presented a Petition from all the cotton-spinning factories of Stockport, in favour of the Cotton Factories bill. The petition, he said, was entitled to great attention, because it came from persons well acquainted with the facts in which they desired alteration. It would show, that the masters themselves were petitioners at the bar of the House in favour of their labourers. It was signed by seven master manufacturers, the opinion of one of whom, Mr. Entwistle, was entitled to the greatest consideration, and of the rest he was persuaded, that if they believed the measure he had brought forward would tend to injure the trade, they would be the last to petition for it. It was, moreover, signed by thirteen resident clergymen, who had an opportunity of knowing the condition of the objects of it, and by not less than eight medical gentlemen. He thought the petition was of the first consequence, in showing the necessity of the measure he wished to have adopted.—The petition was then read: it purported to be from the labourers above sixteen years of age, employed in the cotton-spinning factories of Stockport, and others of that town, and stated in substance, that under the existing regulations, workmen were over-laboured, over heated, and subject to oppressive inconveniences; that the personal experience of most of the petitioners showed how injurious the system was to the constitution. It prayed that a shorter period of labour might be established, and added, that the petitioners had no expectation of relief, but from the wisdom and liberality of parliament.

thought that the House would not attach as much importance to the petition as the hon. baronet had, when they were informed of the real character of the petitioners. He would inform them, that these petitioners were no other, for the most part, than a set of idle, discontented, discarded, and good-for-nothing workmen, who conceived that they did too much, when in employment, for the wages which they received. He knew them to be of the description which he had stated, and he had no doubt, that if the bill before the House were carried in the present session, these men would endeavour next year to have a bill carried to limit their hours of employment to a much smaller number than that which was fixed by the bill. He thought that manufactories and the. workmen employed in them should not be interfered with by any legislative regulation, so far as the hours they might consent to work were concerned. He should beg leave to add, that if such a regulation, with respect to free labour, had been passed when he was a boy, he should never have had the honour of a seat in that House.

said, he was averse from granting the prayer of the petition. The petitioners asked that their time of labour might be reduced to ten hours and a half: if that was conceded, the next prayer would be, that it might be brought down to nine. The House should remember, that if the principle were once adopted in the case of the cotton-spinners, there was not a trade in the kingdom that would not desire the same interference and the same reduction. He thought an alteration was advisable; but he verily believed it would come at no great distance from the parties interested themselves. He believed the masters, if left to themselves, would shortly reduce the hours to twelve.

begged it to be distinctly understood, that, to his certain knowledge, the character of the petitioners varied materially from the character given of them by the hon. baronet. They were respectable inhabitants of Stockport, professional men, and clergymen, who, observing the evils of the existing system, stepped forward to give that information which the House ought gratefully to receive. He was certainly of their opinion; having long been convinced (and he was happy to hear that his hon. friend who had last spoken entertained similar sentiments), that the hours of labour in cotton factories were protracted to an excessive length.

said, that he knew many persons in the north of England, who were in no way interested in cotton factories, but who were unequivocally of opinion, that unless some decided measure were adopted, with respect to the rising generation, the lower classes of the community would, in a few years, become a most degenerate race of human beings.

was well aware of the evils which were attendant upon protracted hours of labour in manufactories, but he was convinced they were not confined to the cotton manufactories alone. In several others there were younger children employed, and for a longer period of the day. He should state to the House what had occurred in the committee upon the subject of manufactories. It was there ascertained, that children of a more tender age were employed in the silk factories, and for a longer time. The same might be said of the potteries, but no remedy had been applied to them. Why, he asked, if the evil was admitted to be the same in both cases, was not the same remedy applied? Why not extend the operation of the bill to all cases where similar causes might render it necessary? But he could state to the House, that it was not the fault of the manufacturers that the people were employed for so long a portion of the day. They were compelled to work by that greatest of all necessities—hunger. The evil was inherent in the very nature of manufactories, and in the present state of society, and unless these could be altered, it would be useless to make any legislative regulations to remedy the evil which arose out of them. Let those who possessed manufactories endeavour to improve the condition of those who they employed. They possessed the means of doing so under many circumstances; but the House was mistaken if they imagined that the evil could be remedied by mere legislative measures. He was aware that many of the master manufacturers had consented to the present measure from motives of humanity. He gave them credit for it, but he wished that a mistaken notion of humanity might not lead them to injure those whom they wished to serve; and he was convinced, that the effects of the present bill would operate more to the injury than the benefit of those for whom it was intended.

without entering into any argument on the question, wished merely to state, that he did not think the adoption of the bill which had been introduced by the hon. baronet, would evince any hostility to the principle, that it was generally expedient not to interfere with free labour. For on what was that principle founded? On the knowledge that, by leaving the regulation of the labour in the hands of the master, if he worked his labourer too hard, that labourer could resort to some other employment. Now this was wholly inapplicable to children of a tender age, who were placed in cotton factories, and who were necessarily at the mercy of their masters. What remedy had they if they were overworked? He did conceive, that it was in strict conformity to the principle on which the House ought to act, that they should interfere in the case of children who had no resort when oppressed. Where was the difference between children who were free labourers and apprentices? Those children, who were placed in cotton factories by their parents, had no more remedy if overworked than apprentices. They had not so much; for apprentices had it in their power to go before a magistrate, and complain if their masters tasked them beyond their strength. If it was proved that in any way the masters were enabled to task the children whom they employed beyond their health and strength, he was completely ready to contend, that a case had been made out which called imperatively for the interference of the legislature.

rose and said;—I am desirous, Sir, of putting some questions, on a very interesting and important subject, to the right hon. gentleman opposite, who is at the head of the administration of India. It has been stated to the public, in the daily prints, that two battles have been already fought between the company's troops and the Mahratta forces. It has been said, that the Peishaw, with a large army, amounting to 40,000 men, attacked a body of the company's troops, which had been admitted into his territory in perfect amity, and for purposes of mutual advantage. I am not aware what could have been the motive for this sudden act of hostility on the part of a chief with whom the company had been for so many years on terms of friendship, but the statement is, that with the army which I have described, he did actually attack a body of 4,000 subsidiary troops in the service of the company. This gallant little army is said to have completely repulsed its assailants, and its success is in a great treasure attributed to the bravery and skill of its officers; but in consequence of the great disparity of numbers in the contending parties, the conflict is described to have been severe, and the slaughter to have been in proportion to that disparity. A few days afterwards, it is said that the company's army, having received a reinforcement, attacked the Mahrattas in their turn, defeated the Peishwa, and not possession of Poonah, his capital. It is likewise stated, that unfortunately two British officers fell into the hands of the Peishwa, and that they were immediately executed. It has been the usual practice with the court of directors whenever dispatches have arrived from India of battles fought and lives lost, to take the earliest opportunity of removing the public solicitude by giving details of the actions and returns of the killed and wounded. In the present instance, the dispatches have not come to the directors, but have been transmitted to the Secret department, and are in the board of control; it is therefore that I ask whether these statements are founded in fact? If they are, I am quite sure that the right hon. president will-feel the propriety of taking the earliest opportunity of relieving the relations and friends of those engaged in these transactions from that anxious state of suspense in which they are at present most painfully placed. But, Sir, I understand that later accounts have been received from India of still greater importance. It is said that the rajah of Berar, with a force similar to that under the Peishaw, made a simultaneous attack on another body of the company's subsidiary troops. I confess, Sir, that this last intelligence fills me with the most unaffected alarm; and I beg to ask the right hon. gentleman, with reference to this as well as to the former report, whether or not it is founded in fact? and if it is so, what are the particular circumstances which have come to the knowledge of his majesty's government with respect to it?

said:—I am very ready Sir, to give the hon. gentleman and the House all the information in my power on this subject, although I cannot undertake to enter into any of the details respecting it. It is undoubtedly true, that the Peishwa has commenced hostilities against the forces of the East India Company. It is undoubtedly true, that in two actions fought between armies greatly disproportionate in point of number, the advantage was decidedly in favour of the company's troops. But Sir, I am happy to add, that one part of the statement refered to by the hon. gentleman, is not true, namely, that the slaughter was proportionate to the disparity of the force of the conflicting parties. We are not in possession of such returns with respect to these battles as-it would be fit to publish under the authority of government. While the possibility of doubt exists with respect to the accuracy of the- eturns, it would be highly improper to give them any official sanction; for those who areas well acquainted with India as the hon. gentleman, know well how much private account from that quarter of the world outrun official details in various relations. Some of the statements, therefore, which have been alluded to by the hon. gentleman, I, morally speaking, have no doubt are facts, although I am not competent so to announce them officially. As far, however, as I am informed on the subject, it gives me great satisfaction to say that it does not appear that these conflicts have cost the life of a single European officer, and that not more than three officers were wounded, the names of whom have appeared in all the newspapers, on the authority of the Bombay Gazettes, which, singular as it may appear, have not reached his majesty's government. It is, I fear, true that two individuals, the one an officer, the other a gentleman in the civil service, suffered in the way mentioned by the hon. gentleman. With respect to the proceedings of the rajah of Berar, the information possessed by the secret committee of the directors of the East India Company, and by the board of control, rests on a single letter without a date. If the hon. gentleman asks me if I believe the information which the letter contains, my answer is, I do. But if he asks me if it is of such a nature that I can communicate it with the sanction of official authority, my answer is I cannot. The hon. gentleman will easily see, that an undated letter, which merely states an attack by the Mahrattas, but not the result—I mean any farther than their immediate repulse —is not an account of the transaction which could with propriety be published by authority. This I will undertake to say, that there is no disposition in any quarter to withhold intelligence respecting this interesting subject, or to do any thing not conformable to the established usage respecting Indian affairs. But the hon. gentleman knows as well, or indeed much better than I do, how litte interest is excited here by the occcurrences in that quarter of the globe. Singular as it may seem, it has never been the practice to communicate to parliament any intelligence from India, except in cases of a very extraordinary nature. So far am I, however, from wishing to withhold any thing that can properly be granted, that if the hon. gentleman will frame a motion for such information as ought to be and can be furnished, I will most readily assent to its production: and if he will do me the favour to communicate with me on the subject, I shall be very happy to assist him in preparing such a motion.

expressed himself extremely obliged to the right hon. gentle-man for the candid reply which he had made to his questions. He would certainly avail himself of the right hon. gentleman's kind offer of assistance, and would take an early opportunity of submitting to the House a motion on the subject.

thought the House much indebted to the hon. gentleman, for having called their attention to this important subject. He agreed with the hon. gentleman, in thinking that the circumstances had a very formidable appearance; and he trusted that the public would soon be put in possession of accurate information with respect to them.

rose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to bring before the House his complaint of a breach of its privileges, by a member of the other House of Parliament He regretted extremely, being obliged to discharge so painful a task as that, which his duty imposed upon him on the present occasion, but he had in this business guarded himself from listening to anything, but that which could be sufficiently proved to make out a case to the House, founded on authority which could not be questioned. Such a case he would now submit to them, as must shield him from the slightest imputation of being excited by personal feelings alone. It would not be denied by any hon. gentleman who heard him, that the privileges and the independence of that House, were the sources of all the national power and prosperity. It was to secure those privileges and to support that independence, that he came forward on the present occasion; and therefore, whatever might be the result of his motion, he hoped he should appear to the House to have only discharged his duty in bringing the subject under their consideration. Frequently had the House of Commons been reproached for the manner in which it was constituted; and the best answer that could be made to the charges advanced against the purity of the House in many of the petitions that had been pre- sented for parliamentary reform, would be to evince a disposition to investigate cases of the nature of that to which he was about to call their attention. The country with which he was more particularly connected—Scotland, had been more peculiarly the object of such charges; (arising probably from the mode of election in that country, rather than from any thing in the character of the people); and it was, therefore peculiarly desirable, that any specific imputation on that country should be strictly inquired into. The case which he was about to detail to the House, regarded the county which he had the honour to represent. In order that the House might fully understand the transaction, it was necessary for him to state, that, about a year and a half ago, sir Alexander Cochrane announced his intention of becoming a candidate at the next election for the representation of the county of Lanark; since which time, a most active canvas had been carried on; the whole influence of every partizan and dependent of government having been exerted against him (lord A. Hamilton), in a way which, without intending to reflect on the character of his opponent, he could not avoid calling unfair and improper, and which had necessarily been productive of great irritation in the county. It was not, however, this treatment which for a moment induced him to make his present complaint. He felt it to be his public duty to do so, and he hoped he should have discharged that duty under any circumstances. It was necessary for him to inform the House, that he had communicated his intention of bringing the matter before them to the noble lord, by whom sir Alexander Cochrane's cause had been the most warmly espoused. He did not mean to charge that noble lord directly with a breach of the privileges of that House, but such a breach had been committed in some quarter; he was persuaded, that he possessed evidence so circumstantial as to convince the House of that fact, and it would be for them to decide on that evidence to whom the breach was attributable. The case was simply this: he held in his hand a letter written by a person of the name of Thomas Ferguson, who was employed under the factor of the noble lord to whom he had alluded, and who must therefore naturally be supposed to write under his influence; especially as it was stated in the letter, in plain and distinct terms, that the writer had his lordship's authority. At the same time, he (lord A. Hamilton) was bound to state, that he had communicated with the noble lord on the subject (intimating his intention of bringing the subject under the consideration of parliament), and that the noble lord had given a general denial (to the nature of which he would presently advert), that the letter in question was written by his authority. After this denial on the part of the noble lord, it might perhaps seem that his (lord A. Hamilton's) farther proceeding in the matter was actuated by personal motives; but, he begged leave again to disclaim any such ground of action. The circumstances of the affair, not only gave him a right to bring the subject in its present shape before the House, but made it his duty as a member of the House to do so. He stood in his place in the House of Commons to complain of a breach of privilege, which breach of privilege had most certainly been committed. If unfortunately the noble lord should appear to be more involved in the affair than any other person, it was the noble lord's fault, and not his. He wished it to be distinctly understood, that when a noble lord asserted the very reverse of that which had been asserted by another person, he by no means meant to say, that the noble lord's assertion was untrue; but this he should maintain, that when two individuals told any circumstance so differently, that it was impossible to believe them both, it was indispensable to weigh the evidence on each side, and to give credit to that party for which it preponderated. And besides, the answer which he had received from the noble lord to the communication which he had made to him, was, as he had before observed, couched in terms so general, as not to be altogether incompatible with the inference that Ferguson's letter had been written with the noble lord's authority. In what he had said, he had endeavoured to soften the feelings which had been excited in him by the noble lord's answer to his communication. If the charge conveyed in Ferguson's letter should turn out not to be well-founded, it would be a matter of regret to him, that in the prosecution of his duty, he should have been obliged to use the name of the noble lord in the way he was now under the necessity of mentioning it; but, on the other hand, if, after the proper inquiry, it should be manifest to the House, that

^*

Ferguson's letter was actually authorized by the noble lord, he should then feel it his duty to resort to stronger measures. The letter was addressed to William Dykes, esq., a freeholder of the county of Lanark, and as the House seemed desirous of hearing it, he would read it to them:

"Glasgow, May 24, 1817,

No. 50, Miller-street.

"Dear Sir;—According to your desire, I communicated to lord Douglas your wish to have a situation under government for your young friend Mr. Dykes; and I am authorized to state, that if you support his lordship's views in politics, at the first election, his lordship will secure an eligible situation for your friend, which will be of great advantage to him; and as you are independent of the Hamilton family, I think you should accept of lord Douglas's offer. If you have not made a promise to lord Archibald Hamilton, I think you have good grounds to get clear off from what you mentioned regarding your vote, for you certainly have not been well used.

"If an application is made to you from the Hamilton family to promise your vote, I think you should not grant it, until I see you in Glasgow, when I will tell you all about the matter. Sir Alexander Cochrane is not at home just now, otherwise I would have written you more particularly: have the goodness not to mention this matter until the whole is arranged. I will write you when the noddy is painted, and I hope to have the pleasure of seeing you and Mrs. Dykes at Glasgow.—I am, dear Sir, your most obedient servant, THOMAS FERGUSON."

(Addressed)

William Dykes, esq., of Lambhill, by Strathaven.

On the face of this letter there was certainly the appearance of lord Douglas's sanction and authority. The writer said, "I am authorized to state to you;" and these words immediately followed the expression, "I communicated to lord Douglas your wish." And if the person by whom the letter was written had acted from his own impulse, and by no authority from lord Douglas, how did it happen that he should say, "I think you should accept of lord Douglas's offer?" Ferguson did not mention the offer as his own, but one from lord Douglas, which he had authority to make. He also mentioned at full length the names of the candidates; of himself (lord A. Hamilton), as the person whom the individual to whom the letter was addressed was to oppose, of sir Alexander Cochrane as the person whom he was to support. The admonition also "not to mention the letter until the whole affair was arranged," deserved peculiar notice. Some authority must have been given, or must have been understood to have been given to this man by lord Douglas, or by some other person in his name. The nature of the answer by lord Douglas to his (lord Archibald Hamilton's) communication was so general, that it was perfectly possible some authority might have been given by some person acting under lord Douglas for the offer in Ferguson's letter, and yet lord Douglas might not himself have authorized the writer.—Mr. Dykes had been subsequently waited upon by Mr. Ferguson; and, in consequence of that visit had written to him (lord Archibald Hamilton) stating, that Ferguson had no authority whatever from lord Douglas for the letter he had written. Authority, however, in some way or other, he must have had for writing such a letter. One of two things must have taken place—either lord Douglas himself must in some circuitous manner have given authority for the writing of the letter, or else some person connected with his lordship must have given the authority; for that the writer himself should have ventured to take such a step without having been authorized to do so, was a circumstance of a most improbable nature. The right hon. gentleman opposite seemed to startle at this. He (lord A. Hamilton) might be under some misapprehension; and he did not wish to cast any blot on the noble lord's name. Mr. Ferguson was employed as a clerk under the noble lord's factor; but it was perfectly immaterial to him whether Ferguson was connected in any manner with lord Douglas, or whether he received any authority from lord Douglas to write the letter. The point at issue was, whether any authority had been given to write the letter; for it was impossible to suppose that any person situated as Mr. Ferguson was, should without any authority use the name of lord Douglas, state the names of the two parties, request support for one of them, and at last beg secrecy until the whole affair should be arranged. No person could possibly think that Ferguson had not authority from some one to do what he did. To suppose that he had not, Was to suppose him guilty of an absurdity of which DO person in his senses could be capable. Having stated the case, he wished merely to suggest to the House, the different ways in which they might notice the transaction. They might either order Mr. Ferguson to the bar of the House to give an account of the authority under which he acted, or they might refer the whole to a committee of privileges. It was quite indifferent to him which course was adopted; but it was his intention that Mr. Ferguson should be ordered to attend at their bar; because, in his opinion, that would be the best way for coming at the facts. There was still another course which the House might pursue,— they might give directions to the Lord Advocate, to commence a prosecution against Ferguson. But he thought that this was by no means advisable.— A single topic remained to which he wished to advert. He was not aware of the existence Of any precedent immediately in point. He had, however, looked at some of the cases of breach of privilege which had occurred, and he thought that by every analogy the course which he recommended ought to be adopted by the House. There was, however, one act Of parliament which he acknowledged, threw him into some degree of embarrassment — he meant the act of 1809, Commonly called Mr. Curwen's act. The only difficulty was, that on Mr. Ferguson's being ordered to attend at the bar, the first question to be put to him would be, on what authority he wrote the letter. From the answer which he would return to that question it might become doubtful how far, under the act to which he had alluded, he might become chargeable with what he had done; and it might be considered unfair to call on him to acknowledge that which might eventually subject him to prosecution. But, on the whole, he did not think that the act in question would bear that construction. It applied only to cases of treating, and not to a case like the present. He should propose, therefore, that Ferguson should be called to the bar, and the House might subsequently proceed to other resolutions on the subject. He repeated, that he viewed the part that he was now taking in no other light than in that of a public duty. He thought he owed it to the independent, unbought, and unbiassed freeholders of the county which he had the honour to represent, and who had heretofore returned him freely without fee or reward, to submit the case to the consideration of parliament; and in doing so, he felt that he did no more than sustain their rights, the privileges of that House, and the liberties of the country. He would therefore move, "That Mr. Thomas Ferguson do attend this House on Tuesday the 21st of April." In naming this day, however, he begged not to be understood as wishing to fix an inconvenient day; he would readily acquiesce in the nomination of one more distant if it should be calculated to afford any convenience to the individual in question.

suggested that the regular course was to deliver in the letter of which the noble lord complained.' Lord A. Hamilton said he had no sort of objection to do so. The letter was accordingly delivered by him to the clerk, and read.

said, he thought that after the correspondence which had taken place between the noble lord opposite and lord Douglas, the noble lord might have spared his motion.—If he could not satisfy the noble lord on the subject, he was sure he should be able to satisfy the House; for he was desired by lord Douglas to declare to the House, upon his honour, that he never did give any order to any person to make any such promise as was mentioned in the letter which had been read to the House. He was desired, too, by that noble lord to state, that he was sure the House was too generous to doubt this unqualified and express denial, and too just to entertain any hasty and un founded suspicion.—He therefore conceived that after having made this statement by the desire of lord Douglas, the House could not agree to the motion now before it, without implying a distrust in the word of honour of that nobleman. Having done with the conduct of lord Douglas, he wished to say a word or two respecting the conduct of the noble mover himself. There was an old saying, of which every day's experience proved the truth—that a man who lived in a glass house should beware of throwing stones. What had the noble lord's own conduct been? Had the privileges of the House never been violated in his own case? When the noble lord first came forward as a candidate for the county of Lanark, he was backed by no mean interest, by no common individual. To further his election, letters were written by a person of the first rank in the nobility of Scotland, by the duke of Hamilton, the father of the noble lord. A complaint of this kind did not, therefore, come with the best grace from such a quarter. He should certainly oppose the present motion.

said, that this was a case of direct bribery—a most serious invasion on the privileges of the House. After the letter which had been read it was impossible to deny that the offence had been committed by some one. That it was by lord Douglas no man could for a moment suppose, after the positive denial which that nobleman had directed to be given on his part to the charge. But that the offence had been committed by Ferguson, the letter indisputably proved; and yet the right hon. gentleman sat down, saying, that he would oppose the motion, and that it was impossible, but that every gentleman must be satisfied—and why?—Because lord Douglas denied that he had given Ferguson any authority. After all, this was no more than the denial of the person accused; and, because the person accused denied the charge, therefore the Commons of England were to rest satisfied, though in possession of an indisputable proof that their privileges had been infringed [Hear, hear!]. He would not detain the House by quoting precedents. In 1779, when a complaint of this kind was made against the duke of Chan-dos, the question was referred to a committee of privileges. The same thing was done in the case of the mayor and corporation of Oxford. If the present case was passed over, it would be the first instance of such a neglect of what was due to the honour of the House. The course for the House to adopt was, either to refer the case to a committee of privileges to take evidence, or if it should be thought more convenient, to order the party at once to the bar of the House. But the House would be totally forgetful of their own dignity, if they did not inquire who the guilty persons were, and if, after discovering the offenders, they did not prosecute them with the greatest severity [Hear, hear!].

of Scotland observed, that according to the notice of the noble lord, the subject of his motion was, the interference of a peer with the election of a member of that House. Now, he would put it to the House, whether the noble lord in his statement, had brought any proof of the interference of a peer of the realm with the election of a member of parliament. The evidence referred to in his statement, was a letter from a person who was not a factor or servant employed by lord Douglas, or even employed on any estate of his lordship, in Lanarkshire. Whether he was employed on any other estate of the noble lord, he had no means of ascertaining. But this assertion rested simply on the declaration of Ferguson, that authority was given to him by the noble lord. Now, in opposition to this, they had the positive averment of lord Douglas, that this assertion was unfounded—and not only had they the statement of the noble lord, but they had the statement of that very individual himself, that he believed the assertion contained in his letter was utterly false. Now the question as proposed was, the interference of a peer of the realm with the election of a member of parliament; and he submitted whether there was any ground for believing that an)' such interference had taken place on the part of lord Douglas. The conduct of Ferguson was another matter. If he was the person charged with the offence, that was another question altogether. The motion before them was, that Mr. Ferguson should be ordered to attend at the bar. Now, he presumed the noble lord had in contemplation what questions he would put to Ferguson when he was there. It was a question of very grave consideration, whether he should be forced to answer queries by which he might criminate himself. The noble lord had alluded to another mode of proceeding—he mentioned that he had had it once in contemplation, that his majesty's advocate should be directed to prosecute that individual. Whether the noble lord relied on the individual who now filled that office or not, he did not know; but this he would say, whatever orders might he given by the House on this subject to him, to the best of his poor abilities he would endeavour to execute. He thought it was more consonant to justice and to law that the person alluded to should be put on his trial, than that he should be brought to the bar of the House. By bringing him there they were endeavouring to lay the foundation of a prosecution against him; and his own statement would be made a ground of crimination against him. The noble mover had said a great deal about the attempts of the servants and agents of government to remove him from the representation of the county of Lanark. He, for one, would state, that his own conduct had been the direct contrary of this from beginning to end, for he had not the means of influencing any person in the county — he had neither directly nor indirectly interfered in the election. If he had had the means of so doing, it might be another question; and for this reason—that having a most cordial personal attachment to the noble lord's opponent, the gallant admiral, he should be proud of having it in his power to serve him. Was there any disgrace in opposing the noble lord? If that was a disgrace, it was a satisfaction to him that he would share it with a majority of the freeholders of Lanarkshire. The noble lord had talked of the interference of the peerage. Did the noble lord dispute, that the noble duke, his father, finding that the contest was likely to turn out not very successful for the party whom he supports, had not rested satisfied with the fair votes of the freeholders, but had been obliged to make out of his great estate in the county of Lanark 30 votes, called parchment votes, to secure the election of the noble lord? Was not this an interference of a peer of the realm in the election for a county? Had the noble lord rested on the free and independent interest, he would not have referred to such matters. There was not only a disavowal of lord Douglas, but a statement of the party who wrote the letter, that his interference was not authorized by the noble lord; and, therefore, in justice to the noble person against whom there was no evidence whatever to implicate him in the conduct of Ferguson, he thought they ought not to agree to the motion. Of the name of Ferguson he had never heard till that day. He would admit that they were bound to proceed against that individual in some way or other, if guilty. But he thought that it was not desirable that that individual should be brought to the bar of this House, that he might afterwards be prosecuted on his own statements.

said, that among the old sayings, for which a right hon. gentleman who spoke early in the debate seemed to have a strong predilection, there was one, that there was nothing new under the sun. But, notwithstanding such high authority, he would venture to say, that he had heard that night such a code of the privileges of the House, from the learned lord advocate, as, he believed, was quite new to every member, for every chapter of that code contained nothing which any one had ever heard any thing of before. He had been told by the learned lord, that they ought not to call Ferguson to the bar of the House, because the motion referred to the conduct of lord Douglas, and this motion was in disconformity to the notice, and that the noble lord was therefore precluded from taking up a question of privilege, which could not be taken up without notice. Now, he thought, it had been known to the whole House, that, in a question of privilege, all notice was superfluous; he should have thought it was known to the learned lord himself, that every member had a right to bring in a matter of privilege without notice; and that, on going up to the table of the House, and producing the letter, or other voucher, by which it was evident that a breach of privilege had been committed, the House were bound to entertain the motion. Had his noble friend, therefore, gone up to the table without notice, and produced the letter, the House were bound to entertain the motion, and to give it precedency over all other orders or notices. But the novelty did not stop here. Ferguson, it seemed, ought not to be called to the bar of the House, because his noble friend having probably turned over in his own mind the questions which he should put to him, the answers of Ferguson might criminate himself. He supposed that his noble friend knew the questions which He should put—at least he knew that he would put one question to him; —"Are you the author of that letter?" And if he did not answer that question, he would be committed to the custody of the serjeant at arms. And if his right hon. and learned friend asked any of the gentlemen beside him—for it seemed he knew nothing of the matter himself—he would find that what he had said was the greatest injustice was not only not a new proceeding, but was, in fact the only way they had of asserting their privileges. No man could refuse to answer the questions of the House of Commons, or if he did, he would he committed for contempt: and he had no right to say he would not answer, because he would not criminate himself. He would be told, "whatever you confess here you do in perfect safety, except in so far as respects the offence against this House." How did it happen, when poor printers who had no peers to back them—who did not act under the authority of peers—(if they had they would probably not be called for; for this House was often a little select in this respect; and when printers, in their attacks, were so fortunate as to be backed by noble lords, they were never brought here; but if without this backing they ventured to attack members, then these poor printers were sure to be before them)—how did it happen, that no one ever returned to object to their being called to the bar of the House, and that no one ever attempted to say they ought not to answer, because they might criminate themselves? He had not been long in parliament, but he had already seen several instances where a member only produced a letter or paper, and the printer or writer was immediately ordered to appear at the bar. He believed the House were a little select with respect to their persons but such an inequality as that which was now proposed, was not only not known in practice, but had never even been contemplated by any man; for, on the part of the House, it would be openly disgracing and vilifying itself in the eyes of the whole country. For what would it be saying? It would be saying that persons had only to attack those who were opposed to his majesty's ministers, and they would receive the support of the agents of government, and that there was nothing so atrocious which they might not do in such a case, not only with impunity, but even without inquiry or investigation. Never till the present case had a motion of this nature been resisted on such grounds. This was what the House would bring on itself, in the minds of all reasonable men, if they resisted the motion; but he, for one, could not bring himself to think they would. It was unnecessary to detain the House one moment longer. The motion was confined to Ferguson—it said nothing at all respecting lord Douglas; but even if the motion had had relation to lord Douglas, that did not preclude them from inquiry. For how stood the case as to the charge against lord Douglas? Here they had evidence primâa facie against him. And what had they against that evidence? The simple denial of lord Douglas. This was not only no ground of defence for lord Douglas, but every friend of lord Douglas ought to defy Ferguson to come forward, that he might be subjected to all the inquisitorial powers of the House for the sake of the vindication of that noble lord. If he were the friend of lord Douglas for his sake alone, he would support the motion; for they might rest assured, that to lord Douglas a very great suspicion would attach, if no farther explanation was afforded with respect to his conduct.

of Scotland, in explanation, said, he had been totally misrepresented by his hon. and learned friend. He had never meant to quarrel with the present motion, because it was different from the notice, but because it fell short of it.

would appeal to those who heard what had originally fallen from his right hon. and learned friend, to say whether he had not stated it correctly.

said, that the question before the House at that moment was, the conduct of a private individual, who did appear to have committed a very high breach of privilege. The question for the consideration of the House was, not whether it ought to be passed over without any notice, but in what way it ought to be noticed. With respect to the mode in which this individual ought to be punished, the noble lord said that he had not made up his mind. The general mode of proceeding in case of a breach of privilege was, to refer it to a committee of privileges. Another course was, that which had been adopted in the case of the bishop of Worcester, in the reign of queen Anne, in 1702. In that case Mr. Lloyd, the son of the bishop was also complained of, and the House, after hearing the charges against them, ordered that the son should be prosecuted by the attorney-general.^* The general course however was, to refer the matter to the consideration of a committee of privileges. The noble lord had very candidly admitted that an act of parliament affected this question. Amitting then, that the offence against this House was also an offence against the statute law of the realm, he submitted, whether it would not be better to proceed under the statute law, he suggested, whether it would not be more adviseable to refer it to a committee of privileges. This he conceived, would answer all the purposes of the motion; and if the noble lord did not think proper to adopt this course, he himself would take the liberty of moving as an amendment, that the matter in question be referred to the consideration of the committee of privileges.

^* See Parl. Hist., Vol.6, p. 50.

Lord A. Hamilton said he had no objection to the amendment proposed by the right hon. gentleman, Mr. Bathurst suggested the propriety of withdrawing the motion, and substituting a motion to the effect of the amendment he had proposed. Lord A. Hamilton wished rather that the right hon. gentleman should propose his own amendment. Mr. Bathurst then moved as an amendment that the complaint be referred to a committee of privileges, to examine into the matter thereof, and to report their opinion to the House thereupon.

begged to offer a few words in reply. He said he was not aware of having stated this as a party question, nor of having stated it unfairly. He had brought it forward on general grounds, as a high breach of the privileges of that House; and the right hon. gentleman opposite must feel some disappointment that the House had not got rid of the question on the simple denial of the noble lord. He was not aware of having departed from the notice he had originally given, in the motion he had this evening proposed for the adoption of the House. He had stated on the former night, that the matter of charge regarded the interference of a noble peer with the privileges of that House, but he had never said, that the matter rested exclusively with that noble peer. This charge had been attempted to be rebutted by an assertion, that at a former period of his (lord A. Hamilton's) life, he had had no objection to aristocratical influence, and that in fact it had been exercised for him. To this he would reply, that he was not answerable for the conduct of others, and that whatever occurred so far back as fifteen or sixteen years ago, should have been made matter of complaint at the time, instead of being now raked up to defend other acts of impropriety. There was, however, a great difference between the character of the two acts alluded to. The mere personal request or solicitation of an individual, bore no resemblance to such an influence as that of which he now complained, which was palpably corrupt, and went to destroy the best rights of the electors. The lord advocate had said, that he had exercised no influence, because he had none to tender —this was certainly a very sufficient reason. He had also alluded to the manner in which electors were made in Scotland, but he at the same time well knew that there was no other mode of contesting a county election in Scotland but by creat- ing these paper or parchment votes. He had often informed the House of the grievous state of representation in that part of the empire; for it was a fact that a man might have 20,000l. in land, and yet be not entitled to a vote. The noble lord concluded by acceding to the amendment, which was accordingly put and carried: and the name of lord A. Hamilton was added to the committee.

said, he would detain the House but a very few minutes in introducing the Ordnance Estimates. A variety of regulations and retrenchments had taken place within the last year in the department of the master-general, and there was only a single addition in one particular branch. The general outline of the establishment for the current year, as compared with the peace establishment of 1788, presented only an augmentation of 47000l., which, considering the extended nature of the present service, was an extremely small addition, and at once showed the pains that had been taken to make every possible reduction. He would reserve any explanations that might be necessary till they should be called for, as the estimates were read. He concluded by moving, "That a sum not exceeding 596,469l. 1s. 8d. be granted to his majesty, in full, for the charge of the Office of Ordnance for Land Service in Great Britain for the year 1818."

wished to say a few words in behalf of a class of officers whom he could not but consider very hardly treated. He meant those of the drivers' corps. After very long service they had been put upon half pay, without any chance of being ever again called upon to act. There was a captain Humphries, who had served for three and twenty years in a most meritorious way, and in different parts of the world. After all this he was reduced to 6s. 8d. a day, while officers, not of three years standing, retired upon the full pay. There was this difference between the officers of the drivers' corps and others, that the former could not be restored to full pay by the commander in chief. The same observation might be made with respect to the Irish artillery. The officers of one of the Irish artillery corps had, after a long service, been dis- missed upon half pay, while those of another corps had their choice either to continue in the army or to retire upon full pay. He hoped something would be done, were it even in liberality, to ameliorate the condition of the gentlemen to whom he alluded.

concurred in the sentiments expressed by his hon. friend. It was too hard that gentlemen who had served so long should be obliged to retire upon half pay, without any chance of being called again into service.

said, that the corps of artillery drivers had increased during the late war to 7,000 men, who were divided into twelve troops, with twelve captains and other officers. They had deserved well of their country, and distinguished themselves on every occasion, as far as the nature of their service allowed. It was not, therefore, for any fault of theirs that they were reduced, but they had experienced the same fate as the army. Eight troops had been reduced out of the twelve, and put on half pay. When, after the campaign of 1815, a fresh organization of the remaining four troops had taken place, as they were still retained, full pay was given to the officers who retired, and from that arrangement there had been no deviation. If captain Humphries was in those four troops, and did not receive his full pay, then he was not in the situation in which it was intended he should be placed, and he might not only claim his full pay, but its arrears. But if he belonged to the eight troops which had been reduced, then he was not entitled to more than his half pay.

contended, that the case was entirely anomalous. It was hard for a person who had served 22years to retire with 6s. 8d. per day, whilst individuals, in more favoured corps, enjoyed their whole pay. He then instanced an Irish corps which had been reduced at the Union, and the officers of which had their full pay.

differed in opinion with the hon. gentleman upon this class of officers. There was no intention it was true, of recalling them. There might be a chance of it, but there was no right. They knew this when they entered the service. The ground of his objection, however, to allow them full pay arose from considerations of finance. The case of the Irish artillery, mentioned by the hon. gentleman went against himself. There were two batallions of Irish artillery. The officers of one were reduced to half-pay before the Union. Another existed at the time of the Union, and the officers of it had an option either to enter the service or to retire on the full pay of the Irish establishment. The proposal of the hon. gentleman, if agreed to in its full extent, would give the officers alluded to 3,000l. a year besides 51,000l. arrears. Could this sum now be conveniently laid out? His objection to it was not personal: it proceeded upon public considerations.

thought the case of those officers was very hard. They could not get into any other corps, and after a promise had been made, that they should retire upon full pay, was it right to deprive them of it? The officers to whom he alluded were many of them on foreign service at the time of their reduction. He hoped the committee would take their situation into consideration, and make some provision for them, as they suffered much hardship from having been reduced to half pay.

said, that there were a great number of situations in which ministers were placed, in which it was very difficult and delicate to know how to regulate their conduct. In the present instance, it was a matter of doubt whether the officers in question should be favoured beyond the usual rule of the service. If the case, as had been stated, was one in which a promise had been made, that would, no doubt, be fulfilled: but if the merits and services of the persons concerned were the foundation of their claim, he was sure the noble lord on whom such cases depended for decision would give the matter every consideration that could be given to such affairs. He submitted whether it would not be better to allow the case, after what had been stated, to be considered by the noble lord, and to allow him to decide on it as its merits demanded. It would still be equally open to be brought forward at any future period in the way of address, or in any other way that might appear proper.

was extremely anxious to do any thing he could on the subject; but with respect to a promise, it was in his opinion impossible that any could have been made, except with regard to the four troops he had mentioned. It was true that they could not return to any other military service; but certainly, no promise had been given to them. If the reduction was expected, and notified the usual time before it took place, the officers alluded to suffered no more hardship than was suffered by a great number every year.

thought there was no reason why the officers of artillery drivers should not have the advantages of other officer?. They were discharged, and it was said to them "there is an end of you." Their case was an entire anomaly; and unless the hon. gentleman could produce any instance of officers retiring without a chance of returning to service, he had adduced no case in point.

expressed a hope, that justice would be done to these officers.

reminded the House, that at the beginning of the session the chancellor of the exchequer had stated, that after defraying all the expenses of the last year, there would be an excess of revenue amounting to three millions'. The right hon. gentleman had now acknowledged, that the excess of the revenue, which might truly be called a sinking fund, was 1,800,000l., and that the appearance of a larger surplus had been produced by the confusion of the Irish and English accounts. He now wished to know whether the sums paid into the Bank of England by the different saving banks, and amounting in all to 657,000l., and on which exchequer bills had been issued, were included in that sum of 1,800,000.

said, that the accounts which he had laid on the table would explain what the amount of the saving last year had been. As to the money which came from the Saving banks, it was not at all connected with the sum mentioned by the hon. baronet. It was quite a separate account. The bill was read a first time.

said, that as he considered this a measure for establishing a permanent paper currency in time of peace, he wished to know whether it was in the contemplation of the chancellor of the exchequer to take any steps for securing to the public any share of the vast profits which the Batik of England received from this system?

said, he was of opinion, as he had always been, that it would not be consistent with the honour or welfare of the country, to make itself a partner in any profits which the Bank of England happened to derive from the restriction.

said, he was confident that no notes would be issued by country bankers, on the conditions prescribed by the bill, and that the consequence would be to drive them out of circulation, to the benefit of the Bank of England, which many would think had without such a measure, influence enough in the country. He wished to know whether it was proposed that the notes issued should pay any duty?

said, that they would pay the same duty as was now paid, though the form would be different. It might perhaps be convenient, to allow a certain sum to be paid as compensation for the stamp duty. The convenience of this would be, that, as the sum to be issued by each banker would be well ascertained, any banker might change his notes as often as they became dirty, or worn out, without additional expense.

alluding to what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman the other day, respecting the total disappearance of the 2,500,000l. issued in com by the Bank, wished to inform him that it had not been all transmitted, as he seemed to imagine, to foreign countries. The fact was, that at that period some bankers, and he spoke with certainty of one with whom he was connected by blood, having placed full confidence in the assurance given by the right hon. gentleman respecting the resumption of cash payments, had made preparations for that purpose. With that end in view, the banker whom he had mentioned had drawn a large sum from the bank of Ireland, as a preparation against the period when cash payments should be resumed.

said, he should be glad to find that the in- stances of such preparations had not been rare, and would make some inquiry into the subject before the bill passed through the House.

observed, that 100l. five per cents was of more value than 100l. exchequer bills; and that 100l. four per cents was also of more value, but in a less proportion. He wished to know whether the chancellor of the exchequer intended to propose any clause in the bill which would regulate the difference, as this was a matter of some importance?

said, that the subject mentioned by the hon. gentleman would be proper for the committee. Great difficulty had been found in making any distinction between the different public stocks; but he should be happy to receive any communication on the subject.

observed, that the Bank of England was now in a more flourishing state than it had ever before been. But it would never have arrived at that state, if it had been liable to be called upon, at any time for cash payments. If, then, such confidence was placed in the Bank of England, a proportionate degree of confidence should be placed in private banks; for the Bank of England was no more than a company of private bankers on a large scale. He hoped that such time would be taken on the discussion of the present bill as would enable the House and the country to understand fully what was its nature, and what would be its effects.

spoke against the principle and details of the measure. He said, he could not see any necessity for its adoption, and he protested against the doctrine, that no surgeon should be allowed to practice, who did not submit to an examination by, had not a testimonial from, and, did not pay a fee to, some corporation of surgeons. The adoption of such a measure would, in his view, be peculiarly inconsistent with justice and sound judgment, as well as with he conduct of that House, which had recently abolished the restrictions imposed by the laws of queen Elizabeth, upon the subject of trade. He was not among those who deprecated the policy of the laws which subjected to a pecuniary penalty such as set up particular trades, without servings an apprenticeship to those trades; for such laws were, in his opinion, necessary to secure to society persons of competent skill in the mechanical professions. But it had become the fashion to deprecate those laws, and therefore they were repealed about two years ago. Would it, then, become parliament, after acceding to that repeal, upon the ground of removing undue restrictions, to adopt a measure which proposed to invest certain corporations with the power of deciding, who should or should not practise surgery? Such restrictions could only be tolerated upon the ground that it was necessary to provide against unskilful practitioners; but no such necessity was shown to exist; and if it existed, how did this bill propose to remedy the evil? Why, merely by making it obligatory upon persons to submit to an examination before certain colleges. But what guarantee did such examination afford to the public for competent practitioners The usual examination before the college of surgeons was, he was assured, conducted in a very loose and slovenly manner. Then as to the college of surgeons in Edinburgh, the fee for a testimonial or diploma there was in the first stage about 30l., but in a subsequent stage the fees required were no less than 250l., and those fees were exacted by the mere bye law, or internal authority of the college. Was the House, under all these circumstances, prepared to compel every candidate for the practice of surgery, to appeal to these colleges, and to depend upon their will for the right to pursue his profession He had no objection to a law to regulate the practice of surgery, and to prevent the evil of improper practitioners; but he thought the hon. mover had begun at the wrong end, for instead of proposing a measure at the instance of the public, for whose benefit such a measure ought to be adopted, he brought it forward at the instance of the college of surgeons of London, whose benefit it was calculated to promote. The hon. baronet concluded with moving as an amendment, "That the bill be read a second time this day six months."

stated, that the fee required by the college of surgeons of Edinburgh, from a person desiring to practise as a licenciate, was only 5l. but that any one requiring (and this was wholly voluntary) to be admitted as a member of that corporation, which admission would entitle him to certain advantages for himself, his widow, and his children, was called upon to pay 250l. for the benefit of the general fund.

stated a case which came to his knowledge, and which served, in his opinion, to show the necessity of making some provision that the people should not be exposed to the danger of incompetent medical practitioners. This case had occurred in his own neighbourhood, where, upon the regular surgeons refusing to inoculate for the small pox, conceiving vaccination much preferable, some people were, through prejudice and imposition, induced to apply to chemists, and other unqualified persons, who inoculated for the small pox, and the consequence was, that the contagion spread throughout the country—that, indeed, no less than 800 persons in one parish were infected by it.

reprobated the idea of legislating upon a single fact, however respectable the authority by whom authenticated. The bill professed to be one merely to regulate the practice of surgery; yet a line or two after it stated, without even its having been attempted to be proved, that "Whereas ignorant and incapable persons are not restrained by law from practising surgery; whereby the health of great numbers of persons is much injured, and the lives of many destroyed." Was this, then, merely a bill of regulation, or was it not rather one of imputation, and that of the most alarming and. prejudicial nature? The college of Dublin, as well as other bodies, was inimical to the bill, though not to its principle. He was inimical to the principle of the bill itself; for if it were sufficient for a party merely to appear before a certain board (not that he supposed such board would be directly influenced by interested motives), in order to procure a licence or diploma, on payment of a sum of money, it was to be feared that the practice would ultimately degenerate into one of considerable abuse. It was natural to suppose a competition would soon be entered into between the several bodies who had a power to grant licences, for the purpose of procuring the greatest quantity of fees. The more testimonials they granted, the greater would be their profit. It would be evidently to their advantage to grant as many as possible; and, therefore, it appeared to him, that unless they had some other test of ability, beyond a mere diploma, a great abuse would be generated. On this account he should oppose the bill being carried into a law. With respect to Ireland, where, he believed, the profession was most respectably carried on, he would not attempt to regulate it there, without farther evidence of the necessity of legislative interference. In 1784, alterations of a beneficial character were made in the college of surgeons of Dublin, without which their new charter would not have been granted to them. By those regulations, an apprenticeship was rendered necessary, before an individual entered on the profession, instead of a mere appearance before the board, and receiving a diploma. In the bill now before the House, there was a clause, which set forth, that surgical assistance was often necessary in practising midwifery; and, therefore, that every person practising that branch of the profession, should also have a licence for acting as a surgeon. By this means a double imposition would be levied from persons acting as accoucheurs, which appeared to be unjust and unnecessary. He was altogether an enemy to the principle of subjecting the surgical profession to any such restriction as this bill proposed: for if such a bill were adopted, he very much feared that the fees required for the diploma would alone be looked to, and that the examination would become a mere formality. After animadverting upon the fees required for a diploma by the college of surgeons of Edinburgh, which in 1717 amounted only to about 3l. while they were now equal to 250l., the right hon. gentleman concluded with observing, that the present bill was the child of the late attorney-general, who transferred it to the hon. and learned mover, by whom, with all his paternal care for the bantling, it had not, he was sorry to say, been much amended or improved.

opposed the bill, on the ground of its destroying the only check that now existed against an improper system of professional practice. It would destroy all competition. The examination would be a mere formality. The only object would be the fee.

said he was not disposed to press its adoption against the sense of the House.

though he considered the present measure objectionable, thought some plan should be devised to guard against those abuses which were admitted to be too general.

declared it the most exceptionable measure ever submitted to parliament. Its framers might with equal propriety have demanded, that the surgeons of the united kingdom should all pass through a certain turnpike and pay toll, in order to qualify them for the exercise of their functions, as to regulate their efficiency by such a test as was now proposed.

rose to move for leave to bring in a bill on a subject, in his judgment, of the highest importance. It had for its object to procure employment for the millions of persons in the united kingdom, particularly in Ireland, who were now unhappily without any means of exerting their industry. In that stage of the measure, and in so thin a House, he would not trespass on its attention by entering into a statement of the merits of the measure. In Ireland it had been for a long time the law to permit persons to embark a certain capital in trading partnerships, under a limitation of their liability only to the amount of the capital embarked. Defects had since been found to exist in the statutes under which that permission was granted. One part of his object was, to correct those deficiencies by amendments, and to them he could not anticpate any objection. With regard to this part of the united kingdom, he conceived it would be highly advantageous to extend the same permission as existed in Ireland. It would be open to the consideration of the House to judge of its merits when the bill should be printed. He had then only to move for leave to bring in a bill for the better employment of the poor in the fisheries, trade, and manufactures of the country, by the encouragement of partnerships.

observed, that the motion could not be received. The course to be pursued by the worthy alderman was, to move for the House to resolve itself into a committee of the whole House on the subject, and to let a resolution to the effect proposed by the worthy alderman grow out of that committee.

having changed the form accordingly, and moved for the House to resolve itself into a committee,

said, he did not mean to oppose the motion of his hon. friend, which notwithstanding seemed a most extraordinary one; for thus promoting the employment of the poor was neither more nor less than doing away with all the existing laws for the protection of trade and commerce, and particularly with that of the 6th Geo. 1st for preventing the formation of joint stock companies. If he understood the bill at all, it was to encourage such companies, by individuals subscribing a certain sum, and releasing themselves from all responsibility that should exceed the sum they subscribed. Such a measure would strike at the root of the whole commercial system of this country. He knew that in many parts of the continent such a system was adopted, but it was so contrary to the system on which this country had ever acted, that he should feel it his duty to oppose the proposition in every stage.

thought his hon. friend had certainly mistaken the nature of the measure. It was not a bill that the great capitalists of this country ought to be alarmed at; and the House could deter- mine whether it should go with any amendments that might be proposed.

replied, that if its object was only to amend the existing laws of Ireland, he should not give it opposition; but would it not go to the extent of allowing manufacturers and traders in this country to deposit any sum they pleased, being liable only for what they advanced?

hoped the House would, at all events, entertain this bill; for he would take upon himself to say that such defects had been found in the acts of the 22nd and 26th of the king, that they had ceased to be operative. It was peculiarly necessary for Ireland, that the principles of some such measure should be reduced to practice, and by the means of capital— the only thing wanted to give employment to the mass of unemployed poor.

knew that a similar practice prevailed abroad, but here he was convinced that it would be attended with the greatest possible disadvantage to trade and commerce. He hoped the worthy alderman would so separate the two objects, that if what related to England were rejected, that which related to Ireland might remain.

considered the measure to be one which would affect a fundamental principle in our commercial system, and therefore it would require the most deliberate attention of the House.

of Scotland said, he believed it was generally admitted that there were defects in controlling the expenditure of the corporations of the royal Scotch burghs. It was therefore his object to move for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the mode of accounting for the revenues of those burghs, and for the better regulation and control of the undue expenditure thereof. The measure he had in contemplation was one which would partially revive the obsolete laws of the country, which called the magistrates to account for the revenues in the court of exchequer. In addition to this, it would impose upon them an obligation to submit their, accounts annually, and that they should also be exposed to the burgesses to consider of the expenditure; and if they saw grounds of an improvident expenditure, they should have a right to complain. But this might not in certain cases prevent the misapplication of the funds by the magistrates, or from their entering into speculations by which dilapidations might arise. He should therefore propose that the court of exchequer, on the complaint of five burgesses, should have the power of controlling the actual expenditure. But in so thin a House he thought it would be better to leave the bill to speak for itself. He would therefore move, "That leave be given to bring in a bill, for the better regulating the mode of accounting for the common good and Revenues of the Royal Burghs of Scotland, and for controlling and preventing the undue expenditure thereof."

congratulated the House, and still more particularly the country with which he was immediately connected, that at length, after numerous petitions had been presented, after various grievances had been stated, the learned lord admitted, what be fore he had uniformly denied, that the royal burghs had very just reason to complain of serious injuries. Scotland had now, for about thirty years, been requesting this boon of the House, and, during the whole progress of that time it had been denied that any evil, such as the learned lord's measure was intended to redress, did in reality exist. Last session the learned lord seemed to deny that there was any necessity whatever for the House interfering on this subject; and he could not now, after what had fallen from the learned lord, avoid expressing his joy, that Scotland had at length a prospect of receiving justice at his hands, and at the hands of that House. Of the nature of the bill itself he would not presume to judge; but the view the learned lord took of the subject was so different from that which he and the petitioners entertained, that he feared but partial relief would be derived from the measure. The petitioners complained, not merely that they had no control over the expenditure of the revenues of the royal burghs, but that they had no voice whatever in the election of those very magistrates who disposed of their property. That grievance, he supposed, the learned lord meant to leave wholly untouched. He regretted that the learned lord had so long delayed his measure. He (lord A. Hamilton) on the first day of the session had stated his intention of calling the House to a consideration of the subject at large; but he gave up his intention, in consequence of the learned lord stating that he had long had it in contemplation to introduce a measure of this nature, yet from that time to the present, a period of upwards of two months, they had heard nothing on the subject. He lamented that the bill was introduced at so late a period, when those who took a more extensive view of the subject could not possibly give it that attention which it demanded. The bill seemed only to embrace a part of the evil. There were two points which it did not pretend to remedy—the self election of magistrates in some cases, for life, and the dissipation of the funds consequent on that self-election. Now, if the bill went no farther than to call magistrates to account, it would not meet the root and source of the evil. The learned lord spoke of statutes that were not operative. Why were they not operative? Because they were overwhelmed by the corruption which marked the burghs in Scotland, and which now called for this measure. Corruption had long been continued; and from it, those abuses which the learned lord now meant partially to remedy had proceeded. He loped the learned lord would have the bill circulated among those, who, like himself, were deeply interested in the measure. In conclusion, the noble lord inquired whether the bill had been submitted to the judges of Scotland, as he understood it would be; and also what period the learned lord meant to give, in order that it might be circulated?

said, that no one was responsible for this measure but himself. He had not submitted it to the Scotch judges, but after he had made a draft of it, he had consulted those persons from whose advice he was likely to derive assistance in order that it might not come before the House in a crude shape. He never said that he had long contemplated a measure of this kind. What he had observed was, that he had it in contemplation in the course of the session, to introduce such a bill. With respect to his doubt, that certain laws in Scotland were not in abeyance, he should only reassert the fact —[Hear, hear, from sir John Newport and lord A. Hamilton]. He could excuse the right hon. baronet, for being ignorant that by the law of Scotland statutes from desuetude might cease to have operation. But he could not extend the same indulgence to the noble lord who was a legislator for Scotland [Lord A. Hamilton, in explanation, said he had never disputed it, he had only regretted it]. As to the complaint that persons who felt themselves aggrieved were prevented from taking measures of redress by the delay of the present bill, it was utterly unfounded. It was in the recollection of the House, that he had stated in the first week of the session the limited nature of the object he had in view. That object was to enable the courts of exchequer to take cognizance of the accounts and expenditure of the burghs, but not to attempt any more general regulations. There was nothing, therefore, in the nature of his pledge which ought to have prevented the persons alluded to, or the noble lord as their organ from introducing a more extended measure, if they thought it necessary. The noble lord was mistaken in attributing to him the assertion, that the royal burghs of Scotland had nothing to complain of. What he had said he was still prepared to maintain, namely, that it was impossible to introduce any general measure to regulate the election of magistrates in the royal burghs, without abrogating the whole system of the laws by which they were at present affected. He thought that the bill, though it might not embrace all the objects that were to be desired, would at least produce some good effects. It would remove many alleged grounds of grievance, and take away the stalking horse, by which the noble lord, as well as others, were enabled to introduce the topic of parliamentary reform, upon occasions with which it had. no necessary connexion. His intention, with regard to the progress of the bill was to bring it in that night, and have it read a first time immediately. He would then propose that it should lie over for three weeks, after being printed; but if the noble lord had any wish for its postponement to another session, he would not press it upon the House, as he saw no reason whatever for precipitating the question.

hoped, that after the charge of gross ignorance made against him by the learned lord, not for what he had said, but for what he meant to say, he should be excused for offering a few words to the House. The expression of his countenance, for that was the only expression that had escaped him, was excited to some astonishment at hearing it stated by the learned lord, that a statute remaining on the Statute book might, under certain circumstances, be considered as not a law of the country. Notwithstanding the decision of the judges, to which allusion bad been made, he still felt that astonishment. He remembered having once heard an advocate in Ireland contend before a learned judge, that a law which still existed in the Statute book was become obsolete. The answer of the judge was, that the thing was quite impossible; that where a statute could be produced it was binding on the court. The judge to whom he alluded was the late lord Kilwarden. It would certainly be a most mischievous discretion entrusted to judges of courts, if they were to be allowed to determine what laws were binding and what were not. When the provisions of a statute became objectionable or unnecessary, the legislature alone had the right to annul them, and if it was the fact that any judges had declared an existing statute not binding upon their determinations, it was a subject for the consideration of parliament. As to the bill itself, it appeared to him an attempt to establish the right of control in the body itself over which the control was to be exercised. It was on their own application to courts of law, that their own abuses were now intended to be remedied.

disclaimed any idea of imputing ignorance of the laws of England and Ireland against the right hon. baronet, but he was not acquainted with the law of Scotland. It was admitted by the legislature itself that statutes in Scotland had fallen into abeyance. One of the objects of the bill was, to give the burgesses at large a power to compel the magistrates, under a penalty, to lodge their accounts in the exchequer.

was of opinion that the present bill would be of no use at all as a remedy against the evil complained of. When a burgess was told that his remedy was in a court of law, he would be very apt to say the remedy was worse than the disease.