after expressing his gratification at hearing the exploits which had led to the termination of war, and had raised the glory of the country so high, described in language so eloquent and so peculiar to the Chair, could not help entertaining a hope that this would be the last time such services would be required and such thanks returned, and that in future the blessings of universal peace would take the place of the glories of war. It would be a great satisfaction to the House to retain such addresses as those which had been spoken that night in their Journals. He was sure that he spoke the sense of the country, when he said, that it was impossible to find any where the glory of our arms so well described as in those brilliant displays of eloquence to which the House had just listened with so much delight [Hear, hear!]. He concluded by moving, " That what has been now said by Mr. Speaker, in giving the thanks of this House to lieutenant-general the hon. sir Galbraith Lowry Cole, and lieutenant-general sir Henry Clinton, together with their answers thereto, be printed in the votes of this day."

The motion was agreed to nem. con.

rose, to propose that the House should appoint a committee to consider the present state of the Game Laws, with a view of preventing the great increase of poaching, and its melancholy consequences. The hon. colonel proceeded to illustrate his view of this subject, by stating the recent case of the murder of colonel Berkeley's gamekeeper. The poachers, on that occasion, were between twenty and thirty in number, and all armed men, while the gamekeepers, who were employed for the preservation of game on the lands, had the humanity to enter the wood unarmed, and to use every effort to dissuade those poachers from persevering in their purpose. Every body was acquainted with the melancholy result—one man was killed and several wounded, besides those who suffered for the offence. This practice of poaching was not only formidable from its own immediate consequences, but also from the system of insubordination to which it necessarily led. The peasant, in the first instance, became habituated to dishonesty; it led him to nocturnal prowlings. He was up all night, and consequently could not work all day. He proceeded onwards from depredation to depredation; when game did not fall in his way, he plundered a sheepfold, and at length ended his life on a gallows. It was impossible to amend this vitiated system, unless some mode could be devised of preventing or regulating the sale of game. If there were no receivers, there would, of course, be no thieves; and it could not be concealed, that while many gentlemen, who occasionally came to town, were prosecuting poachers on their own estates, they were actually themselves, by their purchases of game for their tables in town, encouraging the theft. It was notorious that game was openly sold in the metropolis, and it would be in vain to punish the peasant, until the mode of sale could be checked. No man went out poaching who had not previously found a market for his spoils. The matter could, he was persuaded, be so regulated, that every gentleman's manor would be protected, and the public be legally and properly supplied with game. With this view he would move, " That a committee be appointed to take into consideration the laws relating to game, and that they do report their observations thereupon to the House:"

said, he saw no objection to the motion of the hon. member, as it now stood, though he differed from him in many of the principles which he had laid down. He hoped the result of going into a committee would lead to some system for the better preservation of game. The laws, indeed, as they now stood, were sufficient for that purpose, if they were adequately executed. The period of the session was somewhat late, and inconvenient for bringing forward a subject upon which it was likely a great variety of opinions would be entertained; but at the same time he should vote for the committee, for the reason he had already stated.

suggested, that it would be better to waive any discussion upon the question until it had been considered in the committee, especially as there were several important subjects fixed for their consideration that night.

said, he should vote for the committee, but from views of the subject totally different to those entertained by the hon. mover. He wished to see the game laws so modified, that they might lose that character which he believed to be the great cause of the increase of poaching.

The motion was then carried, and a committee appointed.

in rising to move the discharge of his two orders for the Committee on the Poor Removal bill, and the committee on the Poor Relief bill, stated, that he was induced so to do solely in consequence of a communication from Mr. Curwen, member for Carlisle, who had given notice of a motion for a committee on the poor laws at large, and who was anxious that sir Egerton's bills should be suspended till the result of that committee was laid before the House.

the chancellor of the exchequer of Ireland, having moved that the House should resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, on the 7th article of the Act of Union, and that the several accounts which had been presented, relative to the revenues of Ireland, together with the report of the committee of finance, should be referred to it, spoke as follows:

In calling upon the committee to fulfil the resolution which was entered into in the last session, I feel that I have not so much to apologize for having delayed, at an early period of the present session, to submit this subject to the consideration of parliament, as I have to excuse myself, perhaps, for having undertaken it at all. It is now too late to regret that I have done so—andit would have the appearance of affectation if I did. I am sensible of the motives and of the delicacy which have induced my right hon. friend (Mr. Vansittart) to abstain from originating the proceedings of this night: but I feel more than ever the magnitude of the question, the difficulties which surround it, and my own inability to present it to the House as I ought. Neither, Sir, is it easy to bring back the mind to topics such as those which I shall have to treat of, after the eloquent and affecting scene which the House has lately witnessed, or to subdue at once the high and excited feelings which such a scene gives birth to [Hear, hear!]. I am not sorry, therefore, that the short conversation which has just passed should have intervened.—I shall endeavour to recollect myself—and I confide in the indulgence of those whom I have to address. I have experienced that indulgence before, Sir, when I have had to bring subjects connected with the interests of my native country under the view of the House of Commons; and I know that the same disposition to consult those interests, which this parliament has so particularly manifested, will obtain for me, and for any long and complicated details with which I fear I may be obliged to trouble the committee, an attention which, I am conscious, my own imperfect statements would ill deserve. Not, Sir, that the interests of Ireland alone are involved in the decision which we shall be called upon to come to. I must not disguise from the committee how deeply the interests of every part of the empire must be affected by it.

The committee, Sir, will not desire of me to recite at length that article of the act of union which has been especially referred to its consideration; but I shall offer to you the opinion formed upon it by successive committees of finance, and the grounds upon which those opinions were formed by them. I am aware, Sir, that I shall have to combat the objections which an hon. gentleman (Mr. Bankes), a member of the last committee, felt, and which he will perhaps deem it his duty to re-urge this night. I earnestly hope, however, that the recommendations of so many persons, who entered with such minuteness and labour into the consideration of this article, will have with this committee a weight which, I am conscious, no recommendation of mine could have, when opposed to that of the hon. gentleman.

I am aware too, Sir, that I shall have to enter into a statement of the amount of contribution which Ireland has been required to pay since the union of both countries; an amount greater than could have been presumed at the time, when the ratio of that contribution was calculated; an amount greater than the authors of that calculation could have deemed it possible for her to provide. They could not have foreseen—who could have foreseen, a war of such duration, and of such expense, as that in which the empire has been since engaged, or the sacrifices of England while she waged it? But if I am compelled to show that the contribution imposed upon Ireland was greater than she ought to have been called upon to bear—that its weight has, in fact, accelerated the period at which parliament became competent to review the compact, let me not be supposed to contemplate, with different feelings from the House or the country, that measure which has been the source of our security, and the keystone of British power, which has made Ireland a sharer in your councils, and in the fame that you have acquired—which has made us " Participes libertatis sceptrique Britanni" [Hear, hear!]. No, Sir, if the necessity of reviewing the act of union has been produced by the sacrifices which Ireland has made to you, doing her best to keep pace with those which Britain made in the cause of humanity and of freedom; if I am able to show, that it is by those sacrifices that her debt has grown to its present magnitude, I should leave the question of to-night with fearless confidence to your decision, and the wisdom and justice of a British parliament.

When the contribution of Great Britain and Ireland towards the expenditure of the United Kingdom was fixed in the pro-portion of fifteen parts for Great Britain, and two for Ireland, the arrangement was made for twenty years from the time of the union, and at the end of that time the joint charges were to be defrayed in such proportion as the united parliament should deem reasonable, upon a comparison of the average value of the exports and imports of the respective countries, or upon a comparison of the value of the principal articles of consumption in both. There was another scale of estimate which has never been afforded, though contemplated by the act of union, namely a general tax, if such should have heen imposed, on the same descriptions of income in both countries, at the end of such period and proceeding on these data, parliament is empowered to revise the scale of contribution, unless it should have in the intermediate time declared, what under certain contingencies only it could declare, that with such exemptions in favour of Ireland and Scotland, as circumstances might appear to demand, the expenditure of the empire should be defrayed indiscriminately by equal taxes imposed on the like articles in both parts of the United Kingdom But, Sir, whether that contingency has arisen, and whether the necessity for exercising the power which the act confers has arisen also, I am now to show.

It is provided by the same article of the act of union, that if at any future day the separate debts of each country shall have been liquidated, or if the values of the respective debts, estimated according to their annual interests and sinking funds, shall bear the same proportion with the respective contribution of each country, and if it shall appear (making allowance for a small variation in the said value) that the circumstances of the two countries will admit of their contributing indiscriminately, and by equal taxes, to the general expenditure, it shall be competent to parliament to declare, that all future expense, together with the interest and charges on all joint debts contracted previous to such declaration, shall be defrayed indiscriminately by equal taxes, subject to the exemptions and abatements which I have before stated, as provided for in the antecedent part of the said article.

The committee of finance appointed in the year 1811, of which my right hon. friend (Mr. Vansittart) was chairman, and who were the first who, in fact, ascertained the principle on which the account of joint contribution was to be taken, were the first also who called the attention of parliament to this important article. The increase in the debt of Ireland had been so much more rapid than that of Great Britain, that they directed calculations to be made of the proportions of the value of both, with a view of bringing the subject under the notice of parliament. According to their report, Sir, the actual value, estimated according to the current prices of the public funds of that day, was in the proportion of nearly two to fifteen. If valued as annuities, the proportions were nearly the same, on the supposition of the debt being redeemed at equal rates of interest in each country. These values were altered in some degree by the addition of stock created in the same year, and by the omission of the Irish unfunded debt; but the committee concurred in reporting generally, that the values of the respective debts in the different ways in which they had directed them to be taken, varied little from the proportion which the act of union had prescribed; the variation was in fact at that period very inconsiderable.

In the following year, Sir, the accounts not being sufficiently complete, the inquiry was retarded, and a fatal event—the death of Mr. Perceval—interrupted the proceedings of the committee when they were on the point of being resumed. The committee was revived in 1813, but contented itself with ascertaining the joint account, and reporting on the increase of the several branches of the revenue. The committee of 1815 gave to the whole of the subject the most anxious attention; the detailed report of their opinion is that which I shall now press upon your attention. At that time, Sir, the excess of Irish debt was great above the union proportion.

I will not now advert to the effect which the cancelling of stock in England had upon the debt and sinking fund of this country—that may belong to another branch of this subject; but it appeared, that the total amount of the public funded debt of Ireland was, on the 5th of January 1815, 127,865,000l. and deducting that purchased by the commissioners for the redemption of the national debt, there remained on that day a funded debt of 105,000,000l. The sinking fund then applicable, Sir, was 2,087,000l., and the whole charge of interest on the funded debt, unexpired annuities, and sinking fund, was 5,900,000l. This was exclusive, of the charge of 4,500,000l. raised in 1811, for which provision has hitherto been made by Great Britain. On the calculation made in the last year, but including the unfunded debt as well as the 4,500,000l. which I have just mentioned, the proportions were found to be at about 2 to l3. Parliament, Sir, will not be governed, I am aware, by the opinion of a delegated body of its own members, but your committee, interpreting this article, with reference to what must have been in the contemplation of both parliaments when the act of union was framed, with reference to the whole spirit and context of the act, were decidedly of opinion, that the legislature having acquired the right of consolidating the debts and expenditures of the two countries, retained that right, although the debt had passed the proportion to that of Great Britain of 2 to 15, as fully as if that right had been acted upon at the precise moment when the report of 1811 had ascertained their approximation to within 100th part of the larger of such debts. It will be found in the papers on your table, copies of which I believe have been put into the hands of members in a printed form, that the values of the funded and unfunded debts of Great Britain and Ireland, on the first of February last, were as follows:—

At 5 per cent. as 2 to 12·65

At 4 per cent. as 2 to 12·41

At 3 per cent. as 2 to 12·19

The proportions are about the same, if estimated at the current prices of stock in the last week. I, beg to observe, that the loan of 1811, which I stated as remaining unprovided for, is included in this calculation. The committee will see the extent of the variation since that period, when the consolidation of the debt and exchequers, were so earnestly recommended to the House.

Not only because I am upon this branch of the subject, but that I may adhere to that order, which the reports on your table have observed, I shall state the amount, first, of the funded debt of Ireland on the 5th of January, 1816, then the unfunded debt, with the total charge. I shall then, Sir, recapitulate the principal branches of our permanent revenue, under the heads of customs, excise, inland taxes (which though managed by the same board, it will be more convenient to take separate), stamps, together with the post-office, and other casual revenues. Without occupying much of the time of the committee, with details of expenditure, or accounts of the progress of our revenue, or the improvement of our internal resources, it is due to Ireland to state what have been the exertions she has made, and how great the contributions she has paid. The revenue of customs, notwithstanding the depression in the last year, when the consumption of British produce was so greatly diminished, was yet greater than in preceding years: it may be curious to trace the progress of this revenue in Ireland. Our earliest official records of trade were of the year 1698; the gross produce then was only 183,000l. In the next half century, the produce was not quite doubled, but it more than doubled in the fifty years following, the produce being in the year 1797, 847,000l., thus in one hundred years, the customs had increased fourfold, but the produce in the year 1815, was 2,681,000l., so that in the last eighteen years, the whole amount had more than trebled the fourfold increase in the last hundred years; and since the union, it is to be observed, that of this revenue, the most part was collected on foreign merchandise imported, as that act prevented any alteration on the rates of British manufacture for twenty years: thus precluding the state from making an import of at least four millions value, available in a financial point of view. Some branches of this import would have been very productive indeed. And it is a circumstance, narrowing, as it does, his available means, which should always be held in mind, when an Irish minister is called upon for revenue on articles of consumption. In the year 1815, the per centage duty on exports was reduced; notwithstanding which, the customs in the last year exceeded the preceding year in the amount of 208,000l., the increase arose on wood, which produced 123,000l., and on wines and tobacco, which produced 100,000l. The increase on these articles was owing to that act, which I had the honour to propose, by which our permanent duties were brought up to the British rate. Had it not been for the depressed state of the agriculture of Ireland in the last year, and the consequent internal distress, I have no doubt the customs revenue would have been much higher. It will be invariably found that a decrease of revenue on the import of British manufactures, is the result of a diminished export of corn and provisions from Ireland. It is, indeed, art obvious and inevitable result. The real value of corn and provisions exported in the year 1815, was 1,400,000l. less than the year before, the decrease in British manufacture imported was to the amount of 1,000,000l., and the loss to the revenue, more than 100,000l. The duty on woollens alone, fell off 36,000l.

I have entered, Sir, into this detail, because I am sure it will be satisfactory to the committee to learn, that no decrease has taken place in any of those articles upon which I deemed it my duty to propose new or additional imposts, and because, while we contemplate the growth of our resources during the last twenty years, and an amount of revenue higher than ever before produced, we may expect that by the encouragement afforded to our agriculture, and the markets given to our produce, as well as by the general improvement in the collection of our revenue, that revenue may be made to correspond still nearer with the expenses of the state. The measures which parliament has lately taken are eminently calculated to improve our natural resources. In these instances your liberality has been wisdom. In the last year the export of corn of all sorts was 1,512,000 barrels. In 1813, the year of our greatest export, it amounted to 2,100,000 barrels; but I anticipate sanguinely the operation of that bill which affords to the agriculture of Ireland the best encouragement, and insures to England her independence of foreign supply. It is satisfactory to know, too, that the prices of grain are gradually advancing; nor should the Irish grower be discouraged, as the shipments since the 5th of January last, have amounted to more than half a million of barrels. Of linens, our peculiar manufacture, and almost the exclusive source of the wealth of the northern province, the export of 1815 was greater than that of any year since 1803. The year 1795 was distinguished by the greatest export we had ever sent out: it amounted then to forty-six million yards. in the last year it was forty-three million three hundred and eighty-three thousand yards. I know it has been asserted that there was a decrease of ten million yards. I know not how the comparison has been made: I speak from facts and from the account on the table of the House. There were also exported of Irish cotton one million seven hundred thousand yards, valued at 86,000l.; we had not before exported them to any extent, but several manufactories have been recently established in the north of Ireland, and on an average of the three years preceding the union, compared with the three last years, the increase in cotton wool and yarn imported will be seen. The quantity of cotton yarn has been doubled since the union. I have satisfaction, Sir, in mentioning this, because at the time of the union the ruin of this manufacture was supposed to be at hand, and much evidence was produced before the Irish House of Commons to show that it could not withstand English competition. The export of butter, another great source of our wealth, has been progressively increasing. The real value of the export in 1793 was 840,000l.; in the last year the value of the quantity exported was 2,271,000l., although the price had fallen greatly in the latter year; and I doubt not that the additional protection afforded in the present session of parliament will be of infinite importance to us: in giving this view of our duties of customs and of the principal articles of our exports, I am anxious to afford to parliament as accurate a statement as I can of this portion of our revenue, and of our national resources [Hear, hear!].

The duties of excise have been particularly productive; first, with respect to spirits, from regulations adopted by parliament in the session of 1813 and 1814; the revenue on spirits alone, in the latter year, amounted to 1,575,000l., being an increase beyond the preceding year of 762,478l.; and the average increase in the revenue from spirits, in the last four years, was over 1811 328,000l. I shall not now, Sir, with this question, consider that of a reduction of duty, which many persons have urged; I shall merely observe, that in 1810 the duty was 2s. 6d. the gallon, and that the excess of produce in the year 1815 (though not so great as the year 1814) was 736,000l. above the year 1810. The average increased produce of the malt duty in Ireland in the last three years amounts to 245,000l.; the entire amount of the revenue produced from malt in 1812 was 304,000l. In 1813 it amounted to 533,000l., and in the last year to 655,000l. I must in candour, however, remind the committee, that we cannot hope for a continuance of a produce so great as this, since that portion of the duty has been repealed which corresponded with the war duty in Great Britain. The excise duty on tobacco yielded in the last year 560,000l exclusive of the duty of customs of 242,000l., making the whole revenue from tobacco 800,000l. I need not advert to the other minor branches of excise, they are inconsiderable in produce, being altogether much under 100,000l.

In the branch of assessed taxes there have been two augmentations made by parliament within the last three years, the first of 25 per cent., and by the second, all our existing rates were assimilated to those of Great Britain. The produce in 1812 was 342,000l.; in the last year 681,000l.: this has been owing, not alone to the duties being raised, but to the improvement of the collection, and from the manner in which the assessments have been made: I anticipate this year a still greater produce. In the last three years the increase, as compared with 1812, has been 339,000l. per annum. The above is exclusive of hearth duty. The committee are aware that a bill is now in progress for relieving particular descriptions of houses from the latter duty, as well as from the house tax; parliament thus marking its disposition in favour of the lower orders of our numerous population, who will be, if those bills are sanctioned by the legislature, freed from the payment of all direct taxes to the state.

The net produce of stamp duties in the year 1816, was 560,000l. exclusive, it is to be observed, of the duty on spirits and excise licences, which have been transferred to the excise department. The stamp duties were raised in the last session, and I estimated the annual increase at 45,000l.; the last six months of the year yielded an increase of 56,000l. Bills are now in progress consolidating the laws relating to stamp duties, and I anticipate, particularly from the regulations enforced in the offices of courts of justice, a more beneficial result than from any increase of duties—the checks adopted have already been found most effectual, and I may here take occasion to mention, that if the separate administration of the finances of Ireland should now terminate, I shall endeavour, as it is my duty, to leave as little trouble and labour as I can for my right hon. friend in the way of legislation as acts have either passed, or are now passing through this House, digesting and consolidating the laws affecting the great branches of our revenue [Hear, hear!]. The post-office, and the other casual sources of our public income, I may average as producing 130,000l. a year. To the first I have never looked as merely a productive source, but as the means of great general accommodation and improvement; and it has been, particularly since the union, made essentially subservient to those purposes. To recapitulate the whole, Sir, the gross produce of the revenue of Ireland in the last year was upwards of seven millions, and I state the gross produce, because the expenses of management being a part of the joint charge, the sum of 7,000,000l. is what we have available for debt and contribution.

There is but one other point, Sir, to which I desire to call the attention of the committee, the state of the sinking fund of Ireland, as compared with our unredeemed debt, and as contrasted with the sinking fund applicable to the redemption of the debt of Great Britain; I compare them, because it will show that the sinking fund of Ireland being so much richer than the British sinking fund, England would be in the same proportion benefited by that union of sinking funds which would follow the consolidation of debts. The income of the sinking fund of Ireland, applicable to the redemption of the debt in Ireland, is 736,000l. being as 1 to 35¾; that which is applicable to the redemption of Irish debt in England, is 1,665,000l. being as 1 to 56¼, both our sinking funds making a total of 2,401,000l., or as 1 to 50 on the whole debt of Ireland, while the sinking fund of Great Britain, affected as it has been by the operation of the late acts, is as 1 to 62⅝. Although, Sir, I shall find it necessary to propose to parliament the cancelling a certain portion of stock in the hands of the commissioners of the national debt in Ireland, as a provision for the interest of the treasury bills to be issued for the service of Ireland in this year, the sum required, if parliament should approve of that proposition, will be so small, as not materially to affect the general state of our sinking fund. Until after my right hot. friend shall have stated the finances of the year, and given us a general view of the public expenditure, I cannot accurately ascertain the amount of contribution to be provided. Our sinking fund will still be richer than that with which it is to be united. It is to be remembered, that we have never recurred to it, until we had exhausted taxation; and I may venture to promise that the utmost sum which we can want will still leave our sinking fund, as compared with the whole of our debt, as I to less than 54, while that of Great Britain will be as 1 to 62. The proportion, it will be seen, is greatly in our favour, nor are those considerations to be lightly thought of. I remember, my right hon. friend last year stated, what at that time seemed to make a great impression on the House, that the sinking fund of Ireland was then double what the sinking fund of Great Britain was at the commencement of the war of the French revolution, while the debt of Ireland, great as it was, was not half so great as the debt of Great Britain was at that period.

Before I left the subject of our revenues I ought to have adverted to those heads of taxation which England has adopted, and which have not yet been tried in Ireland; they are not many, nor would they be productive—not productive at least to the extent upon which gentlemen may have calculated. We must take into account the diminution upon some of our existing branches—in those of licences and hearth-money alone you would lose more than 200,000l. annually, for parliament must bear in mind that vital enactment of the union which prevents your levying a tax on any article higher than that levied in Great Britain. I have myself always considered that the continuance of the hearth duty was only to be defended on account of our exemption from the house duty paid in Great Britain. Besides the house duty, the other taxes which we have not are all in the excise; the principal one, that on beer, upon moral and political grounds, I should extremely regret to see introduced in Ireland. In a word, all that we could yield to you would be inadequate to defray, not our separate contribution, as the act of union has imposed it upon us, but even that deficiency which our nett revenue exhibits, inadequate as it is to meet the annual charge of the interest of our debt. I say nothing of the charge which this year will add, while that revenue has lost so great a portion as the repeal of the malt duty will deduct from it. Besides, Sir, the duties on articles of British growth and manufacture, yield more than half a million. It will be for the legislature to consider whether the ad valorem duty of ten per cent. can be continued after the internal taxes of both countries shall have been equalised. What are they, in fact, but a tax upon the consumption of our people—they are paid upon every article that he either uses or wears, by the inhabitants of that country which is least able to pay. I know, Sir, that for twenty years the act of union has continued them—not for the sake of the revenue, but under what I deem a manifest error, the principle of protecting duties; as if such duties upon British industry were the means of sustaining or improving ours; or as if deducting ten per cent. from Irish capital, was not impairing materially those means which were wanting, to apply to the improvement of other objects more suited to our people, our industry, and our soil [Hear, hear!]. I have not willingly adventured, Sir, into the discussion of a point, upon which I know political economists have differed, and upon which great misconception, if I may presume to call it so, exists in Ireland, as well as in other countries. I have alluded to it now, merely as connected with the prospects of our future revenue. For the same period of twenty years, we are precluded from touching the great articles of salt and coals, and I am glad that we have been: it is very questionable how far the first ought to be made more a source of revenue than it is, and connected as the consideration must be with the revenue drawn from salt in this country, it is a subject which will call for all the experience and judgment of my right hon. friend. It has been my duty, in candour, to remind the House, that there is this great and productive branch of revenue comparatively untouched. I am sure I shall not be suspected of keeping out of view any part of our future resources. I should deprecate, perhaps, Sir, any great augmentation of the duty on coals; the effect of it on our manufactures, as well as on the comforts of the people, who have no internal supply, would be severely felt, but it is my duty also to prevent this subject, any more than the other, from being unnoticed by the House.

I should have wished, Sir, to have connected with the arrangements to he proposed to parliament, the great subjects of the assimilation of our currency, and the state of the exchanges which now exist, it would seem unreasonably, between two parts of the same kingdom. I know, Sir, that its present rate is owing to that diminution of our native exports, and of their value, which affected us in the last year; and I fear very much, that when we come to remit any considerable portion of our revenue, to meet those charges which have hitherto been defrayed by loans raised in this country, the evil will be much aggravated. I call it an evil, Sir, although it does operate indirectly as some separate benefit to us. It does not reconcile me to it that it acts as a bounty on our exports, or even, what is better still, as being a tax upon absentees, that it keeps some portion at least of our gentry resident at home. If, Sir, an assimilation of our currency could be accomplished, and that restriction on bank payments, both in England and in Ireland, were removed, the exchange at once corrects itself. I wish not to embarrass the arrangement, by any attempt to unite the banks of England and Ireland; I know the objections that would be felt on both sides of the water, but I should hope, that whenever the restriction from the bank is removed, an assimilation of the currency may be concurrent with it. Really, Sir, the difficulty is not so great as some suppose; still less would the loss be than what the people of Ireland think. It will not occupy the committee a single moment, if I just state how I think it might be effected. Might we not pass an act, providing that all existing contracts should be considered as discharged if paid one-thirteenth less of nominal value than they had been contracted for? It would affect the reality of no engagements except those under twelve-pence, and it would affect them only to the extent of one-thirteenth. Even this slight variation would be beneficial to the poor, and those who receive in small sums. I beg pardon—there is one other class, namely, the officers of the courts of law, who would be benefited; for if, as an hon. and learned friend of mine stated the other night, their profits are made up of fees under a shilling, they would have reason to be glad of this assimilation of currency; but, to be serious, I really think there would be no difficulty in it, if the measure were fairly explained to the country. As to the difference of our rates of interest, I shall make no observation now; the laws under which it is regulated in Great Britain are to be shortly brought before the House, which will give a more favourable opportunity of noticing the difference which exists on that subject also

I have endeavoured, Sir, to present to the committee such information as I have been able to furnish; I may have perhaps gone too much into detail; but it has been necessary, as the ground of that proceeding which alone remains for us to take. I have stated to you the opinion of successive committees of your own body, recommending that parliament should exercise that power which the act of union has reserved to it; and indeed it appears now to me that there is no alternative. I hope it will not be said to-night, Sir, that Ireland has thrown a great additional burthen on the rest of the empire to save herself. Oh no, believe me, in her exertions she has not been backward. You contracted with her for an expenditure which she could not meet—your own share of which you could not meet but by sacrifices unexampled—by exertions the tension of which only England could have borne. Ireland had been led to hope that her expenditure would have been less than before she was united with you. In the fifteen years preceding the union it amounted to 41,000,000l. but in the fifteen years of union it swelled to the enormous size of 148,000,000l. The increase of her revenue would have more than discharged, without the aid of loans, an expenditure greater than that of the fifteen years which preceded 1801. Ireland has absolutely paid in taxes more than 78 millions being 47 millions more than her revenue in the 15 years upon which her contribution had been calculated [Hear, hear!]. Your own committee showed you what an advance in permanent taxation Ireland had made, even greater in proportion to former revenues than that of Great Britain herself, notwithstanding the immense exertions of the latter, and including her extraordinary and war taxes.

If, Sir, I have shown, that the collection of the revenue has improved in latter years, and that even under the pressure of the times its produce has increased, let me not be supposed to arrogate any merit to myself—much more is owing to the zeal and industry of those departments to whom the administration of it has been more particularly committed; for myself, if any thing could add to the authority which I am conscious that I derived a share of from the confidence of parliament, and the support that this House has given to the measures which it has been my duty to propose, I owe it to those noble persons who have presided over the Irish government, and to him particularly who has now, administered the affairs of that country for the greater part of the time that I had held my present office [Hear, kear!]. He has never in any one instance considered that power, or those appointments which were vested in him, but as trusts for the benefit of the revenue in all its branches. To the noble lord I owe this testimony. There is another debt, Sir, which I shall not attempt to pay; it is to the friendship and co-operation of him with whom I have been united in office since our first entry into public life, but I cannot express all that I feel with respect to him, I could not even, if he were not present, express it [Hear, hear!]. I can say no more upon this subject; I have almost said too much: I shall put the Resolutions which I have to move, into your hand, doubting not, that the committee will adopt them—that we shall this night contribute to the accomplishment of that great measure, the accomplishment of that union, which is the proudest monument of his reign, who for more than fifty years has swayed the sceptre of these free and powerful kingdoms. Not doubting that a united parliament will remember what it owes to that people, who have contributed so mainly to those glories, which have brightened the administration of his son [Hear, hear!]. Sir, these days will pass away, but I trust that the principles of generosity and justice, which are congenial to both our people, may, like that great compact which unites them, be perpetuated by our acts, and that the interests of Great Britain and Ireland may be inseparable

Dum Domas Æneæ Capitoli immoblile saxum.

Accolet Imperiumque pater Romanus habebit.

The right hon. gentleman concluded his speech, amidst loud cheers from both sides of the House, with moving the three following Resolutions:—

" 1. That it is the opinion of this committee, that the values of the respective debts of Great Britain and Ireland (estimated according to the provisions of the acts for the union of Great Britain and Ireland) have been, at a period subsequent to the said acts, in the same proportion to each other (within one hundredth part of the said value), with the respective contributions of each country respectively, towards the annual expenditure of the United Kingdom; and that the respective circumstances of the two countries will henceforth admit of their contributing indiscriminately, by equal taxes imposed on the same articles in each, to the future expenditure of the United Kingdom: subject only to such particular exemptions or abatements in Ireland, and in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, as circumstances may appear from time to time to demand; and that it was no longer necessary to regulate the contribution of the two countries towards the future expenditure of the United Kingdom, according to any specific proportions, or according to the rules prescribed by the said acts of union, with respect to such specific proportions.

" 2. That it is the opinion of this committee, that it is expedient that all future expenses henceforth to be incurred, together with the interest and charges of all debts hitherto contracted, shall be so defrayed indiscriminately by equal taxes, to be imposed on the same articles in each country, and that from time to time, as circumstances may require, such taxes should be imposed and applied accordingly, subject only to such particular exemptions or abatements in Ireland, and in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, as circumstances may appear from time to time to demand.

" 3. That it is the opinion of this committee, that such legislative measures should be adopted as may be necessary to carry into further effect the purposes of the said acts of union, by consolidating the public revenues of Great Britain and Ireland into one fund, and applying the same to the general services of the United Kingdom."

said, that he had never undervalued the efforts of Ireland in the common cause, and that he should be glad of any measure which might render the burthens of that country more equal to her means of supporting them: but he could not be very friendly to a proposition, the ultimate effect of which must be to throw almost the whole of the burthen of the late war on Great Britain. He alluded to the various predictions he had made respecting the inevitable defalcations which would arise in the Irish revenue; and contended, that all he had said had been verified by facts and the experience of time. He had said that Ireland had not kept up to the bargain that had been entered into, but had been receding every year. What was proposed was a most extraordinary cure, and perhaps the only one that could be resorted to. But it was a perverse interpretation which the right hon. gentleman had given of the act of union, to assume, that because it might be competent to him in 1816 to make this proposition, it would have been equally so in 1811 or 1812. If this were the best way of meeting the difficulties of Ireland, let it be adopted; but let it be understood that Ireland must depend for some years to come on loans alone for the whole expenses of the peace establishment, as they could not possibly be defrayed by taxes. This was indeed a melancholy and deplorable state of things, as the event must tend to plunge Ireland still deeper into debt. But this fact, coupled with all that had transpired concerning our situation, ought to induce ministers to turn their minds to measures of the strictest economy and retrenchment; and he could not refrain from pressing once more on the House, how necessary it was to reduce our establishments. Adverting to what the right hon. gentleman had said respecting an assimilation of the currency, he contended, that so far from being a cure for evil, the measure would not even be beneficial. Respecting the alteration in the salt duties, he observed, that this would be of little avail; for many parts of the laws relating to the revenue, nay, he might say almost the whole of them, required revising and entirely re-modelling; for the state of peace had placed things in such an unnatural situation, that it would be impossible to maintain these laws on the footing on which they had flourished during the most extraordinary war that had been concluded. The confusion created by the distillation laws, both in England and Scotland, proved the necessity of their being revised and altered, and the sooner the attention of his right honourable friend, the chancellor of the exchequer was turned to this subject the better. He objected to the first Resolution, and added, that he felt it his duty to watch over the provisions of the bill in question, though he was far from suspecting, that any thing improper was intended to be introduced into it; but he wished to take care that there might be something like restitution and reciprocity provided for, when the revenues of Ireland should be restored to a flourishing state; which he hoped and predicted they would be, when the internal dissensions and other causes that had depressed them, should be put an end to. Every thing showed, that though the exertions of Ireland had been great, they had not been effectual; he was in doubt whether this was the time for the consolidation of the two exchequers, and he also doubted whether his right hon. friend would be able to introduce any system of taxation, which would enable the taxes to be collected at a cheaper rate. On the whole, he was sorry to find that a great deal of what he had foretold had come to pass; and it was incumbent on ministers to relieve us from the burthen, we should have to bear, as soon as they could. He concluded with an eulogium on Mr. Fitzgerald's public conduct. The right hon. gentleman had disclaimed a merit to which he was fully entitled. He considered him as deserving the thanks of the House, and of his country, for his financial administration. [Hear, hear!]. He should consider his retirement as a great public loss If the affairs of Ireland had been conducted with signal success, it was owing to the exertions of the chancellor of the exchequer of that country [Hear!].

in explanation, observed that he had not supposed the assimilation of the currency of Ireland and England would alone produce any effectual difference in the rate of exchange between the two countries, which must always be proportioned to the state of their respective balances of imports or exports. He did think, however, that by the assimilation of the currency, much of the difficulty heretofore arising from the dissimilarity of coin would be avoided, and much of the apparent difference of exchange would be obviated.

observed, that there were two enactments of the act of union, which deserved the most serious attention of the committee. The first was that which provided, that the expenses of Ireland should not depend in any degree on her own discretion, or be determined by her local occasion; but that it should be measured by a certain proportion (two-seventeenths) of the expenses of the united empire. The second enactment related to the limits between which the chancellor of the exchequer for Ireland was to exercise his ingenuity to raise the means by which the contribution of Ireland to the general expenditure was to be paid. In order to show how great had been the efforts of Ireland since the union, he had only to state that her contributions to the general expenses of the empire in the fifteen years which had elapsed since that event, amounted to 103,000,000l. The whole amount in the same period of the available revenue which Ireland had at the time of the union, was 12,735,000l.; so that the contract between the countries had imposed upon Ireland an expenditure eight times as great as her revenue, calculated at the amount at which it stood at the union. There were only two modes in which the several chancellors of the exchequer for Ireland could perform the task of raising this contribution—they must do it either by a loan, or by an increase of taxation. Under the peculiar circumstances of irritation attendant on the union, it would not have been wise immediately to increase the taxation; nevertheless in order to prove that the finance ministers of Ireland had not shrunk from their duty in this respect, it would only be necessary to state to the committee, that in nine years from the union the produce of the taxes in Ireland had been nearly doubled. At the time of the union it was 2,440,000l.; in 1810 it was 4,280,000l. At present the produce of taxation in Ireland was 5,752,000l., being as fourteen to six, compared with that produce at the time of the union. In fact, taxation had been carried in that country almost to its ne plus ultra. The honourable member then went into a variety of statements, showing the different periods at which the Irish expenditure exceeded its revenue, and the amount of such excess, and observed, that in consequence of this increased excess the necessity for the consolidation of the exchequers of both countries existed some years back, as it was impossible that Ireland could bear additional taxation. He did not mean to say that Ireland had been hardly dealt with, in this increase of expenditure. She had only borne that proportion which had been established by the act of union, and the result of her great disbursements from that time to the present was, the acceleration of that union of the exchequers, which ultimately should take place. He was convinced that no English member of parliament would wish to see Ireland pay more than she could bear, and as an Irish member, not considering parchment rules, but the unwritten principles of justice, and those benefits which Ireland had derived from her connexion with England, he could not object to an equality of expenditure [Hear, hear!]. When he considered the benefits which Ireland had received from her close connexion with England, that her agriculture had nearly doubled, and that her commerce had advanced in nearly the same proportion, he could not but hail the present measure as one which would draw the connexion still more close, and he looked forward in confident anticipation of its happy effects.

said, that he never would come before that House in forma pauperis, when pleading the cause of Ireland. On the contrary, he would contend, that she was entitled to claim a reconsideration of the unfair system of contribution which was fixed for her at the period of the union, and the injustice of which was now unravelled by her complete bankruptcy. If Ireland had not met her expenditure, it was not because she had not made exertions to increase her revenue, but because the union had imposed a burthen which it was impossible for her to bear. Though not a member of the Irish parliament, he had given his support to that measure, influenced by expectations which had proved delusive, and by promises which had not been fulfilled. Taxation had since then been enormously increased, and the public measures promised had remained unaccomplished. Much had been said of the great progress in improvement which Ireland had made since the union. He was aware of this in regard to her agriculture; but in the article of linen, the only manufacture which she possessed, it could not be concealed that her exports were less now than in 1792 and 1793. The whole of the increase was in raw produce, not in manufactured articles. The right hon. baronet then adverted to the many evils which had arisen to Ireland in consequence of absentees, and observed, that an equality of taxes in both countries would render those evils permanent, as they would hold out no inducement to the landed gentry of Ireland to reside at home. He next observed, that at the time of the union, those who negociated for Ireland had overlooked many things which, if examined with due regard to the welfare of Ireland, would have since been productive of great advantage to her. For instance, the Channel trade was made subject to no increase of duties, and the consequence was, that from the small proportion which the foreign trade of Ireland bore to her English trade (being only as one to three) she was cut off from any considerable increase in her customs, while these were continually increasing to England, her foreign trade being to her trade with Ireland as three to one. The result then was, that the Irish finance minister was obliged, in order to meet the increase of expenditure, to lay additional taxes on the inland trade. Malt and spirits were then taxed to such a degree as to hold out a strong inducement to illicit distillation. Illicit malting and illicit distillation were carried to such an excess of late, as considerably to diminish the revenue arising from these two branches of excise in Ireland. When this was considered, the expenditure increasing while the means to meet it were in some degree lessened, would it be said that Ireland came in forma pauperis if she sought to dissolve the contract, or such part of it as bound her to an unequal expenditure? The right hon. baronet then went on to show that the great increase of taxation in Ireland would destroy its intended effect, as it would necessarily, in the present distressed state of that country, tend to diminish the consumption of the articles which were taxed. He had at several periods expressed his disapprobation of the unequal quota which Ireland was called upon to pay, and now again said that the sooner the contract was dissolved the better. He deprecated the idea of any increase of the assessed taxes in Ireland, as abridging the comforts of an important class of the community, and thus weakening her connexion with this country. Adverting to what the Irish chancellor of the exchequer had said on the subject of salt and coals, he professed his conviction that no higher salt duty could be raised in Ireland; and laid it down as a general principle, that no article, in consistency with the enactments of the union, ought to be more highly taxed there than in this country. There was one other thing which he wished to mention, namely, the assimilation of the currency. He contended, that if there was not an equality in exchange, it existed in the shape of discount; and to establish this fact, he wished to refer the House to the examination of some of the most intelligent members of the bank of England in 1805. He would not, therefore, protract the discussion by entering into any farther de tails on this subject; and having, as he conceived, fully expressed his opinions with respect to the immediate point before them, he should leave the decision to the justice and wisdom of the House.

rose to offer a few observations on what had fallen from his hon. friend (Mr. Bankes) and the right hon. baronet who spoke last. His hon. friend, with whom he could not agree in thinking Ireland in a state of bankruptcy, had argued, that the present was not the fittest time for entering into this subject as four years hence, when the twenty years from the passing of the act of union had expired, he understood the whole question would be open to be dealt with by parliament as they should deem expedient, and not till then. He was surprised to hear such an opinion from his hon. friend, and could not think he had read the act attentively, if he conceived that the House would have more power four years hence than it at present possessed. When the twenty years from the passing of the act of union were at an end, parliament would have from that act no discretion to exercise as to the quota of Ireland, but with respect to the regulation of it according to a certain criterion there laid down. A number of articles were there enumerated, such as beer, spirits, wine, tobacco, malt, &c. which were left open to those financial arrangements which the minister might think advisable; but there were other sources of revenue, which it had been thought ought not in ordinary cases to be meddled with. This had been suggested on the principle of its being desirable to tie up the hands of the stronger power for the better security of the weaker one; but any difficulty that in the present situation of things might arise from that regulation, would be equally in the way of any new arrangement that might be proposed at the end of four years.

The only question which the House had to consider was, whether they should proceed anew to regulate the quota of expense to be borne by Ireland, according to the criterion laid down in the act of union; or whether a different measure should be resorted to in order to relieve her from her present difficulties? If the resources of Ireland were so great, and so likely to fructify, within the period which had been named, as to enable her to meet the charges she had been expected to bear, that would be an argument for waiting till the twenty years had expired; but if there were no reasons for supposing she would be more able to do this at the end of the four years, than she was at the present moment, then he thought no new delay ought to take place, and that the more manly course was to meet the question at once, than to drive it off to any future period. When the union of the two countries was effected, the difference, which then existed between their respective debts had prevented the consolidation of their revenues. This great desideratum had promoted the Scotch union; the debts of the two countries were so little dissimilar, that by paying a sum of money to Scotland, the difference between them was easily adjusted, and the government of that day had been enabled to effect the union of their exchequers. When the union with Ireland took place, the debts of that kingdom and of England were so dissimilar, that such an arrangement as had before been made in the case of Scotland could not be accomplished. Ireland, in being united to England, was of course unwilling to take upon herself a part of the debt of this country, and required security against such an attempt. It was in consequence provided, that while the debt of England so greatly exceeded that of Ireland, the latter country should not be taxed in proportion to the total expenditure of the empire, but should only pay in the ratio of what remained to be paid, after the interest on the debt was thrown out of consideration. The difference between the debts of the two countries was now the other way; they had been about equal in 1811, but now the difference was against instead of being in favour of Ireland. He had stated what security had been given to Ireland that no part of the charge of the English debt should be thrown upon her, and had now to mention the security given that no article should be taxed higher in Ireland than in England, and as some commodities could not be taxed so high without great injury to the country, it was provided that such modifications should be made in favour of Ireland as local circumstances might require, if from any change that might occur, the taxes generally should be placed on a footing of equality. If the debt of Ireland became so great that she could no longer provide fot it, a consolidation of the two exchequers became absolutely necessary. That point at which the debts of the two countries were on an equality had been passed in 1811. It was therefore proper that the consolidation of the exchequers should now take place without further delay, as to go on without doing this could produce no good effect, since it would require Ireland to do that which it Was already known she had it not in her power to accomplish. Having availed herself of one of the two securities given her at the time of the union, so long as the state of her debt would permit of her doing this, Ireland now threw herself on the other, and would henceforth be liable to equal taxation with England, subject to those mitigations in her favour which circumstances might appear to demand.

He wished not to revive past controversies, but he felt it incumbent on him to take some notice of the remarks made by the right hon. baronet opposite, on the quota which Ireland had been called upon to bear. He had not expected the right hon. baronet, without some strong reason for so doing, would have brought this forward, and have treated the subject as if any thing had occurred to refute what had so often been admitted, that there was nothing in the arrangement made with respect to the quota, that could at all detract from that liberality which had ever marked the conduct of this country towards Ireland in money matters. It was a curious fact, that the right hon. baronet, finding, after sixteen years had elapsed since the passing of the union act, that the quota of Ireland was more than she could now bear, should thence argue, that it was unjust to throw it on her formerly. Much as the measure of the union was opposed at the time the act passed, and great resistance he well remembered was then made, and naturally—for no country could give up what it considered to be its independence, without a pang; a question was never raised on the harshness or injustice of putting on the sister country that quota of the public expense which it was proposed Ireland should bear. This, indeed, it had so happened, was, perhaps, the only part of the arrangement which was not objected to at the time; this had been admitted to be fair and liberal, and conceived in a spirit of indulgence to Ireland. It would have been fortunate for the negociators of the union, if they had been relieved from the necessity of determining the criterion by which the quota of Ireland should be regulated, as it was a task of no small difficulty. Had the property-tax then existed, perhaps that would have been the best criterion they could have selected: but that tax not being at that period in operation in Ireland, he thought the best had been adopted that could have been named in the absence of the impost he had mentioned. The criterion chosen had been founded on the wealth and resources of the country, it had pressed on the consumption of those articles which, if necessary, were still sufficiently luxuries to be so treated. At the time the course pursued in this respect was thought unobjectionable, and he apprehended the right hon. baronet did not take that view of the subject then which he seemed disposed to take of it now, or the measure would not then have enjoyed that favour which the right hon. baronet, though then out of parliament, had thought fit to bestow upon the bill. The situation of Ireland at the present day, it was highly probable, would not have been better than it is, even if the union had not taken place, and the evils complained of would have been more irremediable. He was sure the right hon. baronet could disprove this fact, and he (lord Castlereagh) was satisfied, that if, instead of fifteen years of war, the country had enjoyed fifteen years of peace, or only passed that period in the prosecution of an ordinary war, Ireland would not have been called upon to submit to a larger expenditure than she was used to bear before the union. The expense of the war in which the country had been engaged, had exceeded all calculations that could have been applied to it prospectively, and especially from that period at which a new character had been given to it by carrying our armies to the continent, and fighting in the peninsula for the liberties of the world. Had the union not taken place (and he would be very willing to go into an examination of this question on a future day), still if the war had continued, the situation of Ireland must necessarily have been such as to cause a rapid increase of her debt. This must have occurred to her had she remained as a separate country, and the fact could hardly be disputed when it was remembered that her expenditure for the internal service of the country amounted to 4,000,000l. per annum. She must though separate, have been still getting in debt, and not less rapidly than she did in the early years of the union. In raising her loans she must have incurred a great expense which bad been spared her in consequence of her connexion with England. She could not have negociated them at home on such favourable terms as she had been enabled to obtain them here, with the security of this country on her side. With such a guarantee, it could not be doubted she had gained advantages in these transactions which otherwise she could not have expected.

But it might be said, that England would have exerted herself in favour of Ireland though the union had never taken place. It was certainly not to be denied that England would make every exertion in her power to prevent Ireland from being disturbed, or to save her from falling into the hands of an enemy; but was it reasonable to suppose that this country would be content to go on from year to year supporting another country, with a distinct legislature, if no general agreement was come to in some great principle intimately connected with its interests. When speaking on the subject of the increased expenditure of Ireland since the union, it ought to be remembered, that the events which had since occurred, could not then be foreseen. At that period the national expenditure amounted to but 32,000,000l. and was not expected greatly to exceed that sum in any future year, and consequently all the calculations then entered into were made accordingly. It was not supposed by any one that the public expenditure would increase as it has done in the last six years, to 40, 50, 60,000,000l. and within the last two years to near 80,000,000l. per annum. Could it be thought extraordinary, when events had occurred to call for such stupendous exertions—when the world had been so convulsed as it had been—that the calculations founded on the prospect of ordinary times, should have proved insufficient?

But it might be asked, why had the debt of Ireland increased more rapidly than that of England; so that having been much smaller in proportion, the difference between the debts of the two countries was now thrown the other way. It was obvious, that this arose from the great local advantages of England, which had enabled her within the period referred to, to raise 250,000,000l. by means peculiar to herself—by the facilities he possessed for raising loans, by the taxes she had been able to bear, which gave the minister the means of raising a greater proportion of the supplies of the year within the year, than could possibly be accomplished in Ireland. Had Ireland been capable of similar exertions, she would not have run so rapidly in debt. Nothing that he had heard that night made at all against the system established at the time of the union. To him it appeared the wisest that could have been adopted at that period, as it was impossible to anticipate the events which had since occurred. It was fit that Ireland should only pay her quota of the national expenditure, while her public debt was so much below that of England. Now that her debt had risen so as to do away that distinction which had formerly been made, it was fitting that an arrangement should cease to operate, and that the taxes should take their natural course in both countries, on a footing of equality.

The construction which the right hon. baronet had this night put on that part of the union act which relates to the power of mitigating duties imposed in favour of Ireland, the noble lord said, was new to him, and he had really been surprised that the right hon. baronet should have ventured to throw the argument he had advanced on this subject seriously before the House. He could conceive nothing so little capable of being maintained as the position, that because, from peculiar circumstances, modifications had once been made in favour of Ireland, that these were to be perpetual. He must protest against such a construction being put on the words of the act, and contend that, according to common sense, it could not be intended that when that state of things no longer existed, which had made such relaxation necessary, it was nevertheless to be allowed to all eternity, and not one additional shilling demanded from Ireland after the consolidation of the exchequers, without a similar duty being imposed upon Ireland. The injustice of such a scheme was only to be equalled by the facility with which it might be evaded. If it was desired to do this, it would only be necessary to repeal for a short time, or for no time at all, the duties which might already be in force, and subsequently impose equal taxes on the two countries, and thus at once deprive Ireland of the advantages she might promise herself by a quibble in legislation.

He repeated, his opinion was, that when the twenty years from the passing of the union act expired, the House would not be more able to deal with the subject now under their consideration, than they were at the present moment, and this to him appeared the time at which the question ought to be met. He doubted not that by England the change would be received with that generosity and good nature, with which this country had always viewed any arrangement for the benefit of Ireland. Whatever other complaints they had heard from Ireland, and certainly they had heard many, they had heard no complaints of taxes. On other subjects complaints were common, but taxes seemed to be the least grievance felt in the sister kingdom. It was highly creditable to the country that those which it had been found necessary to impose, were so patiently borne, and it was also creditable to the servants of the Crown in Ireland, that they had made arrangements which caused so little discontent. The House would feel this compliment was due to his right hon. friend the chancellor of the exchequer for Ireland, who certainly, during the three years he had been in office, had made as great exertions as it was possible to make in the important situation which he had the honour to fill. He had to provide for an immense expenditure in the three last years. He had suggested the ways and means necessary to meet the great charges which the country had to bear, and, much to his honour, and to the honour of the country, his three budgets had been completely realised. He had to provide in these three budgets, for the interest of loans to the amount of 2,000,000l., and the ways and means he had pointed out, had produced the sums he had calculated would thus be raised [Hear, hear!]. Though at present the state of Ireland could not be boasted of, yet he agreed with the right hon. baronet opposite, that she did not come into this partnership so reduced that it ought to be said of her, she came in forma pauperis There was so much wealth, so many resources, and such sterling worth and merit in the country, that if England did but allow time, he was confident she would find an able supporter and a fruitful source of national strength in Ireland. As an Irishman, the noble lord said, he was far from feeling himself humiliated by the appeal now made to parliament. The measure suggested by his right hon. friend this night, was one which he thought ought to be adopted, and that without delay. There could be no advantage derived from deferring it till the twenty years from the passing of the act of union had expired, and much inconvenience might be felt from such procrastination. With these feelings, and on these grounds he gave his most cordial support to the resolutions.

ridiculed the idea of estimating the ability of any country to bear taxation by the consumption of certain articles, a circumstance that might depend more on manners than on wealth. Every body knew that the Irish were more prone than the people of England to consume the articles in question. With regard to the subject then before the House, he considered it absolutely necessary that something should be done, and he was not aware that any better system could be adopted. The word " bankrupt" might sound harsh, but if " insolvent" sounded better, then Ireland was completely insolvent, and had been so for many years; she was not able to pay even the interest of the debt which she owed. What, then, remained to be done? England must pay it for her. But could any useful inference be drawn from this? Yes; the inference was, that ministers ought to diminish the public expense both in England and Ireland, wherever it was practicable to reduce it. We might tax Ireland as much as we pleased, but we should get nothing from her; she was not in a situation to furnish the taxes which we might call upon her to pay. The noble lord had said that the Irish had complained least of all of taxation; but they did complain of it most grievously. The gentlemen of small fortunes in Ireland, that valuable portion of the community called the landed gentlemen, were taxed out of every comfort in life. Did the noble lord mean to deny this? The fact was established beyond all doubt, by a paper then upon their table, which stated, that more than 3,000 notices had been given in one year of the discontinuance of carriages of various descriptions. The load of taxes on Ireland was intolerable, and the revenue which ministers expected from her could not be collected. He did not blame the chancellor of the exchequer for Ireland for the present situation of things in that country. It was no fault of his, and the only remedy that could be supplied was, perhaps, the measure now about to be brought forward. He did not complain that this had been adopted too soon: his fear was it had been resorted to too late. He did not agree with the noble lord in thinking that Ireland had derived great advantage from her loans being negociated in England The Resolutions were then agreed to.

said:—Sir; I feel it my duty to oppose the bringing up of this report. If any thing could surprise me which proceeds from his majesty's ministers, I should feel the greatest surprise at the proposing a measure like this without one single reason being offered to show its necessity. It is a measure wholly repugnant to the fundamental principles of English policy, from Magna Charta to the year 1792—repugnant to our constitutional policy, acted on without exception in all the various situations whether of external or internal danger to which this country has been at any time exposed. We have had disputed successions to the Crown—we have had formidable rebellions—we have been threatened by the most serious attacks from without the disaffected at home have been in the most intimate connexion, and known to be in the most intimate connexion with very powerful enemies abroad. But in no period of our history did it ever occur to any statesman to propose a measure like the present till the unfortunate and extraordinary events of 1792. Had I been in public life at that period, I have no hesitation in saying that I should have disapproved of this measure then; and from all I have learned since, I am now of opinion that at that time it was unnecessary and unwise. If any gentleman thinks any advantage can be made of this avowal in the present debate, he is at perfect liberty to use it. But I am not obliged to argue this now—I am not obliged to argue that the measure was improper in 1792: for the circumstances which gave rise to it then no longer exist. We are not now in the situation of 1792. There is no point of resemblance between the two periods; some grounds, therefore, ought now to be shown for the adoption of this measure. But not one word has been said on the subject—not an attempt has been made to show the shadow of a reason for passing this bill. The ministers have not mentioned or alluded to a single fact to justify the subjecting such a number of persons to a tyrannical power (and the greater their number, the greater is my objection to depriving them of the protection of the law). They have not only not stated to us a fact of which we might judge for ourselves, but they have not even asserted that they know of a fact to justify this measure, which we might receive upon confidence. The right hon. gentleman, the undersecretary, of state (Mr. Addington), did not pretend to show any ground for it. He said that the measure was not new, because a similar bill was passed two years ago. He said that it was not coercive, because the War Alien Bill, as it is called, was much more coercive and tyrannical. He said that it was not contrary to the British constitution, because of a passage in Puffendorf; lastly, he said that it was not expensive, because it cost only a few thousand pounds a year, and of these one would be saved. Now, really, Sir, much as I am attached to economy, the last consideration that would have occurred to me on a measure of this sort would have been the expense of it. Then the noble lord called it a " remedial" statute. What meaning the noble lord affixes to the word " remedial," I am ignorant. But my hon. and learned friend, the solicitor-general, maintained that it is a part of the king's prerogative to send foreigners out of the country at his pleasure. If I did not misunderstand my hon. and learned friend, he asserted, that the powers given by this act are already a part of the king's prerogative, and that this act only gives the power of more effectually and conveniently exercising this prerogative. Now, Sir, I have a very great respect for my hon. and learned friend, and great deference for his opinions; but he must permit me to say, that he did not offer one argument or reason to support this doctrine; and notwithstanding the authority of my hon. and learned friend, I should think it wholly unnecessary to revert to this part of the argument, but that I think it incumbent on me to protest against such a doctrine, and to declare that I know of no such doctrine in the law of England. Neither now, nor in 1792, when a similar doctrine was attempted to be set up, has there been one argument or authority adduced to bear out such a position. My hon. and learned friend had to contend against Magna Charta and a host of other statutes, against the authority of lord Coke, and against the undeviating practice of the law of England; and what had my hon. and learned friend to set against this? A loose passage, or rather part of a passage, in Blackstone—an opinion of, I think, sir William Northey, and his own opinion. Of all these, I must take the liberty to say, the last authority is infinitely the best. My hon. and learned friend's opinion I should think very great authority if it came from any other part of the House than that where he happens to sit. But I must be excused if, on a point of prerogative law, I do not consider the opinions of the attorney and solicitor generals as the best authority. For the passage in Blackstone, it consists of a few loose words at the end of a sentence, without quoting any authority whatever; and I believe it is the only instance in that author of his advancing a material proposition in law without citing his authority. I have looked at the passage since, for I had forgot there was any such assertion in Blackstone; and it is of the loose and vague sort I have stated. But I wish my hon. and learned friend had read a little further in Blackstone, when he was about it; he would have found in the next paragraph, that Black-stone quotes the passage which has been referred to in Magna Charta; and the words of Montesquieu alluding to it—who mentions, with praise and admiration, " that the English had made the protection of foreigners a part of their national liberties? Sir, our ancestors, by a policy, equally prudent and liberal, when stipulating with their monarch for their own privileges, made it a part of those stipulations that foreigners should be protected. This has remained the law of England ever since. The king has no more power in England over a foreigner, so he be not an alien enemy, than over a native. He is entitled to the equal protection of the same laws. When he sets his foot on English soil, he is under the protection of English laws; he is by the laws of England no more subject to the caprice of a secretary of state than an Englishman. It is a part of the liberties of England, and of Englishmen, that every man in England shall have the equal benefit of the laws of England, with no more distinction between the foreigner and the native, than between the peer and the peasant; and there is no single circumstance in our policy that has tended more than this to raise the character of this country in the opinion of foreign nations.

It is said this power must reside in the sovereign power of every state, and Puffendorf is quoted. It is very true the sovereign power in every state has the right to dismiss foreigners from the territory of the state, and foreign nations have no right by the law of nations to complain of the exercise of this right, if it be not exercised invidiously against one particular nation. But the present is not a question of the law of nations, but of the law of England. The king is not the sovereign power in England—the parliament, king, lords, and commons, are the sovereign power of England. Certain parts of the sovereignty have been delegated to the king. But, except in so far as these parts of the sovereignty have been delegated to him, the king is no more the sovereign of England than the lords alone, or the commons alone, are the sovereign of England. The king is the head and organ of the state in its foreign affairs, and it is said this is a part of its foreign affairs. It is no doubt so far a foreign affair that if a foreigner be misused, his sovereign or his nation has a right to complain. But it is more than a foreign affair—it is a domestic affair—it is a part of our municipal law, that tyranny shall not be exercised in England over any man, be he native or foreigner; and the king, by the law of England, has no more power over the one than the other.

The noble lord mentioned two reasons that might exist, for granting such a power as is bestowed by this bill; first, the danger of foreigners disturbing your own government; and, secondly, the danger of their carrying information to foreign countries. Now, it is obvious that this last refers only to a time of war—to information that may be conveyed to an enemy. But where is the danger of conveying information to an enemy, when we have no longer any enemy existing? As to raising commotions in this country, is there any body who seriously entertains such an apprehension? Is there any body who really believes that at this moment there is any danger to the government, from any foreigners who may resort to the country? The noble lord says, that certain principles may have been put down, but they cannot be yet extinguished. Does the noble lord believe, or will he say that he believes, there is any danger to this country from any principles that remain unextinguished? It is ridiculous to talk of it. The noble lord has said, would you throw open

the country to all the spirits that lately surrounded Buonaparté?—I am not much of a believer in spirits, or their power, and I am very sure that the common law of England is quite sufficient to defeat all their machinations. But those spirits that surrounded Buonaparté, seem at any rate not much given to republican notions, or much disposed to resist authority.

There is only one other observation which has been made in support of the bill, which I am desirous to notice. The noble lord has said it will not be displeasing to foreign powers. This is with me the strongest reason for opposing it. I cannot consent to part with the genuine principles of English policy in compliment to the arbitrary notions of foreign monarchs. I would rather endeavour to persuade them to adopt some of the maxims of Engglish policy. I cannot consent to enter into a combination with them, to introduce into England tyrannical principles unknown to the genius of our laws. But I would rather counsel them, if they would retain the throne which they have re-acquired, to transplant to their own countries some of the liberal and wise institutions of this. I cannot therefore, Sir, consent to a measure which, without any ground of necessity laid for it, places in the hands of a secretary of state an arbitrary power unknown to our constitution—subject to the greatest abuse, even in the hands of the best intentioned minister—which renders him a tool and instrument of oppression the most grievous, in the hands of some concealed informer not so well intentioned as himself. It is said he is under the control of parliament—that he is answerable to parliament. In what way is parliament to arrive at the knowledge of the facts, if abuse have been committed? In what way is an inquiry to be conducted? How are we even to discover that inquiry is necessary? How are we to learn sufficient to judge whether it is probable the power has been abused, and right that inquiry should be instituted? It is in the very nature of the power demanded that the proceedings should be secret and concealed. It is in its very nature that its exercise should be without remedy or control. I oppose it, therefore, on this ground—that it gives occasion to oppression and to wrong; for which, in the nature of the thing, there can exist no remedy. Sir, for these reasons I cannot consent to the bringing up this report.

said, that the idea, that the king by virtue of his prerogative could send aliens out of the country, did not rest on Blackstone alone. Blackstone had quoted Puffendorf, who was a liberal writer, to prove that the law of nations, which in questions of national law was the law of England, necessarily vested such an authority in the sovereign power of every state. Lord Grenville, too, in the debate on the alien bill, in 1792, said that, in former days, the Crown was entrusted with a power over aliens, and the prerogative in that respect was considered very extensive. Lord Loughborough was of the same opinion. He was not aware of any decided case on the subject: but in questions of English law, in the absence of decided cases, the opinions of learned men were of weight. By the statute 27th Edw. 3rd it was enacted, that merchant strangers might safely come and remain in the realm with safe conduct. It thus appeared, that in those days the broad principle of admitting strangers was not adopted, but only those were suffered to reside here whom we could get something by. He believed there was not a state in the world in which the sovereign had not a power over foreigners. The English constitution was made for the benefit of Englishmen, not of foreigners. It was true that while they remained here they ought to have all the benefit of the English law, but they ought not to have the power of staying here as long as they pleased. He acknowledged that in 1792 the state of things was not the same as at present, but the measure was befitting any state of things. It was said, the power might be abused, but so might all powers. If any minister abused the powers given him by the act, he might be called to account. As for the Habeas Corpus act, he did not know what that act had to do with the present case, for foreigners were not mentioned in any part of it. It was established for the benefit of Englishmen. He should, therefore, support the bill, as he thought it necessary to give effect to the prerogative of the Crown, and as not a single instance of the power being abused since the year 1792 had been adduced.

said, that though it was of little consequence in the consideration of the question before the House, what the law was, yet it was of great importance that most erroneous opinions put forth by lawyers of rank and eminence, should not go out to the country without contradiction. His three learned friends had quoted Mr. Justice Blackstone as an authority that the king had the power to send aliens out of the country. Now, any one who turned to Blackstone would see that he was authority for no such proposition: but that he stated that which the warmest advocate for the royal prerogative (and few went further than his learned friend who spoke last) would now maintain. Blackstone stated, that the king had the power to send aliens back to their own country. That this was not law was evident from what had passed after the treaty of Amiens. This country had stipulated by that treaty to send back to France all murderers, forgers, and fraudulent bankrupts; yet even to fulfil this stipulation it had been necessary to pass a specific act of parliament. Could any one pretend, after this, that the Crown had the power which Blackstone so unfoundedly ascribed to it? But it was necessary to protest against this doctrine, or we might soon see some practical effects of it. They knew not how soon, if this power of the prerogative were admitted, the ministers might send back the Spanish liberales or the French emigrants to their respective countries to perish at the stake or on the scaffold. But the learned Serjeant, as he could find nothing to support his argument in Coke or Dyer's Reports, had had recourse to the Parliamentary Debates, and not satisfied with quoting as undoubted law the opinion of an attorney-general, given at the instance of a secretary of state had proceeded to quote the words of a secretary of state alone. Such was the foundation on which a permanent alien bill was raised, which gave the secretary of state power, not only to banish, but to imprison in time of peace, all aliens at his pleasure! Where had there been an instance of the exercise of this newly-discovered prerogative? Of the exercise of powers claimed under the prerogative, but which were now universally reprobated as illegal, many instances were to be found in Rymer's Fœdera, and other collections of state papers, but of the exercise of this power not one instance was to be found, except a solitary case in the reign of Henry 4th, notwithstanding the temptation which some sovereigns must have had to exercise it, if it existed, and especially queen Elizabeth, who was so frequently in danger from foreign emissaries. It was surprising that his learned friend who spoke last, could assert that the powers granted to the ministers had never been abused, in spite of the many instances which had been mentioned. It was absurd to talk of calling ministers to account for the exercise of a power from the very nature of which no evidence of its abuse could be brought forward. As the power was in itself so objectionable, and as the opinion of its antiquity only rested on the authority of his three learned friends, who were evidently misled by the supposed authority of Blackstone, he should oppose the motion.

said, he could not understand in what manner the hon. member who had spoke last had gotten rid of that most learned commentator's opinion, Mr. Justice Blackstone. He never had entertained a doubt but that the Crown had the power of sending all aliens out of the country, with the exception of foreign merchants. Magna Charta and the statute of Edward 3rd protected this trading class of men, upon the principle that " exceptio probat regulam." The protection given by the statute of Edward 3rd was to merchant-strangers and others, that was other merchants. The first part of it protected merchant-strangers in coming to and going from the country, but the others should only be subject to the usual customs. As he understood it, therefore, the first class was to be protected as to their persons, and the others should be obliged to pay no more than the usual customs. This was of itself a pretty strong proof of the ancient custom on this question. But Coke upon Littleton had further distinctly stated, that the uniform practice in former times was, that when an alien came over into this country, if he were a merchant, he might have a house; but if an alien and not a merchant, the king then took possession of the house. This, then was another proof of the ancient usage, and would completely stop the mouths of those gentlemen who so strongly maintained that it had always been the habit of this country to encourage the residence of all sorts of foreigners. Some further authorities he would cite to the House as additional proofs of what he had already urged, and first from the parliament rolls of 1 Rich. 2nd, containing the petition of the House of Commons to the Crown, and the answers to it by the latter. The petition of the House was, that it be enacted that all aliens should avoid the realm; that those foreigners now in the country should take shipping at Dover for Calais, and be fined for good behaviour. The House had been told that the king was no sovereign, but that the sovereignty was vested in the king and parliament. If this were the fact, what could all this mean? Did not this petition directly show that the prerogative of turning aliens out of the kingdom was vested in the Crown? He would always stand up for the king's prerogative. It was as much intended for the protection of the people, as the privileges given to the House of Commons were meant to assert and sustain the rights and liberties of the nation. The petition of the 1st of Richard 2nd also prayed that all Bohemians and others should depart the kingdom. The answer of the king to this petition was, that they should be warned to avoid the realm. The 8th Henry 4th also was another authority. The petition of the Commons in this instance prayed that all aliens, with the exception of the impotent and Dutchmen, might be sent out of the kingdom. In the first year of Henry 5th a law was passed on this question, and it was enacted that all aliens should depart the realm, with the exception of alien merchants, who were suffered to reside in the country under the king's will and pleasure. And here it would be observed, that it was found necessary to pass a law with regard to the foreign merchants, and the prerogative was not found sufficient. Upon these various authorities he considered the ancient prerogative of the Crown had been completely established, and that even without the authority of Mr. Justice Blackstone, the House might be satisfied that the sovereign had an absolute prerogative to send aliens out of the kingdom. With respect to the opinion of sir Edward Northey, was it considered that attorneys-general at that time were allowed to twist and turn the laws whichever way they pleased? But who was sir Edward Northey? He was a very skilful and eminent lawyer, contemporary with some of the most profound men in the same profession, among whom were lord Harcourt and lord Raymond, and twice filled the office of attorney-general. Was this, then, a man who would lightly hazard an opinion of this nature? Previous to the year 1792, the Crown was able, by its mere prerogative, to prevent the disturbances that would otherwise have arisen: but when troops of aliens came over at once, and swarmed the country, then it was found requisite to vest a further power in the Crown, and to pass the alien act. There was, previous to the enactment of this law, no mode of turning these meddling, troublesome fellows out of the country, except that of indictment, which was considered by far too tedious. He therefore thought it would be the height of imprudence now to withdraw the bill, without passing a new one in its stead. If, as some hon. gentlemen contended, no prerogative was vested in the Crown, then there was, and it could not be denied, the more necessity for the bill. He most sincerely hoped this would be made a permanent measure; and although he should wish that all sort of kindness and respect should be paid to the aliens, yet it was not the policy of this country to keep within itself a troop of aliens, always prepared to destroy it. Were their arts or manufactures required? Was there not already population sufficient to the demand? And was it not known that, under the mask of hospitality, they were continually meditating mischief and destruction to the very state that protected them,

was anxious to express his opinion on this bill before it went through another stage. A great deal had been said respecting, the sovereignty of the king. Where did the sovereignty of this country exist? The term was, indeed, as a mark of honour and respect, given to the king alone; hat the sovereign authority existed in the king and the parliament: there only could it be properly said to reside; and if any hon. member maintained that the prerogative of sending aliens out of the country was vested in the Crown, by him the sovereignty must be supposed as only existing in the king. This, he contended, was a most absurd and ridiculous notion, and contrary to all the established rules of the constitution. The right hon. gentleman who last sat down, had been at much pains to persuade the House that by the common law this prerogative existed in the king; but he would put it to the House whether, for the last hundred and fifty years, amidst the many troubles and dangers in which the country had been involved, one single instance of the exercise of this prerogative could be given? Did our forefathers consider that this power was vested in the Crown, although disused? One single instance in the reign of Henry 4th, and a petition by the parliament to Richard 2nd, had been cited by the right hon. gentleman who had so strenuously and manfully maintained that the Bohemians were strangers. The right hon. member seemed to have forgotten that an act of parliament was passed to punish capitally all such gipsies; as it was the then received opinion that they had a supernatural charm, which tended to destroy the peace and happiness of the nation. It was said that there were 20,000 aliens now in this country, and that was the excuse for passing the bill; but were there not as many and even more than 20,000 in the country before the French revolution? It had always been the policy of the House of Hanover to protect distressed foreigners, and it had always been the pride of an Englishman that the fetters of the slave were knocked off the moment he sat his foot on British land. There were primâ facie several cases which showed, that the king in former times had not the power to send foreigners out of the kingdom. For instance, it was on record, that in the reign of Charles 2nd, when the prerogative was stretched to the utmost, the king dared not attempt to send out of the country a Frenchman who had deprived his majesty of one of his favourite mistresses. But having forbidden this Frenchman the court, and yet, seeing him seated with his conquest at the theatres, his majesty complained to the sovereign of France, who at length recalled his subject. Thus Charles 2nd was relieved from the mortification of seeing his triumphant rival, and the French writer who recorded the anecdote lamented, truly, that any sovereign should not be empowered to send the cause of such an annoyance out of the country. There might be persons even in our own times who would join in the lamentations of this writer, and therefore approve of an alien bill, but he certainly could not concur with them in supporting a measure so liable to abuse, and for which no necessity whatever existed. As to the assertion of the learned Serjeant, that the liberty of England was for the enjoyment of Englishmen only, he could not conceive upon what authority such an opinion rested. For he had always been taught to think that the moment any man, however previously enslaved, touched British soil, he became entitled to freedom. Such had been the doctrine of all our constitutional writers, and such was his decided opinion.

observed, that many extraneous topics had been introduced in the course of debate; the mere question was, whether the House would allow the enactment of a new law against aliens? The period of 1793 had been referred to, but such reference was only made in the absence of all better argument, since no such comparison was warranted by circumstances. It was not merely a question that regarded aliens; for the abuse of the measure might materially injure the rights of the natural born subject. The right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Yorke) had avowed his wish that the children of aliens, who were in fact natural born subjects, should be sent out of the country.

explained, that his wish was, that the sons of aliens should be deemed dangerous, and their sons, natural born subjects, entitled to all their rights.

proceeded to quote the words of Mr. Burke, who had declared that a bill like the present, in time of peace, would be too great for liberty, and would give too much power into the hands of ministers. Thus the noble lord, a great statesman indeed, had against him the authority of one whom some might think a little greater. He opposed the bill chiefly because it might be an engine of oppression to drive from this country those who fled from the tyranny of their own sovereigns: it might be used against the noble South Americans now struggling for liberty, in whose favour all hearts beat, though few tongues ventured to avow it. He would assert, that the government of Spain was an odious tyranny, and he sincerely hoped that the designs of the " beloved Ferdinand" would be defeated. He would not consent to a bill which would render England the means of entrapping the destitute, instead of continuing their place of refuge as in all former times. He warned the House against giving entire credence to the right hon. gentleman who maintained that all prerogatives which the Crown possessed at any former time should be revived and continued.

rose amid loud cries for the question. He complained that the case which had been mentioned some nights ago in his absence during the last discussion on the bill, had been grossly misrepresented. He asserted that the power with which government was invested by the alien act, had been grossly abused, and especially in the case of the two persons whom he had mentioned on a former evening. For those persons had come into this country solely for commercial purposes, and yet they were sent away without any cause assigned. One of them was stated to be his relation, which was erroneous; for the individual, though of the same name, was a different person. But what aggravated the case was this fact, that one man was sent out of the country instead of another, who happened to be of the same name [Hear!]. This fact the hon. member stated his ability to prove, by producing the man actually sent away through that mistake, for he was actually now in London, while the other was no more.

said, he hoped the House would allow him to say a few words, being charged with illiberality. In fact, from the defectiveness of his sight, he protested he did not know whether the hon. member was in the House or not, on a former occasion. He was really astonished, however, to hear the hon. member say, that M. la Bouchere was no relation of his. All he could reply was, that he had a letter in his office from the hon. member, requesting permission that M. la Bouchere might be permitted to land, he being a relative of his, and coming into this country merely for commercial purposes,

in explanation, observed, that if such a letter could be produced, it would indeed astonish him, for he must have stated what was not the fact. There was a gentleman of that name, a relative of his, but the individual in question was none at all.

The House then divided, when the numbers were

then moved, that instead of two, the bill be renewed for only one year. Upon which the House divided:

The gallery was not re-opened, but we have been favoured with the following brief sketch of what passed during the exclusion of strangers. As soon as the division on Sir Samuel Romilly's amendment was ended,

proposed a new clause, to give effect to that right of appeal to the privy council, which the bill held out to aliens as a security) but which after the decision against hearing counsel, in the case of the baron d'Imbert, (which he must presume to be right), was rendered perfectly nugatory. Did the House intend to afford a real safeguard to aliens by this appeal? When the privy council were required to judge of the validity of the reasons or excuses of the alien, were they also to grant to the privy council all the means of forming a right judgment. Now, unless the charge was in some degree communicated to the accused, there could be no defence. Unless there was a defence, there could be no fair trial. Unless there was a fair trial, the judges were required to judge without any means of judging rightly. To accomplish this purpose, he had prepared a clause, which he should now read to the House:

" And in order the better to enable the lords of his majesty's most honourable privy council, to judge of the sufficiency of such excuse or reason, so alleged by such alien as aforesaid; Be it further enacted, That the lords of his majesty's most honourable privy council, shall cause to be delivered to such alien in writing a general summary of the matters alleged against him, and shall allow him reasonable time to prepare his defence, and that it shall and may be lawful for him to summon, and examine upon oath witnesses, before the said lords of his majesty's most honourable privy council, and to be heard before them by himself, or his counsel, in support of the excuse or reason by him alleged."

The House would observe what he did not ask. He did not presume to ask a specific and detailed accusation. He did not ask, that witnesses should be examined on oath, in presence of the accused, that they should be confronted with him, that he should have the privilege of cross-examining them. He did not venture to propose a trial by jury, under the eye of a humane and vigilant public. He did not demand the common securities for innocence, without which the law of England presumed, that no man could be justly doomed to the slightest punishment. These he did not dare to propose for aliens, that is, for those who needed legal protection the most—who were more obnoxious to vulgar prejudice, and least covered by the natural defences of connexion and sympathy. But these, he well knew, were the luxuries of criminal justice reserved only for Englishmen. They had this night heard, that English liberty was only for Englishmen, English justice and English humanity would by this bill be confined to Englishmen also. All that he ventured to propose was, that a person, such as had been described by his hon. and learned friend (sir S. Romilly), a merchant who had resided fifty years in this country, who had formed all his connexions and friendships here, a man of large fortune, estimable character, should not be liable to be expelled, at an hour's notice, from his home of choice, which deserved, perhaps, as much respect as the home of chance, without having the shadow of any means left to prove his perfect innocence, or to demonstrate that this banishment would be a cruel oppression to him, without in the least contributing to the safety of the state. All he implored the House to grant was, that the privy council should in this jurisdiction stop one step short of the holy inquisition: the only tribunal on earth which wholly conceals the accusation, and the accusers from the accused. He repeated, that he did not expect the fullness and precision of an indictment. Some mere general notice of the nature of the charge, was all he presumed to hope. He called only for some frail security for innocent men, for some light to guide judges to righteous judgment, and if this clause were rejected he solemnly appealed to all impartial men, of the present and future times, to decide the character of a measure, which required that men should be doomed to severe punishment, without even a general notice of the charge on which they were to be convicted. He had at any rate discharged his conscience, by struggling to prevent the privy council from being compelled to act on the principles of the inquisition.

The resolution was then moved and seconded.

wondered, that his learned friend should so much reprobate the proposed power to be vested in the privy council, of imprisoning an alien without hearing his witnesses or his counsel, which was no more than the council had always done to natural born subjects on charges of treason and sedition. He was extremely astonished to hear his learned friend compare this well-known proceeding to the inquisition.

in explanation, stated that he was much more astonished to hear his learned friend confound an examination for a committal and a subsequent trial, with a hearing for the purpose of deciding whether a man were to be absolved or punished. He had not compared the first to the inquisition; the second was precisely the mode pursued by the inquisition.

animadverted with force and severity on the confusion of an examination, to determine whether a man should be committed to take his trial, with an examination to determine whether he should be punished.

thought the proposed clause would be equivalent to a repeal of the alien law, which was a measure of policy not to be executed according to judicial forms. He said that it would only give the alien an opportunity of reviling the government, and putting the ministers on their trial.

asked, what sort of law was it which would be entirely defeated by the most distant approach towards justice?

animadverted in terms of the keenest poignancy upon the grievance apprehended by lord Castlereagh, that government was likely to be reviled at a secret hearing—that the ministers were to be put on their trial before the privy council, or, in other words, before themselves.

After some farther discussion, it was agreed, that sir James Mackintosh should be allowed to bring up his clause, in order that it might be entered on the journals as a protest, and that the division should take place on the question, whether the clause should stand part of the bill.

then pressed the necessity of an adjournment, to give an opportunity of a full discussion of so important a clause at an hour better adapted for that purpose. [It was then two o'clock.]

This was strongly resisted, and gave rise to a warm conversation, in which sir S. Romilly, Mr. Abercromby, Mr. Attorney-General, lord Binning, lord Castlereagh, and Sir James Mackintosh, took a part.

declared his intention of dividing on every possible occasion, so as to force an adjournment of a matter of such moment to a fit time, and pledged himself to persevere as long as his bodily strength held out.

accepted the challenge, though he owned the appeal of Mr. Wynn to his own strength to be apparently very formidable.

After two divisions, which under different forms respected the question of adjournment, lord Castlereagh moved that the bill be now engrossed (which would preclude further amendments in that stage) on which Mr. Wynn moved that this debate be adjourned till Thursday. Lord Castlereagh seeing the determination of the other side, and considering the state of the Speaker's health, at length yielded, and the debate, at three o'clock in the morning, was adjourned till Thursday.