presented a petition from the farmers and occupiers of land in the Middle and West Divisions of Chester ward in the county of Durham, praying for the repeal of the property tax, also of the reduction of the assessed taxes, and some regulation respecting tithes, all of which bore so oppressively upon agriculture. The hon. gentleman took occasion to express his wish and hope, that this petition would be followed by numerous petitions of the. Same character, in order to convince ministers that the people of England would not, among their accumulated distresses, endure the pressure of taxation for the express purpose of supporting unprincipled tyrants upon their thrones whether those tyrants were the Bourbons of Spain, or the Bourbons of France [Hear, hear!] Ordered to lie on the table.

rose, pursuant to notice to move for leave to bring in a bill which had, he said, already passed that House twice, and upon the last occasion without any division upon it, or even a single objection against it. Therefore it might be conceived that there was no necessity to make any observation at present in support of the motion. But yet, from some observations which had been made upon the merit of the measure, and from the nature of the objections pressed against it elsewhere, he felt himself called upon to occupy the attention of the House for a few moments. This was the more. Necessary lest the objections alluded to should have any effect upon some minds in consequence of the authority from which they proceeded. The object of the bill he had the honour to introduce was simply this, that freehold property should be subject to the payment of simple contract debts—that those who were perhaps the object of a testator's capricious bounty should be compelled to discharge that testator's debts instead of living in splendor upon his property, while his creditors were, probably suffering distress and reduced to bankruptcy. Against such a proposition he could not imagine any valid objection. If in any measure to remove existing evils any greater evils were likely to be induced, he would admit that it was the duty of the legislature to pause and abstain from such a remedy, in order to avoid the consequences. But what were the consequences apprehended according to a statement elsewhere? Why truly, that if the bill were adopted the person upon whom any freehold property devolved could not dispose of such property without a decree in a court of equity, or without being fully satisfied that all the simple contract debts of the testator were discharged, and it was asked whether it would be fair to subject the disposal of freehold property to such an obstacle or encumbrance? But the fact was, that no such consequence was to be apprehended, and he believed that no member of the profession to which he belonged in that House would attempt to assert it, although the assertion had been made by a great authority in another place. The apprehension was, indeed, quite chimerical and groundless; nay, if it were not from a consideration of the great authority by whom it was expressed, he could hardly notice it with respect. The only view of the bill was, to place the simple contract debts, in the same situation with bond debts, and to compel a debtor's property to pay all fair claims upon it, and yet, to this indisputably just; proposition, the objection to which he had adverted was put forth in the most formidable manner. By an act of 1807 the same remedy was given against the freehold property of persons in trade, which he proposed to extend generally, and yet no inconvenience, such as he had remarked upon, was ever found to result from that act. No decree of a court of equity was ever found necessary to facilitate the disposal of the freehold property of traders. Therefore he was warranted in concluding, from experience as well as from law, that the objection alluded to was chimerical was perfectly nugatory.—Another objection stated to the measure was, that it did not go far enough, that it did not include copyhold estates. This objection, however, came not from the friends but from the enemies of the bill, who probably wished to impede its progress by involving it in additional difficulties. For it was notorious that according to law copyhold estates were not liable to the payment of any debts, even during the life of the debtor, and yet by these objectors it was desired to subject such estates to those debts after his death? But what was the obvious wish of these objectors? They knew that if their proposition were adopted, a cry was likely to be raised against the measure; that it was a very bold innovation; that it proposed to interfere with the rights of every lord of a manor, and probably the old clamor about reverence for antiquity, and veneration for the habits of our ancestors, would be called into action against the bill altogether, to render the opposition to it more formidable. Another objection to the bill, and he felt it indeed only necessary to state it, like the others he had mentioned, in order to demonstrate its futility. It was urged, that the effect of the bill would be to afford an opportunity for the establishment of demands against freehold property, upon mere parole evidence, and thus offer an encouragement to perjury. But to obviate this objection, it was only necessary to state that parole or verbal evidence would be sufficient to establish any claim upon a debtor in his lifetime and why not after his death? Verbal evidence was sufficient to establish any claim upon personal property, and why not then upon real property? If indeed such evidence were insufficient, then a most material change must be made in our law, affecting alike all descriptions of property or contract, in which it was at present deemed valid. But the objection referred to was nugatory. Another objection was, that if the bill were adopted, young men entitled to freehold property would be furnished with undue facilities of obtaining credit, and thus led to ruin. But this also was chimerical; for it was notorious, that those who were likely to give credit or lend money to supply the extravagance of young men, were in the habit of securing themselves by bonds, which always affected the freehold property; and the view of the bill he proposed was to put simple contract creditors, whose claims were generally more just, upon the same footing. Another objection which proceeded from the friends of the bill, but not members of the profession, was, that it was not constitutional—that it interfered with the rights of juries. If it would drive parties into equity, he should indeed allow, that this was an objection to the measure; and he was the last person who would wish to put parties to the delay or expense of a chancery suit. This objection had been urged, as if the remedy proposed were to drive parties to a bill in equity, instead of obtaining redress by action: but this was not the case; the object was to afford redress by action, instead of driving parties to a bill and action too. At present, whenever any difficulty occurred, the party, after an action, was frequently driven to a suit in equity: by the present measure, the remedy in equity would not be taken away indeed, but the remedy by action would be added.—He should touch on one more objection before he concluded: it had been suggested, that this was not a single measure, bat that the proposes meant to follow it up by a whole course of experimental alterations. This certainly was not the case, nor did he think it possible at present. Most happy should he be, if he could carry the reform of the laws of debtor and creditor to a much greater extent than had hitherto been attempted; for sorry he was that notwithstanding all the boasts respecting our system of judicature, the practice of our laws was most grossly defective in justice, and not at all calculated to the state of society in which we live. To say nothing of the circumstance that only half of a debtor's land could be taken in execution by his creditor, it was notorious that a debtor could always protract the payment of his debts at pleasure, by delays profitable only to the profession, by writs of error, sham pleas, and other tricks too numerous to be mentioned. It was indeed most desirable that they should be all abolished; and it he had the power to do so, or it were possible, he should be most happy to see such a measure carried into effect. At present he had only to propose the single measure before the House, which was, if possible, more desirable at this moment than at any former period, both on account of the aggravated distresses of the country, and because we had lately adopted a most important alteration in our civil policy, by the introduction of the insolvent debtor's act—a measure which at the time he thought beneficial, and continued to think so still. But justice ought to be rendered to the creditor as well as the debtor, which he feared was not the case under the present insolvent act; though, when it passed, he understood, that some improvement was to have been made in it respecting the interests of creditors. He concluded by moving, "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."—Leave was given.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to restrain the Grants of Annuities on the terms of being re-purchasable. The hon. and learned member enlarged upon the necessity of preventing this mode of raising money, which was in its consequences so injurious to the interests of the community, and had at length obtained a frequency which rendered it high time to call for legislative interference.

objected entirely to the measure proposed, and thought it would be only an augmentation of the evil complained of, by forcing every person in distress to borrow money on the pernicious terms of an irredeemable annuity. He was persuaded that all legisla- tive interference in these cases was worse than futile, and often the very cause of the distress it sought to remedy; for when the market price of money was higher than the legal price, the lender, who would not part with his property at less than the market price, was obliged in fact to charge much more, in order to indemnify himself against the risk he incurred by lending at higher interest than the law allowed. This indemnity could always be obtained under some subterfuge of premium or commission, and the borrower suffered thus by the very law that so injudiciously interfered for his protection. The interest of money, like the price of every other commodity, should be left to find its own level.

thought that a better mode might be devised of answering the hon. and learned gentleman's intention, but still he would not oppose the motion.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

rose to postpone the motion of which he had given notice for Monday, with respect to the prorogation of parliament, with regard to which, his opinion was by no means changed by what the House had heard on a former evening from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as to the proposed peace establishment, especially the maintenance of a standing army in a foreign nation, his mind still retained the same impression as he had before expressed with respect to its constitutional policy and practical expediency. But he reserved the right of bringing those questions under the consideration of the House on a future occasion. The noble lord was proceeding, when

interfered, and submitted to the noble lord, that any observations in the present instance, would not be strictly regular according to the custom of the House.

Lord Nugent then put off his notice, without mentioning the day on which he meant to bring forward his promised motion.

asked the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, if he had yet ascertained whether there was any existing interest in the place occupied by the late lord Buckinghamshire?

replied, that he had ascer- tainted there was no existing interest in the place alluded to; adding, that it was the intention of his majesty's ministers to make a new regulation of that place, in conformity with the Resolution of that House, the terms of which regulation would be submitted to the consideration of parliament. Some delay would, however, necessarily take place in arranging that regulation, as reference must be had to Ireland, where a general inquiry was going on with respect to the several courts of that country.

reminded the right hon. gentleman, that according to the Resolution of 1810, the place referred to was not to be regulated like other places, that is, reduced from 11 or 12,000l. a year to 3,600l., but to be totally abolished, while the little duty attached to it was to be performed by deputy.

reminded the learned gentleman that there was a precedent resolution in 1810 to that quoted by the learned gentleman, saving the rights of the Crown, and by which provision was made to grant compensation to meritorious officers.

expressed his determination, if any attempt were made to make any grant to the Crown in consequence of the abolition of this enormity, for such he must consider the sinecure alluded to, decidedly to oppose it. As to compensation to officers, nothing of the kind could be pretended on this occasion, as there was no existing interest.

said, that he made no allusion to any grant to the Crown. All he meant to say was, that according to the precedent resolution to which he referred, provision was made to reward or compensate any meritorious officers, whose interest might suffer by the regulation of any of the offices to which the subsequent resolution quoted by the learned gentleman adverted.

observed, that it would be unsatisfactory to regulate, or even abolish, the office by any other mode than by act of parliament, because by no other mode would the public have any security against its revival.

rose and observed, that a noble lord whom he did not then see in his place, had said, that the House should not be called upon to vote any supplies till it was in possession of what was to be the intended peace establishment. For himself, therefore, he should expect that information to be given previously to a supply being voted, and if he should feel it his duty to oppose any vote of supply, it would be on that ground.

said, that he had, on the preceding day, in the absence of his right hon. friend, stated, that it was the intention of the chancellor of the exchequer to lay before the House, on the earliest opportunity, a general view of the ways and means for the year; and he had even ventured to name a day when he thought it probable that communication would be made. Meanwhile, the ordinary supplies might be voted in the usual way.

said, it was the usual way in which the supplies had been voted for some years past to which he objected.

then put the question, that the report be received, when several members exclaimed, No, no, upon which the gallery was ordered to be cleared; but,

rose and observed, that the course which the House seemed inclined to pursue, was certainly a departure from its customary practice. The question then before them did not involve an assent to any particular branch of the supply; it only went so far as to recognize a supply generally; and surely some supply must be granted. If the present report were brought up and received, it would still be open to the right hon. gentleman opposite to object to any specific item that might be proposed, upon the ground that no statement had yet been made of the general finances of the country.

thought it quite right to oppose any grant of money until the House should have ascertained that the country was in a state of solvency. It was proper to teach ministers that lesson which they did not yet seem to have learnt, that they had brought the country to such a situation as to make it improper to go a step further without due information as to her means.

observed, that as there was no general principle upon which the House could refuse any supply, it might be necessary to reflect a little before they proceeded further in their present opposition. He recollected that in the last ses- sion of parliament he had himself voted against the supplies generally, but then it was because he objected to the war into which the country was about to be plunged, and therefore he objected to the supplies which would be necessary to carry on that war. On the present occasion there existed no such general principle; but, unquestionably, when they came into the committee, he, for one, should oppose the voting of even five pounds until some explanation was given upon the finances of the country, and the intended peace establishment. It would not be correct, however, to oppose generally any supply, and he hoped, therefore, the hon. gentleman behind him would suffer the present question to go to the vote.

said, that the right hon. gentleman had looked at him, as if he were the person who meant to divide the House, which certainly had never been his intention: but if, by concurring in the present vote, he was to be understood as sanctioning any peace establishment which the right hon. gentleman opposite might choose to propose, he would take his ground at once, and resist any supply being voted, for he would never concur in any thing like the peace establishment which he understood it was in contemplation to bring forward.

observed, that it was quite unusual to oppose a general vote of supply, merely because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not made any statement upon the finances of the country.

The gallery was then cleared for a division, and during the exclusion of strangers, Mr. Brougham rose to ask some question, turning upon a declaration made by lord Castlereagh on a former night, when it was observed, that the noble lord not being present, the question ought not to be put. Upon this Mr. Bennet remarked, that it was the duty of the noble lord to attend the sittings of that House during the discussion of public business, and that his absence from it was a mark of disrespect. Mr. Lambton added, that the noble lord was salaried by the public for the discharge of his duty, and his not performing it in that House was both a neglect and an insult. The House did not ultimately divide but the report was received and agreed to.

said, that the number of processes issued by government in the course of the last year had been so excessive, that the subject deserved the most serious attention of the House. The evil was so far increased, as to have become truly alarming. In his tour through Devonshire, in the course of last summer, he had learnt that, in the town of Biddeford alone, 140 of these processes had been issued in the course of the year. Like measures were taking place, he understood, in every other part of the country, and in consequence of this, and the depressed state of agriculture, barns were every where locked up, and the tenants running away. He therefore begged leave to move, "That there be laid before this House, a return of the extents, extents in aid, and other processes of the Crown, either for taxes or other debts, which have been issued in England during the year ending the 1st of February 1816, with the sums for which such extents and processes were awarded." Ordered.