rose, for the purpose of presenting a petition from the vestry of the parish of St. Mary-le-bone, praying that they might be allowed to introduce a petition for a bill to establish a new water company. He should move that this petition be referred to a committee. But, before he did so, he found it necessary to make a few observations. The proper supply of water was of very great importance to the metropolis, and in order that a sufficient quantity of that necessary article should be obtained, the New-river company was incorporated. Since that period several other companies were instituted. Lately there appeared a design amongst them to override each other; and one company, by underselling another, had endeavoured to insure public favour. Thus, if one company offered to supply water at 10s. per annum, another immediately proposed to force the water, by a superior power even to the upper parts of houses, for 5s. The consequence was, that the companies became so distressed in their finances, that they were almost under the necessity of stopping their works. Had they been absolutely compelled to stop them, this great metropolis would have been deprived of water, which was so necessary for the preservation of health, for culinary purposes, and to prevent the ravages of fire. In this situation of things, the water companies found themselves under the necessity of carving out the metropolis into districts, which those most convenient to them were to supply; but in this allotment several places were totally omitted, and amongst the rest, that where be resided, so that they were almost prevented from procuring water at all. He was induced to look into this subject, in consequence of having last session brought in the metropolis paving act; and he then saw the necessity of putting an end to the imposition of the water companies. It was clear that competition was always necessary to insure to the public a supply of every article at the most reasonable rate; and, as the public, in this instance, were deprived of the benefit of such a competition, he could wish to place them in that situation which would prevent them from lying at the mercy of the water companies, who might now call on them to pay what rate they pleased. Instead of that, he thought a maximum ought to be affixed to the supply, beyond which the water companies should not be suffered to proceed, and also that a reserve, in case of fare, should always be ready to check the progress of that devouring element. It was notorious, that about seven weeks ago, a dreadful fire broke out in the Strand, at which several lives were lost, in consequence of the boiler of the York-buildings water company being out of repair, which prevented the water from being turned on. If the House granted a committee, he hoped such measures would be taken, as would prevent an occurrence of this kind in future. The water companies themselves must see the baneful effects of such a monopoly, and he could not conceive that even their friends would oppose the formation of a committee upstairs.

believed the watercompanies were themselves anxious to propose a maximum. The Grand Junction company, he understood, had no objection whatever, to the principle, since it was one on which they acted at present.

The petition was referred to a committee.

rose to move, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the laws which restrain the Trade in Wool, the growth of Great Britain." He ob served, that whatever objections might, at a former period, be urged against the adoption of such a measure, the time was now come when the manufacturers ought to concede the boon which the agricultural body had long looked for, namely, the right of exporting their wool. When the manufacturers were in a state of rapid improvement, he conceived he had a right to ask for this favour at their hands. The long wools of Lincolnshire and Leicestershire had sunk in price, in consequence of the quantity of foreign wool imported; and it was but fair that the growers should be allowed every means far the fair disposal of their property. In 1814 and 1815 no less than 30,700,000 lbs of wool were imported. Last year there was not so large an importation, but still it was very considerable. The foreign manufacturer had a very great advantage over the woolgrower of this country. He was enabled, in consequence of his not being burdened with poor-rates, to undersell the English grower, and this accounted for the market being overstocked with foreign wool. There was no other staple commodity of the country placed under such an interdict. Every other species of produce, either of our colonies or of home growth, was allowed to be exported, and he could see no good reason why the same principle should not be extended to wool. The hon. member concluded by moving for a Select committee.

said, that he would endeavour to prove, that there was no sufficient ground laid for the present application. The only ground that could be advanced was, that the wool of this country was in such a state of depreciation, as to call for the interference of the House. So far was this from being the case, that wool had, since the year l816, and even in the last year, increased in price from 1s. 2d. and 1s. 3d. to 1s. 7d. and 1s. 10d. per lb. Kentish wool, from 1s. 2d. and 1s. 6d. to 2s. and 2s. 2d. Sussex, from 1s. 6d. and 1s. 8d. to 2s. and 2s. 3d. Leicestershire wools, from 20l. and 30l. to 37l. and 40l. per tod. The price of wool, it thus appeared, was rising in this country; and, not withstanding the home growth, and that procured from abroad, the market was inadequately supplied. It would be a satisfaction to the House to hear, after what had been stated to them relative to the woollen manufactures of Yorkshire, that at no period had there been known so flourishing a year as the last, with the exception of the year 1813. He spoke of the absolute quantity of broad cloths manufactured. Of narrow cloths there had been a smaller amount manufactured than in former years; but that was made up by the great quantity of lady's clothes and other articles of that kind, for which there was a great demand. Under these circumstances, the hon. mover said, the manufacturers could afford to grant this boon. But the fact appeared to him to be the other way. It surely was better for this country to import the raw material, and send it out in a manufactured state, than impose duties on the introduction of the commodity. The great plea made use of was, the propriety of increasing the quantity of a certain description of wool; as if that could be done without diminishing the growth of another kind. If the principle of the hon. member were adopted, they might grow fine wool in greater quantities, but they would do away with the growth of long wool. Now, the former could be imported from any part of the world, but the latter could not be found any where else. That very species of wool, which it was in contemplation to export to the foreign market, was that, without which the foreign manufacturer could not furnish goods equal to those produced in England. Would they, then, act wisely to supply him with the article It was said, "refer this matter to a select committee; they will report; and if you do not choose to agree with that report, there is an end of the business." But, on a question of such importance to the manufacturers of the West and North of England, it was impossible to go into an examination, without investigating the price of wool, going into the subject of machinery, and other incidental matters,, of great importance. If the report was not agreed to, he conceived it would be most injurious to the country, to let it go abroad. In 1816, when a committee was formed on this subject, his conduct was reprobated both within and without that House. On that occasion, he felt that the report would be so dangerous, that he moved a resolution in the committee, confining them to the consideration of the matters contained in the petition alone. That resolution was agreed to, and the committee only considered whether the state of the price of wool demanded the interference of the legislature. Nothing was done on that occasion, because it was found that the state of the price did not justify any new measure. The present motion was founded on the petitions of last session. Not a new one, except that which was that day laid on the table of the House, had been presented on the subject. In 1816the committee was appointed previous to the Easter recess, and the whole country knew of it; and, with regard to the complaint of the low price of wool, not an individual, on that occasion, appeared to substantiate it. Under all these considerations, therefore, at a time when the manufacturers were commencing their operations with renewed vigour, and when, in fact, with regard to the article in question, there was an insufficient supply of the raw material from abroad, he was decidedly of opinion that the interference of the House was not required.

said:—I cannot let this question, which is highly important both to the agricultural and manufacturing interests of the country, go to a division, without offering a few observations on it. I am as little disposed to question the hon. mover's zeal for agriculture, as, I trust, he will be mine. The result of such a measure would, in the first instance, create great alarm in the manufacturing districts, and if in the end it succeed in its object, would materially injure those it was meant to serve. When this question was contained two years ago, the situation of the fine wool flock masters was very different to their present state: they were then suffering very severely—but who was not? The whole country was distressed. The growers of wool, with every other produce and branch of trade, have greatly recovered, and I conceive I shall be able to show that the former have as little or less cause of complaint than most. I do think the hon. mover is liable to have objected to him, what is frequently imputed to the farmer, on the score of weather, "that he is never to be satisfied." In 1816 fine wool could scarcely be sold at any price—nominally it was from 14d. to 1d. per lb.—the carcase at 6d. per lb sinking the offal Contrast this with the present value—wool 2s. per lb carcase at 10d. Thus a sheep of 60 lbs which would then have produced 34s. 6d. now fetches 56s. I do not know that markets were ever better for the South down flock masters. It must be gratifying to the House to hear from the noble lord the flourishing state of the woollen manufacture. It is not on this ground that the hon. mover rests the claims of the flock-masters! The prosperity of agriculture will ever be found to be in exact proportion to that of our manufactories and trade. The demand and consumption of agricultural produce must depend on the ability of the manufacturing and trading population to purchase. The truth of this will not be questioned. On this ground alone I would make my stand. There are supposed to be thirty millions of sheep in the kingdom. Estimating their average value at one pound per head, and taking the value of their wool at one sixth, the produce of wool would amount to five millions—two-thirds of which is fine, the remainder long or combing wool. I am ready to admit, for the sake of argument, that a free export of wool might enhance the value one million to the flock-masters; but at what national loss would this be obtained? As wool when manufactured, on an average, may be esteemed at least of seven times the value of the raw material, it consequently produces thirty-five millions, the principal part of which is labour. To this must be added the fine clothing wool annually purchased to the amount of a million and a half, adding ten millions more to the former statement: so that the total value of the woollen and worsted manufacture may be taken at 45 millions, and deducting from this sum the first cost of the raw material, there would remain forty millions annually created by labour and capital. I would ask any gentleman whether he doubts the operation of this created capital in raising agricultural produce, so as to produce a greater advantage to the whole agriculture of the kingdom than the million expected to be gained by the flock-masters by the free export of wool. Nor would the measure benefit the grower of fine wool; it is long or combing wool alone that would find sale in the foreign markets—the safe of which would deprive us of the benefit of manufacturing foreign wool. It would happen in this case as it has done in a very recent instance: a duty of 10l. Per ton was laid on rapeseed to benefit the growers of that commodity; the consequence has been that 5l. per ton has been laid by the Dutch on the export of the cake from Holland, Norfolk, and Suffolk, and the light soils in Yorkshire cannot now obtain rapeseed cakes at a price they can afford to use them. The free export of wool would be the signal for laying a duty on the export of clothing wool from foreign countries. It may be contended that all that is wanted is, to create a greater competition in our home market—as it is, our cloths can with difficulty compete with those manufactured abroad. Thus, if the measure had its desired effect, it would totally destroy our export trade. Now, Sir, on the former discussion there was not one petition from the growers of long or combing wool, they felt they were amply paid and asked no more. Were fine wool alone permitted to be exported, not a pound of it would be sold. The Merino wool, which is the general growth on the continent, has a decided preference over our South down, and unless a bounty was given on its export, the measure would be nugatory. It is asked, why grant a free trade in grain, and refuse it in wool? The answer is obvious—the value of the former cannot be augmented by the manufacture of it, while that of the latter is so infinitely increased, and cannot be exported without taking the bread from thousands. Few could be gainers by such a trade; many would be losers. Whence arises the present sufferings of the country? Is it not from a redundant population, and a general want of employment? The obvious tendency of this measure is, to augment the universal sufferings of the people, as well as to injure every farmer in the kingdom, who would lose customers for his produce to a great amount. Could I for one moment confine my views of advantage solely and exclusively to the interests of agriculture, I should oppose the measure. But short-sighted must that person be, who is not fully aware that the prosperity of agriculture depends on the flourishing state of our manufactories and trade. No injury can be inflicted on the one, without its being severely felt by the others. Anxious to promote the permanent interest of all classes of the empire, I give my decided opposition to the proposed measure.

was of opinion, that it would be a very great hardship if the House rejected a proposition of this kind, which was merely for an inquiry, as to the propriety of allowing a particular monopoly to exist any longer. On this ground, without pledging himself to support any future measure, he would vote for the motion.

supported the motion for a committee, as he was well aware that in- finite pains had been taken, in large districts, to promote the growth of wool for our manufactures, which, he was happy to hear from a noble lord, were in a flourishing condition; and he wished the wool growers to be as well protected in procuring a fair price for the article, as the owners of all other commodities were.

said, he believed there was not at present a sufficient supply of wool in the market. He had obtained, during the present year, as an agriculturalist, 30 per cent more for his wool than what he had been accustomed to receive. He therefore could not think that there was any ground for going into a committee.

thought it would be most unjust to the woolgrowers if the subject was not examined. In the committee of 1816, to which the noble lord had alluded, the proceedings were hurried forward in the most summary manner. A number of individuals had complained to him, that in consequence of the hasty manner in which the business was conducted, they had not had an opportunity of expressing their sentiments. He did not believe that the statement of the noble lord was correct, when he said, that, in proportion as one species of wool was encouraged, another must be depreciated. There were two descriptions of land applicable to the growth of different kinds of wool, and, in consequence of the alteration of the times, considerable quantities of each description would be thrown out of cultivation, and would, of course, be employed in pasture. Differing with the noble lord in the idea that information upon this subject would be injurious to the interests of the persons concerned in the trade, he really did hope that, considering that the question had not yet had a fair investigation, this committee would be appointed. It was quite a new idea to him, that a fair investigation into so important a subject as this would be injurious to the interests of the country.

said, it was evident that the object of the hon. mover was, to admit the exportation of a particular sort of wool if this was allowed, there would be such a fluctuation in the price as must materially affect the manufacturers. It appeared to him, that if the inquiry was agreed to, it would check the importation of wool from abroad. This would narrow the amount of manufactures—a circumstance which he considered extremely dangerous at the present moment.

said, that the price of wool had considerably increased since this time last year. No new petitions had been presented to the House. Instead of having the table covered with them, only one had been brought up. Under these circumstances, would they throw the manufacturing districts into confusion and alarm, by entering upon such an inquiry? If gentlemen looked to the end of the American war, they would find that the present prices of wool were five, six, or seven times as great as they then were. He could not consent that a system which had existed for near two hundred years, and which had been so advantageous to our manufactures, should be disturbed; and he hoped that the House would pause before they took the first step for that purpose.

said, that having been placed in the chair of the committee of 1816, he felt it his duty to express his sentiments upon the present occasion. If there was no stronger argument in favour of the appointment of this committee, than that the committee which sat two years ago to investigate the same subject which it was now proposed to consider, had made no inquiry into the question he should vote for the present motion. It could not be denied, that the present period offered a very favourable opportunity for the investigation; and he conceived that the House was imperiously called upon to appoint the committee. He would venture to say, that there never was a question which had been attempted to be disposed of by arguments so irrelevant and futile. Was it to be maintained, that the appointment or non appointment of the committee was to depend upon the price of wool—whether it was higher or lower at the present time than in former years? The committee would have other objects for its consideration. It would have to ascertain what degree of increase of price the agricultural interest had been deprived of by the system which had been adopted. The policy of the mercantile system had been to have a free export and import of all commodities; and even a free export of whom, one of the first necessaries of life, had been allowed. Why, then he would ask, was the exportation of wool prohibited in all times, and under all circumstances? In some trades there, as but single monopoly against them, but in the wool trade there was a double monopoly, The wool-growers were compelled to sell to none but the home manufacturers of wool, and to buy of none but those same manufacturers. Instead, therefore, of having the privilege of selling to as wide a market as possible, they were confined within the narrowest limits. Was it fair, to put one class of individuals in so advantageous, and the other in so disadvantageous, a situation? If the House would allow the committee to be appointed, he would himself undertake to prove, that all the grounds upon which this policy of prohibition was founded in 1660, when the prohibition was complete, were wholly untenable. Net one of those arguments then brought forward in favour of the measure could now be maintained; for they amounted to nothing short of this—that Europe could not manufacture cloth without the assistance of English wool. He would also prove to the committee, that a very large revenue would be raised upon the exportation of wool; and that was a point to which the House ought peculiarly to attend. As large a sum might be raised by this means as would enable ministers to repeal the additional duties on leather. This was one of the benefits which would arise, and he might enumerate others, but he would not now detain the House. He conceived that he had stated ample grounds for the appointment of the committee, and he should sit down with declaring, that he should give his vote in favour of the motion.

The House then divided: Ayes, 80; Noes, 85. The motion was consequently negatived.

rose, and inquired of the noble lord whether he intended to proceed immediately to move for a committee on the Prince Regent's Message; as in that case he would postpone a notice of his, which stood for that evening.

said, it was his intention to propose that the order of the day for going into a committee on the Message should be read, with a view to the postponement of it [Cries of Hear, hear!].

The order of the day was then read. Lord Castlereagh moved, That the committee be deferred till to-morrow.

said, when he had taken the liberty, on the preceding evening, to move for the insertion of a few moderate, and, as he thought, constitutional expressions, in the Address to the throne, the proposition was met, by different sides of that House—by the benches opposite, and by his hon. friends below him, to whose authority he was more disposed to bow—with a declaration, that it was contrary to precedent. His hon. friends agreed with him in principle, and were anxious to place on the face of the address, a statement of the necessity of economy in any grant that might be made. They said, however, they could not adopt it merely because it was contrary to the received practice in such cases. The precedent usually followed in addresses to the throne, in answer to royal messages, was cited against his proposition; and he was told that his amendment could not be agreed to, in consequence of the principle that had been long adopted. But what was the conduct of the noble lord? He now came down to the House, and deviated from all precedent. The noble lord moved, that an order should be postponed for taking into consideration, on the day on which the House had directed it should be taker into consideration, a message from the throne, an amendment to which message proposed yesterday by him, was negatived, merely because such a proceeding was unusual. The reason why those forms were necessary was, because they were founded on a due respect to the throne—because they originated in that respectful attention which was owing to every thing that proceeded from that quarter, whether in the shape of a speech or of a message. And much was sacrificed in debate, and in consideration, for the purpose of coinciding in this principle, and showing decorous attention to communications of this nature. This was evident—for they were often called on promptly to deliver their opinion, where delicate and critical matters would, under other circumstances, have called for deliberate serious investigation. They acted on those occasions, thus promptly, because the business came recommended in the manner to which he had alluded. The plain English of the present proceeding was too obvious to allow it to remain secret for one second to any person, who wished to discover it. A noble lord, a member of the other House, and standing at the head of his majesty's councils—in a private room—in a manner contrary to the spirit of the British constitution—in a way which was against all practice, but which no man, even if the practice existed, could defend on that ground—had thought fit to meet a select body of the members of this House. He understood the party consisted, in general, of most respectable country gentlemen—of gentlemen, whose liberality of conduct, and whose general tendency of principle, to support government, here they could at all support it, were perfectly well known to the noble lord. One or two of those gentlemen, he had been informed, were not of the description he had stated. An honourable member of the learned profession to which he was attached (Mr. Wynn), was, he understood, included in this selection. This looked as if the noble lord felt a doubt upon the subject—this appeared as if ministers wished to feel their way before they came to a decision. Many gentlemen were excluded from that favoured body—but why that principle of exclusion was adopted, after the principle of selection had been acted on so widely as he had stated, he was at a loss to conceive. There was a full attendance of the country gentlemen, who were much respected, and who were to be feared by the minister on account of their weight. To them a disclosure of a most delicate nature was made—a disclosure which was refused to that House, when first that House asked it [Hear, hear!]. If such meetings as this were to be allowed—if parliament was to be silent when they heard of such assemblies—it was a mockery to proceed to a debate in the House of Commons. The debate might go on—the result of the division might be declared by the Speaker from the chair—but, in point of fact, the matter would have been previously settled elsewhere—[Hear!]. How settled? By private means—by practising on members of that House in various ways—which he had constitutionally speaking, a right to suspect government of a wish to do, which they proceeded in such a course. The preliminary debate was carried on in silence; and in silence and darkness the feelings of particular individuals were ascertained. If ministers found that the majority was so commanding that they were sure of carrying their measure, the House would hear nothing more of the transaction, unless by some unaccountable mistake, like that which fortunately occurred yesterday, the business came to be noticed. It was a mockery to talk of legislation, if such private debates were permitted. Not having had an opportunity before of fully speaking his mind on this subject, he now rose to enter his protest against such an unconstitutional practice. He could not let it pass, with a proper regard to the discharge of his parliamentary duty. But it seemed lord Liverpool had mistaken the sense of this secret meeting. The astonishment and silence of the parties assembled at it, had, somehow or other been taken for assent [Hear, hear!] But no sooner had those gentlemen come to the public and known House of Commons, than they opened their mouths, and, one after another, they all declared—what tended to the no small confusion of ministers—that it was a proposition so extravagant, that they could not possibly concur in it. One after another they had made this declaration; and although a certain right hon. friend below him (Mr. Tierney) defied any one of them to state that he was an exception to this rule, not one of them rose in his place and said, "I agreed in the proposition made at the earl of Liverpool's—I dissented from the independent gentlemen who met there." But, he understood other meetings had taken place there, and that there had been more feeling of pulses. He had a right to believe as no auspicious result attended the first meeting, that others would be sought. And now another delay was required, not that more pulses might be felt, but that arts might be used, and unconstitutional practices resorted to, in order to get over those gentlemen, whose honesty stood so conspicuously recorded by their conduct last night. If the House passed over this proceeding of ministers, they would tacitly agree in the practices of the noble lord. He had called on the House to sanction, indirectly, what he knew he could not directly propose. He should, therefore, take the liberty of moving, if the motion of the noble lord were disposed of by a negative, which he could not help believing the House would have the virtue, firmness, and consistency, to give—he would, in that event, move a resolution, so constitutional in its nature, and, at the same time, in language so respectful and temperate towards the parties out of doors, whose interests it was meant to touch, as would, he doubted not, meet the general concurrence of the House.

said, that if deliberations out of the House, previously to the submitting of any proposition to the House, were to be prohibited, this would be the first time that it had been done. The hon. and learned gentleman was in the habit of throwing out ideas perfectly novel; but he apprehended, if he wished to prevent communications with members out of the House on any propositions which might be submitted to it, he would not only introduce a system entirely new, but make it probable that the propositions would not be proper or wise in themselves. He must, therefore, enter his counter protest against the new constitutional doctrine of the hon. and learned gentleman, as impracticable, unwise, and unconstitutional. The hon. and learned gentleman was pleased to say, that if the motion was postponed, it must be for the purpose of practising on members. It was ascribing a high degree of power to his majesty's ministers, to suppose that between this day and to-morrow, they could carry on practices which would make converts of those who had already marked by their votes their opinions on the proposition which was to be made to them. The hon. and learned gentleman should have been induced to take a more candid view of the state of the case; but in this instance he had only followed up the system of vilifying his majesty's ministers (who had nevertheless hitherto possessed the confidence of the Crown and of parliament, and who would always endeavour to merit it), and of running down the existing system, to substitute some novelty in its stead. He hoped the House would consent to postpone the consideration of the message till to-morrow, and he should then state the reasons which had actuated his majesty's ministers in bringing forward the proposition which they should then make, and he hoped the House would be satisfied, whether the proposition was adopted or not, that they had done what they conceived to be their duty, not only to the Crown, but to the country.

said, that if the object of his hon. and learned friend had been, the noble lord was pleased to state, to vilify his majesty's ministers, he had never known any gentleman apply greater talents to so needless an object; for never did any administration, within eight and forty hours, take such pains to vilify itself.It was indeed a most unnecessary task, for never did any men stand in the face of the world in a more contemptible situation than the present ministers. He used the words advisedly; for he knew of no other words in the English language by which to express his opinion fairly. The noble lord had attributed to his hon. and learned friend, that he had laid it down broadly, that all previous consultation respecting propositions to be submitted to the House was unconstitutional. His hon. and learned friend had never said any thing so absurd. If the ministers wished to propose a measure affecting any particular branch of trade, there was never an idea that it would be improper to consult with the persons connected with it. But in this case how had the ministers acted with respect to the monarch, the House, and the country? On Saturday every thing had been settled with his royal highness the Prince Regent as to this question. It was determined what was the fit thing to be proposed to parliament. That was previous to the meeting at lord Liverpool's. Then, some how or other, a rumour arose, that this proposition, which the ministers had advised the Prince Regent was a fit one, was not likely to meet with the concurrence of the members of the House of Commons. The faithful few then assembled the tried many at lord Liverpool's, to submit to them the proposition which they had before advised the Prince Regent to recommend. If these meetings were to take place, there should be something like a gallery in lord Liverpool's room, where those who had not the favour to be admitted into the body might hear the debates. On this occasion, however, there was no debate. It was a Quaker's meeting. The noble lord, indeed, made a speech of considerable length, but those who were assembled said nothing to him or his speech either. Scarcely had they stepped over the threshold, when it was discovered that a mutiny had broken out among the minister's troops, and they came here manfully to declare their opinions. The moment these selected gentlemen found themselves in the air of this House, which, to be sure, was a very different atmosphere from that of Fife House, they, one after the other, avowed their dissent. Now, there certainly was no man more disposed to give these gentlemen credit for manly principles, supported in a manly manner, than he was. He therefore would give them their meed of applause, whether Whigs or Tories, for maintaining what in their conscience they felt themselves called upon to avow. The result of all this was, that the noble lord first called on the House to wait for twenty-four hours, and now he found it necessary to make it eight and forty. But what reason had been given for this delay? None at all. The noble lord had merely said, "wait till to-morrow, and I will tell you why you should postpone till to-morrow." The real truth was, that he had to go and seek advice amongst the rest of his colleagues; and such a situation as his between his colleagues and the House was one truly to be commiserated. In that meeting (for it had all come out since), it had been proposed that the duke of Clarence should receive an additional income, rendering his total income equal to 40,000l.; with an outfit of 20,000l. The duke of Kent was to receive 12,000l. so as to make his total income 30,000l. per annum, with 12,000l. as an outfit; the duke of Cumberland—[shouts of Hear; hear!]—was to receive an additional 12,000l. per annum, making his income 30,000l. with an outfit of 12,000l.; and the duke of Cambridge's income was to be augmented to 30,000l. a year by an additional vote of 12,000l. a year, and 12,000l. as an outfit, making a total of 116,000l. to be granted during the first year, at a time when the country was so ill able to make good its present taxes. This, if he had not been grossly misinformed, was the substance of the proposition which had been brought forward at lord Liverpool's. He could not help believing that his royal highness the Prince Regent thought the advice given him was perfectly right, and such as should be acted upon—that the ministers imagined too, that these illustrious persons could not maintain their state and dignity in the situations in which they were or might be placed, here or in foreign countries, on a more economical scale. But after admitting all this, did it not clearly appear that the noble lord had thus incautiously advised his royal master, and as soon as he had found the proposition unpalatable, had then deserted him? Except they now abandoned the sums proposed, what was the object of their putting off the discussion? They flattered themselves they might now, after proposing a greater, propose a less sum. And yet such men could talk the other evening of his hon. and learned friend's motion running down and destroying the system of administration. Could they be even accused of having any system? Only look at the bench opposite, and see if any thing like system can proceed from such a strange, heterogeneous, and discordant body as that bench presents [Hear, hear! and a laugh.] Their only system was this—"try one thing, and if that won't do, try another." He must say he felt for the situation of the noble lord; he had much commiseration for one who, in the eyes of foreign ministers, had assumed a character of importance and responsibility, resembling that of a sovereign rather than a minister. When he found that noble individual at a loss in the House to know what he could or might do, with reference to the wishes of others not in that House, he anticipated some advantages from the delay, and hoped the longer such delay was, the more the noble lord would moderate his proposition. So far was even well. He should wait patiently till to-morrow. But of one thing he was convinced, that nothing would satisfy any honest man in or out of that House, or quiet the minds of the people of this country, except an abandonment of the proposition altogether.

said, he was surprised to have heard so much last night respecting the forms of proceeding in that House, and now witnessing nothing but attempts at violating all order and precedent, by the very parties so anxious to preserve it last night. He wished to know, whether any precedent was to be found in which an order for taking into consideration a message from the Crown was discharged; and, if there was any such precedent, whether there was any case in which the order had been discharged, without any reason being alleged.

The Message was ordered to be taken into consideration by the committee to-morrow.

The motion was then agreed to, without a division.

having moved, that this Bill be read a third time,

said, he did not intend to oppose the provisions of the bill, but he wished the terms of the preamble to be changed. The preamble sat forth, that this bill was founded on the principle that extreme severity was calculated to obtain impunity for crimes. To this principle he did not object, but he objected to the consequences of such a declaration of it. It might mislead men into a supposition that punishment ought to be proportioned to the precise degree of moral turpitude. He contended, that severity ought to regard not only the moral turpitude of the offender, but the pernicious consequences of his offence. There were crimes which might be committed with a degree of moral depravity, far short of that which prompted offences of a venial character, but which on account of the consequences, merited, next to, murder, the greatest of all crimes, the severest punishment. The second proposition, on which he founded his opposition to the preamble was, that by declaring the change in the value of money to be a reason for altering the law, it pledged the House to alter every other act that was connected with such a variable commodity. The amendment which he now proposed went, therefore, not to affect the bill itself, but to restore it to its original and limited intention. It was, that for the words which stated that the extreme severity of punishment, by increasing the difficulty of conviction, afforded impunity to crimes, and which made the change in the value of money a reason for altering the law, should be substituted, simply, an expression of the expediency of repealing the law as at present constituted. [Hear, hear!]

thought the objections not worthy of much consideration, but that the approbation which some members on the other side bad expressed might render it proper to offer some reply. He could not accede to the amendment, because it would expunge the very principle which made the bill both necessary and proper. His hon. and learned friend had spoken of the preamble as containing abstract propositions. What he had objected to as abstract propositions were only the result of observations founded on long experience. There was an indolence of legislation in modern times which suffered acts to be passed founded on no distinct principle at all. It had not been so formerly, and he was anxious to follow the example of better times, and to conform to a more reasonable standard, by stating in his preamble the precise character of the bill. The principle now objected to was the very foundation of the bill. "Extreme severity"—he begged the House would attend to the expression—"extreme severity, by rendering conviction more difficult, afforded impunity to crime." This was a truth of universal notoriety. It was well known, that the fear of the punishment of death following conviction, had often prevented prosecutions for privately stealing, and had thus afforded entire impunity to the crime. Instances were so numerous, and had been so frequently stated, that it was unnecessary to trouble the House with a reference to them. But, in the courts of justices, cases had lately occurred, which he would mention, merely for the sake of exemplification of this obvious fact. He trusted, of course, to the authority of the newspapers for those cases. At the last assizes in the county of Southampton, a man was convicted of a burglary. A servant had broken into his master's house, and taken property to a considerable amount. On account of the disproportionate severity of the punishment, applications were made to the secretary of state for a mitigation of the sentence. But all those applications were unsuccessful, and the criminal was executed. In the newspapers the reason assigned for the failure of these applications was, that the judges had come to a resolution, that all servants convicted of stealing from their masters should suffer death. Whether the judges had come to such a resolution he knew not, nor did he pretend to censure them if they had; but if it was their resolution, it ought to be declared by a legislative enactment, and not to rest on a private agreement; for then servants would clearly see their situation, and be perhaps deterred from the crime. But his object was to point of the effect of such proceedings on the minds of juries. In the last Old Bailey sessions, a person of the name of Milwood was tried for having stolen property to the amount of several hundred pounds from his master. The evidence was conclusive, and the jury convicted him, but they found him guilty of stealing to the value of 39 shillings. Could any man doubt that the jury, in this case, returned such a verdict in consequence of the statement in the newspapers, of the resolution of the judges that death should follow upon a verdict of guilty of stealing to the value of 40s.? He did not mean to blame the jury, although he could not adopt the language of judge Blackstone, who had pronounced such verdicts, "pious perjuries." The jury were driven to the dreadful alternative of acting in opposi- tion to the awful oath they had taken, or of handing over a fellow being to the last punishment, for a crime which had not been regularly connected with such a punishment. With those facts in their faces, could they pretend to say that the principle was not both manifest in itself, and an imperative reason for altering the law? As to the second ground of objection, could any one pretend that 5s. was now the same sum in value as in the reign of king William? Was it not now equal to 20s. or at least to 10s.? If so, the punishment of death for 5s. now was necessarily more severe than the act contemplated, since it was applied to a sum not one half the value of the sum to which the act had limited it. This was undeniably the standard assumed in the act. That standard being changed by the depreciation of money, a change in the act was necessary. His hon. and learned friend had said, that if the House acted on this principle now, it would pledge them to similar conduct on all similar occasions. He had never heard it urged as a reason why the House should agree to any measure, that they had sanctioned the principle on which it was founded in the preamble of another measure. But if they were so pledged, what was the injury? If there was any other act on this principle; if in any one other case extreme severity arose from the same changes, why not make a similar alteration, and why should not the House be pledged to it? On these grounds he would press the preamble as it now stood.

gave his most full and cordial support to the measure proposed by his hon. and learned friend. He thought that if he (Mr. W.) or any other member had any thing, with which to reproach themselves, it was their not having exerted themselves in endeavouring to render the penal code of this country less bloody than it was at present. He was of opinion that the entire penal code ought to be revised, that punishment ought to be apportioned to the crime, and that their united efforts ought to tend to the grand object of free and just legislation—that of adopting all possible means of preventing crime, and of checking it in its early stages. The hon. member here alluded to the very great success with which a benevolent and truly humane lady, Mrs. Fry, had exerted herself in reforming the numerous class of female prisoners, who have been from time to time in Newgate. Such an example shown by a lady, ought to be a stimulus to all in whose power it was to exert themselves in so benevolent and so politic an object as that of improving the morals of the lower classes, and of reclaiming those who were but partially acquainted with crime. What had been done by a single individual was an indication of what their united efforts might accomplish. He hoped the statute book would be looked over, and that such alterations would be made in the penal code as were suited to the present times, and to a liberal and enlightened policy. He was sure if such were to be the case, that no member in the House would be more desirous, or was more capable, of rendering every assistance in the attainment of such an object, than his hon. and learned friend (the attorney-general), with whom he had the misfortune to differ on the question before the House. As the law now stood with respect to the question before them, life was made a matter of gambling speculation with the unfortunate persons who were driven, either by wickedness or by want, to commit such crimes. The chances were regularly calculated—the probability of being detected, the probability of the prosecutor coming forward against them, the difficulty of proof, and the lenity of the jury, were all taken into consideration, and the chances were frequently found to be in their favour. But no such thing would take place if the law was clearly pointed out, and if it was fully understood that such an offence would be certainly and invariably punished by such a penalty. He begged pardon detaining the House on the subject, but he was anxious to express his sentiments on so important a question, and he felt gratified to think that his hon. and learned friend had devoted his great talents to the consideration of the subject, as he knew no man in the country more possible of forming a just estimate of the grievance sustained, and of the remedy to be adopted, than the hon. and learned member was.

The Amendment was then put and negatived; after which the bill was passed.