observed, that the system of the Usury Laws which had so longp revailed in this country, and had been so often objected to, were, in their operation, injurious to the interests of trade, commerce, and manufactures. Many gentlemen, who agreed in opinion on a former occasion, doubted whether the public could be easily brought to a change of mind, as a prejudice existed from the length of time the present practice had obtained. It was also conceived that it was necessary that some alteration should take place in the state of the finances of the country, before any measure of this description could be adopted beneficially. At the suggestion of the noble secretary of state for, foreign affairs, he had agreed to let his motion stand over, in order to give farther time for a fuller consideration of its principle and its consequences. Those, however, who had any doubt upon the subject, could have that doubt removed by reading the late pamphlet of Mr. Cook, who had made an important addition to the weight of authority against the usury laws. The accurate, argumentative, and ingenious production of Mr. Cook was indeed conclusive upon the subject, But the fact was, there was no high authority in favour of the laws to which he referred. Dr. Adam Smith, who was the only individual of any great reputation who had in modern times declared in favour of those laws, had notoriously retracted his declaration, and recommended their repeal. There was no class of the community to whom they were more injurious than to the landed proprietors, for whose protection, it was said, they were intended. Landed men being precluded by these laws from obtaining a loan of money upon such terms as they were willing to offer, were under the necessity of adopting the ruinous system of annuities. During the late war, they felt much inconvenience from this circumstance; for the purpose of raising money, they were obliged to mortgage their property. It was a mistake to suppose that the court of chancery withheld the power of foreclosure in times of distress when applied for in a proper mode. In the cases of negotiations for loans in time of war, the chancellor of the exchequer, both from his present office, and the office he formerly held, must be supposed to have very considerable means of judging of the effects of the laws. But he would particularly appeal to mercantile gentlemen, as to their knowledge of the ill effects of the laws, in times of commercial distress. The chamber of commerce at Birmingham had resolved in favour of the principles of this bill. The chamber of commerce at Glasgow, he believed, had come to a similar opinion. He believed, indeed, that the greater proportion of the whole trading interest in the country were in favour of the bill. Under all his own views of the subject, collected from various circumstances, he should have felt himself justified now in moving for a bill to repeal the usury laws; but he should so far bow to the opinions and doubts of others, as, instead of moving the repeal, to move for the appointment of a select committee. He did not yet know whether his proposition would be opposed or acceded to; but he should not trespass further on the House than by moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider of the effects of the Laws which regulate or restrain the Interest of Money, and to report their opinion thereupon to the House."

opposed the motion. He should not have done so, he said, but upon the authority of the most respectable and best informed men of the north of Ireland; persons remarkable alike for their integrity and understanding. Those to whom he particularly alluded were the bankers of Belfast. They had petitioned against the repeal of the law, and expressed their opinion, that if the measure were carried into effect, it would tend both to shake private credit, and to establish an inquisitorial law, by giving to every person disposed to lend, an opportunity of looking into the means and circumstances of the borrowers. Money might now be easily procured at 4l. per cent. Was it, then, a time to propose such a committee as this? It was said in favour of the repeal, that landed proprietors were forced to borrow money at exorbitant interest. For his own part he could say, that having had occasion to borrow money, he found no difficulty, even during the war, of obtaining it at 5 per cent. For these reasons he should oppose the motion, and would move the other orders of the day.

had never heard any person say that these laws ought not to be repealed, though this or that particular time was said not to be proper for it. The bankers of Belfast, however, was of a different opinion, but their reasons were not stated by the hon. general, except merely this, that the repeal would have the effect of an inquisitorial law. This was an objection, the force of which he did not understand with regard to the time—when the rate of interest was high, it was said not to be a proper season for the repeal. The same objection was made when it was low. The gentlemen of Belfast did not stand upon either ground; they opposed the measure altogether, and that upon no intelligible ground. For himself, he felt convinced that nothing could be more impolitic than the interference of the legislature to fix a maximum in such cases. It produced the worst effects. He trusted that the House would adopt the motion of his hon. and learned friend.

said, he retained on this subject the opinions which he had expressed last year. He should vote for the committee, but in doing this, he wished it to be understood that he gave no pledge that he would support the bill which the hon. and learned gentleman wished to bring in, unless his opinion should be altered by the report of the committee.

declared himself in favour of the repeal of the usury laws; for he thought the establishment of a maximum was unjust and injurious in all cases, and especially so with regard to money.

said, that perceiving the sense of the House was against him, he had no objection to withdraw his opposition.

said, he had never heard an argument of less force than that advanced by the hon. general. The meeting alluded to at Belfast did not consist of merchants but bankers. He had no reason to suppose that this measure would be unacceptable in Ireland. Quite the contrary. There was no part of the empire from which he had received more earnest solicitations to go forward with it. It was likely to prove most useful there, where capital was become so necessary. The influx of it to that country was prevented, in a great measure, by the operation of those laws. The hon. general said, that he had never found any difficulty in borrowing money. The same could not be said by many persons of the most unencumbered estates.

The motion was then agreed to, and a committee appointed.

rose, and addressed the House to the following effect:—Pursuant to my notice, I now rise to move, that the Petition presented by me from the Householders of the City of Dublin for the Repeal of the Window Tax, together with the other petitions from Ireland on the same subject, be referred to a committee. And in submitting this question to the consideration of the House, I have to regret that it has not fallen into the hands of some person more competent to the undertaking than I feel myself to be, on a question of so much moment to the prosperity of Ireland. I must only, therefore, request their patient and candid attention while I state very shortly the strong grounds upon which the citizens of Dublin think themselves justly entitled to the relief they now pray for. I need not remind the House how patiently the city of Dublin has for the last five-and-twenty years borne her share of the general pressure, and how cheerfully she has contributed to the exigencies of the times, during a war as expensive and sanguinary in its progress, as it has been glorious and decisive in its result; she never once made any complaint. As soon, however, as hostilities had terminated in a peace that left this country nothing to fear, a general expectation was felt throughout all parts of the empire, that every practicable relief consistent with the indispensable necessities of the state, would be granted to the distresses of the people; and this House, too, passed a great and decisive step in immediately lessening the burthens of the people in this country; and although, perhaps, there never was a tax in favour of which more could be said upon general principles, at least, than the property tax, still this House felt themselves pledged to the people of England, and justified their confidence, by removing, at once, fourteen millions a year of the public burthens. I mention these circumstances to show the House how they contributed to strengthen the confident expectations entertained by the citizens of Dublin, that in the work of general relief, Ireland would not be the only part of the United Kingdom overlooked by the imperial parliament, and more especially, too, after she had sacrificed all the local advantages of a resident legislature to the general interests of the empire at large.

But, Sir, independent of any such general expectations, they had other, and, in my humble judgment, peculiarly strong grounds for looking forward to the total repeal of the window tax as soon as the war was over, and to claim it not so much from the bounty as the justice of parliament. The tax was always peculiarly obnoxious to the citizens of Dublin for several reasons—its very unequal pressure, the inquisitorial nature of its levy, and the ruinous consequences resulting to the health of the city, from the contrivances of all the poorer classes to evade it; and it is now more oppressive than ever, from their total inability to pay it. On its imposition by the last parliament that ever sat in Ireland, it was at first very generally opposed, until the chancellor of the exchequer repeatedly pledged himself on the part of the government, that it was intended for a war tax only; and accordingly the tax was proposed and enacted, at first, for three years, provided the war should last so long. I hold in my hand an extract of a speech of Mr. Corry's, as reported in the Dublin Journal, of the 26th of June, 1800, a paper eminent at that time for the fidelity of its parliamentary reports, and which, with the leave of the House, I shall now read to them. Mr. Corry's speech stated, that, "When the window tax was first proposed, it was on the footing of a mere war tax, to meet the exigencies of the moment; and that in order to render it efficient, it became necessary to give it a retrospective operation; he had already, every time that the subject had been brought before the House, advanced that the tax was not intended to be permanent, but as a mere war provision. On the footing, then, that it was merely a war tax, he hoped to do away every objection to the bill.

I hope I shall not be told that the pledge of one minister is not binding on his successor. Sir, it is of the last importance, that in all transactions between the people and the government, the faith of that government should not only be pure, but above suspicion; and I entreat gentlemen, seriously to consider whether resorting to such an argument may not be received by the people of Ireland as an unworthy pretence for breaking an engagement we do not wish to keep. Mr. Corry was then the financial minister, and as such he pledged himself and the government, of which he was in that instance the accredited organ, that if the Irish House of Commons would grant that tax, their constituents should be relieved from it at the end of the war. The tax was voted and has been levied ever since: the people of Ireland have cheerfully fulfilled their part of this contract; and if the Irish parliament were now in being, is there a doubt that this pledge would have been redeemed on the conclusion of the war? I am sure that I shall not appeal in vain to the justice, to the honour of this House, to redeem that pledge which the Irish parliament, in I might almost say its last moments, gave to the citizens of Dublin. I am satisfied that this House will take care that, in this instance, my constituents shall not suffer for the want of a resident legislature. I spoke of the inquisitorial manner in which this tax has been collected; this is an objection which has been always found to awaken the constitutional jealousy of this House, and perhaps was the efficient cause of the repeal of the property tax. If it be the boast of the hum- blest man in England that his House is his castle, I fear that under the operation of this act, the people of Ireland have no reason to be very proud of their share of such a privilege.

Are gentlemen aware, that, under the present act, the collectors can demand an entrance into every room in every house in Ireland, from eight in the morning until sunset, and insist upon admission, under a penalty of 20l.? I need not say that there might be instances, in the case of sick persons of the other sex, where every gentleman who hears me would recoil at the idea of such an act being rigorously enforced; and I must add in candour, that there is little apprehension of any such abuses in a department under the superintendence of a gentleman, whose talents and assiduity since he became chief commissioner of excise have been gratefully and universally acknowledged; but still it is no answer to the many objections against the harsh provisions of this act, that they are not as rigorously enforced as they might be. It is not to be forgotten, that, harsh as they are, they are still as much the law of the land as the Bill of Rights, and under them a collector, if any house was unoccupied by the absence of the family in the country, or for any other cause, might, after the empty formality of affixing a notice, break open the hall door under the warrant of any inspector of taxes, and seize and sell the furniture he found within. That such scruples are not new and affected on the part of the citizens of Dublin, but recognized and sanctioned by the law of the land, is evident from one fact upon record. The hearth tax was abolished, and the reasons assigned by the legislature, in the preamble of the act abolishing that obnoxious impost (1st William and Mary, chap. 10), which I now beg leave to read, were—"Whereas his majesty being informed that the revenue of hearth money was grievous to the people, was pleased, by his gracious message sent to the Commons assembled in parliament, to signify his pleasure, either to agree to a regulation of it, or to the taking it wholly away, as should be thought most convenient by the said Commons: and whereas, upon mature deliberation, the said Commons do find that the said revenue cannot be so regulated, but that it will occasion many difficulties and questions, and that it is in itself not only a great oppression to the poorer sort, but a badge of slavery upon the whole people, exposing every man's house to be entered into and searched at pleasure by persons unknown to him: We, your majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects the Commons, being filled with a most grateful sense of your majesty's unparalleled grace and favour to your people, not only by restoring their rights and liberties which have been invaded contrary to law, but in desiring to make them happy and at ease, by taking away such burthens as by law were fixed upon them, by which your majesty will erect a lasting monument of your goodness in every house in the kingdom; do most humbly beseech your majesty that the said revenue of hearth money may be wholly taken away and abolished." This, Sir, is the opinion expressed by the English House of Commons, so long ago, as to the expediency of this tax, not-withstanding which it is still continued in Ireland.

I have but one other topic with which I would trespass further on the House, and that is one of the first importance, inasmuch as health is the first of temporal blessings, and contagion, for the time, perhaps the most tremendous of all national calamities. During the alarming prevalence of fever this last year in Ireland, it was the unanimous opinion of the faculty, that unless the houses were more generally ventilated, the contagion must spread, and a plague be the consequence. That part of the city of Dublin now occupied by the poorer orders had become miserably unhealthy from the constant devices to evade the tax, by stopping the windows and excluding the light and air, so that the inward part of the dwelling was dark and noisome, and when crowded by fever patients served as so many nurseries for contagion. The danger became so imminent, that the government took the alarm, and the right hon. gentleman, who for so long a period had conducted the administration of Ireland, with equal firmness, temper, and talent, acted here in a manner worthy of himself. Abandoning all minor considerations of revenue to the paramount one of the health and general safety of the community, that right hon. gentleman gave orders that all the windows which had been hitherto closed up, and that were necessary for ventilation, should be thrown open for that purpose, without subjecting the owners to any additional claims on the part of the excise. That order, followed up as it has been by the liberal, prompt, and decisive measures of the administration, for the removal and providing for all fever patients, has preserved Dublin, under Divine Providence, from an impending plague.

For the repeal, then, of a tax so universally odious to the citizens of Dublin, I am now to move on their behalf, and in obedience to their unanimous instructions. I can sincerely assure the House, that upon this question they have but one sentiment. They are all as one man against the tax. They think it unjust in principle, severe and unequal in its pressure, unconstitutional in its levy, and in all its practical effects upon the poorer orders, and endangering the health of the community. But above all, they feel, and feel strongly, that the faith of the government is pledged to the repeal of this tax, and that the exaction of it in a season of universal peace is a continued violation of that engagement. For every reason, therefore, they think themselves entitled of mere right, justice and good faith, to the total repeal of this tax, They have looked for the repeal of it, and the disappointment of last session was certainly felt with great and general bitterness. I never knew the citizens of Dublin upon any other question so solicitous, and, at the same time, so unanimous. I am sure that the voice of the second city of the British empire, and, indeed, I may say, of all Ireland, will never be heard in this House upon any subject with indifference. I have stated the grounds upon which they ask for this repeal, and considering it in a mere financial point of view, what would it cost the public revenue to comply? Why, a sum not exceeding annually 300,000l., a drop in the ocean compared with the vast income of the empire. And I think they will be the more entitled to it, when we take a view of the ordinary and extraordinary resources of the two countries at the end of the war, by which it will appear that Ireland has contributed much more than her proportion according to their respective means. By the Finance returns before this House, for the year ending 5th Jan. 1816, the last year of the war, the nett public income applicable to national objects, and to payments into the Exchequer for England, exclusive of loans, amounted to 79,948,670l. 0s. 2½d., while that of Ireland for the same period amounted only to a sum of 7,405,324l. 17s. 7½d.^* Indeed, I believe it is now perfectly well understood and candidly admitted by those who took the most active part at the time of the Union, that two-seventeenths was, considering the comparative resources of the two countries, a larger contribution than should, in fairness, have been assigned to Ireland; and according to the scale of their respective incomes, which I have just mentioned, the ratio of Ireland should not be so much as two-seventeenths, but rather two twenty-second parts; so that the quota of Ireland's contribution even now to the taxes of the empire, ought not to be measured by the proportion which appears to have been unfairly struck at that time; and if any thing was wanted to confirm that, it is the alarming and rapidly increasing amount of the insolvencies, which the commissioners of excise have been obliged to allow in the city of Dublin alone; for by a return which I hold in my hand, and which has only just been printed, it will appear that for the year ending the 5th of January, 1816, the amount was 220l. 13s 4½d.; on the 5th January, 1817, it amounted to 3,143l. 11s. 6½d. And how does it stand for the last year to the 5th of January 1818? It amounts to 3,791l. 11s. 6½d. besides a very considerable arrear uncollected, all of which there can be but little doubt must be allowed, as we all know with what persevering diligence the collection of the revenue has been enforced in Ireland. I shall, Sir, trespass no longer upon the patience of the House, except by thanking them for the indulgence with which they have heard me; and I cannot sit down without expressing my confident hope, that as this House yielded fourteen millions a year to the voice of the people of England, they will not now deny the paltry sum of 300,000l. to the patient endurance and tried loyalty of the people of Ireland. I now move, "That a select committee be appointed to consider the expediency of repealing the Act of the 56th of the king, so far as respects the Tax upon Windows and Hearths in Ireland."

^* See Appendix to Vol. 34, pp. ii, lxxi.

said, that knowing the deep interest which was attached to this subject, it was with extreme regret he felt himself obliged to state his objections to the present motion; but, in justice to the general interests of the empire, he was bound to oppose the hon. gentleman's proposition. The hon. gentleman had rested his motion on two distinct grounds,—first, the expectation which, consistently with the good faith of parliament, was entertained of the repeal of this tax in time of peace; and, next, the oppressive nature of the tax itself, which bore unequally on the community, and the utter impracticability of rendering it extensively productive. With regard to the first of these grounds, it rested entirely on a fallacy. Though it might, when originally proposed in Ireland, have been contemplated as a war tax, yet having been, from time to time, enacted and at length pledged as a security for certain charges on the consolidated fund, it appeared to him to have lost that character; and he conceived the people of Ireland had now no right to demand its repeal, on the ground that the faith of parliament would be violated, if it were not removed. In fact, it could not be repealed, without acting unjustly to the public creditor; and it would be most dangerous, if, to confer a boon on any body of people, the legislature were to depart from those great principles which formed the basis of public credit. If the prayer of the petitioners were complied with, it could not be on any ground except that of commutation or substitution; so that the burthen would necessarily affect them in another way. It was a fact well known, and which showed that the faith of parliament was not pledged for the removal of this tax at the end of the war, that the same chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Corry, who proposed it in the Irish parliament, made no proposition, at the time of the peace of Amiens, for its repeal. But, if he even had noticed such a pledge, when the peace of Amiens was concluded, the proceedings that afterwards took place in parliament would have removed the effect of such notice. In the next parliament, the tax was continued—though certainly it was in the power of the legislature to have repealed it, if they thought fit, and to have introduced any other tax they pleased to make up for the deficiency which such an act would have created. But it having been pledged for a part of the debt, they could not, on any principle of good faith, have entertained such a proposition.—If it appeared, indeed, that Ireland, had made an exceedingly losing bargain in granting this tax as a security for sums borrowed from the consolidated fund, a question not of good faith, but of liberality, with respect to her, might have arisen. If it could be proved that she brought more than her regular proportion to the consolidated fund of the united kingdom, it would be a reason for entering into a minute consideration of the subject. But this was not the case. The expenditure of Ireland, at the consolidation of the two treasuries, was 6,500,000l.; her revenue was short of 4,500,000l; so that the whole deficiency, amounting to 2,000,000l. might be said to arise from that consolidation, Ireland not having paid her just proportion. That deficiency she was bound to make good. The war taxes, with respect to that country, as well as this, were kept separate and apart, subject to the view of parliament. The supply for Ireland being raised by loan, considerable taxes were pledged as a security for the necessary charges. Parliament no doubt, on grounds wise and just, thought proper to adopt a different principle with respect to sums raised for Ireland, compared with those procured for the service of this country. Here two millions were raised on additional taxes, without touching that part of the public revenue pledged for the public service; and even now the people of Great Britain paid between 3 and 4,000,000l. of continued war taxes, under the head of excise. With respect to Ireland, a different plan was pursued. He should be very sorry to deprive that part of the united kingdom of any relief it could fairly expect. The interests of Great Britain and of Ireland were inseparably united; and it would afford him as much pleasure to remove from the people of Ireland any burthen that might press severely on them, as to relieve any part of Yorkshire from an obnoxious tax.—With respect to the other part of the hon. member's argument, which was founded on the peculiar hardship and unequal pressure of the tax. The hon. gentleman must be aware, that, when in Ireland, he had made some inquiry on the subject, and he was very far from being inclined to believe that the operation of the tax was so oppressive as had been stated. He thought, however, that the assessed taxes, and particularly the window tax, had been increased with a rapidity and to an extent, which defeated the object sought to be attained—that of producing a steady permanent revenue. In saying this, he did not mean to cast any reflections on his predecessor in the office which he now had the honour of holding. He was called on to procure the supplies within the year, and was prevented from adopting other taxes. The necessity of the case obliged him, therefore, to lay the same rate of taxation which was levied in England, on similar subjects of taxation in Ireland. But this mode did not produce such a revenue as was expected from it—With respect to the pressure of the window tax, he begged to observe, that the distress which was felt in Ireland, on account of the scarcity of provisions, necessarily rendered it more than ordinarily difficult to support the pressure of taxation; but it certainly did not go to the extent which some gentlemen had stated. Perhaps, it would not be improper to grant a certain degree of relief to the people of Ireland, with respect to this particular tax. The subject had not escaped his attention, and he had prepared a schedule, from which it would appear that a considerable relief would be extended to them. The general principle would be to relieve the people of Ireland from the additional duty of 25 per cent., which had been laid on a few years ago. The relief to those on whom the tax pressed most heavily would be 25 per cent.; to others a smaller degree of relief would be granted. He was obliged to the hon. member for noticing the rumour, that this tax had tended to produce contagion in Ireland, on account of the obstruction of air, occasioned by the shutting up of windows, because he could give a satisfactory answer to it. His answer was this, that the government of Ireland had authorized the opening of windows, deemed necessary for the health of the inhabitants, without payment of window tax, when application was made for that purpose; so that this tax could not fairly be considered as the means of extending a dangerous malady in Ireland. The government did not suffer financial considerations to interfere with the more important question of the health and security of the nation. He hoped that the distress under which Ireland had laboured, was in progress of removal. He could not look to the accounts laid on the table of the House, connected with this subject, without feeling the utmost satisfaction. He felt a strong conviction, on examining these documents, that the trade of Ireland was improving, that industry was reviving, that property was increasing, and that the comforts of the people were hourly extending. When the exports from this country, in the last year, were greater, in official value, than in almost any preceding year, he could not but suppose that the prosperity of Ireland had had a proportionate increase. Referring to the consumption of those articles which best showed the state of industry and of affluence in a country, he found it was considerably greater than it had been for some years past. The consumption of tea, wine, and sugar, had greatly increased: and he hoped and believed, from various circumstances, that the clouds which had long hung over the prosperity of Ireland were about to be dissipated. He had already expressed his wish to grant some relief with respect to this particular burthen, and he conceived that the mode which he stated would be more agreeable to the people of Ireland, than the appointment of a committee to consider what was to be done. He should oppose the motion, first, on the ground of the good faith which was due to the public creditor, and next, because he conceived that an immediate relief, to a certain extent would be much better than to wait for the deliberation of a committee, which must necessarily consume a considerable time, and might finally end in an inefficient proposition. When he observed the number of applications for relief, during the present session, from the pressure of one tax and another, in both parts of the United Kingdom, he could not but think it was the duty of parliament to make a firm stand, and only to give way where the distress was most obvious and severe.

regretted, that the motion of his hon. friend, introduced as it was with so much candour, moderation, and propriety, had not been acceded to by the right hon. gentleman. In the course of his speech, the right hon. gentleman had expressed the utmost desire to grant every relief in his power to the people of Ireland; but the line of conduct he had pursued was by no means an exemplification of such a disposition. To prove that this was not a war tax, the right hon. gentleman had referred to observations made by the Irish chancellor of the exchequer. He begged leave, in addition to this, to refer the right hon. gentleman to the language of the acts of parliament themselves. The right hon. gentleman would there see clear, direct, and specific evidence, that the tax was only intended as a war tax. It was first introduced in 1799, and the House would find, by the 40th of the king, cap. 4, that the tax was granted for the purpose of keeping up an effective force of 49,973 men—that was for the express purpose of maintaining a war establishment. It was recited, in the body of the act, that the tax was laid on for this purpose, and for no other. If it were not then a war tax—completely incapable of being explained away—he was utterly at a loss to know what a war tax was. In the same session the act of the 40th of the king, c. 52, was passed. By this act, certain regulations were introduced, "for the better collecting rates and taxes on dwelling-houses inhabited, in respect of windows and lights therein, and to prevent frauds—be it enacted, that those houses built before the 1st of January, 1799, shall be rated, according to the windows they then had, for three years from and after the passing of the said act, provided the present war shall so long continue." Now it did surprise him, how the right hon. gentleman, whose acute mind could not have suffered this act of parliament to have passed unnoticed, could, after a reference to it, have had any doubt on the subject of the nature of the tax. But, if he still retained a doubt, he hoped it would not extend beyond the precincts of his own mind, and that the House would agree in opinion, that the tax was clearly a war tax. If, then, it was a war tax, he would proceed to examine the ground on which the right hon. gentleman refused to put an end to it, when an end had been put to the war. He stated, that at the peace of Amiens, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Corry, who had proposed the tax, did not think it right to move for a repeal of it. Now, it did not appear to him to be a fair inference, because a chancellor of the exchequer was not in the greatest hurry—did not seize the earliest opportunity—to remove the burthens of the people, that, therefore, no pledge for their removal had been given. In the short period during which peace then prevailed, it was not surprising, perhaps, that the tax was not taken off. But the people having suffered injustice for a certain period of time, did not furnish a good argument for refusing to do them justice, when their eyes were opened and they applied for redress.—The right hon. gentleman said, it would be a breach of faith with the public creditor, if it were repealed, when it was pledged as a security for a part of the charge on the Consolidated Fund. The right hon. gentleman had, he conceived, supplied him with an answer to this argument. He was himself ready to give up 25 per cent of this tax. He was willing to break one-fourth of his good faith with the public creditor. In point of principle, he here gave up his whole argument: he left it without support. He (Mr. P) would wish to keep faith inviolate with the public creditors. Some other tax must be found to pay them; but it was for the right hon. gentleman to devise a tax for that purpose, and not for his hon. friend, who made the present motion, to supply him with ways and means.—He protested, the more he considered the admissions contained in the right hon. gentleman's statement, the more he was surprised at his opposing the proposition for a committee, since a committee was the proper place to consider what modifications ought to be made in the tax.—He should now shortly advert to the produce of the tax. In 1810, it produced 173,509l. An additional duty of 50 per cent was then laid on; which, supposing the same number of windows continued to be used, ought to have produced 347,018l. An additional duty of 25 per cent was afterwards imposed, which, on the last-mentioned sum, should have given 86,750l. The whole amount of the tax, then, according to his calculation, supposing the entire number of windows to have been used, which were taxed in 1810, would be 427,277l.—Now what was the fact? In the last year, it amounted to 302,014l.—which left a deficit nearer to one-third than one-quarter of the estimated produce of the tax. If this were the fact, it was not difficult to discover the quantity of windows stopped up, and the measure of light and air of which the people of Ireland had been deprived.—The right hon. gentleman said that Ireland had not paid her fair contribution to the exigencies of the empire. This was a position to which he could not accede. Ireland certainly had not paid the 2–17ths stipulated for at the time of the union; and for the plainest of all possible reasons, because she could not—because a burthen, utterly disproportioned to her strength, had been imposed on her. What had been her exertions? The sum now paid into the treasury was three times the amount of her nett income at the time of the union, and, notwithstanding this, the debt of Ireland had increased nearly five-fold since that event. Was not this a proof that, at the time of the union, a mistaken estimate had been made of her powers? The statement sounded very well at the time. It was gratifying to the people of this country to be told—"You are very much in debt, it is true—but Ireland is to pay a considerable portion of it." They were now, however, dealing with sober realities. Ireland would not, for she could not pay it. On this country it must fall. Ireland could not exert herself beyond her strength—she could not pay beyond her means.—[Hear, hear.]—Every part of the empire ought to support the state, and Contribute to its exigencies, according to the extent of its ability. He hoped he should not be looked on as an individual, who, in his place in that House, would advise any portion of the people to shrink from bearing their fair share of the public burthens; but resources could not be wrung from an exhausted population. This tax was utterly odious and hateful in Ireland. It was, therefore, the duty of the right hon. gentleman to find some means of filling up any deficiency which its repeal might create, and to bow to the generally-expressed sense of the country. Those who called for the repeal, stood on the ground of the faith of parliament, and on the principle that a war tax should not be continued in time of peace. War taxes to the amount of 17,000,000l. were remitted to the people of this country while a trifling relief of two or 300,000l. was alone granted to Ireland. The right hon. gentleman had stated, in his place, that it was most important to continue the Income tax: he had declared that the business of the country could not be carried on without it. But the House thought it was just and proper that it should be removed. And, after parliament had declared its sentiments on the subject, what was the conduct of the right hon. gentleman? He felt that it was necessary to pay due deference to their opinion—he came down to the House, and, voluntarily, gave up the war malt tax.—He begged leave to ask, how the right hon. gentleman, acting in his financial capacity for the whole empire, having listened to the voice of the English people, conveyed through their representatives—having obeyed their call, and given up the Income tax—could now refuse to bow to the sentiments of the people of Ireland, expressed in the most unequivocal and most constitutional man- ner? He spoke warmly—nor was it wonderful that he should, seeing what he had seen in that country with which he was immediately connected—but he meant nothing offensive to the right hon. gentleman, whose wishes for the welfare of Ireland, were, he believed, sincere. The right hon. gentleman had observed, that some relief, granted at the present time, would have a much better effect than any that could be produced by waiting for the result of the deliberations of a committee. He, however, could see nothing to prevent the right hon. gentleman from granting that relief, and acceding also to the proposition for a committee. [Hear, hear!] The committee, he might rest assured, would throw no impediment in the way of any relief he might be inclined to grant. Indeed, having received the boon of which the right hon. gentleman had spoken, the committee could go to work with more spirit. Were the right hon. gentleman to go back to Dublin—were he to notice the unhappy beings whom he would meet in every direction—were he to mark their meagre and famished countenances, and to witness the despair which characterised their looks—were he to know the disappointment which had settled in the minds of the better order of people, deprived as they were of their ordinary comforts—he could not avoid feeling a great anxiety, if it could be reconciled with the public interest, to remove those burthens which pressed most heavily on the people of Ireland.

assured the House, that no man, however nearly connected with Ireland, would be more happy to support any measure favourable to it than himself. He would be happy to afford every relief to the people of Ireland for the great patience with which they had borne all the burthens imposed upon them by the late war; but he thought that nothing was more easy than bringing forward general principles, and applying them a arguments against any particular tax. As far as the case of Ireland was a peculiar one, he thought it entitled to particular attention. If the case which the right hon. gentleman had stated could be mad out—if it could be shown that parliament were pledged to the repeal of the tax at the close of the war, there was, he conceived, very little discretion left but to repeal it; but he denied that such a pledge had been given. He conceived that the right hon. gentleman was mistaken in his construction of the act to which he had referred. He should explain the act to the House. When the tax had been first imposed, in 1799 by Mr. Corry, the windows which were opened on the 1st of January in that year were charged. This same regulation was proposed to be adopted in the next year, though it was known that in the interim several windows had been closed up. Several petitions were sent in against it, and it was alleged, as a great hardship, that persons should be charged for windows which they ceased to use; but it was answered, that such a regulation was only to continue for three years, if the war lasted so long. In 1800, there had been two acts passed relating to the tax, one for continuing it, and the other for regulating its collection, according to the first plan, and the words to which the right hon. gentleman had alluded, were not the words of the act for continuing the tax, but of that for regulating it. It was not, therefore, that the tax should cease at the end of three years, if the war continued so long, but that such regulation should only exist for that time. This he conceived was a direct answer to the statement of the right hon. gentleman with respect to the pledge. Indeed, so far was the Irish chancellor of the exchequer of that day from conceiving that a pledge had been given, that when, in 1803, he re-proposed the tax, he denied, in answer to a question from the member for Monaghan (Mr. Dawson), that he had given any such pledge, and the tax was again passed, and he should add, that in 1807, the right hon. baronet opposite (sir J. Newport) had proposed, that several of the war taxes which used to be continued from year to year, one of which was the window tax, should be made permanent, which was agreed to. The right hon. baronet had assimilated those taxes to the system which prevailed in England; but he had formed no exception in favour of this particular tax. One argument had been made use of in support of the proposed measure, namely, that the Irish parliament was pledged to the repeal of this tax; but if the hon. member who made that observation would look to the words of Mr. Corry, the Irish chancellor of exchequer at the time the tax was imposed, he would find that there was no direct pledge given, and that the continuance or repeal of the tax after the war was left as a subject of farther consideration. —[Hear, hear! from sir John Newport.] He did not understand the reason why the right hon. baronet cheered the observations he had made. If the gentlemen on the other side were of opinion that the tax could be given up without another tax being imposed in its stead, they were much mistaken. The window tax was pledged to the public creditor, and could not in justice be repealed without an equivalent being substituted. If any other tax could be pointed out which would supply the place of that proposed to be repealed, and which would at the same time press less heavily on the people of Ireland, there would be no breach of faith with the public creditor, and it would be their duty to adopt it. But the important question then came, where, and in what manner, could such another tax be imposed? He thought that there would be much difficulty in answering the question. Another argument used by the hon. member with whom the motion originated, who from the fair, temperate, and candid manner in which he had argued the question, was entitled to the greatest respect and attention, was, that the window tax had contributed in a great degree to the rise and progress of contagious fever in Ireland. To that observation he would give what he hoped the House would consider a decisive answer. When in Ireland, he had devoted much of his attention to the subject of contagious fever, and conceiving that the operation of the window tax was likely to increase that disorder by a want of air, in consequence of the windows being closed up, he issued an order to different collectors and inspectors in the districts where the disorder prevailed, directing them to have it made known, that wherever it was found by a physician that windows should be opened in houses where fever existed, there would be no additional tax charged for any windows so opened. He did this, as he felt it necessary to the safety of the inhabitants of the country, that every minor consideration, as to the amount of the tax, should give way to the urgency of the distress caused by the fever. He was perfectly satisfied to be responsible for such an act, if any blame should be cast upon it, as it was justified by the emergency of the case. When this order was issued, the persons to whom it was directed were ordered to make returns of the applications made in the different places for leave to open windows, in order to ascertain how far the tax really operated in increasing the contagion. He would now inform the House what were the returns made on that occasion, from which it would be clearly seen, that the window tax did not at all tend to the increase of fever. In Dublin there was not a single application to open window, in Kildare none, in Waterford none, in Cork none, in Coleraine one. In all, there were only seven applications in Ireland. It was possible that physicians might have ordered windows to be opened in some instances without having informed the inspectors of taxes of it; but such could not be the case to any extent. From this it appeared, that the window tax was not, in any manner, instrumental to the fever in Ireland; besides, if the House would take the trouble to recollect, they would find that the window tax in Ireland was of a different nature from that in England, In Ireland no number under seven windows, and three hearths were taxed, whereas in England and Scotland six windows were taxable; and if the rent of a house was over a certain sum, window tax was charged in England, though the number of windows might be less than six. This was not the case in Ireland; and when it was considered how great a number of houses in Ireland had less than seven windows, it would be seen that the tax affected the poorer classes of that country in a very slight degree. He hoped this argument would not be mistaken: he knew it might be said, that any tax affecting the upper classes of society tended to injure the lower classes also, but his object was, to show that the fever had not increased in consequence of the tax, as the greater number of the houses where it existed never had more than, or so many as seven windows. The window tax was proportionably equal in both countries, and when his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed to reduce the Irish tax 25 per cent, he did as much as could be done consistently with the state of the country. If more could be done, he, as well as his right hon. friend would feel gratified in doing it. It was their duty to do every thing in their power for Ireland, and though they could not compel the Irish gentry to reside, in the country, yet they could hold out inducements to them to do so by lowering the taxes as much as possible. It was contended that the Irish window tax, being a war tax, ought to be repealed in the same manner that the property tax in England was. But the cases were quite different. There had never been a property tax in Ireland, though there was and is a window tax in England. Looking, therefore, at all the points of the case, considering the numerous applications for the repeal of the duties on salt, leather, and other articles, he thought the reduction of 25 per cent proposed by his right hon. friend, was as much as could be expected, or as could safely be granted, and on those grounds he should oppose the motion.

said, that the window tax affected the great body of the poorest part of the community in Ireland. He alluded to those who resided in lodging-houses in great cities and towns. He denied the statement of the right hon. gentleman, that the shutting up of windows under this tax had not had the effect of spreading more widely amongst the population of Ireland the fever which had proved so fatal. This he stated not on the authority of any ambiguous order, worded so as to prevent, not encourage, applications. He would appeal to the authority of all the medical men who had considered the subject, and who declared, that the shutting up of the windows had produced the most lamentable effects. Dr. Barry of Cork had given evidence on this subject, which was perfectly conclusive. He had stated, that in the lower rooms of houses in that city, where the windows were not blocked up, the tenants were free from fever, while the upper rooms, where there was not a free circulation of air, were filled with contagion. It was stated that, on account of the situation in which Ireland was placed on the consolidation of the two treasuries, she had no right to expect a greater remission of taxes than had been extended to her. To England, 17,000,000l. were remitted—to Ireland, 300,000l. Why was this inequality? Because Ireland failed to support burthens which were beyond her strength. She, however, took all that her capacity enabled her to take. Ministers pressed more upon her; but her capacity was insufficient to bear a greater burthen. This might easily be proved by a reference to facts. In 1808, the revenue of Ireland amounted to 4,417,000l. Since that period taxes were imposed on the suggestion of the finance minister, to the amount of 3,500,000l. What was the result? How much did the revenue of last year exceed that of 1808? It ex- ceeded it in the sum of only 50,000l. Yes; taxes estimated to produce 3,500,000l. had really brought in only 50,000l.! This was a decided proof of the inability of the country to pay. When the debts of the two countries were consolidated, ministers expected to realise a large sum by it. Their expectations were disappointed, and their project produced only 50,000l. If any other proof of this fact were wanting, it was to be found in the report of the committee that sat up stairs for the investigation of the finances of Ireland. That report stated, that for several years Ireland had advanced in taxation more rapidly than Great Britain herself, notwithstanding the immense exertions of the latter country, with respect to the war taxes. The necessary inference was, that if she had made more extensive exertions than even Great Britain, including her war taxes, when the period of peace came, she ought to be entitled to an equal remission with the former country.—He should now call the attention of the House to the increase of taxation since the union. At that period the window tax was from one to four shillings per window: it was now from three to 14s. At the period of the Union there was no horse tax: there was now a horse tax of 2l. 17s. Tea, of the best kind, paid 7d per lb. the worst 5d.:—the tax was now 98 per cent ad valorem. The tax on wine had increased in the proportion of five to two, and the revenue had decreased in the proportion of two to five. On an average, the taxes were more than doubled since the Union; and thus individuals, deprived of their comforts, were induced to become absentees. He would submit but one question to ministers: Was it their intention to increase the absentee system in Ireland? If not, would it be prudent in them to augment taxation, together with all the other inducements to absenteeship? By the present system the great number of Irish absentees was kept up; the gentlemen of Ireland being unable to enjoy in that country the comforts of life. He would state one simple fact to the House. There was in the neighbourhood of Coventry a piece of land, to the extent of 450 acres, in the possession of a noble lord, who had immense property in Ireland. For those 450 acres he paid 1,000l. in poor rates, while, on the revenue of at least 40,000l. which he derived from Ireland, he paid neither to the poor nor to the state one-tenth of that sum. He strongly recommended to parliament to lessen the taxation on Ireland at present, that she might be better able to bear it at a future period. This would be the soundest policy with respect both to Great Britain and to Ireland, whose interests were, in his opinion, inseparable. There was but one universal opinion in Ireland with respect to the tax under consideration, namely, that it was a tax peculiarly appropriated to the support of the war, and that it was distinctly understood that it was to be remitted on the return of peace. He had entered thus far into the details of the state of Ireland regarding taxation, merely to justify the conduct of Ireland respecting the exertions she had made in the common cause; and he was happy to say, that even the report of the committee on this subject had borne him out in the representation he had attempted to establish, namely, that Ireland had fairly and conscientiously discharged whatever ought to have been expected of her at the period of the conclusion of the union.

said, that after the able manner in which the question had been advocated by the hon. members who preceded him, he had little to add in its favour. He fully agreed with the statements made by his right hon. friend who spoke last, relative to the state of the poor in Cork. He gave the Irish government every credit for the exertions they had made in affording assistance in checking the progress of fever, yet, he must observe, that were it not for the poorer classes having been obliged to stop their windows to evade the tax, the disorder might in a great degree have been prevented. He gave his most cordial support to the motion.

was surprised at the opposition which this business had received from the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, more particularly as the indulgence sought had for its object the devising of the best means to preserve the lives of the people of Ireland, whose sufferings that right hon. gentleman had admitted to be extremely severe, one-fourth of which, had it been experienced in this country, would have produced the most alarming effects. This burthen of taxation he would call a mortal burthen; because it affected most materially the lives of many in that country, as had been sufficiently proved by the report of the medical gentlemen of Dublin, who had asserted that not less than 3,000 persons had suffered from the effects of the contagious disease then raging in the capital of Ireland. Would the right hon. gentleman insist that they should still continue to close up their windows, although thereby they opened for themselves sure and certain graves? That right hon. gentleman should recollect how he had entreated the House formerly—"For God's sake, withdraw your opposition for the present, and I will withdraw after the expiration of the war, the tax!" Such had been the understanding respecting the Income tax; and would it be argued, that after so considerable a sum in taxation as seventeen millions, in the shape of income tax, had been given up upon a point of honour, that ministers should turn a deaf ear to the suggestion of honour in this case, and refuse to withdraw so trifling a proportion of the general taxation, which had so eagerly been solicited by the Irish people? If the tax were not given up, the fact would be, that the produce of it would be daily reducing. It would, therefore, be advantageous to government to reflect upon those two political truths—"Ex nihilo nil fit" and "Lex neminem cogit ad impossibilia" In simpler phrase, there was no use in attempting to levy a tax where it was morally impossible to enforce its payment—a fact which he was satisfied would be proved upon a reference of the matter to a committee, and he should therefore vote for it. The chancellor of the British exchequer was also chancellor of the Irish exchequer, and he was glad of it, as he was convinced that more knowledge or more humanity could not be vested in any man, and he hoped he would display both by acceding to the repeal of the window tax. At least he hoped, that instead of one-fourth, the right hon. gentleman would agree to remit one-half.

stated the various grounds upon which he submitted to the House that the tax should be taken off. The first was, that the endeavours to increase its productiveness had all failed, and that instead thereof, the produce of the tax had fallen from 380,000l. to 300,000l. The second consisted in the avowed inability of the lower orders of the people to pay the tax. The third reason for its abolition would be found in the breach of promise on the part of his majesty's government to the people of Ireland at the time of its enactment. The fourth con- sisted in the appeal to the humanity of government, arising from the alarming statements furnished to them as to the progress of disease in Ireland. Without stating it as a subject of accusation, he certainly thought the question of breach of faith on the part of parliament or government was a fit subject for examination in the committee, should the House consent to go into the committee. As to the dangerous prevalence of the fever being in part attributable to the confined air of the abodes of the poor, there could be no stronger proof than the relaxation granted by government, enabling the parties deprived of adequate ventilation to open their windows without being liable to the tax. The question, then, for the House to determine was, whether there was any part of the petition which ought to be examined in a committee. Perhaps the committee might propose an additional modification; perhaps the evil might be in part redressed. He by no means considered the state of our finances such as should produce despondency, but rather revision. There was, therefore, room enough to provide for the redress of this peculiar grievance as affecting Ireland. He would auspicate nothing but good from that committee; for certain he was, that no member of that committee would feel himself justified in derogating from the character of Ireland for her ready compliance in the hour when it became necessary to sacrifice her all in a grand struggle for the common cause. He believed most sincerely that Ireland might be relieved without any general injury being inflicted on the finances of this country. Ireland was in that state that she should be carefully nursed. You must treat her like a child. You must not lay too heavy a burthen on her, otherwise you will destroy her future strength. You will find it your interest at present to encourage the trade of Ireland; and by imposing moderate taxes on her, suited to her ability, you will produce present harmony and future strength. By increasing your taxes, you will find that you will diminish your revenue instead of augmenting it. For one, he should vote for going into a committee; but he could not forget, that even if the committee should be lost, the right hon. gentleman had professed his readiness to consent to a diminution of the tax; and he hoped that, at all events, some regulations would be devised for rendering it less oppressive.

was sorry for the discouragement which had been given to the proposition by the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer. He could not see that Ireland had not borne her fair proportion of taxation and privation for some years past, although he was satisfied the tax was a very injudicious one, as the persons resident in houses of this inferior description were not able to afford a single shilling as a contribution to the exigencies of the state. He attributed this financial error in practice to one of a more general nature, which was the assuming, at the period of the Union, that Ireland ought, in the ratio of her exports to those of this country, to contribute to our financial exigencies in the proportion of two-seventeenths—a proportion much too large, it being very fallaciously supposed, that the exports of Ireland were proofs of her wealth, whereas, being all raw commodities, exported for the purpose of procuring from other countries that which she ought to produce within herself, these exports were only proofs of her poverty. But the causes of the depression of Ireland were to be found in her own mismanagement of her affairs. She was not even permitted to pave or light the streets of her metropolis, but a most burthensome and expensive board must be appointed for superintending that petty object. Upon the whole, the causes of her unproductiveness, in a financial point of view, might be attributed to the depression of the public mind, arising from the present mode of governing that country.

recapitulated several of the preceding arguments, and concluded by voting in favour of the committee.

said, that every principle of humanity and justice required the House to repeal this tax. The very preamble of the tax, in point of justice, ought to induce the House to remit it. At all events, the chancellor of the exchequer ought to consent to the appointment of a committee to inquire into the facts.

said, he had heard with surprise, that officers of the revenue were allowed in Ireland to enter every house and room in the house to learn the number of windows. He trusted that such a practice would no longer be allowed in Ireland, any more than it was in England. It had been said, that the tax would be given up by a liberal government; such conduct, however, was no proof of libe- rality. Officers of the revenue, in the discharge of their duty, ought to go round the outside of the house, or at most to pass through it. The tax, indeed, might in that way be diminished; but a regard would be shown for the feelings of the people, who would submit with less reluctance to pay what remained of the tax. He hoped the chancellor of the exchequer would find sufficient resources in a wise economy to enable him to do without the tax.

thought a sufficient resource in lieu of the tax might be found in a judicious system of economy. For his own part, he considered the tax so oppressive, that he would sooner consent to levy the same sum on England than that the tax should not be repealed. It was a question that was closely connected with the health of a great portion of the population of that part of the empire. A fourth part of the tax might be remitted in the mean time, and a select committee might be appointed.

said, the question before the House was, that a committee should be appointed to inquire into the window-tax of Ireland. He was not fully acquainted with the state of that country; but he thought that this question stood on so narrow a ground that he was perfectly master of it. He thought that the question ought to go to a committee; but if it were for a bill to repeal the tax, he should vote for it. How many individuals from that part of the country had declared that the health and lives of the people were affected by this tax! Sufficient ground had, therefore, been raised for an inquiry at least. He was, indeed, so satisfied by the medical opinions which had been given of the injurious consequences of this tax, that, if no other grounds were stated, he should be induced to vote for the repeal. The House ought to get rid of this tax altogether. The right hon. gentleman had frequently granted committees on much slighter grounds, and yet, in this instance, he resisted a committee for inquiry. The remission of taxation since the peace had been very unequal as to Ireland and England. The question had been completely carried by argument, and the chancellor of the exchequer would be obliged upon a future day to move for the repeal of the tax. It was surely inconsistent to deny 300,000l. to the people of Ireland, when the war malt tax, amounting to 2,000,000l. had been taken off from the people of this country.

replied. He in particular referred to the impression attempted to be made on the House, by stating that as the window tax only fell on tenants in houses having seven windows, it could not be supposed to affect the poorer classes of the inhabitants of Dublin. Now, in that city few of the houses of the poorest class had less than that number—almost all had considerably more. He felt so strongly impressed with the importance of this concession, not only to Dublin, but to all Ireland, that he should proceed to take the sense of the House upon the expediency of going into a committee upon the subject.

The question being put, the House divided:

rose, pursuant to notice, to move, that the order be discharged for the production of an account of the Income of the High Bailiff of Westminster. The ground of the farmer motion, with which the present was connected, and by which it was intended to remunerate him for services performed during the elections for the city of Westminster, was not that his regular income was inadequate, but that he was by law required to erect and prepare hustings for carrying on the elections for Westminster, and that notwithstanding such liability, he was not by law entitled to any remuneration for the expense to which he was thus occasionally put from time to time. The result of that motion had been an order for the return of the high bailiff's income. As the effect of these returns would be to expose to persons uninterested in the transaction before the House the detail of the private emoluments of the high bailiff, he hoped the House would acquiesce in his motion, "That the Order of the 16th March, for an Account of the annual profits and emoluments of every kind received by the Hight Bailiff of Westminster since the year 1807, distinguishing each year, and the sources from which the said profits and emoluments were derived, be discharged."

could see no reason why in the present instance, the House should depart from its usual practice in cases of this kind. In the late case of the constables of the House, who complained of increased duties being imposed on them, the House had proceeded as they now were about to do. On the question of the Copy-right act, a committee was appointed to hear evidence of the losses said to be sustained by the parties applying to the House for relief. The same course was taken in the recent case of members of the royal family: even those illustrious personages, when grants for them were proposed in the House, were called upon to state the sums they at present enjoyed from the public. It would be recollected that two committees, in 1811 and 1814, had already sat on the high bailiff's claim, and neither had agreed upon it. It was clear, that the respectable gentleman who held that situation, must derive, in some shape or other, greater emoluments from it than were openly mentioned, or else, was it likely he would have given at the rate of forty years purchase for an office which involved infinite risk, personal labour, and responsibility? The House had a right to see his accounts before they entered farther into the inquiry.

was in favour of the motion for rescinding the order. The nature of the high bailiff's claim was this; an act had been passed by the legislature, containing a mistake which imposed in the result on this gentleman what the legislature at the time never intended, namely, the expense of building a hustings. The House was, therefore, bound to repair the injury they had unintentionally done the high bailiff. If the nature of the claim were, that the duties imposed on this public officer were inadequately paid, and that he applied for an additional grant, then indeed the House would have a just ground to call for his accounts, and see into the nature of his remuneration. But here the high bailiff did not complain of his emoluments, and, therefore, the House had no right to turn round on him in this manner, and require their amount, particularly as they arose from what might be called his private estate. He only asked to be repaid that expense which fell on him through an unintentional omission of the legislature. The cases alluded to by the hon. member had no reference to such a case as the present, and therefore he should most heartily concur in the motion.

said, that if the ground of the high bailiff's application were for remuneration for additional labour, then it would be incumbent on him to show, that his emoluments were at present insufficient; but the ground of the application here was for a specific injury never contemplated by the legislature, which, nevertheless, unintentionally imposed it upon a public officer, who purchased his situation without contemplating any such loss. That officer now called for an indemnity for a specific charge he was compelled to incur, and not for any remuneration growing out of the duties of his office. None of the cases put by the hon. gentleman applied to the present, which was simply the case of a man suffering under the construction of a new act, which never contemplated what followed in the manner it had occurred. He had no interest one way or the other in this question. He had always understood the high bailiff to be a most respectable gentleman, and he believed him in this case to be entitled to the justice he sought at the hands of those who had inflicted the injury.

was sorry he could not agree with his right hon. friend who spoke last. The high bailiff asked for a grant of public money to repair a loss entailed upon him by the duties of his office. Surely, to ascertain the amount of his loss could not be more properly done than by inquiring into the emoluments of his office. On a late occasion, members of the royal family were called upon to return an account of their public incomes, when additional grants were applied for in their behalf; and he saw no reason why the high bailiff should be alone exempt from the operation of the general principle which governed the House on subjects of this kind. The application was for a grant of public money, and until the high bailiff proved a loss in the general emoluments of his office by this particular transaction, he had no right to press his claims on the consideration of the House. In two former committees the high bailiff had in evidence disclosed his emolnments. What objection, then, could he now have to withhold them? For these reasons he must see the accounts before he could consider the remuneration.

said, that the case of the princes of the blood was entirely different. This was not a claim for a new grant, but a demand of indemnity for a specific injury.

thought the House might as well call for the accounts of any private gentleman's estate as for those of the high bailiff. The expense was incurred by a negligence in the framing of an act of parliament, and indemnity from parliament was therefore a matter of justice, not of favour.

could not see why the high bailiff should object to do now what he had twice done already. To disclose his profits now could not be more injurious to him than it was formerly. It was no more than common respect to the House to comply with their order.

said, that if the House made the order the high bailiff must comply; but the question was, whether it was just to make the order, and whether it ought not now to be rescinded? The order was a demand for producing the amount of his profits, in consequence of a claim of indemnity which he had made for an expense incurred by the interpretation of an act of parliament, which was not intended to possess the meaning which the court had thought themselves bound to put upon it. The amount of his present profits had no connexion with such a claim, as their magnitude or smallness could not determine the justice of the demand. The refusal of the high bailiff to produce that account should not operate against him, nor should any unfavourable inference be drawn from his former consent. If he had twice produced the account, that circumstance proved that he had no sinister motive in now objecting to it, and likewise showed that the House did not require it for information. His reason for refusing it might arise from a fear that by compliance he might compromise the rights of his office, and be submitting to a precedent injurious to those who might succeed him.

stated, that when the order was made for the high bailiff to produce the return, he felt the strongest objection to it, and would therefore now vote for its being rescinded.

said, he could not connect the injury sustained with the emoluments of the office, and saw no reason therefore for the production of the return.

said, he recollected the case of the high bailiff against sir F. Burdett, and that the negligence in the wording of the act had caused the expense to the former. He was therefore certainly entitled to an indemnity.

said, that the case stood on grounds totally distinct from the emoluments of the office.

begged to ask, if one of the members returned at the election alluded to was not liable, as a candidate, though both were not, from the circumstance of one of them not having canvassed?

replied in the negative, on the authority of the decision in the court of King's-bench. One of the members returned (lord Cochrane) had paid his share; but the other (sir F. Burdett) had obtained a decision in his favour. The high bailiff was certainly entitled to remuneration for the expense he had been put to, without a reference to his private accounts. The present was as clear and straight forward a demand for justice as any he had ever known.

said, that the words of the act were "candidate, or candidates." The case stood thus: lord Cochrane suffered judgment to go by default, and paid his moiety on the high bailiff's estimate pending the proceedings against sir F. Burdett, who was decided not to have been a candidate within the meaning of the act, and therefore not liable to pay the high bailiff's demand. But had this officer been properly advised in his first course, he might have recovered the whole amount from lord Cochrane, who was clearly a candidate, though he could not turn round and recover the remainder, having closed his proceedings against the noble lord on his own terms. The error, therefore, was the high bailiff's, and he had no right to call on parliament to rectify his own mistake. Under any view of the case, the accounts were necessary, and he would vote for their production. If the House were to indemnify persons for every wrong construction of acts of parliament by which they suffered, there would be no end to the claims which might be made on its liberality. He was against the rescinding of the order.

said, that in the view of the case taken by the hon. member who spoke last, it was clear that if the high bailiff had his remedy against lord Cochrane, the latter would also have his equitable claim upon the House for the injury he had sustained by the equivocal terms of the act. The claim of the high bailiff was one of pure and simple justice, and ought therefore to be complied with.

The House divided:

The numbers being equal, the Speaker declared himself with the Noes.

rose to move, that the East India Dock Company should give, in compliance with the authority of an act of parliament, a proper account of their profits to the House. In 1803, an act had passed to form that company, and to compel all ships coming from the East Indies to discharge in their docks. But since that period a great alteration had taken place in the East India trade. It had been thrown open, and not only the company's ships, but smaller vessels, had now been engaged in it for some years. All that the owners of those vessels asked was, that the House would compel the East India Dock Company to render its accounts to the House, in a manner fit to be investigated. By a clause in the act, it was ordered, that after the payment of all the charges incurred, in the event of the receipts yielding more than 10 per cent to the subscribers, the surplus should be applied to the diminution of the rates on shipping. Now, the ship-owners wished to ascertain whether the receipts had not reached that state, and whether the rates ought not to have been diminished. They complained, that in the accounts submitted to the House, only one item had been made of the money expended in labour, for unloading and loading, labourers, taxes, incidental expenses, and for the amount of the extraordinary disbursements made for additional improvements and accommodations, not provided for by the increased capital, up to September 1817. This item amounted to 41,931l. 13s. 2d. Why was it charged on the income, when the company had been empowered to raise an additional capital of 100,000l. of which they had as yet chosen to procure only 58,000l.? There was also another part of their accounts which required explanation. There appeared to be a balance in hand of 7,555l. 17s. applicable to outstanding claims; and from the commencement of their operations, such balances had been kept back till they formed at present a total of 68,000l. These balances had never been accounted for. He did not mean to say that they had been improperly expended, but the ship-owners had a right to know how they had been applied. If the motion were resisted, it must be because no fair account could be rendered. It was not now a question with the ship-owners that they should be relieved from the restrictions which the act imposed upon them, though they complained that they should be compelled to pay a rate of 16s. per ton, when at the outports they could have the same service performed for 4s. and in the port of London for 3s. They feared the act was too compulsive to be able to get rid of it; but they prayed that at least justice should be done to them, and that a satisfactory account of the balance should be given. He concluded by moving, "That the East India Dock Company be required to return an account distinguishing the amount of the extraordinary disbursements incurred for improvements of, and accommodations at, the East India Docks, not provided for by the increased capital, which are stated in the account presented to this House (2nd March) to be included in the sum of 41,931l. 13s. 2d.—Also, an account of the appropriation of the several balances appearing by the accounts of the directors of the East India Docks (presented to this House) to have been in hand at the end of different years between 1808 and 1816 inclusive."

complained of the misstate- ments in the speech of the hon. mover, who had said that the charges on tonnage were 16s. whereas, in fact, they were only 14s. with a drawback of 2s. if the vessel did not go into the outward bound dock; and this rate of tonnage was calculated, not on the real but on the chartered amount. The annual accounts had been regularly laid on the table according to the usual plan, and they were made out in the most satisfactory manner. The hon. gentleman was equally in error when he spoke of 41,931l. 13s. 2d., the sum alluded to being only 13,000l. The dividends, too, were over calculated, for the average was only at the rate of six per cent—five was at first paid, six after, and the present rate was seven per cent on a capital of 450,000l. There was no ground for insinuating that the least irregularity prevailed in their mode of doing business. The idea, that there was something behind the curtain which the directors were unwilling to show, was totally destitute of foundation. He was of opinion that there was no necessity for producing the accounts, and should object to the motion.

said, that in the accounts of the company for the last eight years, there was uniformly a balance stated at the foot, which was to be accounted for in the ensuing year, but in no one instance was this engagement ever observed, so that there remained a sum of 68,000l. still to be accounted for. By such a mode of proceeding, the directors did not comply with the act of parliament that required them to present the annual accounts of their receipts and disbursements. The great amount of the duties was felt as a great grievance by all the ship owners in the port of London, for they were charged at the rate of sixteen shillings a ton at the East India Docks, while their business would be transacted at Liverpool and other ports at the rate of 2s. 6d. The charge in the port of London, he was convinced, would be found equally moderate but for this monopoly of the East India Dock Company. Such monopolies had the effect of driving away the trade of London, and the only chance of retaining or recovering it, was by bringing down the charges to the level of all their foreign and other competitors. Such monopolies had been permitted for a short time in the reign of queen Elizabeth; but that wise "princess could not fail soon to see the evil results of such a system, and she accordingly put an end to it, and received in consequence an address of thanks from the House of Commons. He trusted that the same principle would be pursued now, and that on the expiration of these exclusive charters, they would not be renewed, by which alone London would be fairly enabled to compete with her rivals in all her commercial pursuits. He thought the accounts ought to be produced, and should therefore vote for the motion.

said, that the building-expenses of the dock had exceeded the estimate, and that the company had never received a larger dividend than seven per cent.

said that he belonged to the dock company of Hull, and should have been ashamed to have put his name to accounts like those presented from the East India Docks.

hoped the directors of the East India company would not oppose the present motion, for the sake of the character of the establishment.

did not believe that it would be resisted. He was himself a director, and should support the motion.

The motion was agreed to.

took that opportunity of requesting sir James Mackintosh to postpone his motion on the above subject, in order that the report of the Budget might be brought up and discussed that night; as it was extremely important, he said, that the latter should not be delayed.

expressed his willingness, notwithstanding the frequent postponements of this subject, to accede to this arrangement, provided it was understood that his motion should come on early on the following day, or on Friday, before the discussion of the great general question of which this formed an important branch.

said, that he could enter into no engagement either for to-morrow or Friday. In consequence of which,

proceeded. He said, that he should detain the House as shortly as possible, though the question was one upon which it would be necessary for him to enter into some details. How urgent and how important a question he considered it, was sufficiently evident from his pressing it forward at that late hour of the night. Two months ago,^* he had moved for an account of the number of persons prosecuted for forging notes of the Bank of England, and for uttering or possessing such notes, knowing them to be forged, during the fourteen years preceding the suspension of cash payments by the Bank in February 1797; and also for a similar account since the suspension in 1797, to the 25th of February 1818. He had now other propositions to submit for farther papers, to the production of which he understood no objection would be made, except to one of them; namely, an account of the whole expense incurred by the Bank of England, in prosecutions for forging their notes, or for knowingly uttering, or possessing such notes, from the 1st of March 1797, to the 1st of April 1818. It was, he understood, to be said, that that document ought not to be furnished, because it would be an interference with the private concerns of the Bank; and the answer to it seemed as obvious as it was convincing; namely, that the affairs of the Bank, as connected with the issue of their notes and the rapid multiplication of forgeries, which, he contended, had been the consequence of the suspension of cash payments, could no longer, in any sense of the word, be considered private. He was prepared to show, that the present system of our paper currency had created an enormous public evil; that it had tainted and corrupted the morals of a large class of the people; and that it had occasioned an increase of crime with a rapidity unexampled in the history of law, and of civil society [Hear, hear!]. How, then, was it possible to consider the money laid out by the Bank in prosecuting crimes of which they themselves were the real authors, as a private expenditure of which parliament ought to have neither the inspection nor the control?

In consequence of the great delay in presenting the returns, the materials out of which he was to make a case to show that the House ought to interpose, were necessarily scanty; but such as they were, consisting of papers produced in a former session, and at various antecedent periods, he trusted he should be able to convince every impartial man, that inquiry was imperiously called for. By the return of prosecutions (for there were no returns of executions), it appeared, that for the seven years previous to the suspension of cash payments, the Bank had not instituted a single prosecution for the forging their notes, and that for the seven years subsequent to that event, they had instituted 222 prosecutions. Was not this a frightful leap, and only to be accounted for in one way? The calculation, of course, excluded the year 1797, as being that in which the measure of suspension was resorted to. In the fourteen years previous to the suspension, there had been only four prosecutions. In the fourteen years subsequent to that measure, there had been no less than 469! In the twenty-one years previous to the suspension, there had been only six prosecutions; while in the twenty-one years subsequent to it, they had increased to 850. The proportion was, therefore, as 6 to 850; and he would ask, whether the history of the criminal law of this, or indeed of any other country, afforded a parallel instance of so great, so sudden, and so permanent an augmentation of crime? [Hear, hear!].

^* See Vol. 37, p. 603.

In this plain statement of figures, there was more argument than it was possible for any words to convey. Here, indeed, he might almost close his case, but for something that had been said regarding prosecutions by the Mint. It had been at first contended, that the increase of prosecutions by the Bank had tended to diminish those by the Mint, so as, upon the whole, to make a balance; but, by the returns upon the table, it appeared, that the contrary was the fact, for the Mint prosecutions had also augmented, though not in a ratio so rapid as those of the Bank. Defeated in this position, gentlemen on the other side of the question argued (in direct opposition to their first assertion), that there had been a great increase in the Mint prosecutions, which showed, that the frequency of the crime of forgery only arose from the same depravity which occasioned the crime of forging. Here again, however, they were answered by the returns, which proved that the increase of Mint prosecutions, from the year 1783, had been gradual and regular, not with those sudden and dreadful leaps so observable in the Bank prosecutions, from 4 to 469: while the offences of imitating the coin of the realm had only doubled, those of forgery had increased nearly a hundred and twenty fold.

What cause could be assigned for this alarming and melancholy increase of the crime of forgery? What, but the enormous and constant increase of the paper circulation of the Bank of England—more especially of small notes, which at first had only been issued to the extent of one million and a half, but which had now ascended to the enormous sum of seven or eight millions. Upon this statement he would make only one single observation to the admirers of capital punishments, an observation which could not be too often repeated; namely, that although the crime was always visited with the utmost severity of punishment, they had not been able to repress it; but, on the contrary, the more the promoters of capital punishments cried hang! hang! hang! the more the offence was committed, and the more numerous were the offenders executed [Hear, hear!]. On the other hand, highway robbery, which had of late met with greater lenity, had considerably diminished; and though, no doubt, it was partly to be attributed to mail coaches (a sort of constant guard upon the road), the enclosure of commons and waste lands, the erection of turnpike gates, the horse patrole around London, and the general improvement of the police, yet it was impossible not to allow that a portion of the amelioration was to be attributed to the lenity with which the law was administered.

But, to return to the subject of Bank notes. No man could deny, that the subject now before the House was intimately connected with the measure introduced not long since by the chancellor of the exchequer to its notice, for diminishing the circulation of country bank notes. Whatever were the other merits of this bill, the proper title of it ought to be "A Bill for the better promotion of Forgery;" for it was intended to lesser the number of those notes which were seldom or never forged and to increase the issue of those, for forging which, so many hundreds had within a few years lost their lives [Hear, hear!]. It was a bill for, the erection and furnishing of gibbets; for it was not true, that forgeries of country bankers notes were frequent, though seldom prosecuted, lest the banker should thereby expose and injure his credit. There was a double motive for imitating the paper of the Bank of England, since it could always be done with greater effect and with more impunity. It must be confessed that the machinery of the Bank was most perfect for the protection of its own interests. The Bank, within four years, had had 100,000 forged notes presented to it; all of which they had immediately checked, except 199 which they paid, but all which they afterwards recovered. So that the Bank of England had, by their care, contrived completely to protect themselves. In fact, nothing could be more clear, than that a direct tax of 25,000l. a year was laid by the Bank upon the lower orders of society, least capable of detecting the fraud, and of sustaining the loss. If a tax to be so raised were proposed to parliament, there was not a man in the House who would not start from it with disgust and horror: yet the effect upon the poor was the same, and the company of the Bank were the gainers.

The crime of forgery was often attended with peculiar aggravations. It had not unfrequently been made the means of seducing the unwary into guilt and its consequences; and women (from their nature weak and dependant, and incapable of the more arduous duties of life) were competent to the commission of this offence, as far at least as the altering of forged notes constituted a part of it. A most painful case of this nature was now under discussion. He feared to embitter the execution of a public duty—but it was due to his conscience to say, that the convictions of women at Warwick, at Lancaster, at the Old Bailey, must fill mankind with a degree of involuntary horror. It was lamentable that the courts of justice which were established for the protection of the people should become hateful; yet this might be the case without a single fault on the part of those who administered the laws, when the laws themselves were ill-judged. To see a father, a wife, a daughter, and sons, convicted en masse for such crimes as these, might be just, might be necessary, might be legal, but would be: abominable [Hear, hear!]. The average number of executions, from 1805 to 1813, was 56. In one year, the persons executed for forgery on the Bank were 13, or nearly one-fourth of the whole number of persons capitally executed. It had, indeed, at last been found impossible to adhere to the ancient rule, and nothing could more mark the increase of forgery, than the relaxation it had produced in that unbending rule of the law. Forgeries had been pardoned—pardoned through necessity; or the slaughter of men, women, and children, under the name of justice, would have buried the crime and punishment under one common abhorrence.

What remedy was to be devised against this great evil? The natural remedy was, to revert to that state in which there had been no forgeries; but if this could not be done, it was incumbent on the Bank to seek out some plan for diminishing the calamities consequent on a paper circulation. If some such plan was not found out, all industry, all integrity, all character, was menaced. With regard to the expedients which had been suggested to prevent forgery, he rather doubted their efficiency. The ingenious persons who had devoted their attention to this subject, professed to have two objects in view; first, the security of the Bank, and, secondly, the security of the public. Most of the individuals whose projects he had examined, did not seem to be aware to what perfection the Bank had brought their machinery to protect their own interests. The great difficulty to be contemplated in all such plans was the one of making such marks upon bank-notes as would be understood and recognized by the poor and ignorant, at the same time that they were incapable of being copied by the numerous body of persons who, unfortunately for themselves and for society, attempted to imitate them. He feared that such a discovery was very difficult to accomplish. Still, in his view, it ought to be eagerly sought after, and should never be abandoned until the difficulty of attaining the object was found utterly insurmountable. Any expense that attended the pursuit the Bank would surely defray, while there was a hope of rescuing it from the expense of prosecution. For it must be more grateful to the feelings of the Bank directors to pay artists for the discovery of any expedient to prevent forgery, or even to render it difficult, than to have money applied, to encourage an odious system of espionage, or to reward those wretches, who first contrived to deprive persons of their innocence, in order afterwards to deprive them of life [Hear, hear!]. It had been his intention to move for a committee with that object, as well as for other purposes connected with it. He did not, however, mean to press it till after the motion of his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney); but if the decision upon that motion should render it necessary, he would certainly bring it forward. He should have no objection to have it made a secret committee. His present object was, to be informed of the expense of the Bank in consequence of forgeries; and the best way to become acquainted with that was, to obtain the expense they had been at in their prosecutions. And, considering the enormous increase of those prosecutions; considering the number of persons employed, who deprived men of their innocence, that they might afterwards deprive them of their lives; considering the many instances of this kind, some of them detected and exposed by the intrepid and indefatigable benevolence of his hon. friend, the member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Bennet), he thought it desirable, that some of the particulars of the Bank prosecutions should be laid before the public.—After some farther observations, sir James concluded a most eloquent speech with moving,

"That there be laid before the House, an Account, 1, Of the total nominal value of forged Bank notes presented to the Bank of England from 1st January 1816 to 10th April 1818, distinguishing each year and distinguishing the amount of those of which payment was refused, from that of the notes which were paid, and which afterwards proved to be forgeries. 2. Of the number of persons prosecuted for forging notes of the Bank of England, or for knowingly uttering or possessing forged notes, from 1st January 1816 to 10th April 1818, distinguishing each year, and distinguishing the number so prosecuted for forging, uttering, or possessing notes under the value of 5l.: 3. Of the total number of forged Bank notes discovered by the Bank to have been forged, by presentation for payment or otherwise, from 1st January 1812 to 10th April 1818, distinguishing each year, and also distinguishing the number of notes of 1l. 2l. 5l. 10l. 20l. and above 20l. in value: 4. Of the whole expense incurred by the Bank of England in prosecutions for forging their notes, or for knowingly uttering or possessing such notes, from 1st March 1797 to 20th April 1818, distinguishing each year."^*

^* Copies of these Accounts will be found in the Appendix to this Volume.

admitted the correctness of the hon. and learned gentleman's statement of the number of prosecutions at the different periods, but insisted that the prosecutions had been greater on the part of the Mint than of the Bank, as they consisted of those for imitating the dollars. He did not know a single instance of any project submitted to the Bank for improving their notes, that had not received the fullest consideration. If they had all been hitherto rejected, it was because, on the most deliberate examination, they had been deemed inadequate to the end in view. The Bank wanted no additional security for themselves: all they wanted was the means of enabling the public to ascertain at once the genuineness or spuriousness of a note. He apprehended that there would be no objection on the part of the Bank to the first motion; but to accede to the motion for an account of the expense of prosecutions, would betray a desire of prying into the private affairs of the Bank, and on that ground it ought to be rejected.

supported the motion The evils arising from forgery were, he said, increasing every year. He had witnessed this in the county he had the honour to represent. The people of Birmingham were preparing to express their feelings upon the subject by petition to the House, and would have done so if the motion had been delayed a little longer. He earnestly hoped, that some measures might be devised to prevent the progress of an evil so afflicting to humanity and so highly injurious to the morals of the country.

expressed his conviction that nine out of ten of the prosecutions for forgery in London originated with persons who were paid for exciting others to commit the crime. This he was enabled to state from official experience and authentic information. Was not the present system, then, such as called loudly for the interposition of the legislature?—How came it, he would ask, that the brother of the unfortunate female who was sentenced to die on Friday for forgery: was allowed to escape by a police officer, while his sister, whom that brother had led into crime, was prosecuted and Condemned to death?

, after eulogizing the able and luminous, speech of the hon. and learned mover, asked, how it happened that the Bank directors had never acted upon the invention of Mr. Tilloch, which was submitted to them in 1797, accompanied by a certificate from the most distinguished engravers in the empire, that that invention was incapable of imitation? He thought it was incumbent on the Bank not only to show their anxiety, but to prove that they had something in hand on the subject. He trusted the House would feel it its duty to do every thing in its power towards coming to a desirable conclusion on this most important business.

conceived that the giving of the numbers of prosecutions and convictions would answer every reasonable purpose, and that there then would be no necessity for a statement of the expenses the Bank had incurred in the conduct of prosecutions, in the view of a just and moral consideration of the subject. It appeared that the hon. and learned gentleman had suspicions that the Bank had recourse to the abominable practice of employing spies and informers, in consequence of the supposed amount of their expenses for prosecutions; and that they paid large sums of money for the treacherous practice of inveigling individuals. He believed that such suspicions were wholly unfounded, as far as they related to so respectable and honourable a body as the Directors of the Bank. He had the satisfaction of knowing many of them, and from the bottom of his heart he believed them incapable of acts which ought to produce such suspicions. He must therefore beg the hon. and learned gentleman to make some explanation of what had fallen from him. He thought also that what the hon. and learned gentleman had said respecting judicial proceedings required explanation, and that such explanation was more especially due from him, as he had occupied a judicial situation himself. He hoped therefore the hon. and learned gentleman would consent to explain himself.

animadverted with peculiar animation upon the system of prosecution instituted by the Bank, and especially upon the conduct of the Bank solicitor, who had, it appeared, the discretion of selecting such as should be victims, and such as should plead guilty. According to law, to compound a felony was a penal act, but it appeared that the Bank solicitor had in the system of those prosecutions a special immunity. It was an indisputable fact that a reward of 15l. was paid to any person concerned in discovering (which too often meant creating) the crime of forgery. No less than 30l, were paid to the police officer who arrested and prosecuted Kelly and Spicer, the two poor lads who were lately transported to Botany Bay, after having been sentenced to death, for a crime, the commission of which that officer might have prevented. But every agent in prosecutions instituted by the Bank was rewarded, while every one they prosecuted was sure to be punished. The punishments were so numerous and so severe as to defeat their own object, for the feeling of the country revolted against them. The law in this respect seemed as if made only to answer the purposes of the Bank of England; for forgeries of all other kinds might be almost committed with impunity. For instance, a case which occurred some time since, of a woman who was cast for death at Maidstone. She had been tried and found guilty of forging seamen's wills, and under circumstances so aggravated that though he was an enemy to capital punishment for such offences, he would say, that if ever any case of forgery deserved it, it was that. But notwithstanding this, the learned judge, baron Wood, who tried her, felt it right to grant a respite of the sentence before he left the town. Unlike this case was that of the unhappy female whose execution was ordered within a few days. She had been found guilty of uttering forged notes, but her's was an offence against the Bank of England. The public, however, had given a strong opinion in her favour, and he trusted that a more mature and humane consideration might even yet dictate a change in the awful determination which had been come to respecting her [The hon. member alluded to the case of Harriet Skelton, ordered for execution for uttering forged notes]. But whether the Bank had determined that more human blood should flow or not, or whether the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer should continue to advocate their humane system still longer, he could tell them that the time was not far distant when it would have an end. The public opinion had already begun to act, and it would soon have the effect of putting a final check to the further sacrifice of human life.

remarked on the assertion of the Bank directors, that they had carefully examined every project laid before them, and had found none of them to afford a sufficient security against forgery. The Bank of England notes were such as any bungling engraver could imitate, though the Bank committee were said to have sat fifteen years on this subject. Country bankers had issued notes with impressions on both sides, executed by good artists, and forgeries of them were, in consequence, very rare. He would appeal to the feelings of the directors of the Bank of England, and ask them, whether if there was an increased issue of their notes (which was very possible) there would not be more forgeries. People in the country were afraid of a Bank of England note. He believed there were many more forged ones in circulation than had been presented for payment, and that the Bank had committed great mistakes on the subject. Lately, a man was hanged at York, and he had heard his confession. The man stated, that he had bought the notes at Birmingham. He (Mr. T.) believed that he had a tolerable good knowledge of a real or forged note, but he must confess that he had great difficulty in ascertaining the notes that this unfortunate man had uttered. The fact was, that at Birmingham there were manufactories of forged notes. Devices of different descriptions on both sides of a note rendered the forging of them more difficult; but the Bank of England notes were badly executed, and the roman candle figure rendered them still more easy of imitation.

suggested that the Bank of England should pay their solicitors a stated salary, instead of paying them according to the number of convictions, by which, he conceived, a stimulus to prosecutions was given. He was convinced of this from a letter which he had seen from the solicitor of the Bank. It was impossible to describe the eagerness with which prosecutions were commenced. Bishop Burnett had well remarked, that there was reason to fear that the power of the Bank of England would get beyond control. It was something like an approach to that state of things, when clerks of that establishment imprisoned for an assault on his majesty's subjects, received as a compensation two or three hundred pounds from the funds of that corporation. The Bank said to the chancellor of the exchequer, "Pay us what you owe us, and then we will consider what we will do." To the public they said, "You may take these spurious notes on our character, and we will not repay them, though we are the cause of their fabrication and issue."

said, he knew of a country bank in which not one forged note in a year occurred, while the forged Bank of England notes appeared every week. As to the loss occasioned to the country by these forged notes, it had been stated at 25,000l. a year. He believed it might be estimated at double that sum. A great number of them never found their way to the Bank. After circulation, they were either torn to pieces or put into the fire; and these amounted to more than went to the Bank. A bank in his neighbourhood had issued notes payable at their own office, or in London, and they became plagued with forgeries; but when they confined themselves to a small circle, and made them payable at their own counter only, then the forgeries ceased. He was strongly impressed with the necessity of some regulation.

expressed his anxiety for the success of the motion. He had the highest respect for the gentlemen of the Bank, but he could not but believe that they were too much under the control of their own officers. He was surprised that the Directors themselves had not moved for a committee to show that nothing better could be done on their part.

thought that the Bank ought to have done more than it had done, to prevent the increase of forgeries. He was of opinion, that a public reward ought to be offered. No money could be better laid out.

answered the assertion, that if the notes had been better executed they would not be so often forged, by stating, that he had seen notes issued by a private banker, executed by a most distinguished artist, which had been so completely forged, that, when brought before him, he could not distinguish the false from the true one.

said, that several inventions had been submitted to the Bank, to prevent forgeries. Some were found not likely to answer, and others were still under consideration. The Bank had acted with much lenity, and had never expended large sums to induce to crime, that offenders might be brought to punishment. He had no objection to the production of the accounts required by the motion. He was confident that every disclosure would prove that the Bank were unremit- ting in their endeavours to correct the evil, and cautious in the management of their prosecutions.

said, he availed himself of the courtesy of the House, not for the purpose of reply, but strictly to explain two parts of his former speech, which seemed to have been misunderstood by the right hon. gentleman opposite. Of the judges of the land he felt always disposed to speak, not only in respectful but in reverential terms. If he had used any disrespectful terms, they must have proceeded from the warmth of the moment: he was not conscious of it, and did not believe he had done it. He had merely complained of the severe jurisprudence of the law on this subject. He had also intended to have spoken of the Directors with respect, as the managers of a useful public institution. Of them, all he had said was, that if they refused the object of his motion, they would excite a prejudice, a suspicion, that something was concealed. Much was he, therefore, surprised to be charged with disrespect towards them, but much more to be charged with disrespect towards the judges, who must either be entitled to veneration, or objects of punishment—for there could be no medium. The discussion for the last half-hour had wandered from the object of the motion, to a subject on which he should bring forward a motion afterwards, perhaps that day se'nnight, if, unfortunately, the motion of his right hon. friend for Friday should be rejected.

The several motions were then put, and carried without a division. When the last motion relative to the expense of prosecutions was agreed to, the opposition benches returned several cheers.