hoped he had understood the chancellor of the exchequer right on a former evening, when he collected from what fell from that right hon. gentleman, that an ample statement of the situation of the country would be made before the House was called upon to vote any supplies.

said, it was usual at the commencement of a session, to vote in general terms that a supply be granted to his majesty, before any such statement could be made. It was the wish of government, before any great supply was called for, to lay before the House the promised estimates, and especially those of the army, which would be accompanied by an explanatory statement.

had expected that an explanatory statement would be given with the army estimates. He, however, was of opinion that the details of every item ought to be given before any supply was demanded. The chancellor of the exchequer had last year said, the expense of the peace establishment would be nineteen million. Before a vote was come to, either for the army or the navy, he hoped it would be stated what was to be the amount of the new peace establishment.

said, that government had the same object in view as the right hon. gentleman, and were not less anxious to ascertain what would be the least necessary expense of the peace establishment. The difference in the expenditure attendant on the present peace establishment from that of former peace establishments, arose principally from the disparity between our military force now and at former periods. There was not so great a difference between our present and our former navy; and though there was some fluctuation to be observed in the miscellaneous services, this would not operate any great change in the peace establishment. Before any large supplies were moved for, sufficient information would be given on these points, to enable both the ministers and the right hon. gentleman to come to a clear conclusion on the question of the general expenditure of the country.

The motion was agreed to, and it was ordered that the House should to-morrow resolve itself into a committee of supply.

rose, in pursuance of the notice which he gave on a former day, to call the attention of the House, to the propriety of their adopting some signal mode of expressing their gratitude, and that of the country, for the services which had been performed by the navy during the late eventful war. At the close of such a war it was very natural to expect that some token of public approbation—some indication of grateful acknowledgment, would be given of the sense entertained by the nation at large, of the great and transcendant achievements which had marked the career of our naval and military services, and which had brought to so happy a termination the war in which we had been so long engaged. During a period of twenty years, over which this eventful strife had spread, innumerable occasions had occurred to offer in detail to the army and navy, for the many splendid services they had performed, those tributes of approbation and applause, which the feeling of parliament and the country promptly suggested. They had not yet, however, done any thing to hand down to posterity, with an equal hand, the high and distinguished merits of these two illustrious branches. The House would no doubt be anxious to seize the present occasion to perform this duty, and thereby bestow a reward which would form the most grateful recompence to those whose deeds it was meant to celebrate. At the close of a war of such unexampled duration in this country, it was satisfactory to remark, that although at times the climate, the season, or the weather, might have proved unpropitious to particular services, yet that in no one great shock of arms, in no one general engagement in which the forces of the contending parties had been opposed had this country sustained a complete and signal defeat. While we had this gratifying thought to console us, for which we were more indebted to Providence and the justice of our cause, than to our own superiority over those with whom we contended, we had the satisfaction to sera our history adorned with a series of the most transcendant victories, both by land and sea transcendant not only in themselves, but transcendant in their influence on the destinies of mankind. If any thing more could be said to exalt their respective merits, it arose out of the reflection, that throughout the whole war not the slightest symptom of jealousy had been manifested between these great rivals in arms. He thought also it ought to be stated as a feature of pre-eminent glory to the country, that the government had been; enabled to confide to those who, from their habits and connexions, were known to be adverse to them in politics, the fleets and armies of the state; yet throughout the whole war the stream of glorious patriotic exertion had uniformly flowed, regardless of all party differences, for the honour of the country. The House would therefore feel most anxious to mark their high sense of the great services of those whose merits were only limited by the number of operations in which they had been engaged; and in endeavouring to convey this feeling to posterity, they would be most careful to avoid any thing that seemed to cast but a shade of difference in favour of one service over the other. The navy shared in the earlier stages of the war all those laurels to which transcendent valour was so justly entitled; while the army in the latter stages presented a series of unequalled successes, in which the skill of the officers, and the heroism of the men, admitted of no parallel. If the navy did not participate in these successes, and did not keep pace with their brethren in arms, it was not because they were not animated by the same spirit, but because they had already extinguished all competition, and thereby enabled the army to do that on the Continent which they had accomplished on the sea, namely, to crush every enemy by whom they were opposed.—Three plans for the erection of a national monument, had, in the course of his consideration of this subject, suggested themselves to his mind. The first was, the selection of the names of those individuals who had distinguished themselves in the course of the war. The next was, to select the great features by which the services of each profession had been marked, and to include them in a general expression of national gratitude. And the last was, the selection of some one distinguished feature of each profession; and by handing down that to posterity, afford a record of the achievements of our army and navy, which, although not accompanied by a detail of all which they had accomplished, would yet carry with it such proofs of the unqualified admiration with which their services were viewed by their country, as must prove alike satisfactory to all. The first, he thought, would be objectionable, because it would be impossible, in viewing the services of so many brave and gallant officers, to know where to draw the line, or where to close the pleasing enumeration. To the second he also objected, because it would be impossible to make selections out of the immense field of great examples of valour which our extended naval war had presented, without leaving out some which might excite a feeling of pain in the breasts of those towards whom it was desirable not even to suffer the slightest symptom of neglect to be thought to exist. Under these circumstances, and from the best consideration he had been able to give the subject, he was induced to think that the last proposition was the least liable to disapprobation. It was therefore his intention to submit to the House the expediency, in commemorating the achievements of the navy, while the whole of their brilliant services were acknowledged to make the great victory of Trafalgar, which, as far as respected national advantage, was the grand point of consummation in their brilliant exploits, as Waterloo had been with the army, the leading feature of the monument which the House were called upon to erect. The two professions would then stand in the view of posterity upon the same point of elevation. For while, on the one hand, the victory of Waterloo had decided the the fate of the enemy on the Continent, and had terminated in the total destruction of the power of Buonaparté—so, on the other, that of Trafalgar had crushed his hopes at sea, and dispelled and terminated the boastful menaces which Bournaparté had been accustomed to launch out against us. The one victory had frustrated the hopes which, from his resumption of power, he had entertained of again disturbing the repose of Europe, and the other had secured us from the assault which he had planned against this country. The one victory had given us safety, as the other had removed all danger from our Allies. He therefore wished, in the vote of this day, that that transcendent action, which might be said to have terminated the war by sea, should be commemorated as that had been which recently closed hostilities on land. He had already said, that in the latter part of the war the traits of naval glory were less brilliant than they were in the former part. This, however, only arose from the circumstance of the enemy having ceased, from the successful exertions of that navy, to present himself in that tangible shape in which he was accustomed to appear before. But it would be a great act of injustice to suppose that the merit of the exertions of the navy finished with the glory of its exploits, or that the services of the navy became less important than they had been. The importance of the navy must be acknowledged, when it was considered how greatly its operations had conduced to the triumphs of our army. The navy had not merely contributed to these, by that most difficult and most painful of all services—he meant that of blockading all the ports of the enemy, but the navy had in truth been the instrument which had enabled our armies to make those efforts which had so conspicuously developed that singularity of power which England could alone boast, and which, if it did not enable us to be at different points at the same time, it put it in our power to act in different parts of the world so nearly at the same time, as to make the events which took place most wide of each other coincident. It had enabled us in the late war to follow up our operations in different quarters of the globe with a rapidity and success unparalleled in history. It had fallen to his lot to meet with a regiment before Paris, which had served at Thoulouse in April 1814, which acted in America in that same campaign, and which was again in France in the following July. He should be glad to know where instances could be found of such stupendous exertions having been made in different parts of the world by any other power. These, but for our navy, it would have been impossible for us to have accomplished; it was this, which, bringing with astonishing rapidity our forces from various places to new fields of action, had enabled us to bear on successive points with the happiest effect. These circumstances considered, he was sure the House would feel all the importance of the navy, and be happy to offer a new tribute of approbation to its distinguished merits. It was true they had already marked their feelings, on both the transcendent occasions referred to, and the votes of approbation recorded on their journals, were among the best rewards which men could receive who belonged to a free country; but if another mode could be found for commemorating a triumph so splendid, he thought it ought to be added to the honours which they had already conferred on those who had deserved so greatly of their country. He thought it would be congenial to the feelings of the House to immortalize the battle of Trafalgar as we had immortalized that of Waterloo; and that we should select that mode of accomplishing this end, which would preclude the most distant suspicion of preference between the two services. The noble lord concluded by moving,

"That an humble address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, humbly to represent, that this House, being desirous of commemorating the splendid achievements of the British navy throughout the late wars, by erecting a national monument to its most signal and decisive victory, have humbly to request that his Royal Highness will be graciously pleased to give directions that a national monument be erected in honour of the ever memorable victory of Trafalgar, by which the maritime power of his majesty's enemies was humbled and subdued, and to commemorate the fame of vice admiral lord viscount Nelson, and the other officers, seamen, and marines, who died gloriously in their country's cause on that occasion, and in the maintenance of our national independence."

said, that he felt great pain in differing from his noble friend in the proposition which he had submitted to the House. He could not, however, reconcile to himself how the nation could, in marking its gratitude by raising a naval pillar, omit the names of those who had, in the earlier parts of the war, celebrated themselves by their matchless exploits. What, he would ask, would posterity think when they came to find such a pillar without the names of lord Howe and his victory in 1794, that of lord St. Vincent, who had so eminently distinguished himself in 1797, and lord Duncan, who was equally eminent for his victory of the same year? His noble friend had grounded his proposition upon the precedent to be found in the monument voted to the victory of Waterloo. To detract from the merits of this last transcendent effort of the British arms, was far from his wish. Yet there was no reason which he could divine, because a monument was erected in honour of that battle, that there should not be other pillars erected to celebrate the martial exploits which had been achieved on other occasions; and to hand down to posterity the memory and names of all those who had so honourably distinguished themselves.

, though it might be presumptuous in him to suggest any improvement to the motion which had been made, would take the liberty to hint, that if the exploits of the army and navy were commemorated on the same monument, it might be more gratifying to the members of those professions, and to the public at large. At the end of the last session, a monument had been voted to commemorate the victory of Waterloo, but it did appear to him that it was not too late for that vote to be amended. To combine the two, would be less expensive, and would be more grateful to the general feeling, and a nobler object would thereby he presented to public admiration. This he thought would be the most suitable way of commemorating those services which were universally acknowledged, to have been performed by the army and navy.

expressed his hope and confidence, that the House would not consent to detract or take one iota from the vote which it had with such enthusiastic unanimity adopted to celebrate the splendid victory of Waterloo. Yet such detraction must be the case, if the House acceded to the suggestion of the hon. baronet. As to the observations of his right hon. friend, he perfectly agreed with Lies panegyric upon the victories of Camper down, of St. Vincent's, and the Nile. But if a distinct monument were to be erected to each of those victories, would not the army then have some reason to complain if such victories as those of Victoria, Barajas, Salamanca, and others, were not equally distinguished? His right hon. friend would, he hoped, see, on reflection, the inconvenience of such a course of proceeding as he recommended, and that the best ground to act upon was a principle of selection. That the selection made was unexceptionable, was in his opinion, evident. The object was, that the achievements of the army and navy should be transmitted to posterity in a parallel line of splendor. With that view a grand feature of distinction was taken from each service, and the signal victory of Trafalgar was thought best to correspond, most worthy to associate with the brilliant action of Waterloo. But it was not to be inferred, as some gentlemen with the best intention seemed to imagine, that the other victories achieved by our gallant soldiers and seamen were at all forgotten, although they were not specifically mentioned. The proposed monuments would serve to commemorate the merit of all those warriors, who had collected laurels for themselves in securing victory for their country.

said, he gave full credit to the feelings of the right hon. gentleman who spoke second, in the wish that he expressed to see a monument by which the services of the whole navy might be commemorated, and in his fear that any one of our great naval victories might pass without its appropriate reward. Certainly, it might be desirable to recall every deed of glory that had distinguished our naval annals: particular individuals might feel more interested in one action than in another, from their connexions and relations in life, and might be convinced that its omission was injurious to the memory of those engaged in it; still, he thought that the proposition of the noble lord was more eligible than that which was stated by the right hon. gentleman who spoke after him. A selection, he thought, was necessary to be made, and if there was to be a selection, on what victory could we fix so properly as upon that of Trafalgar? It was, undoubtedly, the greatest in our naval history, in whatever point of view it was considered. It was not only transcendently great from the skill and heroism displayed, but important from its political consequences, it carried the naval renown of this country to a height it never before had reached, and left us not only without a rival, but without an enemy to contend with on sea. If the plan of the right hon. gentleman was to be adopted, and our late naval victories were to be commemorated in their order, where could we stop, or to what class of actions would we confine ourselves? There would be great difficulty in determining what victories the national monument should record, without incurring the imputation of invidious omission where the exclusion commenced. If the skill and intrepidity displayed in an action constituted alone a sufficient claim to participate in the present measure of national commemoration, then there were no limits to our list of celebrated battles or great naval commanders. All the navy had distinguished itself in every encounter with the enemy, and there was often as much intrepidity, as much experienced skill and determined bravery, displayed in engagements with single frigates, in capturing a gun-boat, or in cutting out a vessel from a hostile port under the fire of an enemy's batteries, as in gaining any of the victories which illustrate our naval history. The right hon. gentleman seemed to fall into a mistake with regard to the object of the noble lord's proposition. He seemed to imagine that, because a particular victory was selected, the monument was therefore to be exclusive; and that because the battle of Trafalgar was to be the action on which the admiration of the country was to rest, therefore none were to share in the glory of it but the officers who were actually present. This was a narrow view of this great exploit—it was a view that the country should not take of it. The House should consider it as an instance of splendid success representing the whole of our naval glory. It was to be considered as the property of the whole navy—as the fruit of the superior skill, gallantry, and heroism of all our naval defenders—as the consummation of our naval glory. He trusted, under all these circumstances, that the right hon. gentleman would not persist in his opposition to the noble lord, or disturb the unanimity which ought to prevail on such an occasion.

said, he had no intention to disturb the unanimity of the House on this occasion, and simply wished to throw out his suggestion for the better judgment of the noble lord.

said, he could not compliment the noble lord, as his hon. and learned friend had done, on the manner in which he had got out of the difficulty that pressed upon his present proposition. He did not think the difficulty in the least obviated, nor could he entirely concur in the measure proposed. The services of the navy were last year forgotten, when a monument was voted to commemorate the victory of Waterloo. That monument he did not grudge, nor did he wish to retract the grant; but he must remind the House, that the monument was exclusively confined to the victory of Waterloo. All the victories of our navy and army were then passed over, and this last great achievement alone mentioned. How did we now stand with regard to the navy? The noble lord thought it at last proper to bring forward a proposition to commemorate its services; but adopting the idea of employing one great battle to represent a series of victories, he was obliged to travel back ten years for it. Would it not be better to propose the erection of a building to commemorate the combined services of the army and navy? Would it not be better to join the successes of those two great branches of our militant force in one splendid monument of national gratitude and admiration, as they had been joined for our glory and defence? He did not wish that the battle of Waterloo should be deprived of its due commemoration; but be thought that a committee should be appointed to decide upon the best mode of commemorating the victories of the army and navy together, and with a regard, not to one engagement, but to the whole series of great actions. Every man knew the jealousy with which honours bestowed upon particular individuals in the army were viewed by others who were not invested with them, and who, because they were passed by, supposed they were unjustly neglected. When a ribbon or a high dignity was conferred upon one officer, the government was sometimes obliged to make another a baronet. This might happen with regard to the navy, and when a particular engagement was selected to the exclusion of others. A jealousy might naturally be expected to arise when such a marked distinction was shown, as in this case—when a particular battle was selected, not in a moment of enthusiasm excited by its occurrence, but ten years after it happened. If his proposal were adopted, something magnificent and splendid might be accomplished—something that would combine magnificence with utility. He thought that the erection of a church, in which the names of our naval and military heroes should be commemorated, and which should be sacred to the gratitude of the country for their success, would best answer the purpose we had in view.

was of opinion that the step recommended by the right hon. gentleman could not be taken without undermining the vote already come to, in honour of the battle of Waterloo. That vote, agreed to on the spur of the occasion, in consideration of the magnitude of the service then rendered to the nation, he would not consent in any way to impair. He objected to the two services being commemorated in one monument, and was anxious to guard against a partiality being manifested for one service to the prejudice of the other. Upon the whole, as the present vote ought to be unanimous, and as difficulties must in any case occur, he thought the safest way would be to adopt the motion of the noble lord.

observed, that even after the present vote was carried, it might become a subject of consideration, whether the commemoration of the general services of both the army and navy might not be incorporated in one monument of appropriate magnificence.

deprecated any mixture of the right hon. gentleman's view with the present motion, which he hoped would pass unanimously.

, though there was some difference of opinion manifested on the present occasion, was gratified to observe the eagerness with which all strove, who should do most in honour of those whose services it was now proposed to commemorate. A right hon. gentleman had said, that the only difficulty of the case arose out of the circumstance of the navy having been overlooked last session, but before that right hon. gentleman had finished his speech, he had made it appear, that that was not the only difficulty to be surmounted, and indeed he (lord B.) was satisfied, that if the question had been entered upon, when the monument to commemorate the victory of Waterloo was voted, the same impediments must have been encountered then, that the House had to get over now. As to the course recommended by the right hon. gentleman, of agreeing to the motion now, in order to undo it by making another, he did not think it that which the House ought to adopt. The first vote ought not to be touched, and unless this were changed, if the names of all those who had distinguished themselves in the navy were inscribed on the monument, the officers of the army would have a right to complain that they had not been honoured with a similar distinction. The battle of Trafalgar was the only action that could be compared with propriety to the battle of Waterloo. The proposition of the right hon. gentleman went, in his opinion, to make the House a little too executive. He thought they ought to leave it to the Prince Regent to decide what should be the character of the monument to be erected. After the monuments now proposed were erected, if it was thought desirable a church could be erected to commemorate the triumphs of our army. The proposition of the noble lord he thought the most eligible one yet submitted to the House, and he particularly approved of it, as it placed the two services on precisely the same footing.

begged, that while the House was debating upon splendid monuments to commemorate the achievements of the navy, it would consider somewhat the propriety of doing simple justice to the wants of the officers by whom those achievements were performed. The inequality between the officers of the army and navy with respect to pay and pensions, was lamentable and notorious. That the present first lord of the admiralty had done all in his power to reward the merit of naval officers, in the way of promotion, he was ready to admit, and most willing to applaud. That the grievances under which those meritorious officers laboured, were only to be cured by the interposition of parliament: for instance, there were many, too many,-cases in the navy, of officers holding the rank of lieutenant for twenty and even twenty-five years, without obtaining any advancement, and he believed no such case could be found in the army. Again as to pensions: if an ensign who received a pension obtained promotion, his pension was advanced according to his rank, while if a subaltern officer in the navy were granted a pension, in consequence of the most severe wounds, that pension was never advanced, whatever promotion in rank he might subsequently obtain. Was, he would ask, such glaring inequality between the two services to be reconciled to common justice, or was it not rather calculated to excite perpetual heart-burning among a body of men, to whom the country owed infinite obligations—to whom that House was then about to testify its gratitude?

rose to order. The hon. member was, he thought, wandering from the question before the House, into statements which he or any person connected with the department in which he had the honour to hold a place, was fully able to answer, but which he could not attempt to answer, without also becoming irregular. The hon. member might, if he thought proper, bring the subject to which he referred, distinctly before the House upon a future occasion, when it would be competent to himself or his colleagues to reply.

said, that he meant only to state, that there was no just comparison between the manner in which the officers of the army and navy were treated, especially with regard to pensions and promotions.

expressed a hope that the hon. member would see the inconvenience of pressing his observations upon the present occasion, especially as it was open to him to bring the subject to which he referred regularly before the House at another time.

observed, that another time would certainly be more proper for a discussion of the question introduced by the hon. gentleman than the present. It was an important subject, and would call for the most serious consideration. He did not rise for the purpose of disturbing the unanimity of the House; for however they might differ as to the mode of commemorating the great achievements of the navy, they were all agreed as to the propriety of raising a monument to perpetuate its fame. He could not agree with his hon. friend, on this occasion although he had the highest respect for his opinion. When he proposed, that there should be a general monument to the navy, and that the monument to the army should be con fined to their services at Waterloo, he could not coincide in the suggestion. Surely, it might be said, that, beside the battle of Waterloo, great and transcendant as it was, many other glorious victories had been achieved by that great hero—perhaps the greatest that ever appeared in the world—the duke of Wellington. It would not, therefore, give general satisfaction to the country, if all the great naval victories were mentioned, while, of our successes by land, none were noticed, excepting the battle of Waterloo. A right hon. gentleman opposite had proposed to let the votes on the victories of Waterloo and of Trafalgar, be acceded to by the House, but to refer them to a committee. This would be taking on themselves, as a noble friend of his had justly stated, a portion of the executive power. The regular proceeding was, to vote an address to the Crown, and then to leave the business in the hands of the monarch. His hon. friend had desired to know, what sum it was intended to devote to this great national work. He also was anxious that that point should be settled. Being one of the persons appointed to examine the plans and models offered for the Waterloo monument, he had felt considerable difficulty, in consequence of his not being able to state what sum was to be appropriated to the work. When they applied to artists, they were regularly asked, what price was to be paid for the erection of the monument, since, without knowing that, they could not decide on the species of structure that was to be raised—whether a church, a column, or an arch. In almost every instance, the artists had observed, "before we can send in plans, you must give us some idea of the money to be expended." His hon. friend had said, that a column or an obelisk would be the most desirable structure for this national monument. He did not mean to controvert this opinion; but he could assure his hon. friend, that no two gentlemen he had conversed with coincided on this point. He could only say, that he would give the subject his best attention; and he certainly was most anxious to receive the opinion of his hon. friend, or of any other gentleman, on the subject. Those who were appointed to superintend the work would not act from any whim or fancy of their own, but from a strong desire to satisfy the feelings of the nation, by raising a monument worthy of its greatness and glory.

said, that government felt very considerable difficulty in apportioning the sum to be expended on this great national work; but it was an essential point, first to ascertain, whether a separate monument should be erected to the army and navy, or whether one monument should answer for both? Should the House concur with him, in his proposition, it would not preclude the erection of a monument of the description alluded to by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Tierney), to commemorate, by the same work the prowess of the navy and army, if it were deemed necessary to combine the recollection of their fame together, as they had been united in glory. When this point was settled, the government would be enabled to form some judgment, as to the scale of expense. It was, undoubtedly, as his hon. friend had stated, very natural for the country to wish, that the monument should exhibit a striking example of the state of the arts in Great Britain, at the present day—that it should, in fact, be no less honourable to the taste than to the feelings of a great people. This end, perhaps, could not be so well attained, if a certain sum were mentioned, beyond which all expenditure should be precluded.

, in adverting to the various estimates which would probably be submitted for erecting those monuments, mentioned a model proposed by an artist last year, to commemorate the battle of Waterloo, the expense of executing which was estimated at two millions. It would be necessary, therefore, to examine, with some caution, the various models and plans which might be submitted, because if they were to have three monuments erected at that rate, they might be found a little too expensive.

said, he did not mean that the present motion should preclude the House from a third vote, if they should afterwards wish to erect a joint monument for both services. As to the amount of the money, that must be left to the discretion of the Crown, but there would be no disposition to conceal the probable expense from parliament. The noble lord thought that it should be included in the account of public services.

observed, that he was sorry to hear the explanation of the noble lord, as he apprehended from it that they had not comprehended each other. He understood that the noble lord meant to take into consideration the two votes, for the purpose of ascertaining, how far it might be practicable to unite both their objects in one common monument; but now it appeared that they were to have those two at all events, and a third one, if they liked, in addition. That certainly was not his view of the question.

said, his observation was merely this; that the agreeing to the erection of the Waterloo and Trafalgar monuments, would not exclude the consideration hereafter, of the propriety of raising a church, or erecting any other building, in honour of the joint victories of the navy and army.

by no means wished to disturb the vote which was agreed to, after the battle of Waterloo; but he was desirous that some means should be provided for combining in one commemorative monument, the merits of the two services. With respect to the observation, that, if the resolutions were referred to a committee for their consideration, the House would, in some degree, become executive, it was one that deserved serious consideration. He conceived, that a specific sum should be named, for the purpose of erecting the proposed works. Until that point was adjusted, it was impossible for artists to execute the proper models.

said, he was rather dissatisfied with the last explanation of the noble lord. He thought, that while the House looked to the magnificence of the monument, it should be effected with as much economy as possible; and that would be best accomplished by blending the whole in one monument. If three monuments were to be erected, they must either abandon the idea of magnificence, or sacrifice a great portion of the public money which might be saved.

The motion was put, and carried, nem. con.

then stated, that he wished himself to be understood as decidedly objecting to any third monument.

replied, that he certainly had no intention of proposing a third monument. All he said was, that the present vote would not preclude the House from entertaining that proposition, if it should think proper to do so.

gave notice, that he should, on Wednesday sunlight, move for a committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the present distressed state of the agriculture of the country.

reminded the hon. member, that the day he had fixed upon would immediately precede the one on which a great and important question was to be discussed; and suggested whether it would not be better to name some other day.

said, he should fain hope the noble lord would postpone the consideration of the treaties to a longer period, on account of the great mass of documents connected with that question.

replied, that he was anxious the subject of our political relations should be brought under the early consideration of the House, because till that was done, it would be impossible to enter upon the discussion of our military and financial arrangements for the year.

observed, that in consequence of coming only half prepared to the investigation of the treaties, it was probable they would have an adjourned debate of a fortnight upon them.

Mr. Western then fixed Tuesday sunlight for his question.

gave notice that he would, to-morrow, move for a copy of the commission, appointing certain persons to examine into the state of the Fleet and Marshallese prisons.

was not aware of any objection to the production of this document, and would therefore dispense with the hon. gentleman's preparatory notice.

then moved for the paper. His motion was agreed to. The hon. gentleman next inquired, whether the report of the chief justice of the court of King's-bench on the state of the King's-bench prison, had yet been made; and, if so, whether it would be soon laid before the House? The subject had been brought under the consideration of the chief justice, ever since September last, and it was time that something should be done.

was not able to inform the hon. gentleman what steps had been taken.

wished to know whether, the chief justice had made any communication on this subject to the office for the home department. Perhaps, also, the hon. gentleman could tell him whether any, and what steps were taken to reform the abuses that existed in the King's-bench prison? He believed that little substantial reformation had taken place.

stated, that no communication had been made on the subject to the office to which he belonged.