moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the abolition of gaol and other fees connected with the gaols in Great Britain. The hon. gentleman observed that in the Bill he should submit to the consideration of the House, he had omitted, or modified those clauses, which formed the principal ground of objection to the measure he had introduced last session. That a measure of this nature was necessary, he was more and more convinced from all that he had been able to collect upon the subject, Indeed, from his my personal observation in the course of a pretty extensive tour which he had lately taken, he could entertain no doubt that the fees and other exactions complained of in our prisons, was one of the greatest practical evils which justice and humanity had to deplore in this country.

wished to know whether the hon. gentleman meant to include all the goals of Great Britain, within the provisions of the Bill. And, if he meant to make no exceptions, whether it was intended to indemnify the city of London to the amount of the fees at present received by its officers, which must necessarily be made up to them?

replied, that it was his intention to comprehend all the goals, excepting only those of the King's bench, the Fleet, and the Marshal sea, which were under the direction of the superior courts of law; but even with respect to these prisons, he had it in contemplation to propose the appointment of a committee, to inquire into their state and conduct, especially upon the subject of fees.

thought it would be more expedient to postpone the introduction of any bill on this subject, until the committee, the hon. gentleman had in contemplation, should have made its report, because on such report the measure might be rendered more comprehensive. Should the Bill pass in the shape now proposed, the hon. member must be aware, that any prisoner in the goals meant to be excepted, might by Habeas Corpus have himself removed to the city prison, and so contrive to, escape the payment of fees, while he would also become entitled to certain allowances. Thus the city of London might become liable to an additional incumbrance.

said, he had very maturely considered the subject, and felt it his duty to persist in his Bill.

Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.

gave notice that he should on Friday next bring forward certain propositions with respect to the Corn Laws; and the hon. member subsequently moved, That the House should on Friday resolve into a committee to consider of the state of the Corn Laws.

asked, whether the hon. member meant to propose a bill upon this subject, or to move certain resolutions?

apprehended that it would be contrary to the regular course of proceeding to move for a bill at once; therefore his intention was, in the first instance to propose certain resolutions. He then moved, That there be laid before the House accounts of the quantity of grain, meal, and flour, imported into Great Britain from foreign countries, and also from Ireland, distinguishing the quantity from each country; and also of the quantity exported, stating to what country, from the 5th of January, 1814, to the 5th of January, 1815.—The said accounts were ordered.

Upon the motion of Mr. Horner it was ordered, after a short conversation with that gentleman and Messrs. Rose, Robinson, and Lockhart, that accounts should be presented of the grain, meal, and flour, exported and imported from the last date in Mr. Robinson's motion, up to the latest period at which the same could be made out, and also of the quantity of foreign corn warehoused in the ports of London, Liverpool, Hull, Bristol, Newcastle, Glasgow, and Leith, up to the latest period at which the same could be made out.

presented to the House, pursuant to their Address to the Prince Regent, the following Papers:

FURTHER PAPERS RELATING TO PERSONS SENT FROM GIBRALTAR TO CADIZ.

No. 1.—Copy of a DISPATCH from earl Bathurst to sir James Duff; dated Foreign Office, Nov. 29th, 1814.

"Sir; It having been represented to his Majesty's government, that you have directed the masters of all British mere chant vessels touching at Cadiz, not to depart from that port with any Spanish subjects on board, unless such Spanish subjects should be provided with your passport, or with one from the government of Spain; I am to request that you will acquaint me how far this is founded on fact; and by the same opportunity I desire that you will report to me, for the information of his Majesty's government, the steps that you were induced to take, during last summer, respecting the Spanish subjects who had taken refuge in Gibraltar, and whom you desired the lieutenant-governor not to suffer to remain in that garrison. BATHURST.

No. 2.—Copy of a DISPATCH from sir James Duff to earl Bathurst; dated Cadiz, Dec. 23d, 1814.

"My lord; I have this post received, viâ Madrid, your lordship's dispatch of the 29th November. In compliance with the commands your lordship is therein pleased to signify to roe, from his Majesty's government, I beg leave to represent to your lordship;

"That, in virtue of the orders of his Majesty's government, [Vide Appendix below,] it has been the practice at this port, since June 1813, to allow no aliens to go passengers in British merchant vessels or packets, to any of his Majesty's dominions, unless provided with proper passports, sanctioned by his Majesty's ambassador whilst he resided there, and since then by me; and that, to prevent the possibility of any evasion, British subjects were requested to conform to that regulation, which is still continued; and I should add, that, for a long time past, in virtue, no doubt, of orders to that effect, no bills of health are issued at this port to any persons going passengers in British vessels, to whatever destination it may be, without producing a certificate from this office of their having exhibited their respective passports; and which is the case with all the other foreign consuls. Under such circumstances, and at the request of the governor of this city, I renewed that order; which always comprehended Spanish subjects, as well as every other foreigner; and I did so in the persuasion it would not be disapproved.

"And in further obedience to said commands, I have the honour to state to your lordship, that in May last, I acquainted the commander of his Majesty's troops at Gibraltar, that certain persons, whose names and public characters I indicated, were about to pass to that garrison; and that I was induced to do so, from zeal for his Majesty's service, those persons having generally shown themselves the declared enemies of Great Britain, and of the British name, I trust this exposition may be satisfactory to his Majesty's government; and that your lordship will be convinced that I have in that, as in every other case, acted for the best. I have the honour to be, &c. JAMES DUFF."

(Appendix: Enclosure No. 2.) Copy of a Letter from J. H. Addington, esq. to Edward Cooke, esq. dated Whitehall, 4th May 1813.

"Sir; In order to prevent, as far as may be practicable, the introduction from the continent, of aliens of suspicious cha- racter into this country and its dependencies, it appears to lord Sidmouth desirable, that instructions should be given to his Majesty's ministers at foreign courts, and to the British consuls and agents on the continent, to require, that such persons as may propose to embark for any part of the British dominions, should, in the first instance, apply to them to be furnished with passports for that purpose; and his lordship is also of opinion that, in all cases, when either the character of the person applying for such passport, or the object which he has in view, may be objectionable, it would be expedient to refuse it. As such a measure might be attended with advantage to the public service, it appears to his lordship, that steps should without delay be taken by his Majesty's ministers and consuls abroad to make this regulation known in the most public manner; in order that it may be observed, and executed with the least inconvenience to the parties to whom it is to be applied.

"Lord Sidmouth has further directed me to request, that you will submit these suggestions to lord Castlereagh, and move his lordship, if they should meet with his concurrence, to give the necessary instructions accordingly. I am, &c.

"J. H. ADDINGTON."

[N. B.—A printed copy of this Letter was forwarded on the 6th of May 1813, from the Foreign Office, to all his Majesty's consuls in foreign countries, for their guidance.]

No. 3.—Copy of a DISPATCH from sir James Duff to earl Bathurst; dated Cadiz, December 27th, 1814: With seven Enclosures.

"My lord; I had the honour to address your lordship last post, the 23d instant, in answer to your letter of the 29th November; and in support of what, in obedience to your commands, I had then the honour to state, I wait on your lordship now with copies of the correspondence between the civil secretary at Gibraltar and me, in May last, for the further information of his Majesty's government; and I shall be happy to know, that my conduct in that instance may meet its sanction. I have the honour to be, &c. JAMES DUFF."

(Enclosure No. 1.)—Copy of a DISPATCH from sir James Doff to Mr. Stedman; dated Cadiz, May 16th, 1814.

"Sir; I beg to acquaint his excellency the commanding officer, under due reserve, that the following persons have either left, or are about to leave this, for Gibraltar, in consequence of the late change of politics; that his excellency, informed of their principles, may decide what he may judge best, with respect to their residence in the garrison:

"Don Miguel Cabrera, the author of several publications, inserted in the 'Duende,' against the king of Spain, and of a very late one, existing the inhabitants of this city to revolt against the governor and civil authorities, &c.

"Don Antonio Puigblanc, the author of the 'Inquisition sin Mascara,' and of various other papers, and a friend and companion of the former; these two persons are provided with a passport from general Valdes endorsed by me.

"Lopez, the author of the 'Duende,' the paper in which the repeated calumnies against the British troops on their entrance into St. Sebastian, and of many other scurrilous productions, appeared.

"Correa, formerly an officer in the Spanish service, the author of similar publications, and supporter of the 'Duende,' &c.—And it is probable they may be followed by other persons of the same description. I have the honour to be, &c.

"JAMES DUFF."

(Enclosure No. 2) Copy.—Secret.

Gibraltar, 19th May, 1814.

"Sir; I had the honour to receive your letter of the 16th last night, and immediately laid it before the commander of the forces, who promptly issued orders for the apprehension of the persons named; and I am happy to inform you that in less than two hours Don Antonio Puigblanc and Diego Correa were made prisoners. I request therefore that you will have the goodness to communicate the same to the governor at Cadiz, and to beg that persons duly authorized may be sent to receive them into their custody; or if it should not be the wish of the Spanish government to detain them, the commander of the forces will forthwith exclude them from the garrison, The commander of the forces is anxious however for a speedy decision. I have received some information relative to Lopez and Don Miguel Cabrera; and if they are here, I trust they will soon be discovered. I am to inform you that measures are taken to discover and apprehend any other persons of a similar description. I have the honour to be, &c. J. STEDMAN, Secretary.

"Sir James Duff, &c. &c. Cadiz."

(Copy Enclosure No. 3.) Secretary's Office, Gibraltar, May 19th, 1814.

"Sir; I am directed by the commanders of the forces to inform you, that in compliance with your request, he has given directions that the two Spanish subjects, Puigblanc and Correa, shall be delivered up to you. They were arrested last night, having entered this garrison under fictitious names; and not having given a satisfactory account of themselves this morning, the commander of the forces has not thought it proper to release till now, when he considers you responsible for their future conduct in the garrison. The general thinks it right to inform you, that he dispatched a letter this morning, informing the government of your country that Puigblanc and Correa are in custody here. Puigblanc is the author of the 'Inquisition sin Mascara,' and of many other papers. Correa was formerly an officer in the Spanish army, and is the author of many scurrilous publications, and also the supporter of the 'Duende.' I have, &c. J. STEDMAN, Civil Sec.

"Don A. F. de Urrutia, Spanish Consul, &c. &c. &c."

(Enclosure No. 4.) Translation of a LETTER from Senor A. F. de Urrutia, Spanish Consul at Gibraltar, to the Lieutenant Governor of that Fortress; dated Gibraltar, May 9th, 1814.

"Most Excellent Sir; Having learnt that two Spaniards, of the names of Puigblanc and Correa, are in custody at the main guard, I feel it to be my duty, to entreat your excellency to acquaint me if they have committed any fault; in which case I request you will have the goodness to deliver them up to me, that they may be sent to Spain, in order to receive the punishment which they may deserve. I have, &c. P. A. F. de URRUTIA,

"Spanish Consul."

(Enclosure No. 5.) Copy.—Secret.

Cadiz, 24th May, 1814.

"Sir; I have received the honour of your letter of the 19th instant, and have communicated the same to the captain general, who expresses himself much indebted for the precautions taken, and requests me to inform his excellency the commander in chief, that he will have the honour to communicate to his excellency on that subject, and that he will commission an officer to that effect. I have, &c. JAMES DUFF.

"J. Stedman, Esq. Secretary, &c. &c."

(Enclosure No. 6.) Gibraltar, 23rd May, 1814.

"Sir; I have the honour to enclose you a copy of the letters received by the commander of the forces, from the Spanish Consul here, and to inform you, that Don Antonio Puigblanc and Diego Correa, were delivered over to the Spanish consul on the 20th instant. I have, &c.

"J. STEDMAN, Civil Secretary.

"Sir James Duff, &c. &c. Cadiz."

(Enclosure No. 7.) British Consular Office, Cadiz, 27th May, 1814.

"Sir; I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 23d instant, with an enclosure; which I have made known to the captain general, by whom I am requested to express to his excellency the commander of the forces, his thanks for his excellency's attention. I have, &c. (Signed) for

"Sir JAMES DUFF, H. M. Consul.

"ANDREW ARCHDEKIN.

"J. Stedman, Esq. Secretary, Gibraltar."

^* For the former Papers, see p. 597.

said, that he thought it necessary on this occasion to call the attention of the House to certain circumstances connected with the subject referred to in these papers. It happened that one of the Spanish gentlemen so unjustly surrendered at Gibraltar, had arrived in England, and thought proper to state his own case with respect to that surrender, in which statement he had given a direct contradiction to the grounds upon which general Smith professed to justify the arrest of that gentleman. The general stated that Mr. Puigblanc and his companion had entered Gibraltar without permission, under feigned names, and that by thus violating the standing orders of the garrison, they became liable to arrest; but these two points were distinctly denied by Mr. Puigblanc, who had, after his surrender, been pronounced innocent by the tribunal to which his case was referred, even at Cadiz, since which acquittal he had found his way to England. This gentleman alleged, that so far from having entered Gibraltar without permission, and under a feigned name, he entered that garrison in his proper name, with a passport signed in the usual form, adding that he had also letters of recommendation to some resident merchants at Gibraltar, which letters were presented to the adjutant by whom he was arrested at a public inn, where he had resided for the three days that he had been in the fortress. With such a direct contradiction of general Smith, he would ask, whether it was not intended to inquire into the subject? And he hoped that the minor officers of administration would not imitate the example of those great leaders who had announced their resolution to answer no questions—to attend to no inquiries made in that House. He trusted that this question would be fully investigated, and if it turned out that this much-injured Spaniard should falsify the statement of general Smith, proper measures would be taken accordingly with respect to that officer. But even were general Smith's statement correct, as to Mr. Puigblanc's mode of entering Gibraltar, that would not justify the surrender of this gentleman and his companion to the Spanish government. For that surrender, however, he understood that a precedent was quoted in the case of general Campbell, who delivered up to the governor of Ceuta four persons who had escaped from the dungeons of that governor. But he (Mr. W.) had obtained such information with respect to the treatment of these four persons, as must, he was sure, excite the horror of every man in England, and in Europe, who did not, like sir James Duff, devote himself to the detestable government of Spain. These persons, who were highly respectable in acquirements and condition, and one of whom had rendered great services to lord Camelford when he accompanied Vancouver, as lord Camelford's family acknowledged, had surrendered by capitulation to general Monteverde, in South America, and one of the articles of that capitulation was the immunity of their persons; yet, by a most scandalous breach of faith they were arrested, and sent in irons to the dungeons of Ceuta, from which they contrived to escape to Gibraltar, encouraged to hope, as they had been told, that when they reached any place blessed with the name of English, they should be secure from tyranny and persecution. But, vain the delusion, they were basely surrendered to the go- vernor of Ceuta, in whose dungeons they still languished, unless relieved from their sufferings by death. Such, then, was the precedent pleaded to justify general Smith. General Campbell was now no more; but after describing the transaction, he could not think it necessary to make any motion upon the subject; for he could not allow himself to doubt that measures would be taken to prevent the repetition of such a proceeding by any British officer. Resorting to the statement of general Smith, contrasted with that of Mr. Puigblanc, he again expressed a hope that the case would be duly examined, and as to the papers just presented, he could form no opinion of them until they were printed.

did not conceive it necessary for him to go into any discussion at present upon the subject. He thought, however, that he might answer for it, that if the noble earl (Bathurst) was pot in possession of that statement, every pains would be taken to ascertain the facts. As to general Smith, however, he should only observe, that if there had been always a custom of giving up Spanish subjects claimed by Spain from the garrison of Gibraltar, and reciprocally of Spain giving up those deserters or others who were claimed by the governor of Gibraltar, it would be, in a considerable degree, an excuse for his conduct.

observed, that the statement of Mr. Puigblanc, to which he had alluded, had appeared in a morning newspaper. He had never himself seen that gentleman. On a former occasion, the same observation was made, as that which had just fallen from the hon. gentleman, with respect to the mutual agreement between the Spanish constituted authorities, and the governor of Gibraltar; and it was then proved, that directly the contrary was the fact: for persons charged with murder, the highest possible crime, had taken refuge in the fortress of Gibraltar, and though demanded, were refused. There was, he knew, an agreement as to deserters; but with a regulation that when given up, they were not to be punished for their desertion.

The papers were ordered to be printed.

in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill, "fur the purpose of giving to commissioners, appointed or to be appointed, under a commission to inquire into the state of Courts of Justice in Great Britain and Ireland, certain powers and authorities," expressed his regret, that he differed in his view of the subject, from many gentlemen of great legal knowledge. Aware of their ability, he should be exceedingly presumptuous in obtruding himself on the attention of the House if he did not, feel himself fortified in his opinion, by some of the highest law authorities this country ever produced. He supposed, when the House of Commons petitioned the Prince Regent to form a commission, to inquire into the fees demanded in courts of justice, they intended to arm that commission with powers, which might be useful to the public; and if through any misconception, it appeared when the commissioners came to act, that the powers given to them were not adequate to the full discharge of the duty they were called upon to perform—it was most evident in such a case, that great public inconvenience must be the result. Nothing could be more manifest, than that (even if the view he took of the subject were erroneous), no mischief could arise from the adoption of the measure he should propose. If by law the commissioners were at present empowered to tender oaths, the provisions of the Bill which he now sought to introduce, would only give them superfluous powers, not at all calculated to do injury. But, if what he maintained was the fact, the witnesses summoned by those commissioners might refuse their attendance; or if they did attend, they might give false evidence, without fearing a prosecution for perjury. In this view of the subject, the commission would work great public injury, instead of great public good. In another point of view, it would be well if the House seriously considered this business. The operation of the commission had already been much delayed; and therefore it was the more necessary, when it did proceed to act, that it should act with effect. Now, although he had great living law authorities opposed to him on this subject, yet he had very eminent written authorities in his favour. In addition to these, he had also on his side, the opinions of persons who, forgetting the measures they had formerly sanctioned, now supported a doctrine which they had in practice condemned. On this last score, he thought he had some claim to the assistance of two or three of his Majesty's present cabinet. The right hon. baronet then proceeded to quote the opinion of lord Coke, who in his 2d Institute says, that "Every administrate of an oath must be warranted by act of parliament, or by the common law of the land, time out of mind." In another place, that great lawyer says, "No man can administer an oath, in a new case, without an act of parliament." And in the 3d Institute, he says, "An oath is so an obligation, and touches the conscience of a christian man so nearly, that the same cannot be administered to any, unless authorized by the common law, or by act of parliament." In the margin, his lordship recited 12 or 13 statutes, beginning with Magna Charta, from which it clearly appeared, that no new oath could legally he administered, unless recognized by act of parliament. The same doctrine, the right hon. baronet observed, was held by lord chief justice Holt; and he contended, that his position was fully proved by the high authorities he had cited. If, however, any doubt arose as to the sense of the legislature on this subject, had only to refer to the Act of 1807, which would at once dispel it, and clearly show that parliament recognized the principle he was advocating; and to the act of parliament which he had just mentioned, three, at least, of the present members of the cabinet were parties. It was an Act for investing certain commissioners, appointed to inspect accounts relating to the barrack-master general's department, with particular powers. A commission had been appointed under his Majesty's sign manual, for the investigation of those accounts; but so convinced were his Majesty's ministers that they could not proceed, in consequence of their not being authorized to tender an oath, that a Bill was brought in to enable them to assume that power. In proof of this assertion, sir John Newport read a short extract from the Act of the 47th of his Majesty, s. 1, ch. 13, which empowered the commissioners to send for papers and records, and to examine individuals on oath. This, he observed, was clearly a case in point. The commissioners had been appointed by the crown in autumn; but in consequence of the defect in their powers, they did not proceed, till after the March following, when the Act to which he had referred, was passed. The right hon. baronet concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for certain commissioners appointed, or to be appointed, by the crown, for the examination of the state of the courts of justice in Great Britain and Ireland, with certain powers and authorities necessary for such examination.

said, that the right hon. baronet was, by his motion, throwing a doubt on the power and prerogatives of the crown, as connected with cases similar to that which had given rise to his proposition; namely, the right to appoint certain sacred commissioners under the great seal, with authority to administer an oath. With respect to the case last put by the right hon. baronet, he certainly was of opinion, that there it was necessary to apply to parliament, to get for the commissioners a legislative sanction which would enable them to swear witnesses, because they were appointed under the sign manual; which, in his mind, did not impart power to the individual to administer an oath. If commissioners were appointed under the sign manual, or if, being nominated under the great seal, they were not specially empowered to tender an oath, in neither case did he he think they would have any right to do it; and it would then be necessary for them to come to parliament. If the fact were different, then the legal advisers of the crown, for a long period, were acting under a great mistake. The law officers of 1732, would not have directed commissioners to be appointed under the great seal, with power to administer an oath, if they thought such power was improper. This commission was approved of by lord chancellor King; sir Philip Yorke, and Mr. Talbot, being at the time attorney and solicitor-general. A subsequent mission was considered equally correct by lord chancellor Talbot. Sir Dudley Ryder sanctioned a third; and a fourth was approved of by sir John Strange and lord Hardwicke. Seven different times the same power had been exercised, and its legality never had been questioned. It was most evident too, that these great lawyers had sanctioned this proceeding advisedly; it was not an error arising from want of consideration. It appeared, that, in the first commission, the power of administering an oath was given to five commissioners; but, as this was found inconvenient, in the subsequent commissions it was confined to two only. This he stated to show that the question had been well investigated, that it was no hasty proceeding, but that all these great lawyers considered the crown as possessing the power which the right hon. ba- ronet now denied. Notwithstanding the authority of those great names, the right hon. baronet wished the House to pass a Bill to enable commissioners, under the great seal, to administer an oath; although in 1732, and in seven other instances, commissioners so appointed had, without the intervention of parliament, exercised that power. As to the case mentioned by lord Coke, and cited by the right hon. baronet, of the necessity of passing the Act of 43 Eliz, it differed materially from that which was at present before the House. There the commissioners were appointed by an act of the legislature, and it was necessary that their powers should be derived from the same authority. No doubt could therefore possibly exist of the propriety of lord Coke's assertion; that Act went likewise to erect a new court of judicature, empowering it to try cases of policy of insurance, and other matters between subject and subject, and where the decision was to be final. Then, how did that apply to the present case? At some period of the last session the House prayed his royal highness the Prince Regent to issue a commission under the great seal for certain purposes therein specified, and similar to that of 1732. The wishes of the House were in consequence complied with, and this was issued; which, although differing slightly in the machinery, is essentially similar to that, and founded on like principles. If the right hon. baronet desired merely an authority to examine on oath, how did the commission of 1732 differ from the present? Indeed, if any difference existed it was that the present did not possess an operation so extensive as the former. The correction of abuses was the object of that; but no such authority appeared in the present; it merely required an examination into the state of the courts of law, and of the offices connected with them; and all information on those subjects could be obtained only from the persons engaged in them. Should they refuse to attend to account for the nature and extent of their fees, salaries, &c. if they should not be indictable for a high misdemeanour, they would at least be subject to the control of the superior authorities in their several courts, who would undoubtedly compel their attendance. With respect to the apprehensions entertained by the right hon. baronet of an insufficiency of punishment awaiting false testimony, the Solicitor General acknow- ledged it could not be construed into perjury under the Act of Elizabeth, as that described the cases particularly constituting that offence. But would it be perjury at common law? Lord Coke drew a distinction between oaths of assertion, relating to past circumstances, and oaths of promise, which regard the future. Oaths of office came under the latter denomination, and were not esteemed liable to indictment for perjury; but persons were liable on promissory oaths to prosecution for a high misdemeanour; and fine,. imprisonment, and pillory, might satisfy the right hon. baronet of the sufficiency of punishment. As a confirmation of what was now: advanced, the Solicitor General stated, that several prosecutions had at various times taken place for such offences under commissions issued by the crown; he therefore could not discern the least necessity of passing the Act required by the right hon. baronet, and concluded by moving the previous question.

begged leave to observe, that the object of the Bill was not merely to empower commissioners to offer an oath, but likewise to compel the attendance of witnesses. He had been particularly careful to form this Act on the model of that one to which he had formerly alluded, and therefore hoped he had silenced objection as to its general principle. So far was he now from being diverted from his original opinion of its expediency, by what fell from the learned gentleman who opposed it, that he felt it on the contrary much fortified. The learned Solicitor General acknowledged, that no power existed at present in the commission of compelling the attendance of witnesses, and they were in consequence to rely on the voluntary testimony of clerks and others, the very persons whose conduct was to be scrutinized. He remarked that in a former discussion of this question, he had stated to the House the various abuses that had come to his knowledge; and, was the House now to sanction a mockery of investigation, on the evidence of those men among whom the abuses existed? He would ask, what would be the character which this commission would receive from the country, when the names of masters in chancery would appear as being appointed to examine the abuses of their own offices? What would the world think of the advantages of an inquiry into the courts of the commissioners of bankruptcies, when they would find those very persons nominated for the investigation? Such proceedings would reduce the commission to a nullity, or worse than a nullity; it would be an attempt at public imposition, bearing the name, without possessing the reality of what it professed. Much of the testimony, continued the right hon. baronet, on which this inquiry should proceed, would not come from the courts or their officers. Many persons not connected with them, but who had dearly experienced the consequences of their abuses, would come forward, if such a power were given to the commissioners, and give public evidence of their existence, but who, from terror and apprehension of the displeasure of those in power, dare not volunteer their services. Many likewise connected with the courts, were deterred by similar feelings; and one in particular, whose name could not with propriety he mentioned, assured him, that such a disclosure as he had the power to make, would, if voluntary, be attended with his total ruin. Would the House permit a commission to go forth accompanied by such circumstances? It was rather unfortunate that the judgment for misdemeanours, mentioned by the Solicitor General, had taken place in the court of Star-chamber—no very sufficient precedent for modern proceedings! The right hon. baronet remarked, that one of the commissioners appointed for this inquiry was likewise a commissioner of bankruptcies, and a police officer of Dublin; offices, he conceived, sufficient to occupy the attention of any individual. Could such means procure redress for the grievances so loudly and generally complained of?

The previous question was then carried without a division. Sir John Newport then gave notice, that he would, on Tuesday next, move for leave to bring in a Bill to compel witnesses to attend the commissioners.

, in rising to move for leave to bring in a bill similar to that which he had brought in last year, thought it unnecessary to say much, in explanation of a measure which had already met with the approbation of that House, though it had been lost in the Lords; but since, notwithstanding the efforts he had made to explain himself, it had been much misunderstood, he felt himself obliged to trespass for a short time on the attention of the House. The object of the Bill was to make the freehold estates of persons dying in debt liable for their debts: it was to prevent the transfer of that property to others, which ought to be disposed of for the benefit of the creditors. A law like that now in force in England, was not to be found in any other country. That law was not in fact extended to the whole of his Majesty's dominions. It was not acted upon in our West Indian colonies and other of our foreign dominions. Some of the objections which had been urged to his Bill, he was certain were quite unfounded, and had been advanced by persons who had not taken the trouble to give the subject that consideration which it deserved. After answering some of the arguments of those who had opposed the former Bill, he described that which he wished to effect to be this; to give simple contract creditors the same remedy which is open to specialty creditors. He did not mean to place them on the same footing, but merely to allow the simple contract creditors to come in, after the specialty creditors had been paid. This, he contended, would throw no obstacle in the way of selling estates; and the objections that this measure would give greater facilities for young men of fortune to obtain credit, he answered by shewing that it was not probable a young man of fortune would be more readily trusted by an older man, because he might recover from his estate on his death; and by asserting that the evil to which he wished to direct the attention of parliament, could never be effectually remedied but in a court of equity. He thought it right to state on this occasion, that it was his opinion that much more than would be done by this measure ought to be done, to give the creditor the benefit of the debtor's property. It was not probable that he should pursue the subject further; but he hoped it would be taken up by others more fortunately circumstanced than he had been, and with better success. Much alteration in the law appeared to him to be wanting. He did not hesitate to say, that the law of England, on the Subject in question, had gone on an erroneous principle. It had been distinguished by extraordinary rigour against the person, and by great relaxation with respect to his property. It punished inability to pay a debt as a crime, but did not take those measures which might be taken to prevent the offence. It imprisoned the debtor for not applying his property to meet the demands of his creditors, but did not apply that property for him, to the payment of his debts in cases where this could be done. In opposition to the provisions of the bill of rights, a partial and angry creditor might, till lately, doom a debtor to perpetual imprisonment for his misfortunes, which he might regard as an offence. Latterly a great, and he thought, a salutary change had been made in the law. He was of opinion, however, that the present law, if continued in force, ought to be supported by further measures. Nothing could be more disgraceful to any government than that the same prison should contain a half-famished creature, who must perish from hunger but for the goal allowance, and persons living in opulence who preferred residing there to paying their just debts. He thought the law ought to make its agents take the property belonging to such persons to satisfy their creditors, as was done by the sheriff in other cases, where the debt contracted was of smaller amount. He was also of opinion, that the debtor should not have the power of protracting the proceeding, to run the creditor to a great expense, by sham pleas and other artifices now resorted to, against which the creditor might be very easily protected. He hoped the motion, of which an hon. and learned friend of his had given notice, for the repeal of the late Act was not intended to operate a return to the ancient law. The evils attending the Act referred to had been greatly exaggerated, and the good which it effected was not sufficiently known. It had the effect of preventing, in some instances, commissions of bankruptcy from being taken out against persons whose property was not sufficient to cover the expense; and, though it might seem a paradox, he approved of it because it went to diminish credit. It did not go to lessen that credit to which the commercial prosperity of this country was to be ascribed, but that mischievous credit which tradesmen had been in the habit of giving to persons in low situations, which had frequently led them to live for a time above their circumstances, and which in the end commonly proved injurious to both parties. He moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to subject the freehold estates of persons who die indebted to the payment of their simple contract debts."

said, it was not his intention to oppose the Bill in its present stage; but as he believed his hon. and learned friend was not in the House when he gave his notice respecting the repeal of the Insolvent Debtors Act, he wished to state that it was not his intention by such repeal to bring back the law to the barbarous state in which it was before. No person was more an enemy to perpetual imprisonment for debt than he was; and indeed, such rigour never could be exercised, for temporary Insolvent Acts were frequently passed, and liberated those individuals who were so circumstanced. While, however, he deprecated severe imprisonment for debt, he did not think it right they should be discharged with so trifling a punishment as was now substituted. His object, therefore, was to enlarge the proportion of imprisonment. He differed entirely from his hon. and learned friend in his view of the effects of such bills; and he confessed he did not wish to see that species of credit broken in upon, which was so necessary in the present state of society.

said, he had imagined, that when the present Act was under discussion in that House, the merits of the principle on which it was framed had been admitted by the hon. and learned gentleman. Whatever defects of a subordinate nature might require a remedy, he was satisfied that no arguments could be adduced to disprove to him the utility of that important innovation in the municipal laws of England. Far from agreeing with the hon. and learned gentleman that the present term of confinement was too short, he was of opinion that the person of the debtor ought not to be detained a single week after the full disclosure of his property had been made. With respect to credit, given by shopkeepers, his hon. and learned friend did not mean to destroy all credit between such persons and the lower orders of the community, but to put an end to the indefinite credit which shopkeepers were in the habit of giving to persons who ought not to have a longer credit than their situation might require. As to what the hon. and learned gentleman had said in regard to the ancient state of the law, that it was ameliorated by occasional bills for relief of insolvent debtors, he (Mr. Horner) had agreed to the passing of such bills, merely upon the principle that the law was wrong, and that he despaired of any better measures being adopted by the legislature.

He was persuaded that imprisonment for debt was extremely injurious both to debtor and creditor, and that the which had been passed for the relief of insolvent debtors was a most salutary and useful law.

in explanation said, that he did not find fault with occasional bills for the relief of persons who were embarrassed in their circumstances. He had stated, and he would repeat it, that he detested perpetual imprisonment. He conceived, however, that he had been misunderstood, as he had never said a word either against or in favour of such bills. He had merely said that he intended to move for the repeal of the existing Act; and had reserved his arguments against that Act till his motion should come before the House. What he stated on a former occasion was, that he approved of the principle of the act, but he could not approve of the manner in which it had been carried into effect.

agreed with the hon. and learned gentleman (sir S. Romilly) that it was proper to bring in the Bill which he had moved for. Funded property, and every other species of property, ought to be subject to the payment of debts: but with respect to the late Insolvent Act, he was convinced that it had done considerable mischief to the morals of the country, and every man in business was averse to it. Many persons had contracted debts merely for the sake of taking the benefit of that Act; and as to the period of imprisonment it was good only for mischievous purposes. He was persuaded, that as long as that law existed, people would not hesitate to run into debt, to give undue preferences to their creditors, and to create fictitious debts. He hoped, however, that the hon. and learned gentleman would take a more extensive view of the subject. The old law, which allowed a creditor to imprison his debtor, was intended to deter people from contracting debts who had no property: it operated à priori on such persons. It was not against men who had property that the law should be turned, but against those who had had property and had expended it, or such as never had any property, and yet ventured to contract debt. But this Bill treated all persons alike; it gave only three months imprisonment to a rogue, and the same period to a person whose misfortunes had made him embarrassed, whereas different periods ought to be limited to different creditors. He contended, therefore, that this Bill liberated Bill every person who had violated the general rights of property. There was no safety for property under it, and though gentlemen seemed to conceive, that its principal benefit was to prevent shopkeepers from giving improper credit, yet its operation was to affect all credit; for no person in his senses would at present give credit; on the contrary, he would circumstance it, and withhold it, where it was really advantageous and useful to the prosperity of the country.

Leave was then given to bring in the Bill, which was presented and read a first time.

Copy of the Freehold Estates Bill, as Brought In

The following is a Copy of the Bill, as presented by sir Samuel Romilly:

A BILL to subject the Freehold Estates of persons, who die indebted, to the Payment of their Simple Contract Debts.

"Whereas it is expedient that the real estates of persons who die indebted, should be be made subject to the payment of their simple contract debts;

"Be it therefore enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the present parliament authority of the same, that from and after the passing of this Act, when any person shall die, seized of or entitled to any estate or interest, in lands, tenements, hereditaments, or other real estate, which he shall not by his last will have charged with or devised subject to or for the payment of his debts, and which, before the passing of this Act, would have been assets for the payment of his debts due on any specialty in which the heirs were bound, the same shall be assets, to be administered in courts of equity, for the payment of all the just debts of such person, as well debts due on simple contract as on specialty; and that the heir or heirs at law, devisee or devisees of such debtor, shall be liable to all the same suits in equity, at the suit of any of the creditors of such debtor, whether creditors by simple contract or by specialty, as they were before the passing of this Act liable to, at the suit of creditors by specialty, in which the heirs were bound: Provided always, That in the administration of assets by courts of equity, under and by virtue of this Act, all creditors by specialty, in which the heirs are bound, shall be paid the full amount of the debts due to them, before any of the creditors by simple contract or by specialty, in which the heirs are not bound, shall be paid any part of their demands."