said, he held in his hand a Petition from the merchants, factors, warehousemen and others in the city of London, engaged in the trade of Cotton piece goods. The petitioners stated, that their trade was at present in a dreadful state of depression. This was, no doubt, owing to a combination of causes; but one of the most important was the unrestricted exportation of cotton yarn. This, in the opinion of the petitioners, was giving an encouragement to foreign manufacturers at the expense of our own. He should have moved for a select committee to examine into this subject, but he was deterred from so doing, not because the petitioners could not prove their case to the satisfaction of any committee, but because the period of the session was so much advanced, that no report on the subject could be received before the prorogation of parliament.

said, it was necessary that a much more enlarged view should be taken of the subject, and that more liberal principles should be applied to its discussion, than had been laid down by his hon. friend. His hon. friend had stated, that in proportion as the exportation of cotton yarn had increased, the exportation of cotton piece goods had decreased, and that the increase of the one was the cause of the decrease of the other. It appeared from official returns that the importation of cotton wool, on an average often years, I previous to 1814, amounted to 72,000,000 of pounds; whereas, on an average of the three years, ending in 1815,1816 and 1817, it amounted to 95,000,000 of pounds, making a difference of 23,000,000 of pounds weight increase in the three last years, compared with the ten preceding years. The cotton yarn exported only amounted to 30,000,000 of pounds, leaving a difference of 60,000,000 of pounds weight, which must be absorbed in the cotton piece goods The observations in the petitions, and the remarks of his hon. friend, might lead the House to suppose that Great Britain had an exclusive possession of skill in the spinning of cotton yarn: but Great Britain possessed no such exclusive skill. Establishments for spinning cotton yarn existed in France, the Netherlands, Westphalia, Saxony, Silicia, Prussia, Austria, Bohemia and in other places. Had his hon. friend visited these countries, he would have found excellent yarn spun in their factories. The average nature of these factories was better than that of the factories of Great Britain. They were in possession of all our recent discoveries: the establishments were mostly directed by British spinners, and the machinery constructed by British mechanics. Great part of the nations of the continent had already either excluded cotton yarn, or loaded the importation of it with high duties. In Austria all yarns, but a small proportion of the very finest, were excluded. In Russia and Prussia the exportation was subject to a heavy duty. Under these circumstances, what other effect could be produced by the imposition of a duty on the exportation of yarn, but to shut it out altogether from the continent. A proposition more absurd than this never was uttered in any assembly. The great complaint on the continent was, that we were too much disposed to exercise an exclusive control overtrade; and this led to jealousies on their part, attended with very serious detriment to our trade. He had little doubt that if the proposition of his hon. friend were adopted, it would lead to a bounty to cotton spinners, and an exclusion of British yarns. His hon. friend said it would lead to a temporary relief to the cotton weavers, and dealers in piece goods; but this he very much doubted. The fact was, that the sale of cotton yarn on the continent was at present nearly impossible. His hon. friend had said that the exporters of cotton yarn sold it on the continent cheaper than they did at home —how any person in his senses should incur all the risk and trouble of conveying his goods to a foreign market, and subject himself to the risk of bad debts for the sake of selling his goods at a lower price than he could obtain at home, he was at a loss to conceive. The average annual importation of cotton wool for 1792, 1793, and 1794, was not more than 26 millions of pounds weight; whereas, for 1814, 1815, and 1816, it was 95 millions. It might be said that this increase of trade was owing to the improvements made by the manufacturers of piece goods; but the fact was, that the whole increase was owing to the improvements made in the spinning machinery by Watts, Arkwright, and others. In this country the cotton spinners had great difficulties to contend with in the high taxes, and the high price of subsistence occasioned by high taxes. The rate of wages of cotton spinners on the continent was not half of what it was in this country. The hon. gentleman then went in to some details, to show that the opinion that the persons employed in the cotton factories in this country were in a miserable condition was totally unfounded, and that these persons were in general better off than persons engaged in other departments of our manufactures.

thought restrictions on the exportation of cotton yarn would only excite expectations which he was afraid might prove illusory.

said, he held in his hands a Petition, which he was desirous of bringing before the House when the hon. member for Glasgow was present. It was from a person of the name of John Montgomery, a weaver in Glasgow, and one of those taken up on the charge of seditious and treasonable practices. On the 23d of February last he was taken up on a warrant of the sheriff, his papers were seized, and he was conveyed to prison, and confined there in a small cell, six feet and a half by eleven, where he was left without food and subsistence for 28 hours. He was kept three days and two nights in confinement, and then brought before the sheriff depute, Mr. Robert Hamilton, for examination. He was a total stranger to all those matters, on account of which he had been arrested. He had attended no political meetings. On the conclusion of his examination, he was sent back again to his cell, and next day, without any further examination, dismissed. It was impossible for him, a total stranger, to answer to the truth of the facts conveyed in the petition; but he believed them to be true. He had received testimonials as to the character of the individual, signed by a great number of persons resident in Glasgow, and also a number of attestations of the truth of the statements. It was perfectly true that this petitioner, as well as every other person unjustly deprived of his liberty, was entitled to redress by the laws of his country. But notwithstanding the courts of law were open, still he thought the case of this petitioner was one which was peculiarly entitled to the attention of the House. The evidence of the charges against this man afforded no ground for detaining him, unless something could be extorted from him on his examination; for the moment he and Weir denied the charges brought forward against them, they were immediately discharged. There was not, in fact, the slightest evidence against them. If this conduct of the sheriff depute was authorized by the law as it at present stood, he implored them to consider what would have been the situation of the subjects of Scotland if the bill for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act had passed into a law, in the manner in which it was originally framed.

said, that, with respect to the treatment of the persons who had been apprehended at Glasgow, they had been accommodated with rooms as comfortable and convenient as could be procured; and as to the petitioner, the cell, as it was called, was better than the room from which he had been removed. Great humanity and attention had been shown by the magistrates to all the unfortunate persons, and he believed that they had even encouraged subscriptions for their families It was customary, however, in Scotland to issue a warrant for the apprehension of persons, without mentioning their christian names, or specifying their situation in life. If he were to go through all the statements contained in the petition, he was sure he could give a most satisfactory answer to every allegation. A more exaggerated account of privations had never been made, and he was surprised that any one could venture to make so unfounded a statement. He was fully convinced of the great humanity of the hon. and learned gentleman who presented the petition; but in this case he had certainly been misled, respecting the facts of the case.

said, that having lately been at Glasgow, he felt it his duty to state the ciroumstances which had come to his knowledge. As to the exaggerations in the statement of the poor man Weir, he could only say that the man waited on him, and made the same statements as were in the petition, and from all the inquiries he made of others, he had reason to believe all the statements were founded in truth. He had waited on the lord provost, and desired to be informed if he might be allowed to examine into the circumstances of the case. He could not find any material circumstances misstated in the petition. He did not wish to throw any slur on the magistrates of Glasgow. The prison of Glasgow was well constructed, and even handsome, and the general management was correct. But he blamed them for this; that when so many persons were without accommodation from Sunday morning to the middle of Tuesday, during all that time no person from the magistrates visited the prison to see what accommodation could be obtained. It so happened, that the two persons who were discharged as soon as examined, were condemned to cells situated as described in the petition. He admitted that they were not damp in the degree which one of them stated; but they were on the ground floor, and cold and comfortless, and the prisoners were without any accommodation. After four days imprisonment they were examined by the sheriff, re-committed by him, and next day discharged without any further examination. As to the law of Scotland, if it were the law to take up persons without having their names distinctly stated, he could only say he never heard it before. But it was not the law of Scotland. The law of Scotland contained no such monstrous proposition.

said, that the petitioner was arrested, as there was no other person in the neighbourhood of his description. In all such cases, however, application for redress should be made to the ordinary tribunals, and not to parliament. He was ready to show that all necessary accommodation had been afforded to the prisoner.

said, that though he thought the committee of police had a right to complain of the expressions which the gentleman, who was called on to attend had made use of, it would be proper, before they proceeded further, to settle how far they might be disposed to proceed against the individual in question.

said, it might be proper first to hear what the party had to say for himself; the House would then be able to decide on the whole question.

said, that when so great a tenacity was shewn of the privileges of the House, that a person who in any publication made reflections on the proceedings of a committee was to be called to the bar, he wished to know how far the House was disposed to go, with regard to other reflections on the House!

rose to order. It had already been determined that the gentleman in question should be ordered to attend. When the House had heard what the individual had to say, any thing might with propriety be urged in his favour.

said, that though it was an order of the day that the rev. Mr. Thirlwall do attend, yet, on the question that he be called in, it was competent for any member to make any further remarks.

said, that though an order had been made for the attendance of the gentleman in question, it was competent for them to relax. What he wished to state was, that notwithstanding the attack upon the proceedings of the committee was censurable, there were other animadversions on the proceedings of other committees, and on the House itself, which had been passed over. He held an extract from a publication in his hand, respecting another committee: — "The aim and object of this committee of placemen is to find reasons, not for the reduction, but for the continuance and preservation of as much establishment, of as many places, and of as much idle and extravagant expense as possible." The House itself, or any member was at liberty to make remarks on the conduct of its committees; but when such animadversions were made out of the House on other committees, it was hardly just, if one case were brought before them, that others should be permitted to pass unnoticed. If, therefore, the House punished an individual for conduct of this description, it would be open to any gentleman to call for the censure of the House on others who made reflections on its proceedings or those of its committees, equally unjustifiable and unfounded.

said, he was sure he would be the last man in the House who would be wanting in support of the right hon. gentleman as to any case where the authority of the House or of any of its committees was reviled or impeached. But then it was to be considered that each case must rest on its own particular grounds; and that there could be nothing more injurious than, when anyone case was brought forward, to say that there were such and such other libels against other committees, which were equally atrocious, and yet had not been punished. Certainly, he had often seen in the public prints attacks on the privileges of the House, which he regretted had been passed over by the House. But here was a case which impeached the authority of a committee while exercising one of the most important functions of the House, namely, its inquisitorial power. The charge made against the committee was that of gross partiality. It had been determined by the committee, that this attack upon it should be noticed to the House, and it was in his capacity of chairman of the committee, and not as coming forward to express his individual opinion, that the hon. gentleman brought forward the subject. The case therefore was this: One of the committees of the House called upon the House for protection of its privileges. This call was entered and recorded on the journals of the House. The libel was acknowledged by its author. His attendance was ordered by the House; and now, if he was not called to the bar, the House would virtually acknowledge that the imputation which he had cast upon the committee was well founded.

agreed that every case of breach of privilege should stand upon its own basis, and that no publication could be defended by a reference to others which a member might conceive to be of a more objectionable tendency. During the debates seven years ago, respecting a breach of privilege, in consequence of which the worthy member for Westminster had been committed to the Tower, he had differed from the majority of the House; he had held at that time in his hand publications of that very morning, which, with this aggravation, that a discussion was then pending, contained, not indeed remarks on the decisions of the House or its committees, but the most indecent and scurrilous libels on the parliamentary conduct of individual members, but it was then argued by the members to whom he had urged these publications, that no defence for one breach of privilege was to be drawn from others. Yet, though it was strictly no defence for Mr. Thirlwall, that many breaches of privilege have passed unnoticed, it was a most material consideration in settling what degree of animadversion should be inflicted on that individual. The feeling, that this infliction should be extremely light, was so general that it was unnecessary to say a word more on that subject. As to the general notice which the right hon. gentleman had given to the House and the public of a new course of proceeding on the subject of privilege, he hoped that idea would be abandoned. A new course of dealing with the public press, unless greater licence prevailed than he saw any reason to apprehend, would be attended with the most serious mischief; and unless the House desired to descend from the high ground on which it had hitherto stood, by putting itself on the opinion of the country, it would never depart from the system which it had hitherto wisely pursued, and by which, the conduct of that House, as well as the conduct of the government, or that of any individual, were open to discussion within certain bounds chalked out by sound discretion. If public discussion respecting their proceedings transgressed all bounds, the House might at any time by making an example of the offender, declare that it should go no further. Hitherto they had lost nothing by abstaining from a too vigilant regard of the publication of remarks on its proceedings; the more they were scrutinized the less it might be found their reputation would suffer, and he dreaded a contrary course more than any blow against the House, except, indeed, one which would destroy their privileges, which might de- stroy their existence, and certainly would put an end to their practical utility—the cutting off what passed there from the knowledge of their constituents.

said, that he never understood his right hon. friend to have uttered any thing in bar of the free communication between that House and the people. He had merely called the attention of the House to the general nature of the offence of which the individual stood charged, and had desired to know how far the House was prepared to go in the general repression of such offences. His right hon. friend had only intimated, that committees on one side of the House as well as another, might be treated with this sort of disrespect, and the chairman be compelled to undertake the painful duty of self-vindication. If the press was to be brought to entertain a proper respect for the privileges of parliament, he begged leave to remind the hon. gentlemen opposite, that the first suggestion for the rigorous exercise of authority for this purpose, did not commence on his side of the House.

thought that could be more fair or what had been just laid down by the noble lord. It used formerly to be the practice of parliament, when the language of any individual in the House was commented upon out of doors, to call the person to account who censured it. I5ut this privilege could not be acted upon now, when the debates were not confined to the walls of the House, but a portion of the House was set apart for the public [Cries of Order, order!]. He was aware he was quite out of order, but it was the shortest way of expressing what he meant.

said, if the hon. gentleman was aware he was out of order, it was to be hoped he would avoid a repetition of the disorderly expression.

went on, and described that what he meant was, that now when the debates of the House were circulated all over the kingdom, it could not be expected that the privileges of the Mouse should be insisted upon with much severity, nor was it desirable that they should. On the other hand, he had always considered it to be a kind of duty in every member to withhold himself from the defence out of doors of any expressions he might have used within. On that duty he had acted strictly and bona fide. He thought they ought not to compromise the general privileges of the House for the sake of any individual; at the same time, as committees could only ascertain the truth from having parties examined before them, it was of importance to the country that those parties should be compelled to answer truly.

felt it necessary to explain the vote he had given on a former occasion, when the reverend gentleman was ordered to be called to the bar. He was astonished to hear an attempt to make this a party question, because the chairman of the committee, by whom it had been brought forward, sat on that side of the House. It arose out of a committee on the police, one point of which concerned the licensing of public-houses. Surely nothing could be more free from party politics than this. He had before differed from the majority of the House in cases in which they had thought proper to visit what they considered breaches of privilege. He had then thought it most improper to proceed against the animadversions on the proceedings of the House, on the same ground as he should have condemned proceedings against the authors of remarks on proceedings in courts of justice. If the present case had been of this description, he should never have voted that the individual should be called to the bar. But what was the case? The police committee had made no report, but had put the House in possession of evidence on which it might proceed. The gentleman in question had published a work to persuade the House not to proceed on the suggestion of the committee, complaining of its proceedings as being similar to the star chamber, the committees of the long parliament, and the revolutionary committees of public safety, and had sent a copy to every member. This was a case similar to that of a publication calculated to influence a jury. If that had not been the nature of the publication, he should not have concurred in passing the slightest censure on it.

considered nothing more injurious to the House than to adopt a very strict conduct as to publications which noticed their proceedings. He did not distinctly understand this offence, but he understood that Mr. Thirlwall had printed and published animadversions which tended to impeach the conduct of a committee of that House; and that the committee had in consequence sent for him to explain himself. He could not tell whether Mr. Thirlwall saw his error, and was disposed to apologize; but as he was ordered to attend at the bar, the question, he thought, could not now be got rid of. Certainly, it could not be done by saying that other libellous matter was published againt the proceedings or committees of the House. He must, therefore, be called in; and if he showed a disposition not to persevere, but rather to acknowledge an impropriety, he wished the lightest measures to be taken towards him. The whole liberty of this country depended on the public notoriety of the proceedings of the House of Commons. Any thing that might be done to impair it, would, in his opinion, be a greater blow to the public liberty than any other measure. For his own part, he would always rather submit to misrepresentation; than interfere in that House with public animadversions on any discussion he was concerned in. Unless the reverend gentleman shewed wilful obstinacy, he hoped the House would visit him lightly.

had no wish to object to this gentleman's being called in. Nevertheless, he approved of his right hon. friend's course, in the present stage of the proceeding rather than in a later one; for in comparatively a new course of proceeding, the House ought, at its outset, to mark the manner in which they were generally prepared to act. As to the distinction attempted to be made between this case and other libels, he thought it to be without a shadow of foundation. How did the libel obstruct the course of justice in the sense that had been alluded to? It referred to the last year's proceeding of a committee which had completed its labours—[Cries of "No!"]. They had reported, and for that year, at least, their labours were completed. Under such circumstances Mr. Thirlwall published a book, intituled "A Vindication of the Magistrates, &c." This book was published early in the year, and before the committee was reinstituted. Their labours, then, could not be said to have been impeded, as they were not pending at the time. The report had been already delivered in, and was, pro tanto, a concluded transaction. Under these circumstances, this octavo volume was said to have a direct tendency to obstruct the course of justice— an octavo, of which hardly any body ever heard, and which could never have had the publicity of the commonest newspaper paragraph. This was the substratum that was to bear down the course of justice— a volume, which contained nothing but an idle desultory comment on a last year's Report. The right hon. gentleman who spoke last had said, it were better that these things were lightly passed over; perhaps he concurred in this opinion, and that the House ought only exercise their privileges when their proceedings were interrupted In this case, he did not think that to be the fact, as the libel referred to the proceeding of a past committee.

thought, that no doubt could exist as to the peculiarly exceptionable character of the publication under discussion; for in that publication the writer stated, that "recollecting the conduct of the committee at the revolution, as well as that of the revolutionary committee in France, he would not submit to be tried by any inquisitions, star chambers, or committees." Such a reflection upon the conduct of the committee alluded to, it was impossible for the House to overlook, consistently with the respect which it owed to its own dignity, and to the character of its committee. He had as much regard as any man for the liberty of the press, but he would never consent to allow it to protest against the authority of that House, or to assimilate its practice to that of the star chamber or the inquisition.

rose to notice an observation of the noble lord, which he thought might as well have been spared. For it was a mistake to suppose that, in the conduct of the committee which was the object of the calumny under consideration, he was influenced by any political prejudice or feeling. On the contrary, indeed, he declined to avail himself of some information tendered to him with respect to an institution connected with the object of the committee, because he apprehended that to inquire into the conduct of that institution, might serve to give the proceedings of the committee rather too much of a political complexion. Then, as to the remarks of the noble lord, that the first attack upon the freedom of the press proceeded from that side of the House e protested against any such imputation, for he knew that it was totally inapplicable. But to revert to the motives attributed to himself and the committee in which he had the honour to preside. Against the charge of the noble lord, he could refer to the gentlemen who had witnessed his conduct in the committee, all of whom would, he hoped, testify that his demeanour was marked throughout the inquiry by a degree of mildness and by a temper very different indeed from that which the noble lord sought to introduce into this debate. To the aspersions which the writer alluded to had thought proper to cast upon his character, he would reply by the same reference. That writer had called upon him, and told him that he meant to write upon the report of the committee, and his answer was, that he was glad of it, wishing nothing more than a fair and full discussion of the merits of that report. To every question from this writer, he gave an answer as satisfactory as was in his power, assuring him that the only object of the committee was to ascertain what was the best course to pursue, with a view to cure the evils exposed in the report. He clearly saw that this writer visited him upon a voyage of discovery; yet he withheld from him no information in his power to grant. But the return which this writer made for the frankness of his communication was a direct attack upon his character. As the best defence against such an attack, he would again refer to the gentlemen who witnessed his conduct in the committee. To the testimony of these gentlemen he would appeal against the attack of this writer, as well as against the insinuation of the noble lord.

disclaimed any intention of imputing partiality or political prejudice to the hon. gentleman, or to the committee alluded to. As to the report of the committee, he did not speak unfavourably of it, and he had read it throughout; and as to the writer under consideration, he really did not know him or his connexions. But he did observe, that the attempt to restrain the press from animadverting upon the proceedings of the House, originated on that side with which the hon. member was connected, although it was notorious that so much more provocation was offered in another quarter. But as the example was now given, he hoped the principle originated by the other side of the House would not be partially, but generally and justly acted upon.

bore ample testimony to the hon. member's fair and impartial conduct in the chair of that committee. Throughout the investigation that conduct was marked with the utmost liberality and candour, and in one instance in particular he had seen enough of it to be satisfied that the hon. gentleman had carefully banished from his thoughts the slightest political feeling, as connected with the inquiry before the committee.

stated to him, that he was charged with printing and publishing a book, reflecting upon the character of a committee of that House, and violating its privileges, and that after the passage complained of was read, what he had to offer in his own behalf would then be heard.

then addressed the House to the following effect:—"I hope that this honourable House will do me the justice to believe, that it is with the deepest concern and regret that I find I have trespassed on its rights or privileges by any writings of mine. What I did write, I beg to assure the House, was not calculated readily to meet the public eye in the form in which it was shaped. The offensive passages occurred in a work written in very great haste, and solely intended to vindicate the character of the magistrates and my own from the obloquy cast on both by passages in that part of the report of a committee of this House, which detailed the evidence of witnesses necessarily examined before that honourable committee. If, in my ardent wishes in pursuit of this object, I was unfortunately carried out of the proper path of respect to this honourable House, I have to express my regret for so offending. It is now my anxious wish to express the regret I sincerely feel for my conduct towards this hon. House, and the hon. committee; and, trusting in the clemency of this hon. House, I venture to hope and petition, that its sentence, whatever it may be, will not be such as may degrade my character as a magistrate and a clergyman."

said, that he had no inclination to press for any severity upon this occasion; such a proceeding would indeed be totally inconsistent with his disposition and habits: but he thougt it necessary that the House should come to some resolution with respect to the publication alluded to.

said, that though there could be no doubt that the writings of the rev. gentleman had amounted o a breach of privilege, yet he hoped the House would be satisfied with the apology that they had heard.

was of opinion that the rev. gentleman had done every thing that was in the power of man to do. He had expressed his contrition in terms at once manly and respectful; and this was all that could be wished for. He therefore thought that the slightest testimony of displeasure which the House could express towards him would be sufficient.

then moved, "That the rev. Thomas Thirlwall, by the said publication, has reflected upon the proceedings and authority of a committee of this House, and is thereby guilty of a high contempt of the authority of this House, and a breach of its privileges."

would not oppose the motion, but he was desirous of explaining the grounds of the vote he had given. Had this publication been stated nakedly to the House, without any reference to the insolent conduct of the author of it before the committee, he should have opposed the motion, and have resisted calling up Mr. Thirlwall.

bore testimony to the upright conduct of the rev. gentleman as a magistrate, and considered he had already made all the atonement in his power for the offence he had committed.

expressed his entire concurrence in the lenient feeling of every gentleman in the House, and also in the manly and respectful conduct of the rev. gentleman. He must also bear testimony to the liberal conduct and ability of the hon. chairman of the committee, whose conduct throughout had been most conciliatory, and who had done nothing more on this occasion than what the dignity of the House rendered necessary. The motion was agreed to. The House next resolved, "That the rev. Thomas Thirlwall be again called in, and that Mr. Speaker do communicate to him the said resolution, and, at the same time, acquaint him, that in consideration of the full acknowledgment of his error, and the contrition which he has this day expressed, the House is contented to proceed no further upon the matter of this complaint." Mr. Thirlwall was thereupon called in, and Mr. Speaker having communicated to him the said resolutions, he was directed to withdraw.

knew not whether the motion he was to submit to the House would be opposed, or upon what grounds it could be opposed; hut he founded it on a paper which he held in his hand, published by order of the hank directors, and of perfect notoriety. It was an account of the number of the proprietors of bank stock, among whom there was no inconsiderable proportion of aliens. It was not of this that he had any intention to complain; but the profits of the directors being enormous, he thought it an aggravation that foreigners should pocket our money. The profits of the bank were at present extravagant; he would assert that they were undue and unnecessary: and, as his late lamented friend, Mr. Horner,—whose premature death was an irreparable loss to the country, had described it—"the result of extravagance and prodigality on the part of the government, and of rapacity on the part of the bank." The object of the first part of his motion was, to ascertain what proportion of these profits foreigners pocketed. It was true, the great part of these profits had their center among ourselves; but it was no satisfaction to the House, or to the country, that one noble lord among ourselves pocketed on the 23d of April last, no less a sum from these profits than 70,000l.—it was no satisfaction that another noble lord pocketed 60 or 70,000l. That a bonus of such an amount was pocketed by individuals among ourselves was not such a satisfaction, that it could not be felt as an aggravation that a considerable portion of those profits was exported from the kingdom, and went to enrich foreigners. He did not mean to go into the details of this subject on the present occasion, because he had on former occasions proved that from 250,000l. to 300,000l. was annually paid by the government, out of the taxes levied from the people, to the bank for managing the public money. He would venture to put it to the House whether that sum was not enormous and extravagant, and whether the proprietors of the bank would not be liberally paid, nay, overpaid by one half of that sum? 1.50,000l. therefore, would be annually saved, if justice and equity were regarded in those transactions. These bank proprietors had, during the last 12 years, had in their possession no less a sum of the public money than 11,000,000l., and by means of this they had made annual profits of not less than from 5 to 600,000l.; yet annually were they paid nearly 300,000l. for the trouble of making those" very profits Since 1807, sums had been annually advanced by the bank, which were improperly called loans; for it was only the public money again restored to the public; and for those loans they received 280,000l. per annum. This immense sum they received for a trifling and insignificant service. It was very evident that this sum, therefore, could not be paid to them for merely acting as a bank: it was for other services and support of a different kind rendered to the right hon. gentleman. He would appeal to that House, whether, if a second bank were established, it would not willingly undertake the whole of this business for 20 or 25,000l. per annum. Thus, then, would a sum exceeding 400,000l. be saved to the public. At this moment it was a matter of the greatest and most anxious difficulty how to relieve the distresses of the country, and how to meet the demands of the state. A finance committee was now sitting; he hoped this subject would attract their attention. He trusted he should be called before that committee to give his evidence as a member of that house, or as a bank director; and if he were, he pledged himself to prove that upwards of 400,000l. could be annually saved of the public money. One other circumstance he would mention. In 1797, the bank was relieved from the necessity of paying in specie; there was, in consequence, a great addition to their circulation: their circulation, in fact, amounted to 16,000,000l. and consequently their annual profits were not less than 800,000l. This was a most enormous evil; yet of this evil it was an aggravation, that a considerable part of the proprietors were foreigners, living in foreign countries, and that a considerable part of the profits went out of this country. What the proportion in both these respects was, formed the subject of his motion. He therefore moved:—"That there be laid before this House, 1. an account of the number of the Proprietors of the Bank of England, on the 31st March 1817; distinguishing the number of aliens, from that of British subjects. 2. An account of the aggregate amount of the capital stock of the bank of England, standing in the names of British subjects, and of aliens, on the 31st March 1817; distinguishing the amount belonging to each of these two classes of proprietors respectively"

could not conceive what right that House had to call upon the bank to lay those accounts upon their table, any more than they had to call upon any mercantile house to lay its accounts before them. He objected too, to the policy of the proposal. It was the policy of this country to encourage foreigners to deposit their capitals among us. What other object could this proposal have than to ascertain and publish the names of all the foreigners who had money in our funds? This, he contended, would be a pernicious thing. Besides it could not be done; other persons held property in their name, so that the names of the proprietors could not be ascertained; but if it could be done, it would be highly injurious. The hon. gentleman had mentioned no reason for this motion. The amount of the bank profits was no reason: for if foreigners had their money in the bank, they must have their share of the profits; and besides, the profits had no relevant connexion either with the number of foreigners or their proportion of stock. If there was any fraud, the public were equally defrauded and injured by native stock-holders as by foreigners. There was in this respect no difference. He therefore considered the motion as unnecessary and improper in all its parts, and as such he hoped it would be resisted.

was satisfied there was not a gentleman in that House more attached to the interests of the country and the prosperity of its commerce than his hon. friend. He did not know the precise object he had in view by the present motion: yet knowing his zeal to serve the country, and the good he had already done, he could not with-hold his support. How many motions of his honourable friend had been opposed as dangerous to the interests of commerce, incompetent for that House, and even injurious to the character and prosperity of the country? and yet how many of those very motions were afterwards complied with, and found most beneficial. When he recollected this— when he had seen how much good he had done—when he considered that he had saved 90,000l. a year to the country, he was satisfied that he would found some salutary measure upon the documents he now moved for. At any rate it could not possibly do any injury.

said, that if he had not known that the chancellor of the exchequer was restrained by the directors of the bank from assenting to any pro- position in that House, displeasing to themselves, he should be surprised at the opposition now offered by the right hon. gentleman to his hon. friend's motion; but his wonder ceased when he knew the restrictions the bank had imposed on his conduct. The motion, however, required no further information than what had been already given to the public, so that if any danger could thence result to the commerce of the country, it had been incurred already. Unless the House were resolved to exert its power, and release the chancellor of the exchequer from his dependance on the bank, no good could result to the public. The country was very much indebted to his hon. friend, who had effected more real service than all the finance committees who had sat for many years; to him must be attributed any relaxation on the part of the bank in its drafts on the public purse.

said, he could have wished to have heard some parliamentary ground laid for the present motion, which he had not. He did not see any practical good that could result from it, while, on the contrary, it might do mischief, by creating an alarm in the minds of foreigners, as to any ulterior proceeding which the House might adopt. He objected to it upon the principle that they had no right to interfere; but, at the same time, he had no objection to state, that the proportion of profits derived by aliens was very inconsiderable.

, in reply, stated, that the proportion of alien bank proprietors was one-tenth of the whole number. With respect to the profits enjoyed by the bank, the House was probably not aware, that, during the last twenty years, they had divided, in addition to 7 per cent, upon their capital, no less a sum than 25,000,000l. sterling, by bonuses, increase of dividends, and increase of capital. Those profits were exclusively derived from its transactions with government.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move, "That a committee be appointed to consider of the best means for shortening the Duration of Polls, and for the further regulation of Elections in Great Britain." Originally, no regulation whatever existed on this subject, and the sheriff might exercise his discretion in continuing the polls; and thence arose the practice of continu- ing them open for an hour after every person had ceased to vote. To remedy this inconvenience, a bill had been brought into parliament by a relative of his, limiting the duration of polls, in all cases, to 14 days; but although it had never been intended by this to continue a poll for the entire fortnight where no necessity existed, yet still it became the practice, and any candidate might protract the poll to the farthest period admitted by the law. Some regulations, he thought, might be applied to correct this inconvenience. The poll in London was limited to eight days, while the poll in the smallest borough in England might be protracted for fourteen days. He conceived that much benefit might be derived in county elections, by the subdivision of the county into hundreds, and having a booth appropriated to each hundred. Some alterations were also necessary in great towns. In Bristol, and other cities, there was but one place for polling. This system, it was said, was necessary, in order to prevent the same person from voting twice. But he thought this difficulty might be obviated, by the adoption of an alphabetical list. Persons, for instance, whose names commenced with the first four letters of the alphabet, might give their votes, at one booth; those whose names began with one of the four next letters, at another and so on throughout the alphabet. Some regulation ought also to be made with reference to the mode in which the land tax assessment was proved; which was necessary to enable persons to vote. He had heard, that, in Middlesex more good votes were lost, in consequence of trifling errors on this point, than bad ones were detected by adhering to the present system.

seconded the motion, and instanced the practical good effects of such a measure by a reference to the custom of Norwich, where, though the number of voters amounted to five thousand, the election was terminated in a day and a half.

said, that, as the motion with which he should conclude would call for information that probably would not be refused, he should merely confine himself to moving for it, if it were not necessary, for the character of judicial proceedings in this country, that he should lay a ground for obtaining the documents he wished to see laid on the table of the House. The case to which he was about to call their attention had occurred lately in the city of London, and was, he presumed, known very generally to those whom he addressed, and to the public at large. A person of the name of Patrick Ryan, alias Brown, was convicted a session or two past, of highway robbery, at the Old Bailey; the date of the indictment he did not know, nor of the time when the report of the recorder was made to his royal highness the Prince Regent. It was not considered, he presumed, a case where the interference of the prerogative of mercy could be applied, and the sentence of death was carried into execution on Friday last. An attempt to effect the escape of her husband, by the wife, Mary Ryan, had been discovered, and for that offence, on the forenoon of the very Friday on which he suffered the sentence of the law, the wife was brought to the bar of criminal justice. He was not disposed to take up lightly any suspicion against the manner in which justice was administered, and he did not despair of finding a satisfactory explanation of this apparently unjustifiable act; but till he did receive such an explanation, he would not hesitate to say, that to cite a person under such circumstances to trial —to call upon a human being, a woman too, under all those agonizing feelings, to make a defence—to increase the already aggravated sufferings of her helpless condition, by arraigning her for such an alleged crime, was one, he must say, of the most indecorous proceedings, and perhaps savoured more of the character of inhumanity in the exercise of British jurisprudence, than had ever before been witnessed in this humane country [Hear, hear!]. It was, he might be told, strictly legal—the accusation was, and he believed it was fully borne out by the facts; but these admissions did not change its character, because in the prosecution of the offenc—in the time of bringing it forward, a course was pursued in direct hostility to the spirit and principle of all just law [Hear, hear!]. There existed laws in this and in almost every country, which, if carried into strict execution, were adverse to the dictates of justice itself, and therefore to enforce the one at the expense and in violation of the other, would be to convert that administration, which in its pure exercise was the school of humanity and best source of moral instruction, into an instrument of deep-felt odium and remorseless severity. To punish domestic affection—to destroy the ties and sympathies of private life—to discourage the manifestation of those endearing feelings, which operated more to the prevention of atrocious crime, than the whole code of criminal law—such a system could not be worthy of the jurisprudence of the country in which he spoke. Few persons had not read, without feelings of delight and admiration, the courageous affection of lady Southesk, who nobly risked her own life to save the still dearer life of her husband? Yes, that account could not be read without exciting emotions of reverence, of affection, of admiration; and God forbid that that which we admired and venerated in exalted life, we should stigmatize and punish as a crime amongst the humble and the friendless! But though it appeared to him to be contrary to the spirit of all just law to commence such a prosecution, that was not what he principally complained of. No: he complained that the prosecution was proceeded in after the pardon of the Crown was with held from the husband. He blamed those who, under these circumstances, pressed the matter to a trial. But this was not the worst part of the case. The unfortunate woman, who was in gaol with her husband—who saw him carried to execution—she was conducted to take her trial for a criminal charge before the corpse of that husband was cold [Hear, hear!]. At that moment, she was as incapable of proceeding upon her defence, of extenuating the offence alleged against her, or of proving her innocence, as if she were in a state of confirmed insanity. It was the same thing, whether she was dragged from a cell in Newgate, or from a cell in a mad-house. There could be no trial, because there could be no defence; and there could be no defence, because the woman was not in the possession of that natural capacity which the principles of all law positively demanded. He trusted he should not hear any thing of the character of the woman—with it he was wholly unacquainted, but of this he was certain, that the more unfortunate she was, the stronger was her title to the protection of that House. It might be said, that there was no fault in any quarter, and that the regretted event was the result of inevitable misfortune. He need not assure the House that he would be most glad to be so convinced. Candour, however, compelled him to say, that he was not to be satisfied in that view. The pro- ceedings in the case went to show, that this unseemly and shocking spectacle might have been prevented by a due foresight and vigilance. It was unnecessary to inform the House that the officers of the Crown had a right to stop criminal proceedings, not indeed capriciously but in the exercise of a sound and wholesome discretion. They had the power in the language of the law, to enter a noli prosequi in cases fit for the application. Was the present, then, not a case which, on the most imperative grounds, called for its exercise? He did not believe that there ever existed in this country an attorney-general that would have withheld its application, and most certain he was, that the good natured and humane man, who so recently filled that office, would, if informed of the circumstances, instantly have applied the remedy [Hear, hear!]. But supposing that, from the influence of some invincible ignorance this remedy did not suggest itself to the prosecutors, what objection, was there to postpone proceeding until the legal officers on the bench had communicated the circumstances to the attorney-general? It was said, in explanation of the proceeding, that as it was the last day of the adjourned session, to postpone the trial would have subjected the woman to a much longer period of confinement. That was very true, but a noli prosequiwould, in twenty-four hours, have released the wretched woman for ever. In this case she would have been able to have paid, as the best solace of her affliction, those rude honours to her unfortunate husband, according to the ancient usage of her native country, which it was her anxious wish to perform. Her fate had, indeed, been severe; and if ever she returned to her native country, she was not likely to spread that love for the laws of England, and that affection for its institutions, which ought to be generally diffused, and which in no country were more necessary or would be more beneficial [Hear, hear!]. Her story would not be confined to this country; it would be listened to over Europe, wherever we had a friend to feel shame, or an enemy to enjoy a triumph. The consideration that it would spread over Europe, and would be made a test of the excellence of our criminal jurisprudence or produced as a feature of our national character, was one chief reason, among others, why he had mentioned it in parliament; and he entertained the hope that a public declara- tion in this House would counteract the impression made against us abroad, and convince the world that its apparent inhumanity did not escape notice, and that the terms in which it was mentioned shewed it to be rather an exception from our judicial proceedings than a common specimen. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded with moving, "That there be laid before this House an account of the dates of the report of the recorder of London to his royal highness the Prince Regent on the case of Patrick Ryan, otherwise Brown, lately convicted of highway robbery at the Old Bailey; of the warrant for the execution of the said Ryan, and of the time when he suffered death: together with the dates of the finding of an indictment against Mary Ryan, otherwise Brown his wife, for aiding in an attempt to procure the escape of the said Patrick Ryan from prison; and of the trial and conviction of the said Mary on that charge."

thought he could give the hon. and learned gentleman that satisfaction on the subject of his motion, which he had expressed himself anxious to receive. It was impossible that any magistrate could have been so inhuman as to have brought this poor woman to trial on the very day on which her husband was executed, had not pressing reasons existed for doing so. It had only been done to save her from a more serious punishment, which would otherwise have resulted from the affectionate discharge of the duties of a wife, which had brought her under the sentence of the law. It was purely from a principle of humanity that she was put to the bar on that day, in order to save her from three months imprisonment, which must have followed the postponement of the trial till the next quarter sessions, and he might venture to say, it was fortunate for the poor woman that she had been brought up on that day. The secretary of state for the home department on hearing of some of the circumstances of the trial, caused the case to be immediately inquired into. This step was taken on Sunday, and the result of the inquiry induced him on Monday to recommend her to the Prince Regent, as a fit object of mercy, notwithstanding the lenity with which she had been treated by the court, who, he believed, had awarded the mildest punishment they had it in their power to inflict. The application of his noble relation had been successful; the poor woman had received a free pardon, and was now at liberty. This statement, he apprehended, would induce the hon. and learned gentleman not to press his motion. The dates which he called for, he believed he could furnish him with on the instant. He accordingly proceeded to state the periods at which the warrant, & c. were signed.

assured, the hon. and learned gentleman that the magistrates considered seriously what method could be devised to prevent the trial, but found that it could not be done. Had the trial been postponed, it would only have been an additional confinement, which would in itself have been a punishment. He could assure the House, that no means were used on the part of the magistrates to provoke a prosecution, or to urge its activity. Her trial was conducted with every disposition to produce an acquittal. Her defence was conducted by a counsel who had much zeal, and his exertions made a great impression in her favour; but to the great disappointment of the court and jury, a verdict was necessary against her. Every comfort was administered to her in the afflicting situation in which she stood. The recommendation of the jury to mercy was received with heart-felt joy. All parties sympathized in her fate, and a liberal subscription was immediately entered into.

said, that, if the explanation of the right hon. gentleman did not go far enough to induce the hon. and learned gentleman to withdraw his motion, he thought the statement of the facts which judicially came before the worthy magistrate would have that effect. Nothing could alter the painful circumstances of the case—which were hardly felt more deeply by the individual herself than by the court before whom she was tried; but it evidently appeared, that it was a principle of clemency, and not of inhumanity, that brought the trial on at the time when it took place.

said, the case was not alone most calamitous to the wretched individual, but contributed to render odious and detestable the administration of justice, and he was sure that the House would feel greatly indebted to his hon. and learned friend for the opportunity of relieving the character of the country from the reproach. There was not, there could not be, any censure against the government. On the contrary, it had evinced great and prompt humanity. The magistrates who tried the case, also were wholly blameless; but he must consider the conduct and perseverance of the prosecutors highly censurable. There could be no offence in such a case; the helpless woman obeyed the law of nature. In the attachment and obedience that she owed her husband, the law recognized her in capacity to commit any crime, because it presumed her wholly under the husband's influence, save in the cases of murder and treason. What else could the jury have done under the circumstances? And here was an illustration of the mischief of those Jaws that place conscientious men in the situation either of violating their oaths or of wounding the most virtuous feelings of their nature. What was the emotion of the auditory that witnessed this revolting spectacle? There was not a person in the court whose heart did not rebel, and repulse the calamitous inhumanity, under the form of judicial proceeding. The prosecutors should have considered this, and not subjected the administration of public justice to such odium and detestation. It would have been easy for the magistrates to have suggested that no witnesses should be called. The fact was, there never had occurred in the history of the law of this country, a more disgraceful inhuman event than this.

said, the unfortunate woman had been indicted a considerable time before she was brought to trial, and great negligence was apparent in not applying to the attorney-general or the government to stay the prosecution, when it was known that her husband's death-warrant had been sent down on the Saturday before her trial took place. This was an inexplicable piece of negligence on the part of those who had the superintendence of the gaol. The poor woman might also have escaped by another mode: it was in the power of the magistrates to advise the prosecutor not to call witnesses, and thus the matter would have been put an end to.

observed, that if it was to be held out to the public and the world, that there had been an abuse of justice, and a case of inhumanity, he trusted all the circumstances would be accurately represented, and that foreign countries, to whom it was said the knowledge of the transaction would extend, might have the means of forming a correct judgment upon the matter. It would then appear, that the poor woman in question had been tried on the day stated, for being instrumental in attempting to effect the escape, not merely of her husband, but two other felons, by one and the same act. Her trial had been brought on when she might have traversed the indictment at her own desire, and by the advice of her counsel. The judgment on conviction was one month's imprisonment, and this punishment had been remitted by the clemency of the Crown. These were the plain circumstances of the case; and it should be recollected, that when the prosecution was commenced, it was uncertain whether her husband would be executed or not. He apprehended that the prosecutors could have pursued no other course, and that the period of the trial had been considered by her counsel as that which was calculated to prove the most favourable to her interests.

conceived that there would have been no difficulty in restoring the unfortunate woman to liberty without putting her upon her trial. If the prosecutor had declined to come forward, the witnesses might have been discharged from their recognizances. He should give his vote in support of the motion, not for the purpose of inculpating individuals, but to defend the character of justice and the decorum of judicial proceedings. However humble the person who had been the sufferer in the present case, he recollected no one that had created so much disgust, or been received with such disapprobation in the public mind. The woman certainly, with regard to her offence, was not in a capacity to be supposed acting under the influence of her husband, and was therefore legally subject to conviction. The motion threw no censure on the general administration of criminal justice in the country; but, on the contrary, if assented to, would tend to exalt and vindicate its character.

, in reply, observed, that he had not, in bringing this motion before the House, directly or indirectly designed to impute any blame to government; on the contrary, he was much gratified with the very alert manner in which humanity had been extended to her, neither did he impute any improper motives to the worthy alderman and his colleagues. But while he said this, it was impossible for him to be silent when he contemplated such an unusual, detestable, and unnatural prosecution; and it was equally impossible not to blame the very institution of this prosecution, which was directly contrary to the spirit of all law. Odious in itself, it became infinitely more aggravated after the recorder's report was made. The magistrates knew on the Saturday that this poor man was to suffer the punishment of his crime, yet they took no pains whatever to acquaint his majesty's attorney-general of the horrible coincidence between the poor man's execution and his wife's trial. It was a matter of no moment where the poor woman sat during that detestable trial; whether it was beside her counsel, Mr. Barry (whose humane exertions on this painful occasion did him honour), or on the bench, the circumstance was still the same. The prosecution was, he understood, carried on at the instance of the city of London; and why had measures not been taken to prevent it coming on at all? Humanity itself might have told the judges to suggest to the prosecutors the propriety of calling no witnesses. He was shocked to hear the lenity of her punishment adduced as an extenuation of the highly aggravated transaction. The punishment itself was a matter of no moment, for the trial was a severe punishment. What a most appalling spectacle did she present while arraigned at that bar! But a few hours before she stood in the endearing connection of a wife, but at that bar she stood an unhappy, defenceless widow, with her orphan child at her breast; her heart wrung at that time with the most agonizing sensations, when she turned to the melancholy fate of her husband and looked on the wretched infant in her arms [Hear, hear!]. Good God! was it possible to conceive a situation more truly distressing? And was the House then to be gravely told, that the lenity of her punishment was an extenuation of the aggravated nature of the case? Imagination itself could not conceive a more horrible punishment than that inflicted on her by her being placed at that bar. The House might dispose of the motion he had made as they saw proper, but he should consider himself guilty of levity in withdrawing it, particularly because nothing had been explained in the slightest satisfactory manner. It appeared to him that his object would be defeated if he consented to withdraw the motion, because he wished that the House, by adopting it, should make a public declaration of their opinion, and hold up this fatal, this horrible transaction, as a warn- ing to all magistrates in future. On that account he was determined not to withdraw it [Hear, hear!].

intimated, that as the hon. and learned gentleman still wished for the production of the papers, he should not oppose the motion.