appeared at the bar with the following Message from the Prince Regent: "George P. R.

"The Prince Regent, acting in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, having given the royal consent to a marriage between his daughter, her royal highness the princess Charlotte Augusta, and his serene highness Leopold George Frederick, prince of Cobourg of Saalfeld, has thought fit to communicate the same to this House.

"His Royal Highness is fully persuaded, that this alliance cannot but be acceptable to all his majesty's faithful subjects; and the many proofs which his Royal Highness has received of the affectionate attachment of this House to his majesty's person and family, leave him no room to doubt of the concurrence and assistance of this House in enabling him to make such a provision, with a view to the said marriage, as may be suitable to the honour and dignity of the country.

" G. P. R."

The Message having been brought up and read by the Speaker,

said, the course usually pursued on similar occasions was, to take the earliest opportunity of going into a committee on a message relating to a circumstance so auspicious as that which had just been communicated to the House. But while they did this, their affection and the deep interest which they took in all that so nearly concerned that illustrious family, by whom we had now the happiness to be governed, and whose sway had so largely contributed to the liberties of Englishmen, had always suggested on the moment an expression of gratitude for the message which had been brought down, coupled with an assurance that they would proceed without delay to take it into their most serious consideration, in order to make such provision as might appear suitable to the high rank of the parties, and consistent with the dignity of the nation. On the present occasion he anticipated no difficulty in persuading the House to take this course on the auspicious and gratifying event which he had been authorized to communicate this day. No argument was necessary on his part to awaken their attachment to that illustrious personage, who now so gloriously presided over the government of this country, or to that distinguished individual who was the object of the present message. The alliance about to be contracted was one which promised to be not less conducive to the comfort and happiness of the parties than to the advantage and glory of the nation. He felt it impossible to abstain from congratulating the House on the character of the individual who was now about to be united to the royal family of England by marriage. In speaking on this subject it would ill become him to offer any thing like flattery to prince Leopold, but he spoke in the hearing of those who could correct him if he overrated any thing, when he asserted, that there was but one opinion of his merits throughout Europe; and that his principles, his manners, his habits, all commanded admiration, and proved him to possess those qualifications which fitted him for domestic enjoyment, and which were necessary to form a suitable consort for the princess Charlotte. What provision it might be proper to make, it would be for the House to consider on going into a committee on the message. In deciding on this question, he doubted not they would mark their attachment to the royal family by uniting that liberality which became the character of the country and the splendour of the Crown, with that due attention to economy which ought never to be lost sight of by parliament. There was only one consideration which he would press on them, as that which he was anxious they would keep particularly in view. He hoped that in making a provision suitable to the high situation of the parties, it would be so framed, on their first settlement in life, as to guard against the necessity of recurring to the liberality of parliament a second time. The noble lord then moved,

"That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, to return his royal highness the thanks of this House for his most gracious communication of the intended marriage between his royal highness's daughter, her royal highness the princess Charlotte Augusta, and his serene highness Leopold George Frederick, prince of Cobourg of Saalfeld; to express our entire satisfaction at the prospect of an alliance with a Pro- testant prince of so illustrious a family, which we doubt not will contribute to the happiness of his royal highness and his illustrious daughter, as well as prove conducive to the best interests of the country; and to assure his royal highness that this House will immediately proceed to the consideration of his royal highness's gracious message, in such a manner as shall demonstrate the zeal, duty, and affectionate attachment of this House to his royal highness, a just sense of the eminent virtues and merit of her royal highness the princess Charlotte, and a due regard to the honour and dignity of the royal family."

The address was agreed to nem. con.

said, the only reason which could be given for the imposition of such a tax was the necessity for it. It had been of great service to the country in the time of war, but in a time of peace, if it could possibly be done without, it ought not to be renewed. It had been said, that it did not fall on the lower orders, but in his opinion it fell more on them than on any other persons, because it subjected them to the very worst of evils, the want of employment. It had been well said by Mr. Burke, that the rich were trustees for the benefit of the poor, that the hoards of the rich were the banking houses of the lower classes. One of the strongest objections against the tax was, that it held out to the trading and industrious part of the community, a great temptation to fraud. He had suggested a tax, which he thought might produce not less than 700,000l. a sum which would go a considerable way towards supplying the wants of government; this was a tax on the property of absentees, who by leaving their country at a crisis like the present, occasioned, in the diminution of consumption, a great loss to agriculture. It was, in his opinion, a fair and proper tax. His vote on the subject of the property tax, should be guided by an impartial consideration of the arguments to be brought forward in justification of such a tax, during such a calamity as the present. The modifications would, in his opinion, make the tax worse. It would certainly be a great calamity if such a tax were to be continued.

said, he could not vote for this tax. He thought his majesty's ministers ought to give way to the voice of the people, so strongly expressed upon this subject. With respect to the peace establishment, he thought that which had been proposed was not greater than the state of Europe required.

said, he did not understand the hon. general, for he had spoken against the tax, had expressed every possible objection to it, and yet had stated his intention of voting for it. To enable the country and his constituents, if he had any (for he understood some members had scarcely any), to understand what he really meant, he gave the gallant general this opportunity of explaining himself.

said, unless he saw that the honour and prosperity of the country absolutely demanded the renewal of the property tax, he certainly should not vote for it. But he had not yet fully made up his mind on the subject. He certainly was most anxious that ministers should give way to the wishes of the people, but his vote would depend very much on the arguments which should be brought forward in the discussions shortly to come on. If he found that the renewal was not justified by necessity, he should vote against the tax; if he found it necessary for the public credit, and the honour of the country, he should very unwillingly give his vote in favour of it; and if he felt any doubt on the subject, he would withdraw himself from the House without voting.

said, he held in his hand a petition from the noblemen, gentlemen, and other inhabitants of the county of Hertford, adopted at a meeting regularly convened and most respectably attended. The petitioners observed, that in the financial difficulties of the country, during a war of unexampled magnitude, they had cheerfully submitted to various oppressive taxes, in the hopes that, with the termination of that war, they would at once have been relieved from them. The petitioners did not pray for the relief of any war tax in particular, but against all generally. They stated their conviction, that nothing but an exact and rigid system of economy, could extricate the country from its present distress; and that they more particularly expected, from the promises in the speech from the throne, that some economical measures would have been adopted. They could not therefore but share in the disappointment felt at present by many of his majesty's most loyal subjects, on finding that no sinecures had been abolished, no economical measures had been adopted; and that the emoluments of public officers had not been reduced. As all other articles had fallen in price, it was proper that the emoluments of office should be reduced also. But what would they feel when they learnt, not only that there had been no reduction, but that an increase of the salaries in almost all the departments had taken place? Had the ancient salaries been retained, the value would have been increased in proportion to the reduction in price of all articles. The petition was most respectfully worded, but the petitioners did not the less keenly feel the disappointment of all their just hopes and expectations.

, on presenting the petition from the borough of Evesham against the property tax, said, it was, in his opinion, a tax which the most urgent necessity could alone justify. The people, in submitting to such a burthen, confidently expected that it would cease with the war; and the proposed renewal of it in a time of peace was a measure which filled them with a just and well-founded alarm. He certainly could not see any necessity for the imposition of a tax like this during a period of unprecedented distress, and in opposition to the wishes of the people. The discussions which had already taken place, in his opinion, had been productive of great benefit; and he was determined, therefore, if his health permitted him, not to give a silent vote on a question of such importance to the country. He said, that this system of taxation, whilst it drained the pockets of the people, added incalculably to the influence of the Crown; the inquisitorial powers confided to the commissioners had a direct tendency to the introduction of arbitrary power; and the principle of the tax was wholly incompatible with, and utterly repugnant to, the principles of a free constitution.

, seeing the hon. member for Surrey in his place, wished to set himself right with respect to what had been stated by that hon. gentleman on presenting the petition from the county of Surrey. He had not been present on the occasion alluded to; he had made the most diligent inquiries, and he found that the House did not then contain above 30 persons. The hon. member was reported in the newspapers to have stated, that the petition was carried by a large majority of the meeting at Epsom. He himself had been at the meeting, and he could say, that though one or two gentlemen spoke in favour of the property tax and the proposed establishment, yet when the question was first put, only one gentleman held up his hand against the petition, but he afterwards did not hold it up, and the question was carried unanimously.

appealed to every person acquainted with the business of the House, if any imputation could with propriety attach to him, of having purposely presented the petition when the House was empty. As to any misrepresentations in the newspapers of what he said in that House, he would not deign to make any answer on such a subject; but he appealed to any of the honourable members opposite, who were in the House on the occasion alluded to, whether the manner in which he mentioned the petition, was worthy or unworthy of the respectable meeting at which it was adopted.

said, he had mentioned the subject in the spirit of friendship, in order that the hon. member might set himself right with his constituents; whether he took it in any other sense or not, was a matter of indifference to him.

said, he was present when the petition in question was presented, and could say with great truth, that there never had been a petition presented, accompanied by a fuller statement of its contents, nor could any hon. gentleman have spoken in more respectful terms of the meeting by which the petition had been passed. He had no recollection of the words used by the hon. gentleman, with reference to the number of persons by whom the petition was approved.—The petitions were ordered to lie on the table.

inquired, whether the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer would wish him, in consequence of the very thin attendance of members, to postpone his motion relative to the transactions between the bank of England and the public, to another opportunity. He was perfectly ready to proceed. But, if the right hon. gentleman thought it desirable, he would renew his notice.

thought it was better that the hon. gentleman should proceed. He regretted that a subject of so much importance should be discussed in so thin a House; but, in consequence of the great pressure of public business, he was afraid, if the motion were put off, that a more convenient opportunity for considering it would not occur.

then proceeded to address the House. He had hoped, he observed, for a full attendance on this occasion, and he was extremely sorry that he was disappointed. That circumstance could not, however, be attributed to him, since sufficient notice had been given of the motion. The nature of the propositions which he meant to submit to the House, appeared to him to be so free from objection, that he had at first flattered himself he should have little more to do this day than to read them, in his place, without troubling the House to enter into any discussion. But having since been given to understand that he was to be opposed—he would not say by his right hon. friend the chancellor of the exchequer; for though he might on this, as on former occasions, present himself in the front of the battle against him (Mr. Grenfell) on this subject, yet he was confident there were few persons who heard him, who did not believe, as he did, that the right hon. gentleman did not at all stand forward in defence of that exchequer over which he presided, and which he (Mr. Grenfell) did not mean to attack, but the interests of which would be promoted by what he had in view. But, supposing that the right hon. gentleman intended to put himself forward, as an auxiliary, and as an unwilling one, to fight the battle of the bank of England, it inflicted on him the necessity of trespassing on the House, for a short period. He could assure the House, that bearing in grateful recollection the patience with which he was heard, on a former night, when he was obliged to go at considerable length into the subject, it would be his endeavour now, as well as on any other occasion, to compress what he had to offer, into as narrow a compass as possible. He should therefore make but one or two preliminary observations, before he proceeded to state to the House (and, if necessary he would take the sense of the House on his motion, even in its present thin state) the first proposition he had to submit to them; reserving to himself the right, when he introduced his other propositions, of making such observations and remarks as they seemed to call for. He would, in the first place state, that the propositions were, with little alteration, certainly with no substantial difference, the same with the resolutions which he presented to the House (but on which he did not call for any opinion) towards the end of the last session, namely, on the 13th of June. They were resolutions of fact, giving, as he presumed, a correct view of the statements, and their results, contained in the voluminous accounts which he had the honour to move for last session, and which the House had ordered to be laid before them. The bank of England, in consequence of this proceeding, called also for accounts on this subject, and, in their resolutions, they showed to the House and the public, their view of the transactions between them and government. Those resolutions were introduced at so late a period last session (he did not mean to insinuate intentionally), that it was wholly impracticable to have any discussion of the subject that could be advantageous, An arrangement was therefore proposed, and a general understanding took place. that the consideration of the several accounts, and of the resolutions of the bank of England, and of those presented by himself should be put off until an early period of the present session. To this he immediately acceded, because, from the outset, he had distinctly stated to the House, that he meant to propose nothing that would interfere with the then existing engagements between the bank and the public; but that he wished, at that time, to lay the foundation for some ulterior regulation on the subject, previous to the 5th of the ensuing April, when all the existing agreements would expire. Thus ended the last session of parliament with respect to the bank; and he certainly took the earliest opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the subject. On the second day of the session he gave a notice, for the purpose of redeeming the pledge he had given to the House, and to afford the House an opportunity of redeem- ing the pledge which, as it appeared to him, they had given to the public, for entering into an investigation of those transactions. He, therefore on the 13th of last month, moved for a committee, which he conceived to be the best way of going into the necessary inquiry. The House, however, thought proper to negative the proposition. Now, as a misunderstanding as to the effect of the decision come to on that occasion had gone forth to the public, namely, that the circumstance of that motion being negatived, operated as a close and termination to all farther inquiry on this subject, he wished to undeceive those who entertained such an opinion. He need not state within those walls, that the vote had no such effect. It had only this effect—the expression of an opinion on the part of the House against the mode of inquiry then submitted to them. But the House would bear him out in saying, that the whole question was still open to their consideration; and that they were competent to go into it, in any way the House might think proper. He could assure the House, that no exertion would be wanting on his part, to do that justice to the public, with reference to the transactions between the government and the bank, which had been so long denied to them. Satisfied as he was, that without doing any thing that could be called a breach or infraction of the public faith towards the bank of England, they ought, particularly in this time of distress, to look to the bank as a resource for many millions, which were now productive to them, not by way of loan, as the bill, which would be discussed this night, recognized, but as a matter of right—and being also convinced, that the public ought to demand a considerable reduction of the sum charged for the management of the public debt—he was wholly at a loss to conjecture, on what principle, or on what ground the bank of England could oppose the resolutions he should submit to the House. They were not encumbered with theory or speculation; they consisted of a mere detail of dry facts, founded on papers placed on the table of the House by the bank themselves—and the most of them copied verbatim into the resolutions which the bank had sanctioned. Therefore he knew not on what ground they could refuse their concurrence to his motion; unless, indeed, they were disposed to act on the principle which had directed their conduct for the last twenty years—a prin- ciple of mystery and concealment; unless they wished to have it understood, that these were transactions that would not bear the light—that shrank from the touch of inquiry and investigation. He hoped the gentlemen opposite would state, if it were possible, some satisfactory reasons for opposing his resolutions. The hon. gentleman then moved—

1. "That it appears, that there was paid by the public to the bank of England, for managing the national debt, including the charge for contributions on loans and lotteries, in the year ending 5th July, 1792, the sum of 99,803l. 12s. 5d.; and that there was paid for the like service, in the year ending 5th April, 1815, upon the debt, as it stood in April, 1814, the sum of 281,568l. 6s. 11¼d.; being an increase of 181,764l. 14s. 6¼d.; to which must now be added, the allowance for management on the increase of the unredeemed debt since April 1814: in addition to which, the bank of England have charged at the rate of 1,250l. per million on the amount of property duty received at the bank on profits arising from professions, trades, and offices.

2. "That the total amount of bank notes and bank post bills, in circulation in the years 1795 and 1796 (the latter being the year previous to the restriction on cash payments), and in the year 1814, was as follows:

1795, Feb. l, 12,735,520l. and Aug. 1, 11,214,000l.

1796, Feb. 1, 10,784,740l. and Aug. 1, 9,856,110l.

1814, Feb. 1,25,154,950l. and Aug. 1, 28,802,450l.

3. "That at present, and during many years past, more particularly since the year 1806, considerable sums of public money, forming together an average stationary balance amounting to many millions, have been deposited with, or otherwise placed in the custody of the bank of England, acting in this respect as the bankers of the public.

4. "That it appears, from a report ordered to be printed the 10th of August, 1807, from the committee on the public expenditure of the united kingdom, that the aggregate amount of balances and deposits of public money in the hands of the bank of England, including bank notes deposited in the exchequer, made up in four different periods of the quarter ending 5th January, 1807, fluctuated betwixt the sums of 11,461,200l. and 12,198,239l. including bank notes deposited in the chests of the exchequer; or, 8,178,536l. and 9,948,400l. excluding bank notes deposited at the exchequer.

5. "That the aggregate amount of such deposits, together with the exchequer bills and bank notes deposited in the chests of the four tellers of the exchequer, was, on an average, in the year 1814, 11,966,371l. including bank notes deposited at the exchequer, amounting to 642,264l.; or, 11,324,107l., excluding bank notes deposited at the exchequer; and that in the year 1815, the same deposits, amounting, on an average, to 11,942,493l., including bank notes deposited at the exchequer.

6. "That it appears, that this aggregate amount of deposits, together with such portions of the amount of bank notes and bank post bills in circulation, as may have been invested by the bank in securities bearing interest, was productive, during the same period, of interest and profit to the bank of England.

7. "That the only participation hitherto enjoyed by the public, since the year 1806, in the profits thus made on such deposits by the bank, has consisted in a loan of three millions, advanced to the public by the bank, by the 46th Geo. 3, cap. 41, bearing 3 per cent. interest; which loan was discharged in December, 1814; and in another loan of three millions, advanced to the public by the bank, by the 48th Geo. 3, cap. 3, free of any charge of interest; which loan became payable in December, 1814, but has, by an act of the present session of parliament, cap. 16, been continued to the 5th of April, 1816.

8. "That this House will forthwith take into consideration the advantages derived by the bank, as well from the management of the national debt, as from the amount of balances of public remaining in their hands, with the view to the adoption of such an arrangement, when the engagements now subsisting shall have expired, namely, after the 5th day of April next, as may be consistent with what is due to the interests of the public, and to the rights, credit, and stability, of the bank of England."

On the first resolution being put,

observed, that the charge of mystery and concealment, which the hon. gentleman had made against the bank, was not borne out by the fact. Since the restriction on cash payments, and particularly since the appointment of the committee of public expenditure, in 1807, a mass of information, with respect to the affairs of the bank, had been laid before the House, which had never before been thought of. As this subject had been twice before the House recently, first, when the hon. gentleman proposed the appointment of a committee, and again, when the House were called on to confirm certain agreements between the bank and the public, he did not feel it necessary to enter at length into the question. The final resolution of the hon. gentleman was the only one of the series that called for observation, since it was of a practical nature, and the others were merely affirmations of certain accounts, correct in themselves, but capable of being applied differently, when brought to bear on the subject under consideration. That resolution pledged the House "forthwith to take into consideration the advantages derived by the bank, as well from the management of the national debt, as from the amount of balances of public money remaining in their hands, with the view to the adoption of such an arrangement, when the engagements now subsisting shall have expired, as might be consistent with what is due to the interests of the public, and to the rights, credit, and stability, of the bank of England." Now, he should have thought it almost impossible, as these points might fairly be brought under their consideration, when the Bank Loan bill was submitted to a committee of the whole House, that the hon. gentleman should have pursued any other course for the purpose of inquiry. The object he had in view would be absolutely obtained by the order of the House; for it would be his duty, under that order, to lay before a committee the provisions of the bill recently introduced. The right hon. gentleman then observed, that the profits which the bank derived from the management of the national debt, were recognised by an act of the legislature, which had a prospective operation. That act was passed in the year 1808, and it was adapted to any future change of circumstances. It provided, that in case the amount of the national debt was enlarged, then an increased allowance was to be granted for managing it; and vice versâ. In conclusion, the right hon. gentleman observed, that it would promote the business of the House if the discussion took place in the next stage of the Bank Loan bill. He therefore should move, as an amendment, "That the other orders of the day be now read."

did not think the chan- cellor of the exchequer had proved, very satisfactorily, that the gentlemen of the bank were fond of publicity. If he grounded himself on their resolutions of the last session, he was right; for, at that time, to court a little popularity, they expressed a strong desire that the whole of their transactions with the public might be taken into consideration. This all seemed very fair. But what was done afterwards? Before the meeting of parliament, the right hon. gentleman and the directors of the bank made a bargain, which could not be done away. And then the right hon. gentleman turned round, when inquiry was called for, and said, "there are two bills before the House, which will afford you a sufficient opportunity for discussing this question." He also stated, that there was a great mass of papers, connected with this subject, before the House. But he must be aware, that the possession of papers, and the appointment of a committee, were two very different things. If they wished to see the advantages of a committee, they ought to look back, historically, to what had been done by the intervention of one. The advantages which were last gained by the public from the bank, were obtained by a committee, similar to that which his hon. friend now wished to be appointed. Late in the last session, the gentlemen of the bank thought it was very well to call for a committee, when they knew that it could not be got; but now, when it would be useful to appoint one, it was found very inconvenient to support the principle. The right hon. gentleman told them that there was a bill in progress, which would afford them an opportunity of arguing this question. Now, he considered that bill to be an insult to the House of Commons. It ought never to have been introduced without the sanction of a committee; and the proceeding which had been adopted convinced him that there was too close an intercourse between the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer and the directors of the bank. The directors courted a committee. Their resolution, on that point, was copied, syllable for syllable, from that of his hon. friend. The right hon. gentleman said, there was no necessity for one, since parliament could exercise its discretion on the bill. But what said one of the most discreet of the directors, on a former occasion? "A bargain," said he, "is made, and if you do not fulfil it, look to your situation." And what was that situation? Why, the directors had the right hon. gentleman so completely under their thumb, that he could not disoblige them without danger. He was land-locked, and, from the port in which he was placed, he could not depart. Two or three months before parliament met, the right hon. gentleman made a bargain which he ought not to have done; and then he came down to the House, with his chains on, and made a speech, informing them of the transaction which had taken place, and which was intended to debar their inquiry. The right hon. gentleman was master of his own feelings; and, if he felt no degradation, when he was compelled to proceed in this manner, he could not help it—it was a matter of taste. [A laugh]. But certainly the House never was so degraded before. Mr. Tierney said he was of opinion, that almost all our ministers had been too much in the hands of the bank. They might be told, that, but for the bank, the war could not have been carried on. He believed, if proper care had been taken, they would have been glad to receive sixpences where they received shillings. But now the evil was grown almost beyond the hope of suppression. The bank now came to the House, when they wished to investigate certain public transactions, and said, "The minister has made a bargain with us—that bargain being concluded, you have no right to deliberate on it." This was a most pitiable situation, and one from which, if any gentleman could show him the way to escape, he was ready to adopt it. But he could not see, in the present state of things, when they were at the mercy of the right hon. gentleman and his worthy colleagues, any good that could result from wading through the mass of figures that was placed on their table. Some gentlemen contended that this was the money of the bank; others were of opinion, that it was the money of the public. He certainly agreed with the latter; and, therefore, he conceived they had a right to make use of it, without paying for the loan. The conduct of the bank towards the public appeared to him just the same as that of his private banker would be, if, having one hundred pounds in his hands, and having demanded it from him, he was answered, "You shall have it, but you must pay me four per cent. for it; and you may consider it very generous in me that I do not charge you five. If he were compelled to put up with the imposition once, he would take special care that he should not be subjected to it again; for he would never deposit another hundred pounds in the same hands. In conclusion, the right hon. gentleman apologised, not to the House, but to the select party then met together, for having detained them so long.

argued, that the directors of the bank of England, as trustees, were bound to see that neither the public nor the proprietors were injured by their proceedings. Individuals might view the transactions between the government and the bank in different lights, but, he conceived, that the House of Commons was not the place where the question was to be settled. Under the constitution of the country, the executive power was that by which transactions of this nature were to be directed in the first instance. He concluded, that the arrangement made with the bank could not be broken in upon without a breach of good faith. He represented that institution as having rendered the country the most essential services, and strongly opposed the motion.

contended, and founded his argument on a resolution of the House, that it was the province of parliament, and not of the chancellor of the exchequer, or of the government, to consider of the transactions which took place between the public and the bank. He protested against the chancellor of the exchequer and the directors of the bank settling what benefits should be derived by the bank and by the public; because, by such a proceeding, the right hon. gentleman was forced into a combat so unequal, that he had not the least chance of gaining any advantage over his opponents. He would ask, at what period it was, that the House and the public derived the greatest benefit from a transaction with the bank of England? It was when a committee of that House was appointed, contrary to the wish of the directors of the bank. Why were the directors always against the appointment of committees, to look into their affairs? Because, when they had to deal with the chancellor of the exchequer, they found that they were masters; but when they had to encounter a committee of that House, they met with those who were able to cope with them. The question was simple, in the extreme; it merely came to this—whether the parliament, acting for the country, would be the trustees of the pub- lic money, or suffer the bank directors to dole it out, piecemeal, as they thought fit, asking what they pleased for the loan of it? Would such a system be tolerated by any private individual? If not, why should the constitutional trustees of the public money submit to it? He knew of no instance in which the public were thus treated by a chartered company, except one; and that was, when the bank of Ireland, on the renewal of their charter, lent three millions to the public, at the rate of 5 per cent. (which was the utmost they could get from private individuals), having, at that period, all the balances of the public money in their hands. They certainly improved on the example that had been set them by the bank of England. Parliament, in the present period of distress, ought to look to the money which was absolutely within their grasp; they ought not to go to expensive or uncertain sources for assistance, but should take a portion of that which belonged to them, and not suffer the country to lie at the mercy of any chartered company. The right hon. baronet expressed a high respect for the directors of the bank, but deprecated their being involved in any political transactions with government. Such connexions had, in former times, occasioned the ruin of states. He alluded particularly to Genoa, when it was a free state, and the bank of St. George. In consequence of that species of political connexion, which he protested against, the proceedings of the Genoese government were, in time, absolutely overawed by the intrigues of that bank. It had been said, that the bank of England always steered clear of politics. This statement was not correct. He could show, by a reference to documents, that it was not founded in fact. But he would only refer to one circumstance, to bear him out in this assertion. That was granted, by the bank, to the administration of 1807 and 1808, which was refused to that of 1806. Why was it refused? Because that administration was not palatable to the directors of the bank; because those who took the lead in it, expressed a firm determination to make available those resources which the bank enjoyed, and of which the public were unjustly deprived. The right hon. baronet as a farther proof of the existence of a strong political bias, on the part of the directors of the bank, against the administration of 1806, stated, that when the latter proposed to them, on a certain occasion, the interchange of Irish for English securities, offering, at the same time, ample indemnity from loss, they refused to comply with the request.

did not deny the right of parliament to investigate the transactions that took place between the public and the bank, which must, however, always originate with the executive government. He never knew the directors of the bank to have behaved more favourably to one administration than to another. As to their refusal of the interchange of English and Irish securities, if the same proposition were made now, the bank would act as they had before done. With respect to the public balances in their hands, the question was much misrepresented. The bank said to the public, "Your balances are available to us, to such an extent, and we are willing to give you a compensation. If, however, you think this is too little, take your balances, and make the most of them."

said, the gentlemen opposite had founded their argument on a wrong basis, when they supposed because a bargain was made between government and the bank—that bargain, too, being submitted to the House—the House had no opportunity of altering it. Those who knew the nature of such bargains must be aware, that they could alone be carried into effect by parliament. The right hon. baronet argued, that, because a committee had formerly made arrangements of a useful nature, therefere all transactions of this kind should originate in a committee. But did that committee deliver any opinion as to the course which should be adopted by government in its transactions with the bank? No such thing; it merely stated what advantages might be derived from certain balances which the bank then held. It did not point out what terms were to be demanded from the bank—it did not interfere with those negociations, on the part of the public, which only belonged to the executive department of the government. The argument of the right hon. baronet would go to this, that the preliminary functions, formerly exercised in those cases by the executive, should be intrusted to a committee of that House. Now, he recollected, when the right hon. baronet was on the committee of Irish finance, he would not agree to certain propositions that were made in it, because, he conceived they interfered with the pro- vince of the executive government. "In the House of Commons," said he, "I will be ready to express my opinion on those measures, but I will not, in this committee, remove from government any part of the responsibility that attaches to them." As to the charge of the bank having been more favourable to one administration than another, he did not think there was any foundation for it. He was not surprised, when the directors were called on to give bank of England notes for bank of Ireland notes—to interchange the currency of the two countries—that they refused to do that which would be the means of mixing two systems essentially different.

explained. The proposition to which he alluded, was not one for exchanging the notes of the two countries; it was to give facility to the public securities, by transferring them at the bank of England. With respect to the committee on Irish finance, he certainly, in that committee, had refused his sanction to some propositions which went to take out of the hands of government certain transactions connected with the currency of the country, and which bore no resemblance to the matter under discussion.

regretted to hear his friends accuse the directors of the bank of any political partiality in their transactions with administration. As one of their number he utterly disclaimed the slightest knowledge of such partiality. He would not sit one hour in the direction, did he suppose them capable of such infamous conduct. They discharged their duty to the public in an honest, candid manner, from motives of the most disinterested nature. Every transaction which they carried on with the executive government was open to the scrutiny of parliament. The directors spurned the idea of doing any thing in the dark; as they well knew, and indeed every man in the country knew, that the transactions of administration with the bank were liable to the examination, and even to the control of parliament. It was unmanly to assign as a reason for drawing these balances out of the bank at present, that the state of the country was such as absolutely to require the people being released from taxation. A motive of such a nature should never operate with ministers. If they could show the country in a satisfactory manner that there were balances in the bank due to the country, let them at all times draw these balances, and not assign as a reason that the country was in a distressed state. Attachment to the interests of the country should at all times be the motive of their conduct, and not merely when the country was in an agitated state. But how did matters stand at present? Why, we were told that there were millions, many millions in the bank belonging to the country. But of such millions he must, for one, say he had no idea. The bank, in procuring their charter, had paid liberally for it. It was a fair and equitable bargain between them and ministers. The great point in dispute, as to the public cash in the hands of the bank, referred, he believed, to those balances of which they became possessed after the ratification of their former charter, in consequence of an act of parliament that provided for the placing in the bank of England certain balances of public money that had previously been confided to private hands. Now, the only question was, whether sufficient compensation was made for them? The hon. gentleman had stated them at about five millions; and he would ask, what could the public expect these great bankers to allow for this sum? Of this deposit, they had lent three millions without any interest, and advanced the remainder at four per cent. No person, therefore, could think that the bank had made an outrageous bargain. He most conscientiously said, as a bank director, and a representative of the people, he saw no disadvantageous bargain on the part of the public, but it was one to which the bank would not have been entitled, except for other circumstances which ought not then to be taken into consideration. He would again repeat he saw no bad bargain between the various chancellors of the exchequer and the directors, and he was sorry that accounts of what the bank possessed had been so very much exaggerated. The statements given had no doubt been very plausible, but he cautioned the House to beware of such plausibilities, as dangerous in the extreme.

contended, that it ill became the House to interfere with the private profits of the bank, as in fact they had no right to do so. If a bargain was made in a legal constitutional manner, and as legally adhered to by the contracting parties, let not the House usurp authority where they have none. He considered such wanton attacks as were made on the directors, to be pregnant with dangerous consequences to the country. The bank had rendered the most essential services to the nation in the late war, from which the country had happily emerged, and in those services they had conducted their business in a proper manner; equally honourable to themselves and the country. At present men of large and independent fortunes filled the direction, but if they were liable to such animadversions, they would probably retire, and second-rate proprietors would come in, who would be more liable to the control of government, and more anxious to serve their own private interests. The hon. gentleman said, it was a great mistake to consider the bank a public establishment; it was absolutely a private company, whose profits were private, and therefore sacred. The present arrangement was denominated an agreement, but it should be more properly called a positive gratuity. He was perfectly satisfied that the bank had done every thing for the public, and that the loan was negociated on terms the most favourable to the country.

conceived, that the bank stock proprietors had acted with great liberality, in making so large a loan at four per cent., and did not think there was any ground for an inquiry into their profits.

said, the question was, whether a sufficient allowance had been made to the public for the large balances which the bank directors had in their hands, With respect to profits on the capital, he begged to state the manner in which business was transacted by private bankers. The daily receipts and payments in this metropolis amounted to about 4,700,000l.; but there was a clearing-house in the city, at which the bankers' clerks assembled, and upon exchanging draughts, the money actually paid did not exceed 250,000l. It was not the object of the inquiry to throw any discredit on the bank; but it was an inquiry which ought to be instituted. He was somewhat struck with the observations of the hon. gentleman who spoke last but one, that in consequence of the repeated attacks made on the directors, they might be induced to resign their office! Had any report of their intention to do so ever been heard of? And even were such an event to take place, was parliament to be told that this was an argument sufficiently powerful to prevent them from examining how business had been conducted? Was the House of Commons to be deterred from doing their duty by so unworthy, so despicable a motive? He trusted they never should, and he therefore warmly approved of the resolutions.

replied. He contended, that Mr. Perceval never meant to tie up the hands of the public from making any alteration in the bargain with the bank. In 1808, the public debt was 613,000,000; but there was now an increase of one-third. An hon. member had said, that the public might take the balances, and do with them what they pleased; but the act of parliament expressly declared, that none of the accounts which were directed to be kept at the bank, should be withdrawn. When the charter was renewed, that hon. gentleman had stated the balances to amount only to three millions, but they actually amounted to six millions. This was a circumstance that had never been explained. But, on their own showing, supposing that the bank had a right to retain the balances in their hands, it was only to the extent of three millions; and the mistake they had made, whether intentional or not, gave the public a claim to further participation in their profits. He stated these facts in the presence of the hon. gentleman, who was the proper person to explain them. As to the inquiry, the House ought not to relinquish its right; and it could not be forgotten, that real advantages had arisen from the interference on the stamp duty act, by which a saving of 30,000l. or 40,000l. a year had been made to the public. Instead of being concluded by any thing that had passed, he hoped the House would continue to interfere and watch over the public interest. He had been accused of making what was called an attack on the bank; he had not done this, but had merely endeavoured to sustain the rights of the public. As to the exaggerated statements with which he had been charged, not one fact had been adduced to prove the exaggeration.

said, that his memory did not bring back to his mind all that had been stated in evidence in the committee alluded to; but he could assure the hon. gentleman and the House, that no information had been withheld at that period, and that every official document had been laid before the chancellor of the exchequer.

observed, that if the hon. gentleman who moved the resolutions, was fighting against the bank he was fighting against his own interest, the hon. gentleman being, as he understood, a considerable bank proprietor. He contended, that if the chancellor of the exchequer failed to avail himself of the substitute that now offered itself for the property tax, he would have much to answer for.

said, he would consent to have the House pass to the orders of the day, on the understanding that his resolutions should be subsequently read, for the purpose of being entered on the journals.

hoped, that if any attempt were made to preclude his hon. friend from entering his resolutions on the journals, that he would move them again and again.

said, that he had no objection to their being moved for that purpose, when the orders of the day were disposed of.

The motion for passing to the order of the day was then agreed to. The House having resolved itself into a committee on the bank loan bill, the chancellor of the exchequer proposed to fill up the blank in the 2d clause by the words "four per cent." when Mr. Grenfell moved, as an amendment, that the words "free of all interest," be substituted.

said, the effect of such an amendment would be a new arrangement with the bank, and he put it to the hon. gentleman, whether such a measure could be advisable at the present moment. The bargain now entered into was more advantageous than any which had been made at a former period, and the public could not expect better terms now than in other times.

said, the murder was now out. The chancellor of the exchequer, instead of making a bargain which it might be in the power of that House to rescind made his bargain, and then said, "You must not now undo it, because that would throw the whole system of finance into confusion." But we were bound to save the public 240,000l. if possible; and though the bank played well at the game of brag, he trusted the House would prove the stronger party. As to their political partialities, the noble lord (Castlereagh) admitted that they were not altogether so fond of a chancellor of the exchequer given to "gusts;" and what were "gusts?" simply no more than a little insight into the public interest. He believed that there never was such a bargain as that now made. He thought that the chancellor of the exchequer with all his goodness of heart, lamented in reality at having been so gulled, and he called on his candour to confess that he had been imposed on.

denied that the bargain was improvident. It would in all probability prevent the necessity of any public loan, or at least would diminish the amount of that loan, should it be required.

remarked on what appeared to him the extravagance of his hon. friend who moved the amendment, in contending that the bank, in return for a deposit of five millions, was to make an advance of nine millions to the public. Estimating the public balance at 11 millions, he would assert that at the renewal of the charter the consideration of 6 millions of these balances, then formed the general average. This consideration consisted in the loan of three millions to the public for a certain period, without interest, and in the bank lending the whole of their capital of ten millions to the public, at an interest of 3 per cent. He would assert therefore, that there were now only 5 millions of balances for which the public were entitled to any consideration, and this appeared to him amply provided for by the present bill. Indeed, in his situation of a bank director, he thought that an extremely hard bargain had been driven with the bank, and, as a member of that House, that a very favourable one had been made for the country.

defended his motion, particularly in opposition to the remarks of the last speaker.

observed, that the hon. member opposite seemed well acquainted with the advantage of putting a bold front upon a case, with a view to that success which could not be anticipated upon rational grounds.

remarked, that if putting a bold front upon a case were likely to facilitate success, the Irish chancellor of the exchequer could in no case have reason to despair [a laugh].

thought that the good nature of the chancellor of the exchequer had been imposed on, and lamented that economy had not been more consulted. Three per cent. appeared to him to be an adequate remuneration to the bank, which he would have proposed, but for his hon. friend's previous amendment. He desired to know whether the chancellor of the exchequer intended to make any of the unclaimed dividends available to the public service. Money lying in the hands of the bank, under that denomination, could not possibly be insisted on by the bank. He was indeed surprised to find, that while, according to a special act no more than 100,000l. of these dividends should be retained by the bank, the usual return of their amount so placed should be no less than 700,000l., and sometimes more.

concurred with his hon. friend as to the propriety of rendering the unclaimed dividends available for the advantage of the public, rather than allowing them to remain in the hands of the bank. But then this opinion applied only to those dividends which were unclaimed for a certain period, or never likely to be claimed; and it had occurred to him, that such dividends should be applied to the public service, somewhat in the way of an escheat, that is, that the amount should be transferred to the commissioners for the redemption of the public debt, to be made use of by them at compound interest; those commissioners, however, to be answerable to the owners whenever they should appear. In this way he conceived that those dividends could be most advantageously and equitably employed for the benefit of the public. At the same time it was proper to observe, particularly with a view to prevent any misconception out of doors, that it would be impossible, consistently with common justice, to touch any dividends which had not been unclaimed at least for four quarters; and it was to be remembered that the return, to which his hon. friend alluded, included all unclaimed dividends even for the last quarter. So that his hon. friend's remarks were grounded upon an erroneous computation.

trusted that the chancellor of the exchequer would claim in an authoritative manner the dividends which remained in the hands of the bank. In the present aspect of the sentiments of the committee, he would recommend to his hon. friend to withdraw his amendment, and propose 2 per cent. instead of 4, on the principal of taking the half when he could not get the whole.

trusted that due care would be taken to secure immediate payment of dividends, to which, though unclaimed for a while, claims might ultimately be established, otherwise some alarm might be excited. He stated, that he had known within the last week no less than nineteen dividends paid upon the small capital of 200l. adding that the bank considered that a very hard bargain which had been concluded.

stated his conviction, that the combined influence of the directors and of government could not have induced the bank to advance the sum to which the bill referred at 2 per cent. it being the general impression of the proprietors that 5 per cent. ought to have obtained upon this loan.

proposed to fill up the blank with 3 per cent. instead of 4, but the proposition was negatived without a division.

The House resumed, and the report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow.

Mr. Grenfell then with the permission of the House, proposed his resolutions, for the purpose of having them put upon the Journals; upon each of which, excepting the last, which was withdrawn, the previous question was put and carried.

rose, in pursuance of his notice, to call the attention of the House to the necessity of materially altering, if not of entirely repealing, the provisions of the act last passed for the relief of insolvent debtors. He was fully aware of the unpleasantness of the task which he had undertaken, but he considered that the general call which had been made upon the House from all parts of the country, upon this subject, imposed an imperious duty upon him to bring before the House the consideration of the law as it stood, with a view to remedying the great and immense detriment which arose out of its provisions to all ranks of the public, but more especially to those concerned in trade.—It was known that this law was originally introduced by the noble person (lord Redesdale) by whom it had been framed as a measure of experiment, and all accorded in the hope that it would have produced a better result than it had. As, however, it was now found to be attended by con- sequences of a grievous and lamentable description, it became expedient to reconsider its enactments. It was not necessary for him, in adverting to this topic, to enter into the question, whether imprisonment for debt was originally allowed by the common law of the land or not; it was sufficient for him that the practice had prevailed for five hundred years, and had, during that period, undergone various regulations and modifications by the legislature: neither was it necessary for him to submit any arguments as to the propriety of the judgments of our courts of law being enforced by some certain punishment—as that was a principle which at this day, few, if any, would be disposed to dispute. In considering this law, he would offer a few simple propositions to the House. The first was, that in every civilized country there ought to exist laws for compelling the performance of promises—next, that means ought to exist for enforcing the fulfilment of duties—and lastly, that a power should exist, by which any wrong done might be redressed. It appeared but reasonable, where a judgment was given by a court of law, that a mode should subsist, whereby that judgment could be enforced, and that where duties were violated, or wrongs done, such a punishment should exist as would deter others from pursuing a similar course; and yet the operation of this law was such, as completely to abrogate and render nugatory all those fundamental principles of justice. To confirm this statement it was only necessary to inquire into the leading feature of the act. What was this? Why, that any person who had been in custody for the space of three months, for a debt however enormous, incurred in a manner however objectionable, might apply to the insolvent debtors' court for relief, and might obtain that relief, on the simple condition of giving up all his property. There were two objections to this: first, that it was at the option of the party whether he should appeal to the court for relief or not; and, next, that there were no means by which a debtor could be prevented from going into prison, and wasting the remainder of his property, to the detriment of his creditor. He was sorry to say, that since this law had been passed, more persons had been committed to custody than when the choice of compulsion was left with the creditor; and hence the reason that our gaols were ful- ler than ever. In fact, no creditor who was aware of the consequences of this act, would arrest a debtor, because he well knew he would thereby be deprived of all chance of payment. It was clear, that such a system must have the effect of putting into the mind of every person, whether well-principled or not, when he began to fail, a disposition to put off the evil day to the last, knowing that in the end he would be relieved, and thereby lead to the waste of that property which would otherwise be resigned to the hands of the creditor.—Another objection which existed was, that there was no discretion in this act as to who ought to be relieved—and whether the person seeking discharge was deserving of such an indulgence or not, was a matter of perfect indifference. It was true that there was a clause whereby any person wasting his effects in prison was liable to be detained for five years; but there was no description of the sort of waste which would subject him to this punishment. There was another clause, by which persons guilty of a breach of trust were rendered liable to imprisonment for ten years; so again with respect to persons obtaining property under false pretences. Such persons were liable to imprisonment for five years, unless relieved with the consent of the creditors—the question of fraud was so narrowed, however, that unless a man was proved to have committed an offence, amounting almost to felony, there was little chance of his discharge being successfully opposed. There was no clause by which a man assuming a false appearance, moving in respectable circles, supporting an equipage which gave the appearance of wealth, without possessing a single farthing of capital, and thereby inducing the tradesman to give him credit, without the chance of payment, was deprived of the benefit of the act; and yet, who would not say that this was precisely the man who ought not to be discharged? Another objection to the law was, that men guilty of every act of injustice might be relieved from all consequences by its provisions. Persons against whom judgment was given for slander, false imprisonment, and all this species of torts or offences were exonerated by this act, and after an imprisonment of three months, were excused, and the same in all judgments given on actions for injuries from negligence, actions of trover, and trespasses, attended by circumstances however aggravated. In actions of covenant, too, where the defendant broke an engagement, however solemn, he was entitled to the same indulgence. Hence in this country, where justice was proverbially said to have taken her seat, there was no law which could control the performance of a covenant. It was said by Mr. Burke, that there was no connexion between the gaol and the counting house. The petitions which had been laid upon the table of the House, however, fully proved the fallacy of this reasoning, and that there was the strongest connexion between the one and the other. It was evident, in fact, that unless some modification took place in this law, there would be an end of the trade of this country altogether. The remedy which he should suggest for those evils was this—that the present commissioners of the insolvent court should be prevented from receiving any further petitions, and from discharging any more insolvent debtors. By this means the system would be got rid of for the present, and the legislature would have an opportunity of framing such a measure as was consistent with the security of the creditor and the relief of the honest man, while the dishonest man would be subject to a punishment adequate to the extent of his misconduct. The measure ought to be discussed with discrimination, and in a manner calculated to give satisfaction to all just minds. The general idea he had was, that a discretion should be granted to the judge to whom the applications for relief were to be made, who would thereby have an opportunity of determining whether a man had acted justly or unjustly towards his creditor. He was aware that there might be some objections to placing so large a discretion in a single individual—he thought, therefore, that a bench of judges should be appointed, to whom these subjects should be referred. As it was not his wish that those persons who were already in confinement should have to complain of any unexpected harshness or severity from the operation of this act, he should propose that its provisions should not apply to any person who was in custody at the time of its enactment. There was one other topic to which he wished to advert, and that was the expediency of throwing impediments in the way of the relief of debtors, at a time when the general distresses of the country was so great. He was convinced, however, that so far from this act aggravating the public distress, it would, on the contrary, be productive of the best consequences, by reviving the confidence between man and man, and rendering mankind, by the re-establishment of credit, the more anxious to relieve their fellow-subjects. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to suspend the power of his majesty's commissioner of the court of insolvent debtors to receive petitions for the discharge of insolvents."

observed, that the object of the motion was, by suspending the act, to repeal it. Unquestionably the introduction of the bill would draw attention to the way in which the act had been executed; and the subject deserved serious consideration. There could be no doubt that great frauds had been committed, and that the legislature was loudly called upon to interpose. But it would not be wise for the House precipitately to repeal this act without considerable inquiry, and availing themselves of all the information they could procure on the subject, in order to frame some more effectual measure. Let the House recollect what was the state of the law before this act passed. It was the unlimited imprisonment of debtors; for a discharge was a release from the debt; so that a creditor was often left with hardly any choice, after taking the debtor in execution. In the former proceedings on this subject, we had, every two or three years, for a long time past, an insolvent act open to all abuses, and, by the gross scandal of violating all contracts between debtor and creditor by an ex post facto law setting the debtor at large. Would it not more become the dignity of parliament, and the interests of the public, to appoint a committee which might make every proper inquiry, and might examine debtors and other parties, as well as professional persons, whose experience would enable them to suggest eligible modes for the security of payment, and to remove oppressive measures peculiar to England, where alone there was nothing like a cessio bonorum, or something in the nature of a bankruptcy, for the relief of insolvents in prison. It appeared to him that the measure had not been adapted to the desired end; but this did not seem to arise from its being impossible so to frame it. He had nothing to do with framing the act; he was never consulted about it, and never saw it till it came into the House. He had only opposed some alterations in it which were proposed; and he believed that nobody in the House was against the act altogether. It should be remembered, that it was only a temporary act; but it ought not to be repealed without inquiry. The hon. and learned gentleman had suggested some remedies. He (sir S. Romilly) thought it might be rendered more beneficial. The creditor should have the power to compel the debtor to give up his property. He wished the non. and learned gentleman would consent to a committee, to put the House in possession of useful information. Much valuable information might be obtained from the commissioner of the insolvent court: but the old mode of an ex post facto law was bad.

was fully aware of the great imperfections of this measure, and agreed in the propriety of the suggestion of his hon. and learned friend, who he hoped would move for the committee forthwith. He should be most happy to lend his aid in furthering the investigation alluded to.

said, that his only reason for not making the motion, was the fact of his professional duties being likely to prevent his attendance.

said, he had the same apology to offer for not moving for the committee. He would, however, consult with his hon. and learned friend between that day and to-morrow.

hoped his hon. and learned friend, the mover of this question, would agree to the suggestion for the appointment of a committee. The question was one of vital importance, and unless some means were taken to remedy the evils which existed under this act, it would go to cut up trade and credit by the roots.

did not feel it necessary to withdraw his motion, because he thought the same inquiry might be made under the bill as in the committee. He thought it was necessary to give some pledge to the public that the bill, as it existed, should be repealed; but if his motion were carried, he would undertake not to press it until the information desired was obtained.

was not satisfied that a bill should be introduced to repeal the law altogether, to the principle of which he still adhered, though he thought it required modification: he thought it would ultimately be best to adopt an amendment, that a committee be appointed, and in the mean time he should move that the debate on the question, be adjourned till to-morrow.

spoke of the great grievances which had existed under the present bill, and urged the necessity of its being materially amended.

thought that the trading interest were particularly indebted to Mr. Lockhart and wished for a total repeal of the act. If the committee proposed to take up the whole subject of the laws of debtor and creditor fully and fairly, the House would certainly be highly obliged to them; but if the object was to inquire concerning facts which were well known, the delay would prove injurious. The hon. member adverted to some gross cases of fraud since the act existed.

did not see the necessity of adjourning the debate, neither did he conceive the introduction of the bill would be any obstacle to inquiry. It was not usual to oppose the introduction of a bill, unless there was some insurmountable objection to the principle of it.

Mr. Abercrombie having withdrawn his amendment, leave was given to bring in the bill.

then moved, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the effects which have been produced by the acts 53 Geo. 3d, c. 102, and 54 Geo. 3d, c. 23, for the relief of insolvent debtors in England; and to report their observations thereupon to the House."

observed, that he could not concur in the motion of the hon. and learned gentleman. If an idea once got abroad, that the House held a doubt on the propriety of the course which they ought to pursue, they would be only giving reins to a continuance of that system of fraud which now called for legislative interposition.

The House divided: Yeas, 82; Noes, 71. A committee was accordingly appointed.

moved for leave to bring in a bill to limit the duration of polls at elections in Ireland. The hon. member, in allusion to what had fallen from an hon. general (Matthew), by whom this motion was on a former night interrupted, begged to say, that no man in that House was more favourable than he was to the inde- pendence of the elective franchise, and to the purity of election.

had no objection to the general features of the bill.

said, that although he had some strong objections to the measure, he would not, in the first instance, give it his opposition, but reserve himself for a future opportunity.

said, that the bill declared the existence of great evils from the duration of polls in Ireland. He had himself felt those evils, both in his person and purse, by the length of an election contest, which, though the voters were not more than 1,000 in number, had lasted for a considerable time. But in the introduction of a measure of this kind, he was afraid that if strong guards were not introduced, an election, instead of being the freemens', would be the sheriffs' appointment. It would be certainly well to prevent the protraction of those proceedings, but it was equally important to secure to the constituent body the safe means of returning the man of their choice. If they did not secure the rights of voters in this manner, the necessary consequence would be, that elections would be thrown into the hands of government, and then it would be out of the power of any individual to cope, in point of expense, with so formidable an antagonist. The House would therefore take care that in whatever measure it enacted, the purity of election should not be violated, or the interests of the electors exposed to any improper restrictions.

said, that the House was at present unapprised of the precise nature of his hon. friend's bill. It was most desirable to prevent a protraction of elections, and to counteract as far as possible the calamitous expense which was incurred on such occasions. When the bill was brought in, the necessary information of its details would doubtless be laid before them.

rose not only to confirm the statement of the right hon. baronet, but to mention that, in his own election, much greater waste of time and abuse existed than that stated by the right hon. baronet. The law of elections in Ireland, with respect to which the bill proposed by the hon. gentleman was so extremely important, he was well aware was a subject which would be approached by the House with every view of attention, with every degree of examination and of caution; and he was sure that the hon. member, if permitted to introduce his bill, would not press it with any rapidity through its different stages, but would give every opportunity for investigation and discussion. It was a subject of too grave and serious a nature, not to be viewed in all its bearings before the House proceeded to legislate; for great and crying as the existing evils were, they were so much interwoven and incorporated with the good, that an undigested attempt to diminish the one, would have the effect of lessening the other. Under this impression, he would support the introduction of the bill; and he hoped, that under proper arrangement, the principle of it would be made satisfactory to the House. Of this he was quite sure, that the personal experience of the hon. member who had undertaken to introduce it, would enable him to furnish much valuable material for the construction of such a law as was now proposed. Towards the conclusion of the last session, the hon. member, with a view to the introduction of the present bill, had moved for and obtained a return of the registered freeholders of Ireland. He held in his hand a paper, which since the present session had been laid on the table of the House and printed, and which purported to be a return such as was ordered. He was sure the hon. member would easily observe, that it did not contain a full and sufficient return, such as was ordered, and if otherwise, the hon. member would be proceeding himself, and inducing the House to proceed, on false and erroneous premises; but he submitted, there was another and a paramount reason for noticing the subject, as it was necessary that the House should see that its orders were not rendered nugatory and void by the private management and contrivance of any man, or of any set of men. He did not go the length of asserting that such was the fact in the present instance, but when the House recollected the vain and impotent attempt, at the last general election, to stifle and trample upon the constitutional freehold voice of that part of the united kingdom which he had the honour to represent, it would remark the strange coincidence with respect to the omission of that part only with which he stood thus connected. He would not go the length of asserting that it was a wilful default; he hoped it was not; but if it should turn out to be otherwise, he was sure the guilty individuals would be speedily taught to lament their indiscretion, and others would be deterred by the example which would be made of them, from trifling with the pleasure, or interposing themselves between the orders of the House of Commons, and the immediate and submissive execution of them.

said, that after the bill was introduced, he had no objection to allow ample time for its consideration before he proceeded through its stages.

concurred in the propriety of allowing sufficient time for the consideration of a measure, the principle of which was of so important a nature. He had himself had sufficient personal experience in early life, of the duration of election contests in Ireland; for he had been a candidate on one occasion, when the contest lasted from the 1st of May, until the 24th July. As great doubt was entertained in Ireland, whether the returning officer was not bound to close the poll at a certain period, it was certainly right to make some provision on this point.

approved of the principle of the bill.

did not think the introduction of a bill would be the best and most speedy method of correcting the abuses complained of in Irish elections, and suggested the propriety of a committee to inquire into the general state of elections in Ireland, and how far the laws respecting them might be assimilated to those in England.

observed, that though he concurred in the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman, as to the efficiency of a committee, yet he did not think it was a reason why the present bill should be objected to. The provisions of the bill were not yet known to the House, and it would be premature to judge of them. At the same time, if this bill were carried into a law, it would still be competent to any gentleman to move for a committee on the general subject.

repeated, that he did not object to the bill, but merely doubted whether, at first view it could embrace a settled system.

said, he would give full time for the consideration of this subject. He did not mean to move for the second reading until the 29th of April next.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

moved for leave to bring in a bill to prevent corrupt and illegal practices, and securing the purity of election in the borough of Helleston.

spoke highly of the disposition of the Helleston electors to guard themselves from any imputation of acting from an improper motive in future. He saw no reason for beginning the work of disfranchisement with this borough, for he did not believe there was a borough in Cornwall which had any better pretensions to the favour of the House. If it was proposed to commence an entire reform amongst the Cornish boroughs, he should be ready to lend his most cordial concurrence and assistance.

believed that the hon. gentleman was entirely misinformed with respect to the actual state of the elective franchise in Helleston. As to the general character of Cornish boroughs, he begged leave to say, that he himself represented a borough where there were not merely 12, but 350 electors. The bill itself was founded on the report of a committee of that House, by which report it appeared that the power of returning a member for Helleston was in the hands of an attorney, the town-clerk, and two aldermen. He was himself in no way interested in the fate of the bill, and had brought it forward for no other reason, than that he had been nominee of that committee which made a special report upon the subject.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.