have been satisfied. In the present case, it might be considered as impossible that the sums already charged upon the consolidated fund by various acts of parliament, should be made good before the 5th of April next; and, therefore, the only case in which any charge could attach upon the consolidated fund in respect of this sum of three millions, could not arise until the subject might receive the further consideration of parliament. Even if so very improbable an event should happen, which, in the right hon. gentleman's view of the state of our revenue, must strike him more peculiarly as an absurd supposition, the Bank having consented not to require repayment, no other inconve- nience could arise, than that a sum of money might remain for a few weeks unappropriated at the Exchequer, subject to the disposal of parliament at its meeting.

He hoped this explanation would be thought sufficient upon that part of the right hon. gentleman's argument; but there was another part of his reasoning of a still more extraordinary nature. He had contended, that the ways and means granted since the meeting of parliament, fell very short of the supply which had been voted; and that it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before the House adjourned, to propose measures for equalizing their amount. It was probably the first time that such an idea had ever been stated to the House. Both the theory and the practice of parliament, whether as inferred from their journals, or stated by Mr. Hatsell and other technical writers, required that the ways and means provided by the House should not exceed the supply they had granted; for this very obvious reason, that the contrary proceeding would leave in the Treasury, and at the disposal of the crown, if ministers should be found capable of misapplying it, a sum of money unappropriated by parliament. In the present case, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had done all that the practice of parliament required, or that had been usual with other ministers at the opening of the session. He had provided such funds as he thought amply sufficient to carry on the public service, till parliament should have the opportunity of making further provision. He was aware that the right hon. gentleman had all along appeared to suspect some mystery in his proceedings; and though he had missed no opportunity to explain them as clearly as he was able, he still doubted whether the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Tierney) fully understood them. They were all of the most simple and usual kind. He had only thought it necessary to propose the usual annual taxes; a grant of Exchequer bills, three millions short of what had been granted last year, provision having been made in the last session for repaying that sum; the usual Act for issuing Exchequer bills on the aids of the year, and a grant equally usual in principle, though somewhat larger than the usual amount, upon the ways and means of the present year, for the service of the year ensuing. With respect to the annual Act for Exchequer bills on aids, the right hon. gentleman ap- peared to him to have fallen into the strangest misconception. He had considered that Act as arising out of the property-tax. It had no connection what ever with that tax, but arose out of an improvement in the management of Exchequer bills. Formerly, almost all money bills contained what was called a clause of credit, empowering the Treasury to issue Exchequer bills upon their future produce. The consequence, therefore, was, that Exchequer bills issued at the same time, became payable at very different dates, and bore a difference value the market; because each of them could only be repaid in proportion as the fund in anticipation of which it was originally issued became productive. The consequence was, sometimes to afford opportunities of fraud, and almost always to occasion complaints and inconvenience, and, in a certain degree, to diminish the credit of Exchequer bills. To obviate these evils, the practice was introduced in lord Sidmouth's administration, of paying off Exchequer bills in course, according to the date of their issue, and without reference to any specific fund. It became necessary, therefore, to discontinue the practice of charging Exchequer bills upon particular funds, and the more convenient mode now in use was introduced, of charging them indiscriminately on all the aids of the year, by virtue of a general Act for that purpose. The Act lately passed was in this ordinary form, and could have no other than the usual operation.

The only remaining measure which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had proposed to parliament, had been equally misunderstood by the right hon. gentleman. It had been already, on former occasions, explained to the House, but it might not be useless shortly to state its nature. For several years past, it had been the practice of parliament, towards the close of the financial year, which, it should be recollected, ended on the 5th of April, to make provision in the committee of supply, for the repayment of eight millions of the Exchequer bills charged on the aids of the year, and to make an equal sum of the ways and means remaining to be received, and upon which such bills had been charged, applicable to the service of the ensuing year. In the present instance, the House had thought it advisable to sanction a grant of the same nature to the extent of fifteen millions, because much larger sums remained to be received of the ways and means of the year than had been the case in former instances. In those years, the only sums remaining to be received were a portion of the grant of war taxes; but there was now, besides the war taxes, a considerable proportion of the loan still to be paid. The sum of fifteen millions, therefore, did not bear a greater proportion to the total amount to be received, than that of eight millions had done in former cases. The House would observe, that this was in fact little more than a nominal transfer, by which a power was given to the Treasury to apply the ways and means of either year to the services which were of the Bost pressing nature. Without such a power, the wants of the public service might remain unsatisfied, while sufficient funds were lying in the. Exchequer, for which there was no immediate call. When the services of each year were completed, and the ways and means realized, this account would balance itself, and require no particular provision; and might, at last, be omitted on both sides of the account, as had in fact been usual, without occasioning any error. The right hon. gentleman who saw the property tax in every thing, fancied he had discovered an anticipation of it in the present measure. He had stated that the Exchequer bills which would be left unsatisfied in consequence of the application of the ways and means of 1814 to other services, would be "charged upon the property tax after the 5th of April." Why they should be charged upon the property tax rather than any other possible fund, the right hon. gentleman had not stated; no power had been given to raise upon the war taxes one shilling more than was already granted. It could no more be contended that the war taxes were to be charged, than the consolidated fund, or any future loan. By what ways and means this, among the other services which had been voted, was to be ultimately provided for, would be the subject of future deliberations of parliament. If indeed the right hon. gentleman could have proved that no sufficient provision had been made for carrying on the public service till the House should again assemble, he might have opposed the adjournment with reason and with success; but on this point he desired to set the right hon. gentleman's mind at ease, by assuring him that the payments which the. Exchequer could depend upon receiving would be sufficient to defray any expense which could be foreseen. Parliament had also given a power of issuing Exchequer bills; but, exclusively of any increase of Exchequer bills, which he wished and hoped to avoid, he trusted that every necessary charge was sufficiently provided for; and therefore that the House, without any public inconvenience, might take advantage of the interval which the proposed recess would afford them, of attending to their private concerns, and to those branches of country business which it was not of less importance to the public interest than to the good of their particular residences, that they should have occasionally, and especially at the present season, the opportunity of superintending.

, so far from conceiving the proposed adjournment called for, thought it the most mischievous measure which could be resorted to. It was admitted, that the House was about to adjourn, leaving three millions of money which ought to be paid in December unprovided for, till after the 9th of February, while it was also admitted that the consolidated fund, on which the three millions in question might have been chargeable, had it been equal to the burthen, was deficient considerably more than two millions. Was this the way in which that House ought to conduct their business? As to the fifteen millions of Exchequer bills in aid of the fifteen millions of the former year, he contended that the property tax and other war taxes now ceasing, there was no ground whatever for continuing this system. Formerly such aids were secured on a fund already appropriated by parliament for the purpose of paying off such Exchequer-bills, and whether this was done one year, or a transfer of the burthen was made from the one year to the other, could make little difference, while the fund appropriated for the purpose remained entire. But where the fund did not exist, but was to be found by parliament, the case was very different. Would any man say, that a fund to be found by parliament afforded him the same security as a fund already appropriated for the purpose? Here the adjournment was proposed, not for the purpose of facilitating public business, or to accommodate parliament, but actually to get quit of parliament. Did the right hon. gentleman say there was nothing to be done? He could not say that. He might, indeed, complain of having been very hard worked. The House had sat 24 days, and had voted away 24 millions of the public money. It was hardly possible to conceive a session in which a greater deal of public business was to be expected. What would they have to do between the 9th of February and the 22d of March? They would then be called on to renew the Bank Restriction Bill; and was it possible to contend, that this could be done without a committee of inquiry? It was absolutely necessary that the Bank should show the House what they had been doing in the mean time, to enable them to meet their payments in cash. This must be done before the 22d of March. There was not the smallest doubt in his mind, that the property tax was intended to be continued to its fullest extent, and yet there would not be three weeks to debate upon it, although at least three months would be necessary. Why not, if an adjournment were so necessary, advise a message from the crown? The fact was, that neither the right hon. gentleman nor any one of his colleagues dared to advise the Regent to send such a message. They wished to retire from what they had to encounter, and prayed that God might send lord Castlereagh back before the 9th of February to relieve them. Amongst the business for discussion in the spring would be the Corn Bill, the Bank Restriction Act, the Property Tax, the war, and he hoped the peace with America, and the proceedings of the Congress. He would ask, what portion of all this business could by any possibility be got through after such a loss of time? What would become of the Lords, who were spoken of with such respect in that House? They would have to sit till October. He was afraid he had tired the House with his tedious detail; but he would conclude, with imploring the right hon. gentleman to give some kind of reason for the adjournment till the 9th of February.

, in reply, asserted, that he saw nothing to induce the House not to adjourn. The right hon. gentleman was extremely alarmed lest the property tax should be continued. He hoped the right hon. gentleman, if he meant to oppose that tax, would suggest some other equally advantageous.

begged the right hon. gentleman would not call upon him to propose taxes; he was only anxious to see them abolished.

was sure the right hon. gentleman must know, that the public service must be supplied. He justified the adjournment, on the ground that it was impossible to procure a large attendance of members at this time of the year, when every gentleman wished to attend to his country business and hospitalities. The time after February would be found amply sufficient for every purpose.

insisted, that the remainder of the session would involve measures, on which depended the future comfort, convenience, and happiness of every class of society, not excepting those of large fortunes. He strenuously opposed the motion of adjournment, and considered it as the establishment of a precedent unparalleled in our Parliamentary History. He alluded to the proceedings elative to king Joachim and the king of Sicily, stigmatized them as a distinct departure from the ground which we had originally taken, and as a proof of the total ignorance in which the ministers at home remained as to the proceedings of their colleague abroad. Wonderful events had occurred since the present administration had been in power, and ministers, till lately, had deserved the praise of not committing any very great fault, of not throwing impediments in the way of success. The declaration of the allies last year, was one cause of the confidence reposed by parliament in ministers. The confederated powers had not acted up to the principles they avowed then, and therefore that could no longer be urged in favour of an adjournment. He thought, under all circumstances, that ministers did not deserve the confidence that they asked for.

said, that if, as the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down was of opinion, his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had offered no reasons for the adjournment, he would say of the last speaker, that he had given no reason why the House should not adjourn. He was content the question should rest on the ground on which the hon. and learned gentleman had put it at the close of his speech, and that it should be decided according to the confidence the House had in ministers. He thought some of the gentlemen opposite had withdrawn their confidence from the noble lord at Vienna without reason. He did not quarrel with this, but he contended, that as the noble lord had gone to Vienna with their approbation, ministers were justified in expecting the House would continue that confidence, until his noble friend returned to vindicate his conduct. The subjects that would come under discussion might then receive those explanations from him, which it was impossible for the House to receive in his absence.

rose, and said Sir, I cannot agree in the justice of the arguments of the right hon. gentleman who spoke last; because, although in the preceding year it was wise in this House to confide, to a certain extent, in his Majesty's ministers, yet I see no reason whatever, in the present posture of affairs, for pursuing the same course. There is no sort of analogy between the two cases: last year the allied powers were in arms against Buonaparté; and it was a question of policy, whether they were to make peace with him, or to pursue the war to the extent of dethroning him, and of restoring to the Bourbon family the crown of France? It was impossible for the House to form an accurate opinion on this subject. It was impossible for the House, or for any person, not on the continent at that time, and in the confidence of the allied sovereigns, to say what was the true line of conduct which ought to be adopted on that critical occasion. Under these circumstances, it might be found necessary to incline to his Majesty's ministers; to impart to them a degree of confidence, which an ordinary occasion would not, perhaps, warrant. The House were called upon to adopt one of these alternatives; either to give to ministers the confidence they had done, or to discuss questions on which their information was extremely limited. If they had entertained those questions, I conceive the House would have adopted a proceeding which they could by no means have justified. Because, as I have before observed, none but those who had a perfect knowledge of the feelings of the different European powers, were competent to express an opinion on so complicated a subject. For my own part, Sir, I always thought that Buonaparté was ruined, as he was made, by himself. His own mad ambition was his ruin; and I always considered the great merit of lord Castlereagh to be, his not determining, in the first instance, not to make peace with Buonaparté. The moderation which the Allies showed on that occasion, was the great cause of their success. If they had been too violent in their proceedings, if they had conducted themselves with haughtiness, and thus have excited the resentment of the people of France, Buonaparté might have escaped from the misfortunes which his own folly had created. But the allies, by deviating from the maxim that no peace was to be made with Buonaparté, were ultimately enabled to accomplish their object. This, Sir, I always looked upon as the principal merit displayed by the emperor of Russia and the allied powers; and I am convinced, that, if they had followed a contrary course, they would have failed; nothing would have been done.

But, Sir, is there any thing like this now? Certainly not. There is now no question of peace or war to be decided; no question is now agitated, with respect to this or the other dynasty in Europe; we are not now supposed to be engaged in controversies of that sort. And, with respect to what is passing in the Congress at Vienna, I will venture to say, that our discussions are likely not only not to produce mischief, but to consummate great good. If things have been done in that Congress, which are said to be concluded, is it not likely that the exertions of this House may do considerable good, when it is known to the feelings of many of its members, perhaps the feelings of the entire English nation, that such proceedings are deemed unworthy of those by whom they were countenanced? Surely the manifestation of such a feeling is calculated not to produce injury, but to operate great good. It is curious, Sir, to observe the arguments adduced by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the adjournment. He tells us we are now approaching Christmas. This, however, is but the 1st of December, and there is a very considerable interval between this and Christmas. The intermediate time, however, he informs us, is not sufficient to debate, properly, any bill, connected with any great question whatsoever. Twenty-four days he considers not sufficient to debate and carry through the House any one bill, on any one great and important public measure. Now, Sir, let us examine the position in which he will place the House by the proposed adjournment. The right hon. gentleman wishes to adjourn to the 9th of February. But how many important measures, in that case, must the House decide upon by the 25th of March? in a time exceeding only by 19 days that which he says is not extensive enough to carry any one particular measure through the House: in that period, Sir, almost all the material measures of the session must be attended to. Let us see what those measures are; we are to determine on the continuance or cessation of the Bank Restriction Act. Is not this a most important measure? Can any man imagine that the finances of England will ever be in a sound state, until a metallic currency is restored? Can any person suppose that her situation will be really flourishing, until cash payments are renewed? Will the House, then, determine on a subject of this kind without inquiry? Will you determine, because it was found necessary, in time of war, to agree to those restrictions, that therefore they shall be continued in time of peace? And will you state no reason to the country for this decision? The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, that it became the candour of my right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney) to point out how the necessity of the time could be met without war taxes—without the property tax. This is, Sir, a fair insinuation on the part of the right hon. gentleman, that he intends to continue the property tax. But, can any individual believe that he, or any person else, could make a proposition of this kind without inquiry, without stating to the House and to the country the reasons which rendered such a proceeding necessary? Here then are two very important measures; and if each of these is to take twenty-four days, which the right hon. gentleman declares to be an insufficient time for the discussion of any bill, I should be glad to know how we are to get through them in the space between the 9th of February and the 25th of March? One of the acts to which I allude will expire on the 25th of March, and the other on the 5th of April. There is another point worthy of our particular attention. This mode of proceeding, meeting, adjourning, and meeting again, in the course of a month or two, strikes almost all the representatives of Ireland out of the House of Commons; they cannot attend in this way. The assizes will be going on in the month of March; and the nature of the business in that country is such, that the Irish members find it absolutely necessary to absent themselves from parliament. I believe that scarcely five Irish members have been seen in the House since the commencement of the session. And I am sure, if the English or Scotch members were placed in the same situation, they would act precisely in the same way. It is not a very light thing for the Irish members to bring their families and establishments across the Channel three or four times a year. It may be said, "Oh! it is your duty to attend!" We know that—but we also know that they will not attend. When the House is sitting in August or September, the same remark might be made: it might be observed, "it is your duty to remain until the prorogation." This may be true, but we know the Irish members do not remain; for, in general, the business relating to that country is executed in very thin Houses, and with very little consideration. In the present short session, we have had brought before us, in consequence of this system, no less titan three acts of parliament respecting Ireland—two of them to be repealed, and one of them to be amended. But, Sir; is there a necessity for this adjournment? because nothing but the most pressing necessity can justify it. I say, and I will maintain it, there is no necessity. The only necessity is this, and the right hon. gentleman might have stated it with perfect truth, that he and his colleagues feel it necessary to get rid of those who sit opposed to them in this House—to get rid, in short, of the House of Commons. This is the only necessity that exists—this is the necessity which pressed on them—and, under its influence, they acted as they have done. But if they cannot, in a time of profound peace, when every shilling they called for has been voted; if they cannot at such a moment conduct the business of the country themselves, in the absence of one of their colleagues, the public certainly must be of opinion, that they are very unfit for their situations. The want of money brought us together—(Hear!)nothing else; for the ministers have not proposed, from themselves, any one measure to parliament, except the grant of money. That they have got, and got largely; and, having accomplished their object, they now propose to adjourn. At the next meeting of parliament, if they equally succeed in obtaining their desires, they will not be more anxious to keep us together. I always thought the want of money occasioned us to be assembled, and I am now confirmed in my supposition. The moment the supply is voted, we are to be turned, it seems, about our business. But I hope the House, under these circumstances, will not listen to the proposition. As we are assembled, let us continue to sit, and make some progress in the public business. Are we to have any inquiry on the Bank restriction? If so, why not proceed with it now? Why not make some advances towards forming that report? Why devote twenty-four days to utter idleness? We could proceed with that inquiry now. It is a most important subject, and the right hon. gentleman would scarcely attempt to propose a continuance of the restriction, without examination at all? If, then, examination is to precede the continuance of the measure, why should we not enter upon it before Christmas? The progress we might make on that point, would clear our way in the investigation of the property tax. The more you do before Christmas, the less you will have to do after. In almost every instance that I can recollect, parliament met in January; not so early, perhaps, as the 9th or 10th, to which time I think we ought to adjourn; but somewhere between the 18th and the 23d. But, by the motion now before us, we are called upon to pass over January as well as December. I foresee from this a great deal of public inconvenience; I forsee, that very important business will be put off to a late period, when there will not be sufficient time to examine it; and therefore, to prevent such evils, I shall move, as an amendment, "That, instead of the 9th of February, the 9th of January be substituted."

was not aware of its being a novelty for parliament to be assembled when money was wanted for the public service, nor did it appear to him that the practice merited the crimination cast on it. Though it could not be contended that the situation of public affairs were the same as last year, yet the change which had taken place was not so great as to make it improper for parliament to pursue a course similar to that which they had then thought it their duty to take. He did not think the House would be likely to have a fuller attendance in January than it had now. For many years, when parliament had not assembled before Christmas, they had not been called together before the latter end of January. He could see no reason whatever, now that parliament had met and forwarded part of the public business, why they should again be assembled, as proposed by the right hon. gentleman, so early as the 9th of the ensuing month. As to the accommodation which it was said ministers would find in waiting the return of the noble lord, he had to say it would be felt as such by them, because it would enable them to answer, without a breach of duty, those questions which the gentlemen opposite seemed to value themselves so much on having asked in the present session. When the noble lord appeared in his place, he was confident it would be seen that he had done his duty, and ministers would probably again receive the praise of not having thrown any impediment in the way of the desired arrangements.

said, that parliament seemed to have been called together merely for the purpose of doing what the French parliaments were formerly assembled to do, namely, register edicts for grants of money. He could see no reason for adjourning from that day, the 1st of December, to the 9th of February. At the time of their re-assembling, many of the Irish members would not be able to attend.

said, he could not subscribe to the doctrine that the existing negotiations at Vienna afforded a sufficient reason for the proposed adjournment; neither was the conduct of ministers such as to entitle them to the same confidence which they had been entrusted with last year. What was there on the opposite bench to inspire confidence? With every degree of respect for the private characters of many of those gentlemen, he would not entrust to them the management of the affairs of a private individual, much less those of the nation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney) had stated, would be found to have pledged a portion of the property tax as a security for Exchequer bills: he must meditate, therefore, a prolongation of that obnoxious impost: but, with the feelings of the country on the subject, he would find it one of the most arduous tasks that any finance minister ever had to encounter. Whether he looked at the conduct of the war with America, or the terms of peace which they had proposed, he thought ministers equally uninitiated to confidence.

observed, that if the Bank of England had that day refused to continue the gratuitous loan of three millions, then he should have thought the arguments of a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Tierney) against the adjournment of considerable force. That, however, had not been the case. It appeared to him, that the question with regard to the continu- ance or repeal of the property tax, depended altogether on events which were still in the womb of time, and which the continued sitting of parliament could neither precipitate nor delay. If, for instance, the American war continued, or it were found necessary to maintain a large army on the continent for a prolonged period, he should think that either of those causes, or both together, would render the continuance of that tax as expedient as its first imposition was necessary. That tax was most objectionable and burthensome in many respects; but if the same necessity which created it required its continuance, he had no doubt the country had patriotism enough to submit. With regard to the Bank restriction, it was equally evident, that the large drain of specie which would be occasioned by the prolongation of the American war, and the maintenance of a force on the continent, would also render the continuance of that measure necessary. At any rate, the House must wait for events before it could come to a decision on any of those questions. How could they judge of the negotiations at Vienna until they were finished? To keep the House sitting under present circumstances would be only playing the children's game of questions and commands to no good purpose. He could not forget that the same gentlemen who now recommended that the House should continue sitting, had formerly recommended the husbanding our resources, and would have shut us up in our island, and left all Europe a prey to the most relentless despotism. By the very different policy pursued by ministers, we had become the deliverers and the arbiters of the world; and he now wished to give them an opportunity of consolidating the great work which they had begun.

said, he understood the negociations at Ghent were going on favourably. He was glad of it, and as far as an individual might, he begged to thank ministers for sending out instructions which had caused them to take such a turn. If the American war were not put an end to, the property tax and war taxes must be continued, which otherwise might become unnecessary.

complimented Mr. Marryatt on the gallantry with which, in the course of the evening, he had twice come forward in defense of ministers. He was not altogether surprised at the good opinion the hon. gentleman had of ministers, and doubted not but if certain friends of his (Mr. Whitbread's) were to pass over to the Treasury-bench, that they would soon be equally happy in conciliating the hon. gentleman's confidence. In their Address in answer to the Speech of the Prince Regent, the House had pledged itself to proceed with all due caution to adopt such measures as should appear necessary for the purpose of extending our trade and securing the advantages we have gained. This pledge the House, he contended, by adjourning as was now proposed to do without taking any step in consequence of it, left unredeemed. They had that night for the first time heard from the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer the portentous declaration, that the property tax was to continue; and the right hon. gentleman had hinted, that those ought not to vote against it who could not point out some other mode of raising the money necessary for the service of the state. This position he denied. It was not for those who objected to the taxes proposed by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devise others. For what purpose was the place the right hon. gentleman held given him, if other members were to discover for him measures of finance? It was enough for them to show that they were oppressive, injurious, and unnecessary, in the present state of the country. An intimation had also been given by the right hon. gentleman, that a corn Bill would be introduced in the course of the session. A measure which whatever might be its intrinsic policy, it would be highly inexpedient to attempt in the present state of the country. He had been charged with consistency, because he had expressed his confidence in lord Castlereagh at the time of his departure for the continent, and would not now continue it. It was true, that from the autumn of the year 1809, when a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) had made a desperate plunge in politics for the purpose of unseating the noble lord and placing himself at the head of the administration (which adventure had ended in his own complete downfall), he (Mr. Whitbread) had entertained a higher opinion of the noble lord; the conduct of lord Castlereagh at that time had met Mr. Whitbread's approbation, and his conduct since had not tended to diminish it: this opinion he had fairly avowed, nor was he disposed now to recal it, but many circumstances had recently come to his knowledge which induced him to lessen his confidence, nor did he attribute the destruction of Buonaparté so much either to the councils of the noble lord, or to the efforts of the allies, as to the overweening vanity of him who had been dethroned, amounting to nothing short of madness. But was the conduct of the British minister at Vienna, with regard to Saxony or Poland, such as to add to the confidence he had felt? Undoubtedly it must be diminished, and then, what was., he to say to those who called themselves the coadjutors of the noble lord, who were in truth only his colleagues, bound to him by ties of office, but incapable, utterly incapable of rendering him in his arduous situation of ambassador the smallest assistance? The financial blunders of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had occasioned the earl assembling of parliament, and the right hon. gentleman had used the House of Commons for the purpose of postponing the evil day for which he had not provided. As to the questions he had felt it his duty to put, one hon. gentleman (Mr. Marryatt) had called them children's play of questions and commands: it was well he did not say answers, for none were given, or if given, they well deserved the appellation of children's answers [Mrs Wellesley Pole shook his head], The right hon. gentleman needed not to agitate himself: he (Mr. Whitbread) would not stop to take any notice of him now; he had matters of much higher concernment to treat: besides, the right hon. gentleman had called for quarter, and he should have it. [A laugh]. The part which ministers had acted, might, indeed, be properly called child's play: they had behaved like children, who, conscious of their own weakness, were seeking for support and assistance from others. They were constantly praying not to be assailed before the arrival of the noble lord. "Where is the noble lord? Wait till the noble lord comes, the noble lord will be able to account for every thing, and clear himself to us." They were constantly calling out like babies, "Where is daddy? Oh dear! Where is daddy? We want daddy!" for lord Castlereagh was absent, and they sorely felt the want of his paternal guardianship and assistance. [Hear, hear! and a laugh]. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to refer to the precedents of 1797 and 1806, to show that the present adjournment was unjustifiable on that ground; he had no doubt ministers found parliament a very troublesome machine, which they had not the power to manage, and wished to get rid of it; but the people of England knew its value; for upon the speeches, good or bad, delivered in that assembly, depended the liberties of mankind. Buonaparté at the Isle of Elba must chuckle exceedingly at seeing what had happened since his abdication, which tended, if any thing could do so, to the restoration of that extraordinary person; for mankind would prefer the yoke of one efficient tyrant of talents, which might give sanction to atrocious follies of a set of inefficient tyrants: of one great and efficient tyrant, a great many inefficient tyrants had started up in his room.

did not think it necessary to follow the hon. gentleman through the various topics embraced in his speech. The objection urged against the adjournment, that the House had not redeemed the pledge they had given, "to proceed with due caution to adopt such measures as should appear necessary for extending our commerce and secure the advantagese had gained," was, he thought, singularly urged, as it could hardly be thought they would make good their promise to proceed with due caution, had they entered upon the subject thus early. He maintained nothing that had transpired ought to shake the confidence of the House in ministers, and complained of the unfairness of mixing up the personal conduct of the noble lord at Vienna, with the proceedings imputed by the hon. gentleman to the allied powers. It was unjust to do this till it had been proved that they had his sanction, and he denied that the hon. gentleman could give proof of this. The negotiations now pending, were only second in importance to those which had formerly called for the presence of the noble lord, and the confidence of the House on the present occasion was not less desirable than on the former. On the choice made of the noble lord to attend the Congress, he believed no difference of opinion had existed. If the House sanctioned the mission of the noble lord to Vienna, they must take the inconveniencies with the conveniencies, and wait till the proceedings of the Congress (of the meeting of which they had not yet heard) were made public. The hon. gentleman had sneered at the situation in which ministers stood in the absence of that noble lord. His absence was unquestionably severely felt by all of them, but he was confident, that had the noble lord remained in his place in that House, his conduct would have been marked by that reserve of which so many complaints had been made against himself and his colleagues near him. On the subject of the arrangements spoken of on the continent, he again asserted they could not have been finally settled. The negotiations at Ghent had been going on at a period subsequent to that, down to which the proceedings were given in the American papers; and the fact of negociations being pending, was a sufficient reason for the House to abstain from all interference on that subject. He contended that ministers had not asked that confidence should be reposed in them, which it had not been the custom of parliament to grant, on occasions at all resembling the present. He complained of the attack made on his right hon. friend (Mr. Wellesley Pole), as unjust. He thought him hardly dealt by, to be spoken of as if nothing but his birth could have made him eligible to serve the public. He vindicated the calling of parliament together before Christmas, and attempted to shew the inconsistency of the complaint that this measure excluded the Irish members from the House, and the assertion that the consideration of the Bank Restriction Act ought to be forthwith proceeded with; as if it would be proper to deny them all participation in so important an inquiry. Having replied to a variety of other arguments urged in the debate, he again repelled the charges preferred against the noble lord now at Vienna, and demanded, before judgment should be pronounced on his conduct,. that he might have an opportunity of explaining it in person, when he doubted not, he would succeed in shewing, that if, in every thing, he had not been successful, he had not failed to discharge his duty.

The House divided, when the numbers were:

The original motion was then agreed to. After which the House adjourned to Thursday, the 9th of February, 1815.