moved for leave to bring in a bill, the object of which was the protection of the lives and limbs of his majesty's subjects, by correcting the enormous abuses of stage-coach drivers. Within these few days it would be hardly credible what a number of applications he had received on this subject. Some accounts were enough to freeze one with horror. A gentleman of veracity had informed him that on Tuesday, the 21st of May, at half-past five, the Trafalgar and Regulator coaches set off from Manches ter, and got to Liverpool 20 minutes after eight, doing this journey in two hours and fifty minutes, at the rate of 12 miles an hour. The coachmen flogged their horses all the way down a hill of a mile at the entrance to Liverpool, and in getting into the town one of them ran for a considerable time on only two of its wheels: luckily no accident happened. At present the magistrates could impose a fine of 10l.; but the proprietors generally attended, paid the money, and told the coachman that, as he had beaten the opposition, he might do so again. Cases of desperate driving had occurred, when a passenger refused to be driven at such a dangerous rate, and insisted on getting out, and being accommodated with a post chaise; but the answer was, you can have no chaise, as the contract is to carry you to such a place within a certain time. The weight placed on the tops of coaches was an important consideration, and it was useless to trust this to the driver's discretion. He should not now include that subject in his bill; but was ready to assist in any measures for the purpose of correcting evils of this kind. He wished to give the magistrate the power of imprisoning for three, and not less than one month in atrocious cases, leaving the offending party the right of appeal to the quarter sessions. He then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for the more effectual prevention of the mischief occasioned by the inconsiderate driving of stage coaches, and other public conveyances."

alluding to the number of persons allowed to be carried on the outside of stage coaches, observed, that the law on this subject was daily infringed, and asked whether the learned gentleman meant to introduce any clause in his bill on this subject.

admitted the propriety of some further strictness on this subject. Perhaps the turnpike-keeper ought to be fined for letting such overloaded coaches pass.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

asked, whether it was proposed to make a new arrangement of all the statutes, and re-enact the whole in one statute next session? Or was it only an index that was intended? The first mode appeared extremely inconvenient, as it would require all the wisdom of the law to overcome the difficulties of such an arrangement. There should be a publication by parliamentary authority of all the statutes, preliminary to ordering of a classification, digest, or index.

said, that the proceeding came from the Lords, and he apprehended the object was to procure, by some convenient arrangement, a consolidation of various statutes: but he did not understand that any one believed that the whole of the statutes could be systematized and reduced under certain particular heads. He had always thought that the statutes, in some branches of the law, might be reduced into a body, much to the general convenience.

thought the plan would occasion much expense, without immediate utility. It might be better to adopt it at some future time; as our statutes were not at present in a sufficiently perfect state. When the text was corrected, then we might make a proper index, and that might be all that would be necessary. He moved, that the debate be adjourned to that day three months.

thought it would not be treating the other House respectfully to decide without sending them any answer.

stated the great difficulties attending the consideration of so many statutes, with all their bearings and references, which must be most carefully looked through. He could not tell what plan was proposed; but he thought it ought to be laid before the House in detail, before they could proceed in the measure.

supported the amendment.

said, that a work was far advanced, under the management of that eminent lawyer, Mr. Evans of Manchester, which would embrace the object of the measure now proposed to the House.

did not understand what was the object in view. What was it that the other House wished them to do.

The House divided: For the Amendment, 26: Against it, 60. The following Resolution was then agreed to: viz. "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said resolution so amended, That from the present state of the statute law of this realm, it is highly expedient that effectual measures should be taken to arrange the matters contained in the statutes of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and in the statutes passed in the separate parliaments of England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively under distinct and proper heads."

wished to ask whether it was true that lord Exmouth had concluded a treaty with the dey of Algiers, stipulating, among other points, for the ransom of the Sardinian and Neapolitan prisoners?

replied, that an arrangement had been concluded by lord Exmouth with the dey of Algiers, on the part of the powers alluded to, by which those powers were to be placed on the same footing with regard to Algiers as other friendly powers.

wished to be informed whether it was not stipulated in the treaty, that a certain ransom should be paid, he would not say for British subjects, but for the subjects of powers in alliance with, and under the protection of Great Britain? And if so, how far were we responsible for such ransom?

replied, that such stipulations had been made, but not without the authority of the other powers, who, and not we, had made the guarantee, as principals in the negociation which we had effected.

asked whether the noble lord had any objection to the production of this treaty?

answered, that he should have no objection to communicate it at the proper moment.

expressed his doubt as to the expediency of rendering vivâ voce examination necessary before a grand jury, in order to the finding of a bill. There were cases in which a grand jury, could not find a bill, because they could not have the vivâ voce examination which it rendered necessary. The one case was where a man had been murdered, and who only survived his wounds time enough to give a written deposition as to the identity of his murderers. In this case a grand jury could not find a bill, because they could not have vivâ voce examination. The other case was where a man had been indicted on his own confession, which he might afterwards retract. On these grounds, and the general inexpediency of the bill, he should move that it be read a second time "this day three months."

contended, that the bill was unnecessary, and would imply a censure on the past conduct of grand juries in Ireland.

defended the principle of the bill. If there were any objections to the minor details of the bill, they could be easily removed in the committee.

would give his support to the bill, if he understood it rightly. He wished that the laws of the two countries should be assimilated as much as possible, where no practical inconvenience would be likely to result. But he had some doubt whether the bill would be productive of much advantage, if the information sworn before the magistrate were not also sent to the grand jury with the indictment. Without this he thought it would be difficult to come at the truth, for frequently a different statement was given before the jury from what was laid before the magistrate. He also wished to be informed, whether it was intended to introduce a clause, by which a person giving a different statement to the grand jury from what be had given in his first information, should be indicted for perjury? Unless this were done, a great opening would be given to persons to commit perjury with impunity.

said, there could be no doubt if a witness gave false testimony before a grand jury that he could be tried for perjury, and convicted on the evidence of grand jurors. In an indictment for a malicious prosecution, it was stated by the late Mr. Justice Buller, that the oath of a grand juror was intended for the furtherance of justice, and not to stand in the way of it. The other question went more to the manner in which the bill would be carried into effect. The information could not be considered as evidence—it was not on oath—and in England no such evidence ever reached a grand jury. At the same time it might be hard to deprive a grand jury of all assistance derived from information. He thought it would be better, therefore, to leave it to the discretion of judges, when the strict rule of law might be relaxed.

stated, that he had conversed with most of the judges, grand jurors, and lawyers in Ireland, on the subject of the present bill, all of whom were of opinion that it would lead to confusion in the administration of justice.

was convinced that the bill would have the effect of greatly lessening the number of trials in Ireland, and therefore he should give it his cordial support.

defended the bill, and quoted the opinion of baron George, one of the Irish judges, and several other high authorities, in its favour. He hailed the measure as one of the mort important steps to restore tranquillity in Ireland.

approved of the principle of the bill, but wished some alterations to be made, which could be effected in its progress through the House.

supported the bill, because he thought that as the law stood, the party accused in Ireland had not the same protection extended to him as in this country.

did not understand why the English law might not be executed in Ireland as well as in England, if it was extended to that country. The jobs and corruption of the grand juries were well understood by the lower classes in Ireland, and had very much prejudiced them against the administration of the law in general.

thought it would be improper to prejudice the minds of the grand jury by suffering the information taken before the magistrates to go before them.

The House divided: For the original Motion, 50; For the Amendment, 10. The bill was read a second time.

objected to the provision of the bill which created two new lords of the treasury. He acknowledged that the chancellor of the exchequer would want some additional assistance, but this assistance would not be given by the creation of two new lords, whose places were mere sinecures. He should propose some amendment, by which an additional secretary, or some other officer, should be appointed instead of these two lords. Another officer was to be appointed by the name of vice-treasurer. This officer was to be allowed to sit in parliament, for which he saw no reason, as the object for which he was to be appointed was, that there should always be an officer of the treasury residing in Ireland authorized to issue money. The vice-treasurer was authorized to issue money under the order of the lord lieutenant. He thought this would defeat the object of the bill, which was to keep the issue of all money throughout the kingdom under the control of the treasury of Great Britain. He wished also to know whether any regulation was to be made as to the appointment of the officers under the different revenue boards? By law in Ireland the appointment of the different officers under the three boards of excise, customs, and stamps, should be appointed by three commissioners, with the authority of the lord lieutenant; but the fact was that these officers were appointed by the lord lieutenant, frequently without consulting the boards at all.

said, that the hon. baronet must have known, that, for many years, the board of treasury in England had been so overwhelmed by business as to be almost incessantly employed, and, in fact, to have been obliged to give up those periods of relaxation, to which, in former times, they were considered entitled. Under these circumstances, when the accession of labour which the Irish business would bring was considered, it could not be deemed unreasonable to obtain some additional assistance, and therefore it was determined to select two new lords from those persons who were best acquainted with the subject of Irish finance. It should be recollected that this increase to the English treasury board was but trifling, compared with the diminution which took place in the Irish treasury, which, exclusive of the chancellor of the exchequer, had consisted of five lords of the treasury. The additional emolument of the English chancellor of the exchequer, on receiving the Irish seal, would be only what the fees of the seal produced, namely, about 1,000l. a year. With respect to the observations which the hon. baronet had made on the influence which the lord lieutenant had on the issues of money by the vice-treasurer, he begged to remark, that the lord lieutenant had no power whatever to grant money of himself—these points being, of necessity, under the control of parliament, or the board of treasury in this country. In fact, on whatever occasions he acted with respect to the issue of money, he did so rather ministerially than discretionary. Another point in the bill was the salary which it would be proper to give the vice-treasurer. When the dignity and importance of this officer was considered, he thought his salary could not be less than 3,500l. a year. The hon. baronet had asked why the vice-treasurer should be permitted to sit in parliament? As an officer of rank and condition, he thought he ought not to be excluded from the House, but, on the contrary, should be a person capable of adorning this or the other House of Parliament. With respect to the patronage at present vested in the lord lieutenant, to appoint officers to the different boards, it was not intended to deprive him of that privilege. The same patronage was vested in the board of treasury in this country, with respect to all the boards, except the board of excise. He had only to add, that it was his intention to introduce a clause in the bill to enable the vice-treasurer to do his duty by deputy, when occasion might require.

stated, that his principal objection to the plan was, in the first place, that it created the new appointment of a vice-treasurer for Ireland. He could not at all conceive any functions arising out of such a capacity which could deserve the remuneration of 3,500l. a year, and a seat in that House.

said, he was always ready to argue that the right of appointment to offices under the revenue in Ireland ought to rest in the treasury board of that country. It was, in fact, an office as strictly appertaining to Ireland as the executive functions of its government, or the office which he himself had the honour to hold, and which was generally admitted to require his presence in that House.

regarded the proposed measure, by which a new office was to be created, the duties of which were to be discharged by a deputy, whilst the principal sat in that House, as nothing less than an insult to the public in this season of national distress.

remarked, that the office of vice-treasurer was one of considerable antiquity.

approved of an increase of salary to the chancellor of the exchequer for the united empire. It was obvious that the increase of duty demanded an increase of salary. He condemned, however, the proposed salary of the vice-trea- surer, as he judged that office to be a mere sinecure, and he saw no reason why a person filling that office should be a member of parliament.

said, that whatever station the vice-treasurer was taken out of, it was right that he should execute the duties of his new situation himself. He also thought that this being a new office, the person who filled it ought not to have a seat in that House. If no other person, took up this point, he would, in the proper stage, move an amendment, embracing the principle he had just laid down.

said, it had been in contemplation to allow some compensation to the clerks who might be dismissed, but the number had not yet been determined.

was of opinion, that the officers of the Irish treasury, whose services would be done away by this bill, should be transferred to England, and be employed in the treasury department of this country.

said, that he had always hoped that the old and faithful officers of that department would receive compensation for their offices, the only reward they could receive, perhaps, for the services they had performed. It was his duty to bear testimony to their meritorious conduct. The House would never think of transferring them to the treasury of England. To oblige them to leave their families and their homes, would be an excessive hardship. As to one of those officers, a gentleman holding the highest rank among them (Mr. Crofton) his advanced time of life made it impossible to hope for his services in England, or even in his own country, in an office more eminent, such as he was qualified to fill; that gentleman had been more than 36 years in the public service, and a man of higher honour, of integrity more spotless, of a fidelity more distinguished, or of an equal zeal in the public service, he had never known.

was anxious to express his entire concurrence in what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman respecting Mr. Crofton. He was convinced that there was not in England, in Ireland, or in any other country, a better or more efficient public officer than that gentleman.

The bill went through the committee.