presented a petition from the land owners, farmers, and other occupiers of land in the county of Suffolk, complaining of the distresses under which they laboured. The hon. member said he could assure the House that the petition was signed, not as petitions were sometimes signed, by persons who would put their names to any thing, but by upwards of one thousand of the most respectable inhabitants of the county, who were absolutely weighed down by the pressure of the times [Hear, hear!]. They alleged in the petition, that it would be impossible for them to go on if some relief was not afforded. They could neither pay the taxes nor their landlords, and they pointed out the malt duty, and the agricultural horse duty, as to things from which relief might be given to them. Ordered to lie on the table.

The Grand Junction Water Works Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be referred to a committee.

A petition was presented from the town of Tiverton against the renewal of the property tax.

At the suggestion of the Speaker, the dropped orders of the preceding day were disposed of.

inquired, if he was at liberty to bring on his motion respecting the transactions in Ceylon, without another notice?

said, he apprehended that a dropped motion was gone, until revived by a fresh notice. The House, if it saw fit, might resolve upon letting it proceed, but no member was entitled, as a matter of right, to do so.

observed, that if the object of the hon. member's motion was merely for information, which the government would willingly give, he should feel disposed to let it come on then, but if it was intended to raise a discussion upon the question, he should prefer another notice being given, and as a matter of personal convenience to himself, should request that it might not be to-morrow.

then gave notice for Wednesday next.

rose, in pursuance of his notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the punishment of the pillory. After what had passed upon this subject, when it was brought before the House in the last session, on which occasion his proposition met with the unanimous concurrence of the House, he did not now think it necessary to say much. It would be recollected, that after the bill had passed all its stages in this House, it had gone up to the other House, where, in consequence of the indisposition of the noble lord on the woolsack, it remained till nearly the close of the session. There were those who then thought it desirable to postpone the question till the present session, and in obedience to their wishes, he now again had to present the subject to the notice of parliament. In the conversations which he had heard upon the policy of this measure, he had met no person who was not friendly to the principle of the measure, although some might think it prudent, that the punishment of the pillory should not be abandoned in toto. Notwithstanding these opinions, however, it was his intention to bring in the bill in the same shape in which he had introduced it last year, and if it should undergo amendments, he should at least have the satisfaction of procuring some alteration in a practice so extremely objectionable in every point of view. The main ground upon which he rested his dislike to the punishment of the pillory was, that it was a punishment which could not be measured or dealt out by a court of justice, but was apportioned solely by the caprice of the multitude. For this reason it was, that he thought it ought no longer to remain upon the statute book. He would not now enter into the reasons why he should not even wish this punishment to extend to that abominable offence, which was so disgraceful to human nature, and to which it had recently been so often apportioned. He did think, that such exhibitions were productive of no moral good; but, on the contrary, tended to increase the vice it was meant to suppress. The inequality of the punishment in its application, however, was one argument, which he considered decisive, as to the propriety of its no longer being suffered to exist. This inequality was evident, from a baker for selling bread short of weight, being as much subject to the punishment, as a man who had placed the life of a fellow-creature in jeopardy, by calling God to witness a gross and diabolical falsehood. Upon the whole, he thought the punishment ought to be abolished altogether; and therefore, begged leave to move, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for the abolition of the punishment of the pillory."

said, he had a strong feeling respecting this bill, and doubted almost whether to venture on giving his opinion to the House, though his mind was made up on the subject. The improved and mild morality of the present times had been disadvantageous so far as it was too lenient to crimes, and had too much pity for former acquaintances and connexions. This sometimes paralyzed the arm of the law, and gave facilities for the escape of guilty persons. It sought to retain in society those who had disgraced it. He meant to offer an amendment to the bill, but should not press it, if it appeared against the sense of the House. Certain offences had of late much increased, and, he feared, owing too much to the prevailing mildness and indulgence. All who attended the assizes must know how difficult it was to convict capitally offenders of this nature. Evidence could generally be got only by the suspicious testimony of an accomplice. Convictions were chiefly for assaults with a further intent. As to transporting these persons, it might subject others transported to punishments worse than what the law inflicted. If such crimes were effectually checked in upper life, it would have a great effect. The wretch, who stood in little fear of imprisonment, pillory, or death, might perhaps be affected by the terror of perpetual disgrace and scorn.

said, he was sure he could satisfy the hon. baronet in private, that there was but little hope of reform to be expected from persons addicted to this atrocious offence, under any circumstances of punishment, however severe.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

said, that on the 20th of last April the House agreed to an address to the Prince Regent, praying that he would be graciously pleased to give directions to the lords of the court of session in Scotland, to lay before the House an account of all the fees and duties paid or payable to the clerks of the ordinary judges in the court of session, from the institution of the college of justice down to the 1st of August, 1789, as also all acts of sederunt issued by the same court down to the same period. On the 25th of April a most gracious answer was communicated to the House, stating that his royal highness had given directions accordingly. No return, however, making its appearance, another address was agreed to on the 24th of May, praying that his royal highness would be graciously pleased to order that the account should be laid before the House forthwith. Another gracious answer was received, purporting that his royal highness would give the necessary directions. But although the session of parliament continued until the 12th of July, the lords of session did not think proper to lay the required statement on the table of the House. This neglect he strongly reprobated, and it was with a view of as- serting the authority of the House, and of convincing every court in the united kingdom, that when the House required the production of papers, it was that court's bounden duty to produce them, that he should now move "That an humble address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, stating that on the 20th of April last, &c. &c. [here the object of the original motion was repeated], humbly representing to his royal highness, that although the session of parliament did not terminate until the 12th of July following, the said papers were not laid on the table of the House, and praying therefore that his royal highness would be graciously pleased to give directions that they should be presented forthwith, together with a statement of the reasons, if any can be assigned, which induced the court of session to fail in conforming to the directions of his royal highness the Prince Regent, expressed in his gracious answer to the address of the House." He was the more suspicious as to the motives of the delay, because he well remembered that on a former occasion great reluctance had been manifested by the court of session to produce a return required by the House, which return, when it was produced, proved that the court had set at nought an act of parliament. He was afraid that the person at the head of the court of session had not forgotten the doctrines which he broached when he was lord advocate, and that he did not know to what his powers extended, or where they terminated.

declared, that if he thought the court of session had any disrespectful intention towards that House, he would be the last man to defend them, but he was convinced that that was not the case. The fact, he believed, was that the right hon. baronet, not satisfied with having in 1814 moved the appointment of a commission to inquire into the subject, in 1815 made the motion which the House was now called upon to enforce, and that the court of session conceived that it would be sufficient to submit the required information to the commission. As to the acts of sederunt, no such acts had been made by the court, who had therefore made no return. He allowed that it might have been better had the court of session returned "nil" to the order of the House; but he was persuaded that there was no intentional disrespect on their part. He wished, therefore, that the right hon. baronet would erase those censorious expres- sions in his motion which had a tendency to degrade the court; and he had further to state, on the authority of a right hon. friend of his, the under secretary of state for the home department, that by some accident or other, the second address of that House missed its way, and never reached the proper office.

, while he expressed his surprise at the last circumstance mentioned by the right hon. gentleman, allowed that it tended to remove a great part of the odium from the court of session. He however denied the accuracy of the right hon. gentleman's statement, that there had not been any act of sederunt on the part of the court; maintaining that there had been an act of the court, augmenting the fees of the clerks, and that a statement to that effect ought to have been made to the House by the court.

thought the dignity of the House implicated in this subject. He was at a loss to conceive how the second address of the House could have missed its way to the proper office, when, on referring to the journals, he found in them the answer of his royal highness the Prince Regent.

observed, that this was not a matter of ordinary importance, but one involving those inquisitorial functions of parliament which ought to be scrupulously guarded. He hoped it would be found, as the right hon. gentleman opposite expressed his conviction it would be found, that this apparent neglect of the court of session had arisen in misapprehension on the part of the learned judges of that court, and not in carelessness—not in a distaste of the inquisitorial character of the House of Commons—not in that insolence of office, which induced them to consider themselves almost free from parliamentary control, at the distance at which they sat from the seat of legislation. It sometimes happened in courts of justice, that the severest sarcasms were uttered against the most sacred functions of the legislature. By some good fortune, however, those expressions had invariably been allowed to pass without notice. When a poor man, such as Mr. Gale Jones, ventured to utter any thing against the character of parliament, he was visited by an imprisonment; but when persons high in office, tiding the most important stations of the law, whose duty it was to maintain the rights of every branch of the constitution, spoke with freedom of the privileges of that House they did so with perfect impunity.

condemned the precipitation with which the hon. and learned gentleman had taken an opportunity to intimate charges against eminent individuals, by no means convicted of having treated the orders of that House with disrespect. It appeared that they might have entertained a misconception with respect to the first order, and that the second, in all probability, never reached them. It was for the House, under these circumstances, to consider whether they would merely enforce an immediate compliance with the order, or go beyond the necessity of the case, and assume that disrespect had been shown, where, from the respectable character of the learned body in question, it could not be supposed to be entertained, and where no motives could exist for withholding the required information. In his view of the subject, the hon. and learned gentleman's address to the House did not seem to be in the true spirit of benevolence; and he trusted that the House would not prefer a course calculated to reflect on a distinguished body of individuals, and thereby to diminish the authority which it was the duty of parliament to maintain. He saw no objection to framing the motion in such a way as to fix a particular time when the papers should be laid before the House, or to make it pray that orders might be given to present them forthwith. The objeetion which he had to the motion in its present shape was to the latter part of it, which contained expressions not at all necessary. If used now they would only show that the orders of the House had been disobeyed, which from what had been stated in the course of the debate, was not the case. The latter words of the address could not be used without imputing intentional disrespect on the part of the lords of the session.

observed, that the noble lord seemed to think that it would be quite sufficient if the House got the papers. He, however, was by no means of that opinion. He thought that the House were bound to inquire, why the papers were not produced last year. Something was due, to the authority of parliament. His purpose, therefore, would not be answered by getting the papers. His purpose was to get the papers, and to know why they had not sooner been produced and where the blame lay. It had been said, that the second address missed its way to the proper office. How was this statement to be reconciled with the fact that an answer from his royal highness to the address appeared in the journals? It had also been said, that the Court of Session imagined that they were to communicate the information required to the commission previously appointed. No court, of whatever rank had a right to discretion on such a subject, but were bound to obey the orders of parliament. He would not, therefore forego any part of his motion.

said, that he had no objection whatever to the clause in the right hon. baronet's motion, requiring the reasons which had occasioned the delay in complying with the orders of the House. The expressions he objected to were those which, without any knowledge on the part of the House of those reasons, described the delay as an offence.

moved, as an amendment, to leave out all the words of the motion after the words "together with," for the purpose of substituting the following:—"the reasons that delayed the return of the aforesaid papers."

observed, that no man could deny the propriety of his right hon. Friend's insisting on a prompt obedience to the orders of parliament. At the same time, he thought it might be as well to omit any expressions implying censure, until the cause of the delay should be ascertained.

then said, that he had no objection to the alteration, pledging himself to found a motion on the return made by the court of session, should it prove unsatisfactory.

The motion, as amended, was then agreed to.

rose with a petition of an enormous size in his arms, and addressed the Speaker to the following effect:—Sir, I am sure that the noble lord and the right hon. gentleman opposite, must be aware of the subject of the petition which I am about to have the honour to present. It is unnecessary for me to state that subject—they have the evidence of one sense, and that of another would be superfluous. The noble lord and the right hon. gentleman must also be convinced, from the bulk of the petition, that it is against and not in favour of the legislative measure to which it relates. Sir, it is in fact a petition from a large and respectable body of the inhabitants of Clerkenwell, who are filled with a well-founded alarm at the threat of the right hon. gentleman, to break the pledge given to the people that the burthens of war should cease with the war, and to propose that the worst and most odious of all taxes — that tax which even necessity could scarcely justify — that most inquisitorial and most oppressive, and most intolerable tax, the property tax, as it is falsely called, being in fact a tax upon income, should be continued after the conclusion of a peace, or someting like a peace—at least after the close of a negociation, probably the most voluminous in which this country has ever been engaged. It is against this proposition, Sir, that the petitioners warmly but respectfully remonstrate. In fourteen hours, and no more, 3278 individuals flocked to sign this petition. The petitioners not only represent, that to continue the tax would be to violate the faith of parliament, solemnly pledged to the people; they also state, that having for so many years borne this intolerable burthen, not merely with patience but with cheerfulness, in consideration of the necessities of the country, they were gratified beyond expression to see the war terminated, by that glorious victory which filled every heart with just pride and exultation; but that if they should find that the only result of that splendid event, and of the long-delayed peace by which it was followed, should be a continuation of the burthens which they had scarcely been able to bear during the war, they should begin to call in question—a doubt which will be echoed and re-echoed throughout the nation—the utility, to them at least, of that glorious achievement by which they had expected to be relieved from the oppressive weight under which they had so long labored. I thought it my duty, Sir, thus shortly to describe the nature of the petition; and I now ask leave to present it to the House.

expressed his hope, that while petitions were preparing on this interesting on this interesting subject in all parts of the island his majesty's ministers would not hurry on the vote of a large peace establishment. There was no reason whatever for haste, as the question might as well be discussed ten days or a fortnight hence as on Monday next; and by that time the general sense of the country on the measure, from which alone the support of such an establishment could be expected, would be ascertained. It was very un- seemly, that at the moment when the people were assembling to express their opinions, his majesty's ministers should take measures to prevent their voice from being available. When on Monday next the noble lord opposite should begin to address the House on the subject, he should object in limine to go into it.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

moved, "That there be laid before this House, an account of all sums of money, paid or now due and payable to this country by France, in virtue of the treaties or convention concluded at Paris on the 20th of November last, and of such parts thereof as have been received, specifying by whom; together with an account of the application thereof, and of the authorties under which the same has been issued."

thought the hon. member had better proceed by way of address.

stated, that in the present case he was not aware of that necessity.

said that an address would be more respectful, as the motion related to the operation of a treaty concluded by the Crown. The right hon. gentleman," however, immediately added, I perceive that the motion refers to sums actually paid, and which are now in the hands of officers amenable to this House, consequently the motion is sufficient."

The question was then agreed to.