said, it was well known that a large sum had been lent by this country to Austria, which had never yet been repaid. It was desirable that the House should know what exertions his Majesty's ministers had made to obtain a repayment of it, and how it happened that their exertions had been unsuccessful. He wished to know whether the noble lord opposite, would have any objection to the production of all correspondence between this government and Austria on the subject.

wished to know, whether the right hon. gentleman alluded to the correspondence of 1801, or to some supposed recent correspondence. If to the latter, he could without difficulty inform him, that no recent correspondence had taken place on the subject. If the right hon. gentleman's object was, to impress the House with an opinion that some arrangement should have been made with Austria on that subject, he (lord C.) should be prepared, on a proper occasion, to give reasons why his majesty's ministers had not thought fit to press any such arrangement on the Austrian government.

hoped the noble lord would consent to the motion for all correspondence which had passed on the subject; he should then have an opportunity of inculpating the ministers for having made no exertions, and the noble lord would have an opportunity of defending them. In 1801 it was to be remembered that lord Sidmouth apologized in that House, for not having made some arrangement with Austria on the subject.

said, if the right hon. gentleman would defer his motion, until a future day, it would give him an opportunity of examining the papers, and judging whether his proposition could be entertained to its full extent.

wished to know whether any commercial arrangement had been made with Portugal, whom we had so liberally assisted. Some part of the old commercial treaty with that country, especially as it was interpreted on the subject of the wine monopoly, was highly oppressive.

said, that on the subject of the wine monopoly, he could give no satisfactory intelligence to the hon. gentleman.

said, his object was to know whether any new commercial treaty had been made, or whether the old one was in force.

said, there had been no recent commercial treaty, but there had been considerable differences of opinion, and a long correspondence between the two governments: as to the interpretation of that article of the treaty respecting the wine monopoly, the difficulty still existed.

said, that, in the year 1809, he believed a letter had been received from lord Collingwood, announcing the surrender of the Ionian Islands, Corfu, &c. The letter stated, that the French garrison had capitulated, that the inhabitants were rescued from the oppression of the French government, and that the centenary republic was restored. The re-establishment of that republic was recognized by the treaty of Amiens, though it had since ceased to exist. He now inquired of the noble lord; whether he would have any objection to produce the letter he had alluded to, if it existed, together with the articles of capitulation on which the surrender of the Ionian isles was founded. If the noble lord had no objection, he would to-morrow move an Address to the Prince Regent for the production of the papers.

said, he could not now give any answer, with respect to the letter of lord Collingwood, which, it appeared, referred to a particular service. If the hon. gentleman meant to say, that the arrangements which had recently taken place, with respect to the Ionian islands, were contrary to the good faith of the country, or militated against any pledge formerly held out, he had no objection to produce any papers which the hon. member might conceive necessary to elucidate the subject, because, he was sure, he could clearly show, that no breach of faith had been committed.

—Will the noble lord object to a motion for an Address, at the present moment?

though ready to give every necessary information, could not accede to an immediate motion, as he had not yet examined all the documents connected with the subject.

then gave notice that he would, to-morrow, move for papers relative to the Ionian Islands.

referring to the expectation which had been raised throughout the country, from that passage in the Prince Regent's Speech at the Opening of the session, in which economical arrangements were spoken of, inquired whether any communication was about to be laid before the House, with reference to retrenchments already made in the public offices, particularly in those establishments which, though proper during a period of war, were not necessary in time of peace? After the peace of America, when the army estimates were laid before the House, a variety of reductions were stated, at the Horse-guards, &c. &c. Were government now prepared to state to the House what extent of reduction had already been effected, in the different establishments, and what farther reductions they intended to recommend?

said, the right hon. gentleman would find, that considerable reductions had taken place in the different establishments, though he was not then prepared to enter into a detailed account of them. With respect to what farther should be done, that was under the consideration of his Majesty's government.

said, it would be very convenient, as soon as ministers had done away with any unnecessary office, if they would communicate the fact to the House. If any particular retrenchment had been effected, the sooner it was made public the better.

said, he had given the best answer in his power to the right hon. gentleman. When his Majesty's government could fully state the new arrangements, they would lose no time in so doing.

said, as it was a matter of detail, why should it not be taken as such? The House should see in the case of each office, how much was saved to the public, and whether it was possible to save more. It would be competent to any member to move for an account of the money saved in each particular department; and this he believed would be the best way of appreciating the merit of the retrenchments.

moved, "That the Report which, upon the 20th of June last, was made from the Select Committee appointed to consider of the state of the Law respecting the. Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum might be entered as read."^* This having been done, the learned Serjeant stated, that he intended to propose certain resolutions founded on the report to which he had called the attention of the House. In the course of the last session of parliament, he had introduced a bill, for the amendment of the Habeas Corpus act that bill was carried through the House of Commons, but objections were raised against it, in another place, and it was, in consequence, lost. He introduced the bill, before Christmas; but as a hon. gentleman wished it to be extended to Ireland; he let it stand over for some time. This he stated to show, that he had not proceeded hastily, or attempted to carry the measure by surprise. Gentlemen must be aware that the statute of the 31st of Charles 2, commonly called the Habeas Corpus act, only extended to persons imprisoned for criminal offences, leaving a wide range open for the exercise of oppression. He had, therefore, moved for a committee, to take into consideration the state of that law, as it respected writs of Habeas Corpus returnable in vacation. The committee had reported that the law was incompetent in that point. That a writ of Habeas Corpus, returnable in vacation whether under the common law or the statute of the 31st Charles 2, might be set at defiance—and the person for whose liberation it had been procured, might still be subjected to confinement. This circumstance not only might happen, but had happened. Two instances of the kind had very recently occurred; and he thought the House ought to step forward and interpose its legislative power, to prevent disobedience of writs of Habeas Corpus, when returnable in vacation. The first case was that of a person named Hoffman. An individual calling himself the captain of a Spanish privateer, occasioned Hoffman Rupert to be put on board his vessel, where he kept him confined. A writ of Habeas Corpus was sued out; but, as it was returnable in vacation, no obedience was paid to it, and Hoffman remained a prisoner, from the 7th of April to the 5th of May. He was not only deprived of his liberty, but his life was absolutely in danger. One of the judges, who in his judicial capacity, could not assist the person aggrieved, wrote to the commissioners of the customs, to prevent the sailing of the privateer, and, but for this humane interposition, the case would probably never have come under the consideration of any tribunal whatever. The other instance was different in its circumstances. A girl of very tender years was seduced from her mother; a writ of Habeas Corpus was sued out to recover possession of her person; but as it was returnable in vacation, it was disobeyed. Here there was another remedy. The girl was a minor, and possessed of property. She was, therefore, made a hard of chancery, and by the authority of that court, she was rescued from those by whom she had been enticed away. These two cases had come before the committee, and, no doubt, had it been thought necessary to search after others, many more might have been found. But the fact that, except in term time, the act of 31st Charles 2, gave no power to compel obedience to the writ of Habeas Corpus, seemed, in his opinion, a sufficient ground for amending the law. The learned serjeant then adverted to the conduct of earl Ferrets, who had disobeyed a writ of Habeas Corpus, returnable in vacation, which was sued out for the purpose of procuring the liberty of his lady. When they considered the paroxysms of passion to which that unfortunate nobleman was subject, they must conclude, that the care of Providence, and not the perfection of the law, had saved her. Another case was that of lady Strathmore. Here, too, the writ was returnable in vacation. The consequence was that a long period had elapsed before Mr. Bowes was compelled to give up her ladyship. But this was not the only deficiency, in the existing state of the law. When a return was made, no power was given to examine into the nature of that return. This was a point complained of not only by the officers examined before the committee, but by the judges, in the year 1758. Where a jury brought in a verdict, it might be demurred to—but here the affidavit, although the return be false, did away with any farther proceed in at that time. It might be said that there was a remedy. But what remedy could a married woman have against her husband, if he made a false return? What remedy could lady Ferrets or lady Strathmore claim? But even, where an action could be brought, he conceived in cases of this description, that no amount of damages could compensate an individual for the loss of liberty. It might be said that an alteration in the law would be dangerous, in cases of lunatics or persons just recovering from a state of mental derangement; but the committee had provided for this, by recommending that the judge before whom such persons were brought, should be empowered to give such directions concerning them as the necessity of the case might seem to require. The learned serjeant then read the following Resolutions:— 1. "That a power to compel obedience to Writs of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum, returnable in vacation, is essential to the satisfactory administration of the law.

^* For a Copy of this Report, see Vol. 31, p. 891.

2. "That provision should be made for the summary inquiring into the truth of the facts contained in the return to Writs of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum, where the detention is admitted and justified; and that power should be given to the court or to the judge before whom such writs are returnable, to discharge the persons imprisoned or detained, on bail, during such examination or inquiry, or in cases that may appear to require it, to make such order for the case, custody, or dispositions of the persons so imprisoned or delaine, as the court or judge shall think proper."

The question having been put on the first Resolution,

professed, that till he heard the speech of his hon. and learned friend, he could not have anticipated that his present course was the one he meant to pursue. After what had passed in the committee, he conceived that his object would have been to bring in a bill, instead of moving the present resolutions. If he had followed that mode of proceeding, he would have stated his objections to particular provisions of the bill, if they occurred, and the improvements that might be suggested in the course of discussing it. The Attorney-general pro- fessed himself unable to adopt the present resolutions of his hon. and learned friend without further information. He could not go the length of saying, that the due administration of justice required a power to reside in every judge to compel returns to writs of habeas corpus issued in vacation time. The two cases which his hon. and learned friend had mentioned of the man detained on board the Spanish ship, and the young woman seduced from her friends, were not, in his opinion, sufficient to show that, justice. Could not be administered by the due application of law, as it at present existed. With regard to the complaints which the hon. and learned gentleman made concerning the impossibility, in the present state of the law, of procuring an explanation upon a false return, and his proposal of granting the summary method of making inquiry, he had equal grounds of doubt and objection. Had a proposal come from him (the Attorney-general) of granting such summary powers to the judges, of proceeding, on their own individual authority, to such acts as these resolutions would enable them to do, instead of allowing parties to seek redress by the usual course of law, he was convinced that gentlemen on the opposite side, who assumed to themselves the character of guardians of the liberty of the subject, would have been alarmed, and entered their protest against him. He was sensible that cases might occur, and some had. Been mentioned by the hon. and taught serjeant, in which severe distress might be endured, and great injustice practiced, by false returns or continued confinement in the face of a writ of habeas corpus. He knew that a femme coverte might be kept in duress by her husband; that she might be detained by him where he pleased, notwithstanding a writ issued in vacation time to procure her release; that she might be carried about from one end of the country to the other, under circumstances of oppression; but, as the hon. and learned gentleman had allowed, there was no injustice without a remedy. There could, indeed, be no compulsory interference of the judges in the Mean time, but there might be a trial by jury afterwards.

observed, that as he was extremely desirous to obtain unanimity if possible, he should adopt the suggestion which had been thrown out by his hon. and learned friend.

The resolutions were accordingly with- drawn, and the hon. and learned serjeant moved "for leave to bring in a bill for the more effectually securing the liberty of the subject."—Leave was accordingly given.

said, that as he saw a right hon. gentleman in his place, connected with the Irish government, he wished to ask a question relative to an office which it was understood was to be either regulated or entirely abolished. He was anxious to know whether, when that right hon. gentleman gave the consolatory assurance to the House that the office in question would be brought under the consideration of parliament, he was aware that the chief baron of the Irish exchequer claimed the right of patronage in the appointment to it, and that he had in consequence actually nominated his son to succeed the earl of Buckinghamshire?

replied, that he had not had the slightest expectation that any such event would have taken place. He was therefore as much taken by surprise as the House could be. He did not hesitate to say, be had never understood the appointment in question to be vested in other hands than those of the Crown. From the time of Queen Elizabeth, he knew of no instance in which this office had been held to be in the grant of any private individual. The right had not been claimed by any other judge who had sat in the court in which the learned judge who was referred to presided. A question might arise out of the present claim, which could only be decided in a court of justice, or in that House. At all events, parliament having expressed a desire that the office should be regulated, if even the claim to an interest in it were admitted, there could be no reason why the resolution of that House should not be carried into effect. Should the individual succeed in establishing his right to dispose of the office, it would be at least as necessary to bring in a bill for the regulation of it, as if it should prove to be vested in the Crown.

said, he was happy he had proposed the question, because it had afforded an opportunity for an explanation from the right hon. gentleman which could not but be highly satisfactory to the House. There was only one observation which he wished to make upon that explain nation. The right hon. Gentleman had intimated a doubt whether any future proceeding which might become necessary, should be decided in a court of law or in that House; for his own part, he should decidedly enter his protest against any reference to a court of law, as that House was the only fit place for the decision.

said, he had not had time to give the subject all the attention it deserved. To carry an inquiry back to about the year 1300, when the English law was first introduced, required some consideration; and he had not felt himself prepared at once to give an opinion on it. In a few days he should be possessed of more information on the subject. Anxious to gain all that could be obtained, he had written to the commissioners now sitting in Ireland, to whom a reference had been made with respect to the duties of the office in question, desiring them to suspend the business they were at present engaged in, and to proceed immediately to investigate the claim thus set up. He had that day received a letter from the commissioners, in which they informed him they would forthwith comply with his wish. The result of their proceedings would, be trusted, place the question in a proper light. There might be a necessity for examining many things concerning it which would require some time; what fees, for instance, were eligible from suitors—whether they might be reduced or abolished—what duty was to be done by the deputy, and how he was to be paid; and, in short whether the office should be abolished altogether, or merely regulated.

said, that if the grant of this office belonged to the chief of the court, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have the disposal of it, and not the chief baron.

said, it was of no consequence to whom the right of nomination to the office belonged, for the report of the finance committee which was supported by the unanimous resolution of the House, had determined, that it should cease after the death of the then occupier. The resolution went virtually to an abolition of the situation, since it provided that the deputy should do the duty, without any addition to his present salary.

denied that there was a resolution of the House, of the nature stated by the hon. and learned gentleman.

said, it was a resolution of a committee of the whole House. He had consulted the journals when the subject was last before them.

rose to call the attention of the House to a subject of great importance with regard to the administration of justice in Ireland. He was a member of a committee last session appointed to inquire into the proceedings of the grand juries in that part of the empire. It appeared from the persons this committee examined, and the documents lay before it, that the very extraordinary practice prevailed in the proceedings of the grand juries, of finding bills of indictment upon the mere depositions obtained from witnesses by the magistrates, without any resort to parole evidence. This practice very much excited his surprise. He was not before aware, nor was many of his friends who acted with him in the same committee, that such a deviation from the law of the country existed to any extent, or that it could be general. Such, however, was the practice over the greater part of Ireland. It was not of recent growth; it was almost as ancient as it was universal. It had prevailed so long, that the records of the courts scarcely reached back to a time when it did not exist. The hon. and learned gentleman proceeded to state what the practice really was, when it appeared, that after an examination taken by the magistrates upon oath, there was no other examination of witnesses till the accused was put upon his trial before the petty jury. The depositions taken before the magistrate were the grounds upon which the grand jury proceeded in finding a bill of indictment. The prosecutor laid these depositions before the grand jury, and upon this evidence obtained his Bill. No witness was called before them, or examined in support of the alleged charges. They had nothing to guide their judgments but the written evidence that the magistrate communicated. He thought it almost unnecessary to mention how different this was from the practice that prevailed in England in similar circumstances, and before a jury of this kind. Not only the members of the House knew this, but the least informed individual of the country. Before the English grand juries the witnesses of the prosecutor were sworn and examined. The depositions taken in the first instance before the magistrate were studiously withheld, and never allowed by the judge, unless in the case of any of the witnesses having died in the interval between their examination and the indictment of the prisoner. The written evi- dence upon which the magistrate committed the prisoner for trial was put into the hands of the judge, and never allowed by him to be inspected by the grand jury, except upon the contingency he had mentioned, and at the discretion of the judge, upon proper application to him for that purpose. This practice in our criminal proceedings was well understood, and never deviated from. There had been disputes upon the manner of taking evidence before a grand jury, and the extent to which the examination should go, but never concerning the propriety of requiring parole testimony before a bill of indictment could be awarded. There was even a pretension set up, that not only the witnesses of the prosecutor should be examined, but those likewise for the defense. All were agreed, that witnesses must be examined before the grand jury upon oath in England; and there was another point equally clear and admitted, that the common law of England and Ireland were the same. In determining what was proper to be done, therefore, we had only to inquire what the law of England was; and though an opposite practice had been long established in the sister kingdom, the length of usage was no sufficient bar against a return to the punctual administration of it. Even in Ireland, the usage was not uniform for the grand jury to be guided by the evidence taken by the magistrate upon commitment. In some counties, as Wexford for instance, the practice did not prevail; and in others there were departures from it. Even in the same county the usage was not uniform, as was proved by several of the witnesses examined by the committee. The hon. and learned gentleman stated the practice of several counties, to show the variety in the proceedings of the grand juries, and the necessity of recurring to the observation of what was, amid all deviations, certainly the law of the land. He would not look back upon the neglect that had been shown it; he would make no reference to the past, but for the purpose of evincing that it was completely forgotten, and that we were to turn our attention to the improvement of the future. He knew well how delicate questions concerning the administration of justice were, and, instead of making any reflections upon its past state, would propose the measures which the actual circumstances demanded. This was not difficult to be done. The law was, that there should be evidence—evi- dence upon oath, and the best evidence that could be procured. The practice was different. There was no evidence taken by the Irish grand juries; they satisfied themselves of the grounds of an indictment, without resorting to parole testimony. Here the hon. and learned gentleman read extracts from the minutes of evidence taken by the committee, on whose report he grounded his proposed measure, with the view of showing the irregular manner in which the Irish grand juries conducted their proceedings, and the necessity of recurring to a better system. He then proceeded to state the object of his bill. He paid high compliments to the judges who administered the law in Ireland. The bar, he said, was as much distinguished for ability, probity, knowledge, and eloquence, as any bar in the world; but there were some grievances of which he had reason to complain, as the mode of electing sheriffs, and nominating magistrates. He was convinced that the imperial parliament could do much with regard to the removal of those and other grievances. The present one, which he had explained, would be easily removed. He was entitled to say, that there was no grand jury at all in that country, as, except in particular cases, they had no other evidence to guide their decisions but what the magistrate had transmitted them. He was, therefore, the only person who deserved the title of a grand jury. There was no check to oppression, therefore, from the grand inquest. This was a most important privilege, of which Ireland was deprived. There was nothing that could be more essential to the interests and rights of those individuals who were exposed to trial, whether justly or unjustly, than restoring this privilege. For this purpose, he thought the grievance should be redressed by a declaratory act. There would be no necessity for an enacting statute, but merely for a declaratory one. Any other would, besides being useless, have the appearance of altering the common law of the land. He therefore moved "For leave to bring in a bill to declare the law for the right proceeding of grand juries in Ireland upon bills of indictment."

declared, that he felt no intention of opposing the principle of the measure now suggested, but he imagined that no one could deny that such a subject demanded the most anxious inquiry; that in endeavoring to introduce an important alteration in the customary practice of the grand juries of Ireland, in counteracting a usage confirmed by immemorial custom, great difficulties must present themselves; and that the House should, above all things, deprecate precipitation. A considerable time must necessarily elapse before the provisions of this measure could be brought into operation. The next assizes in Ireland must take place early in March; before that period it would be impossible to run the bill through all its stages; consequently, as it could not be applied until the succeeding assizes, no necessity existed of pressing the question. He suggested that some alteration in the civil proceedings of grand juries in Ireland might, perhaps, in that time, be adopted, and that thus associated, the measure would be rendered more permanently beneficial to that country. With sincere pleasure he had heard the candid declaration of the hon. and learned gentleman, that no censure could be applied to the very distinguished and honourable persons who administered the laws in Ireland, and with him he also agreed in supposing, that the law now to be introduced should be declaratory; but he begged leave to observe, that the hon. and learned member appeared somewhat precipitate in declaring that the practice of the grand dig nation to which they were exposed in juries in Ireland was contrary to the precepts of the common law. He allowed that the authority of the hon. and learned gentleman in a case of this nature, was very high; but as far as it related to Ireland, he would oppose authority of no small eminence. As far as constant practice could constitute the common law of any nation, he had the statement of the hon. and learned gentleman himself to support his opinion, that the present usage was the common law of Ireland; for he had asserted that it seemed to exist from time immemorial. The practice, as such, had been sanctioned by the first legal authorities of England; for not many centuries past, few lawyers who practiced at the Irish bar were raised to the bench. The judges were supplied almost entirely from Westminster-hall, and these, some of whom were the brightest ornaments of the profession, had sanctioned the practice by their approbation. The name of one of them was familiar with every person the least versed in legal information, as his authority was ever regarded with the highest respect; he alluded to chief baron Gilbert, who had been successively chief justice of the Common pleas and chief baron of the exchequer, in Ireland, and subsequently chief baron of the exchequer in England. Chief Justice Reynolds, of the common pleas in Ireland, was also an Englishman, and yet, with these, and many others, the practice then prevailing in the grand juries of Ireland had such an influence as to prevent their attempting to disturb it. The hon. and learned gentle man had indeed justly stated that, in 1762, doubts as to the legality of this practice had been stated by chief justice Aston, and a meeting of the judges was convened to consider them. At that time there were only nine judges in Ireland, and of that number seven agreed in the legality of the practice, and continued it in consequence of its general convenience in the country. Among those who acceded to that opinion were, Lord Chancellor Bowles and chief justice Wiles, both Englishmen. He appealed, in support of his opinion, to the indirect authority of both houses of the Irish parliament. The question, indeed, had never come before the House of Commons, but their silence might be considered a proof of their general concurrence in the practice. It might indeed have been a departure from the common law, but it appeared to them justifiable, in consequence of the great press of civil business which belonged to grand juries, and partly perhaps from a desire to protect witnesses from the in that country. The indirect authority of the House of Peers, was, however, more distinctly marked, for they had suffered one of their own body (lord Sanford) to be executed for murder, on proceedings precisely the same as were usually adopted on all common indictments: He was pleased that, in the introduction of this measure, no censure was attached to any persons whatever for all past proceedings, and while he agreed in the general expediency of the bill, he hoped that no grounds for objection would be admitted into the wording of it.

expressed his obligations to the right hon. gentleman for the judicious manner in which he had treated the question; but there was an observation advanced by him in the course of his speech, which it was impossible to pass by unnoticed. The right hon. gentleman seemed to think that the common law of Ireland was different from the common law of England, but such a circumstance was altogether impossible. When the English law was first introduced into that country, it wholly superseded the usual or Archon law previously existing; and by a statute in the reign of Henry 3, the statute law of England was, up to that period, received as the statute law of Ireland. This was the second great reception of English law, which completely assimilated the law systems of both countries. If, in the course of time, any deviation from that system should have taken place, he was not willing to imply censure on those who had acted under present practice, but, at the same time, he felt the expediency of an alteration, which could not be effected but by an act of the legislature. His hon. and learned friend had said that the law should be administered in Ireland, as it was in England, and in this he quite agreed with him. He had felt that the committee which had been appointed to make those inquiries, from whence the present proposition had resulted, would be of serious advantage. On that committee several English gentlemen had attended with great assiduity, and in their labors he confidently hoped Ireland would obtain the best security for a full and perfect enjoyment of the great and estimable advantages of the English institutions. He expressed an ardent hope that the bill would be carried through the House in the same spirit of moderation which had marked its first introduction.

rose to remove the impression of his having appeared to consider the common law of the two countries essentially different. The hon. and learned mover having represented the present practice of grand juries as a deviation from common law, he had merely stated the to high authorities by which it had been sanctioned.

admitted that the common law in both countries was the same, but the practice prevailing in Ireland, for which he believed there was no statute, was anciently the practice in England also. He was glad, however, to witness the feelings of the English members towards his country, and would gladly lend his support to the object of the hon. and learned mover.

was of opinion, that notwithstanding the labors of the committee, they had not been able to, find one instance in which a practical grievance had resulted from the present mode; and unless some substantial grievance could be proved, he must enter his protest against abolishing any old established practice. The grand juries of Ireland were not, he could assure the House, so indifferent to the lives and liberties of their countrymen, as to send them to trial upon slight and improper grounds. It was only when they were convinced by the clearest evidence that they made out their presentments. The House should recollect that the business of the grand juries in Ireland was much more extensive and complicated than that of the grand juries in England. The former, besides finding bills of indictment in criminal cases, had to attend to various local interests, particularly proceedings against illicit distillation; and if their time was to be taken up by the examination of evidence in all criminal cases, it would be impossible for them to get through what they had to attend to. He would suggest deferring the measure till an after period of the session, in order that a fuller attendance of Irish members might be obtained, whose opinions ought to be consulted.

declared, that he could not sit silent, when he found it questioned whether, by the common law, a grand jury could not find a true bill of indictment without hearing vivâ voce evidence. The hon. Member who spoke last had, he apprehended, confounded the presentments of grand juries with bills of in document preferred to them on evidence adduced by the prosecutor. The single point in question was, whether Ireland was to have the benefit of grand juries or not It was a widely different thing to an individual charged with any offence to have the bill thrown out by the grand jury, and be acquitted on his trial before the petit jury. In the former case, he stood perfectly justified and unsuspected; in the latter, he might be supposed in society to have escaped upon some point of law, or some unforeseen defect of evidence. The people of Ireland had been hitherto excluded from this advantage; and he did not think it difficult to perceive that it had been productive of much practical evil. This perhaps might be shown by a reference to the vast disproportion, in that part of the empire, between the number of persons tried for murder since 1810, and the number convicted. The number committed upon this charge could not fail to strike the House as prodigious. In the year 1810, 237 were tried, and 15 convicted: in 1811, 307 were tried, of whom 24 were convicted; in 1812, 271 were tried, and 17 convicted; in 1813, 315 were tried, and 42 convicted; and in 1814,205 were tried, of whom only 13 were found guilty. The number tried, greatly exceeded that of England and Scotland, but the disproportion of the convictions was still more unexampled. These facts appeared to him to furnish, sufficient ground either for alteration or inquiry. The question was of the most important nature, inasmuch as it affected the administration of criminal justice, and involved the sacred duty of disposing of the lives, the liberties, and properties of our fellow-subjects. He did not mean to throw any blame on the Irish judges, the fault might not be with them; but it was a subject on which there ought to be but one interest and feeling in both islands, especially since Ireland by the union had become identified with ourselves, and entitled to an equal share in the benefits of the constitution.

declared, that it was the uniform practice in the two counties in which, for more than thirty years, he had presided as a magistrate and foreman of grand juries, always to receive the vivâ voce evidence of witnesses before any bill was found. He did not deny that the practice was different in other counties; and though he regretted that written evidence should at any time be sent before a jury, yet he thought the present question was one of a most delicate nature. He was concerned lest any improper notion should go abroad respecting the conduct of the grand juries of Ireland generally, for he would take upon himself to say, that amore chaste set of men could no where be found. Their custom had been sanctioned by the most able judges of the land, and therefore they could not be supposed to have acted wrong. He knew that the grand juries who did find the bills upon written evidence appeared in court to have the information substantiated, and to see whether the witnesses had sworn the truth or not. The subject was delicate, because it implied a charge against all grand juries, and therefore he trusted, if the bill passed, that it would contain an exception of the counties of Wexford and Killenny where the practice was different, as he had stated already. There might be many judicious amendments made in the bill, provided it was not hurried through the House this session. He considered the bill to be unnecessary; and hoping the object of it might be attained without passing a law on the subject, he wished the hon. and taught gentleman to let it stand over for a time.

was of opinion, not only that the bill ought to pass, but that if ever there was a case requiring that a declaratory law should be passed, the present instance afforded one. For his part, he thought that there should be a declaration added to the bill, that the practice in Ireland, as it had existed of late was contrary to the common law. In England it was allowed by all lawyers that grand juries should proceed on evidence vivâ voce; in Ireland no such evidence was required, and yet there was nothing peculiar in the character of Irish magistrates or juries to justify this difference. He contended that it was a monstrous doctrine that juries should act in Ireland on less evidence than they did in England, and added, that the very arguments alleged against the bill were so many reasons to prove the propriety of its passing If he were called upon to point out a case which made such a declaratory enactment necessary, it would be that which the hon. baronet who spoke last had stated; namely, that the judges had directed grand juries to proceed upon vivâ voce evidence, and not upon written examinations. This circumstance alone, if no other could be brought to support the measure, rendered it fit that the law should now be declared. The common law of England was the common law of Ireland, and the practice in both countries ought to be the same.

agreed, that the common law in both countries was one and the same, but that the practice had been different. In one, the grand juries found a bill on vivâ voce evidence, in the other, on written examinations. This variation, however, might have arisen from particular circumstances, which it was then unnecessary to discuss. No person could be more anxious than himself for the due and regular administration of justice in Ireland; and he trusted the House would adopt such a course as might appear to be most beneficial to the people of that country.

rose to reply. He said he thought it rather hard that gentlemen should bring charges of precipitation and indelicacy against him, without having taken some pains to inquire into the truth of the allegations. So far from wishing to act without the concurrence of the hon. member for Silo, it had been expressly agreed between them that he should pro- pose this measure separately, without interfering with the other matters contained in the report of the committee, inasmuch as it was only to be settled by a declaration of the law. With respect to the precipitation of the measure, the hon. baronet seemed to forget, that he had introduced the bill in the last session of purl lament, when he was induced to withdraw it at the request of the right hon. secretary for Ireland, and had pledged himself to bring it forward again on the first day of this session. In the course of his speech he had expressly declared, that he did not wish to press the discussion till the gentlemen from Ireland should be present: a call of the House would soon give them the benefit of their assistance, and he should be happy to attend to every argument which they might urge. The hon. baronet had stated what had occurred in Ireland since the report was made. He understood him to say, that the judges had charged the grand juries to proceed on vivâ voce evidence. He should like to know whether that was really the fact, and whether the grand jurors had obeyed such directions. If the hon. baronet would satisfy him of the correctness of that statement, it would be the most material point of which the House could be in possession.

had merely said, that he thought it would have been more delicate in the hon. and learned gentleman to wait till the member for Silo came over; but he was now convinced, that they had agreed upon the course to be pursued. He had heard that the judges had specifically directed the grand juries to proceed on vivâ voce evidence; but whether they had acted conformably to such instructions, he could not venture to state.

Leave was then given to bring in the bill.

in rising to bring the subject of which he had given notice before the House, would not trespass long on its attention, as he was satisfied, that however disposed the gentlemen opposite were to watch the conduct of government with a scrutinizing eye, it was not against the navy that their jealousy would be directed. He trusted he should be able to show, that in the arrangements, which had been made, economy had not been neglected, though that delusive economy had not been resorted to, which, on former occasions, had led to much inconvenience and danger, and ultimately too much expense. To the objections urged to the apprehended reduction of our naval establishment, which some had feared would not be kept up on a sufficiently extended scale, he trusted a satisfactory answer would be given, when he stated that, it was not the intention of the naval administration of the country to put the navy in a condition other than that of perfect efficiency. By efficiency he meant, it would be kept in such a state, that it would be able to contend with the united navies of the world. He should now compare the naval establishment which it was intended to keep up, with that which had been determined on at the close of the last war, though to refer in this way to what had been done at other times, might not be the most convenient course, as he was prepared to contend, that the question now to be considered ought to be viewed with a reference to the circumstances of the present day; to the state of our foreign commerce, and the number and importance of our colonies, rather than with a reference to what had been thought sufficient when the situation of the country was very different from what it was now known to be. It might be expected that he should advert to the stations of the several squadrons now employed, and to, those changes which had caused a considerable increase on the last peace establishment. In the East Indies no addition had been made to the naval force which it had been thought wise to keep up at the time of the last peace. For the Cape, which was perfectly a new station, and which, from its connation with St. Helena, now of more importance than ever, from its being the place wherein he who, had so long disturbed the repose of Europe, was confined, must demand particular attention; and for the Mauritius, a very considerable squadron had been appointed. This, however, was limited to the very lowest scale which the distinguished admiral on that station had thought would be sufficient. Eleven ships of the line had been thought necessary for this service. In the Mediterranean it had been thought advisable to substitute 74 gun ships for those of 50 guns, which had heretofore been employed. A small squadron had been stationed off South America in compliance with the applications made since the last peace, in order to protect our growing trade in that quarter. This, it would be observed, was also quite a new station. The force stationed at Jamaica and the Leeward Islands had been somewhat diminished; but, in consequence of the situation in which they stood with respect to South America, the reduction here was but small. One frigate had been added to the force stationed off North America; and on the coast of Africa a squadron would be maintained equal to that kept up during the last peace. The squadron on the biome station would be the same as that maintained in 1792. It was proper to remark, that had there been no new stations to occupy, an increase of men for the peace establishment would be necessary from other circumstances. This partly arose from larger frigates being now more generally in use than they were formerly. These, from the arrangements made by other powers, had become necessary to us, and those now in commission required 260 men, instead of the former complement of 200. He also thought it very important, that a corps of royal marines should now be maintained, which were not thought to be necessary formerly. The inconveniences, however, which had been found to result from being compelled to have recourse to troops of the line, where the service could best have been accomplished by a body of marines, were so considerable, that he hoped they would be guarded against for the time to come; and with this feeling, he held it to be consistent with the most rigid economy, that a fourth corps of marines should be kept up. Doing this, to avoid again having recourse under particular circumstances to troops of the line, where marines would be better employed, gave an increase on the navy estimates above those of the former peace establishment of 5000 men. It must be satisfactory to the House and to the country to know, that this augmentation of our force was called for by the increase of our foreign trade, and the valuable additions which had been made to our colonial possessions. The total number of men required for the navy on the peace establishment would be 23,000. In the present year, from circumstances already explained, 33,000 would be moved for. This was fewer than had been called for at the close of the war of 1763, and in the year which followed the last. Peace. In 1803 it was thought necessary to keep up the navy to 110,000 men. He claimed some merit for the naval administration of the country, for the rapidity with which they had paid off so large a portion of the navy, and also for the celerity with which they had fitted out a large portion of the naval force to be kept up during the peace—two 50 gun ships, 14 frigates, and 27 sloops, having already been got ready, and perfectly manned. Not more than 4000 men now wanted to complete the force required. The celerity thus displayed he believed it must be admitted was perfectly unexampled in the annals of the proceedings at the close of former wars. He thought it unnecessary for him to say more at present, but holding himself ready to give any further information that might be demanded, he trusted the House would feel, that however desirable economy might be, those measures would not deserve that character which went to break up important establishments, which when again wanted, would occasion the country an immense expense to raise them up again. This observation, which might be extended to a great variety of objects, was particularly applicable to the navy. The hon. baronet concluded with moving,

1. "That. 33,000 men are employed for the sea service for the year 1816, including 9000 royal marines.

2. "That assume not exceeding 761,475l. be granted to his majesty, for wages of the said 33,000 men, for thirteen months, at the rate of 1l. 15s. 6d. per man per month.

3. "That a sum, not exceeding 1,077,862l. 10s., be granted to his majesty for victuals for the said 33,000 men, for thirteen months, at the rate of 2l. 10s. 3d. per man per month.

4 "That a sum not exceeding 922,350l. be granted to his Majesty, for the wear and tear of the ships in which the said 33,000 men are to serve, for thirteen months, at the rate of 2l. 3s. per man per month.

5. "That a sum, not exceeding 150,150l. be granted to his Majesty, for ordnance for sea service on board the ships in which the said 33,000 men are to serve, for thirteen months, at the rate of 7s. per man per month."

On the first Resolution being put,

said, he felt considerable reluctance in making any observations on the statement of the hon. baronet, as he was at all times afraid of saying. Any thing that might appear to reflect on the services of the navy. But, notwithstanding his predilection for that important branch of our forces, he could not abstain, under the present circumstances, from entering his protest against the supply which had been proposed. Whether it was a greater amount than necessary or not, he did not pretend to say. He did not know the details of the present service; and, in laying down so extensive a marine establishment, it might be unfit, nay impossible, to reduce it below what was stated. He must take it, on the responsibility of the hon. baronet and his colleagues, to be a proper number for the present year. But it would require much stronger reasons than he had yet heard, for voting that number as a permanent peace establishment, which, on an average, had amounted to only 18,000 men. It would be necessary, therefore, to establish in the opinion of the House the necessity of a greater number. That necessity must be shown to exist, not from the state of our trade or commerce, but from the maritime force of other powers, who might attempt to interfere with our naval strength or safety. The American war closed after two naval earnpaigns, in one of which the fleet of the enemy rode triumphant in the British channel; and, in the other our ships were compelled to seek security in our harbors against the combined fleets of France and Spain. If, then, at the close of that war, the House thought 18,000 men sufficient for our safety, what could now induce them to vote 23,000? Spain and France were now in alliance; and though he did not place much security on their friendship, yet where was their power to injure us? The fleet of Spain was annihilated, and that of France was so reduced as not to deserve any serious consideration on our part. No nation in Europe had any formidable navy; and the combined fleets of the world could not collect 25 sail of the line to meet us. It was true, France had 20 ships at the termination of the war; but no one would contend that they were at all equal to a contest with us. But suppose that France should show a disposition: to put her navy in a formidable state; could she proceed faster than we could? Or could it be a secret to those at the head of our naval affairs, that France and Spain were making preparations? It must require a considerable time to augment their maritime strength, and we could not fail to perceive their motions. They could not have the means of increasing their power at sea in any way in which we should not be equal to their exertions. It was quite unnecessary, therefore, to maintain a greater number of men than after the American war. Would any one pretend that a larger force should be employed at home? The mere circumstance of having new stations was not sufficient, unless it could be shown that no diminution of men on the old stations was expedient. For these reasons, he was at a loss to conceive the necessity of this great increase of the service. With regard to other parts of this establishment, he rather wished an increase than a diminution: he alluded to the situation of the lieutenants and inferior officers of the navy. Those brave and meritorious men did not receive a sufficient remuneration. Their services, however, should not be forgotten; and a much less sum than that required for the additional 5000 men would provide comfortably for them. If he was in error, he would listen with great deference to those who were better informed; but the time might come, when he would make some proposition to the house to that effect. He objected, however, to this great increase of the number of seamen; for, if the House should consent to vote them, it would be idle to talk of economy. If they were to vote them, they must pay them, which would throw great and unnecessary burdens on the country. He was convinced, that, with the former peace establishment, we should have no danger to fear, and he must, consequently, object to the vote of a single additional man.

thought it behooved this country to keep up a respectable naval establishment, although peace had been concluded. And the more especially when it was considered that the American navy, so far from being injured by the late war, had returned, to their ports triumphant and confident in victory, and were engaged, with redoubled vigor and energy in extending their maritime power. The government of America, was, in fact, ready for a new war, and every expression of the Congress, and of the feelings of the country, gave fair grounds to conclude that they were anxious again to bring their naval force in competition with ours. It behooved the House also to look at the maritime power of France, which was by no means as weak as the right hon. gentleman would insinuate. So far from this, it was a fact universally known, that the French navy never was more powerful than during the period immediately preceeding the overthrow of Buonaparté, and even at this moment their ships of the line amounted at least to 30 sail. Independent of this, it was a notorious fact, that among the political circles abroad, while on the one hand the supremacy of the French army formed a topic of comment, on the other the supremacy of the English navy was equally condemned, and now that the one had been humbled, the expediency of humbling the other was with them a subject of serious consideration. With these facts before the House, as well as upon a review of the magnitude of the naval force which the conjoint energies of the other powers of Europe might produce, he considered that so far from diminishing our establishment, it ought to be greatly increased. He could not on this occasion refrain from bringing a charge against the hon. Baronet for the precipitancy with which he had paid off the navy during the last summer. The whole amount of our naval establishment previous to the conclusion of the peace was 145,000 men; and this, with the exception of some men paid off in 1814, had in a few short months been reduced to 33,000. It was impossible to conceive the ill effects which had resulted from this imprudent haste. In some ports no less than 2,000 men were discharged in one day; and the disturbances in the North afforded the best illustration of this inexcusable conduct.

said, he wished to set the hon. gentleman right as to the statement which he had just made, which had not to boast of being perfectly correct. The hon. gentleman had stated the naval force of the kingdom, at the conclusion of the war, to have amounted to 145,000 men. If however he had taken the trouble of recalling to his mind the votes of the last session, he would have found that the real establishment for which parliament had provided, did not exceed 90,000 men. With respect to the precipitancy with which the navy had been paid off, the best answer which could be given to this charge was, that throughout the whole of the operation not one single act of insubordination had taken place—a circumstance he believed, without parallel at the conclusion of any former war. The view which a right hon. gentleman had taken of the state of the naval forces of Europe was by no means well-founded, from whatever source he had obtained his information. It should be recollected, that in the very last action with the French, the Toulon fleet opposed to lord Exmouth consisted of 17 sail of the line and seven frigates, and fought with an ardor and skill which had not been exceeded for many years? Upon a late occasion, too, there had been no less than eleven French frigates sent out from the ports of that country; and although nine of them had found their way into English harbors, yet the fact of eleven having been prepared for sea afforded no inconsiderable proof of the ability of France to equip a naval force. At this moment there were no less than 60 ships of the line in French ports; and taking the whole naval power of Europe index, pendent of Great Britain it could not be estimated at less than 200 sail of the line. Such being the case, he would ask the House, he would ask the country, if they would wish to see the establishment of this country, reduced to twelve guardships? No! It would be said let us rather submit to all the burdens of taxation than diminish that navy to which we owe all our glory, all our security! It had been urged, that reductions might be made in some of the foreign stations; but the situation of Spanish America was different from what it had been; our merchants desired protection, and it was proper they should have it. As to any reduction in the West Indies, could we forget or overlook the new power growing up in that quarter—the power of North America? As to the navy half-pay large additions had already been made, and for his part he wished it could be greater still; but there was a duty to the public as well as a duty to the navy, and if the half-pay were to be increased, it must be at the expense of the country, and could not be accomplished by a further reduction of the navy. Whatever might be wished, he could not hold out any hopes of an increase in the half-pay of the navy.

, in explanation, said, he had not stated that the naval force at the conclusion of the war was 145,000 men, having distinctly alluded to some which had been paid off in 1814–145,000 was the total amount engaged in the war; and he repeated, that the precipitancy with. Which they were discharged badly was productive of serious ill consequences. He had now to ask the hon. baronet, why the naval establishment at present proposed was less than at the conclusion of the war in 1803?

said, that the number of ships was the same, and that the complement of men in those ships had been increased, in consequence of the example which had been set us by those nations, with which we had been at war.

was surprised for the first time at hearing the Admiralty blamed for paying off the navy upon the return of peace. He denied that the disturbances in Northumberland were attributable to the discharge of men from his Majesty's service; and as a proof that there was no want of employment for these men, he instanced the fact of a frigate, destined to convey our ambassador to America, having been detained at Portsmouth for many days for the want of bands to navigate her—many other ships being in the same condition. The right hon. gentleman then generally contended for the expediency of this country maintaining a respectable naval force in time of peace, and adduced various instances in which the want of such a force had been productive of serious ill consequences to the interests of Great Britain—a fact which he said had been admitted by Mr. Pitt himself, who had said, that unless we had men enough at the beginning of a war to man a fleet, we should be severely wounded in some place or other. Under all the circumstances, though no man was more anxious than himself to economies the expenditure of the country, he never yet saw a plan less exceptionable on that account than the present.

renewed his objections to the proposed establishment. He descanted on what had fallen from a hon. gentleman on the subject of America. He hoped that country did not feel those sentiments, with respect to England which had been imputed to it, and lamented that any thing should be said in the House of Commons here, or in congress in America that might tend to inflame the two nations against each other. The language held by the hon. gentleman had (though he was sure he did not intend it) that tendency, as it appeared to him. He dreaded the excitement of a spirit of hostility, as he felt that no two countries were so well fitted to meet on equal terms as friends, for their mutual advantage, and none possessed greater means of injuring each other.

opposed the vote, conceiving, as he did, that the encouragement of our commerce, and thereby the material of our navy, was all that was necessary to ensure us a large naval force whenever it was found necessary. He asserted that the disturbance of the seamen in the North, originated in a quarrel with the colliers, and not from their being paid off.

could not approve of what had been said with respect to the necessity of increasing our navy exactly in proportion to the number of ships fitted out by other powers. If this was adopted as a principle, it would only create a feeling of rivalry; and we might go on adding ship after ship to our navy, on the plea that America, or some other power, was equipping a new ship, till our establishment was increased beyond all bounds, and that of other countries, to an unnecessary amount. The hon. baronet had said that in India there would be no increase of our naval force. It would have been strange, indeed, to have proposed any increase in that quarter, considering that all the islands and other points from whence our possessions there could be attacked were now in our power. The real foundation of the power of Great Britain was its commerce. This, he thought, the true source of the prosperity of the kingdom; and not a navy of 33,000 men. If the naval power of the country was endangered, the fault would not be with the naval administration, but could only arise from the negligence of those employed in the foreign department in not making use of the information which they must have it in their power instantly to procure, of any increase of the navies of foreign states. The hon. baronet had taken credit to himself (and, he was ready to admit, with some reason) for the celerity with which reductions had already been made in the navy by paying off so many ships. He had therefore only to hope, that the hon. baronet would continue to exercise his abilities in the same way, to a still greater extent. The noble lord concluded, with suggesting the propriety of a more limited time for the proposed establishments, than the whole of the year 1816.

thought, from what had passed, that, as far as the vote for that night went, it would not be objected to; therefore he would only trouble the House with a very few words, as it would be much more satisfactory to reserve the minute view of the subject to the proper time when it would come before the House. The best general principle in the formation of a peace establishment must be, to combine security with economy. It was on this principle, that, owing to the unsettled state of the world at present, it had become necessary, on many remote stations, to keep up a very considerable naval force, for the purpose of inspiring that confidence which was so indispensable to the prosperity of our commerce. The knowledge that there was a British flag in remote seas, gave to the merchant the earnest of security and protection for carrying on his traffic. To prevent any danger, the sure way was to give no opportunity for attack, by keeping up a strong force wherever it was most probable it could in any case be meditated. On the particular station alluded to by the hon. baronet, it was necessary to have a strong force for securing the safe custody of the individual confined there. As to the establishment at home, it had been found better, with a view to economy, instead of completely reducing the fleet and retaining only guard-ships, to keep the guard-ships at a very low rate, and to have at the same time other ships fit for service. It was a great advantage, in every respect, to have ships ready to be sent on Foreign Service at the shortest warning. The noble lord said, he could not sit down without adverting to what had fallen from several honourable gentlemen in the course of the debate, as to the jealousy to be entertained towards foreign powers increasing their navy. He should be sorry if in that House, or out of doors, any inference was to be drawn to inculcate a belief that government entertained any feeling of jealousy on this subject towards any foreign state. As to America, it had been said, that the people of that country were jealous of us; and to a certain extent, perhaps, this was said with truth, but at the same time it was to be recollected, that in this country there existed great prejudices against America. It was his most earnest wish to discountenance this feeling on both sides, and to promote between the two nations, feelings of reciprocal amity and regard. Certainly there were no two countries whose interests were more naturally and closely connected; and he hoped that the course which the each country was pursuing, was such as would consolidate the subsisting peace, and promote harmony between the nations, so as to prevent on either side the recurrence of any acts of animosity. Above all he deprecated the spirit of imputation against foreign governments, which, with whatever intention they might be thrown out, were always productive of the worst consequences. Conjectures on counsels not understood, were ignorantly hazarded, even on matters unconnected with the affairs of this country. He was happy that on this subject he had met with an ally in the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Ponsonby), and hoped they would cordially co-operate in the encouragement of feelings of friendship and good-will between America and this country.

said, he had never heard any expressions on his side of the House, calculated to excite jealousy in the mind of any foreign power; if he had, he should have felt it his duty to reprobate it.

said, it was probable the right hon. gentleman was not in the House on the occasion to which he referred, but he assured him that the gentleman to whom he had alluded, had uttered observations which were calculated to excite jealousy in every state, with which we were in alliance, except America.

entered at some length into the subject of remunerating the officers of the navy. He complained that their case had never been properly considered by the House. Much had been said about placing the army and navy on the same footing, in the matter of the erection of a monument; but the subject to which he wished the House to direct its attention was of infinitely greater importance; it was, that the officers of the navy should be placed on the same footing with those of the army, as to pay and promotion. He enlarged on the advantages which the country had derived from the navy, whose services had absolutely affected the salvation of the country. He then complained of the situation of the officers in that service, as compared with those in the army, especially contrasting the hard service, scanty pay, and tediousness of promotion in the case of a midshipman, with that of a volunteer or ensign in the army. He took occasion strongly to animadvert on the remissness of the officers of the navy, who had seats in that House, in not bring in this matter, forward, and proposing some addition to the half-pay. Referring to the monument which had been voted to the navy, and the miserable state of its officers, he remarked, that as to what the House had done for them, it might be truly said, that when they asked for bread they had given them a stone. Some poor naval officer, passing this monument, might perhaps read his own name inscribed upon it, when he had not a shilling in his pocket to pay for his dinner. The army was amply provided for, and he was heartily glad to see it; but he was very much afraid that the day might be long looked for before the navy was put upon the same footing.

observed, that in the course of the debate those discussions had very properly been deprecated, which tended to excite a feeling of jealousy towards foreign powers. What, then, was to be said of those who inconsiderately threw out what could only tend to excite dissentions between the two great classes of the public service? The hon. member, who spoke last, had no right to conclude, that although no addition had at this time been proposed to the half pay of the navy, that it was not proposed to increase the pensions. If the hon. gentleman had only waited until the proper time, when this subject would be brought before the house, he would have heard what he was now happy to state—that government had given to the navy what would place them on exactly the same footing with the army. But even if the hon. gentleman, with the means of information open to him, had inquired, he would have found that by comparing the half-pay of the navy now with what it had formerly been, it was as great as it could be made, and equal in proportion to the increase made in the army. It was, however, he was aware, impolitic entirely to assimilate the services. He only desired that gentlemen would take the pains, before they made their declarations in the House, to see how the matter stood with regard to former years, and it would be seen that in many cases the navy had much the advantage of the army. These were, however, subjects who would in a few days come under discussion, and therefore this premature debate could not be too much deprecated. He could answer for the government, that it was their earnest desire to do justice to both branches of the service; but he would remind the House how easy it was for gentlemen to lavish away the public money in detail, and complain of it in the gross. Every one must be aware of the difficulty of arranging such a subject as the present, with fairness and justice on all sides; but if it should be found that there was any disproportion of advantages either on the one side or the other, he should be ready to receive any hints that would be given, as far as the present situation of the country would admit.

denied that he had ever entertained a disposition to sow dissentions between the army and navy; he was incapable of conduct so base.

did not impute to the hon. gentleman any thing so base as a deliberate intention to excite jealousies, but wished he had well considered the subject before he had brought it forward in the way he had done.

was much surprised at hearing the hon. gentleman state that there was no officer in that House who on any occasion came forward and took part in endeavoring to benefit the officers of the navy, and considered that hon. gentleman was bound to apologize in a parliamentary way to the House, for his observations to that purport.

reminded gentlemen that the navy had received pensions for wounds which the army did not do till 1811; but as far as possible both services had been put precisely upon the same footing.

again, in explanation, observed that he had before said that officers in that House had taken no part on this subject on the present occasion. The hon. admiral had risen that night, and he hoped to see him rise and do his duty upon all future occasions. In his own observations he perceived nothing improper or unparliamentarily, nor any thing which required an apology to the hon. admiral, or any other person in the House.

said, that although neither himself nor the other naval officers in that House were in the habit of portico patting often in the debates; yet they were not idle elsewhere. As a proof of this, in the last year, 1000 midshipmen, without favor or partiality, had been promoted to the rank of lieutenants, according to the length of their service.

was quite satisfied with this last statement. Had he known the fact sooner, he would not have agitated the subject.

The several resolutions were then agree to.

observed, that in the present thin appearance of the House, it was not his intention to enter into any lengthened statement; he should confine himself to the bare mention of the nature of the different propositions to which he should call upon them to assent. It was his intention, in the first place, to move the ordinary annual taxes, and next, in order to defray the expenditure voted in the committee of supply, to move an issue of eleven millions of exchequer bills. There were two others sums of four millions and a half, and one million and a half, but he should reserve them for a future consideration. Be should merely hint, that it had been usual to make part of the grant of one year applicable to the expenses of the next. The right hon. gentleman then moved, first, the ordinary war taxes on malt, &c.; next, the ordinary annual taxes on pensions, offices, &c.; and lastly, the issue of eleven millions of exchequer bills:—all these resolutions were agreed to, and the House resumed.

rose to make his proposed motion for providing accommodation for the vice-chancellor. It was, he apprehended, merely necessary to state the inconvenience to which the vice-chancellor was at present subject, to induce the House to agree to his motion. He would not dwell on the indecorum of the first law officer in the kingdom having no accommodation for the transaction of business except what was gratuitously allowed him, for it was well known that he sat merely by permission in Lincoln's-Inn; but he must call to the consideration of the House, that the vice-chancellor had no place for business, except a room so small as to be injurious to the health of those who practiced in it. He should not propose any particular mode of accommodating this law officer, nor should he point out any fund to be applied to that purpose, but he should move generally, "That a select committee be appointed, to consider of the means of affording accommodation for transacting the business of the court of chancery."

objected to the motion, because he conceived any accommodation of the kind contemplated to be un- necessary, unless the office of vice-chancellor was to be a permanent one; and against its permanency he must strongly protest on the same grounds on which he had formerly protested against its institution. The office had turned out to be productive of greater inconveniences than he had himself expected; and as to any assistance to the chancellor, he could say, that not one original cause had been tried in the minor court. As to the indecorum of having no place of sitting except one that was lent, it was an indecorum to which the greatest chancellors—lords Hardwick, Camden, and Throw, had submitted without any diminution of the dignity of their characters.

insisted that the office had at least been beneficial in one respect, as it had allowed the chancellor sitting in the court of supreme resort to decide a great many more appeals than he had done in former years. For the three years preceding the appointment of the new office, the average number of appeals tried was 24; for the three years since the appointment, the average was 65. And though it might be true, that no original causes had been settled by the vice-chancellor, yet he had disposed of a vast deal of business which must otherwise have occupied the time of the chancellor. In the three years he had dis., posed of no less than 17,000 different proceedings. Upon the whole, he could not but consider an office useful which tended, in even the smallest degree, to prevent delay in the administration of justice; and of the delay of the chancery court some idea might be formed, when he assured the House that the balances now lying indisposed of in that court amounted to 30 millions.

fully allowed the extent of the evil of delay.

Mr. Courtenay, Mr. Wrottesley, and Mr. Waterfall argued, that it was agreed on all hands that some assistant to the chancellor was necessary for the dispatch of business, and that assistant, whatever he was, ought to have a room for the transaction of his business.

The motion was then agreed to, and a committee was appointed.