said, that this was a petition precisely similar to one which was presented last year. He had then said, before the city of London could claim the funds of others for their own purposes, they ought first to show that their own funds were insufficient. He had then moved for certain accounts in order to ascertain this. No answer was returned to the order for these accounts for more than three months, and at last, instead of complying with the order, the city of London presented a petition to the House to reconsider the matter: in short, rather than show the accounts, the city of London withdrew their bill. He now gave notice, that whenever they moved for leave to bring in a bill for the object in question, he should move for the production of the accounts of the city.

said, he had not satin the House last session, nor had he taken a part in the debates on the subject elsewhere. He would however say, that the corporation of London were ready to show all the accounts which, in common fairness, they were bound to show to the House; and they would make it appear, that their application in this case was founded on reason and justice. They not only supported their own prisoners, but also those of the county of Middlesex. Now, the prisoners of the county of Middlesex were, to those of the city of London, in the proportion of five to one. When it became necessary for the city of London to erect a new prison at a great expense, chiefly on account of the prisoners of the county of Middlesex, surely it was but fair and reasonable that they should derive assistance from the Orphan Fund.

admitted, that the worthy alderman was not in parliament when this subject had last come before the House. On that occasion, when the House ordered the Corporation to produce their accounts, they did not do so; but they abandoned the attempt for that time. As to what had been said, relative to a gaol for the accommodation of Middlesex prisoners, if the corporation have expended money m the erection of such a prison, the more regular way Was, to raise that money by a local tax. He did not comprehend why coals, one of the most necessary articles of life, should be taxed in the counties of Surrey, Oxford, Essex, and Kent, merely because the corporation of London had built a prison, in which prisoners for the county of Middlesex were confined. As a representative of the county of Surrey, to which place the tax would extend, he Would protest against the prayer of the present petition on principle, and would submit to the House, that it would be impossible to entertain it for a moment until those accounts which had been formerly ordered, and which had been never furnished, should be laid before them.

presented, by command of the Prince Regent, the following

stated that this petition was of some importance. The subject had been before the house last session, and also a former session; it had undergone discussion in a committee of the House, and he believed the abuses stated in the petition were fully established. The committee had recommended a bill to be brought in, but there were difficulties in the way of it. Being a money bill, it could only be brought in with the consent of his majesty's ministers. He thought it would be proper to refer the petition to a committee, consisting of the members of the city of London, of Surrey, and others more particularly interested in the matter. In the mean time he moved that the petition do lie on the table—Ordered.

said, that the petition they had just heard, was not less important than any petition presented during the present session: not less important than the petition presented the other day for a revision of the criminal law. It was a petition from the city of London praying the house not to renew the Insolvent Debtors bill. He had had many opportunities of witnessing the conduct of the citizens of London, and forming an opinion respecting their character, and this he could safely say, that so far from being deficient in humanity, they would be as ready as the inhabitants of any part of the kingdom to agree to any measure for the relief of insolvent and distressed persons. With respect to this measure, however good might be the intentions of those by whom it was introduced, he would not hesitate to say, that no act ever passed that house, which made so complete an inroad on the property of traders, or which gave a more deadly blow to the morals of the people. It not only-afforded an easy indemnity to the dishonest part of the community, but held out an encouragement to vice and profligacy of every description. In addition to these grievances, the bill, in its present form, had totally superseded that pride and bulwark of our constitution, the trial by jury. It, in fact, invested in the judge of the insolvent court more power than had over been conferred on any individual for centuries past. He possessed a much greater authority with regard to property between debtor and creditor than was in the exercise or the discretion of the lord chancellor, and the twelve judges. Different papers had been presented to the House, showing the number of persons who had taken the benefit of the act, and the amount of their debts; but gentlemen who were not connected with trade, could hardly be supposed willing to take the trouble to look into these papers. It would astonish many members to learn that after the bill had been in operation three years, an account up to March 1815 had been moved for, whereby it appeared that upwards of six millions of property had then been decided on under that act, and that all the dividends on that property amounted only to about one farthing in the pound. At that time they were told that several regulations would be introduced to remedy the evils, and that they proceeded in a great measure from the carelessness of the creditors, in not looking after the property of their debtors. Another account was presented up to the 1st of March 1817. The persons who then had taken the benefit of the act since the former account, amounted to something more than 9,000; and the whole property decided on, amounted to upwards of eight millions. The money recovered amounted to something more than half a farthing in the pound. He had made a great mistake in stating the dividend on the former property at a farthing in the pound—it was only one-fourth of a farthing; so that the improvement had produced an increase of from a quarter of a farthing to half a farthing in the pound. The number of persons who had taken the benefit of the act was nearly fourteen thousand, and the property they owed was nearly fifteen millions. Here, then, a tax to a most enormous amount was levied—a tax exceeding in amount that of the property tax—here was fifteen millions of property, all taken from the profits of the most honest, the most industrious, the most laborious, and the most moral part of his majesty's subjects [Hear, hear!]. He did not, when he said this, mean any thing invidious to any other class of society; but it was not to be denied that their habits were more chaste, their conduct more regular, and their morals more pure, than those of the lower ranks of life, who were too often driven by distress to the commission of improper acts; and than those who, in a state of affluence, had not the checks to control their conduct, that must necessarily regulate the trading part of the community. He said, that it any plan could be devised to meet the benevolent wishes of the framers of the act, and at the same time to give some security for the property of the honest trader, the city of London would willingly concur. The real fact was, that it made individuals rush to take the benefit of the act in the first instance, without making any exertion to retrieve their situation. He could appeal to the hon. commissioner of bankrupts who sat near him, whether he ever knew an instance of an honest debtor being oppressed by his creditors, after he had given a fair statement of his losses and effects. The house surely could not tolerate the principle of a measure which justified a man's wasting his effects until he had not one farthing left, and then cancelling all his engagements by this act. If a man had 10,000l. or 500l. and found his affairs sinking, let him call his creditors together and give among them what remained, but let him not, as this act justified, continue a squandering career until not one farthing remained for any body. Indeed, the consequence of this measure was, that many creditors were actually compelled by the losses they incurred to follow their debtors into gaol, and go on themselves to take the benefit of this act, which shook of debts to the amount of hundreds of thousands, and did not leave assets to the amount of a farthing in the pound for distribution among creditors. He had seen a paper containing a list of persons who had applied to particular sheriffs officers with the writs in their hands under which they were to be taken into custody. The hon. alderman concluded with moving that the petition do lie on the table; and he begged at the same time to give notice, that if it should appear at a future time to be the intention to renew this act, he would move for a previous inquiry into its operation. In the mean time he would move for a continuance of the line of accounts formerly presented to the house on this subject.

said, that he perfectly concurred with the worthy alderman as to the effects of the law. The intentions which had actuated those who originated the law were, he was convinced, most hu- mane. It was a laudable attempt to endeavour to distinguish between the unfortunate and the fraudulent debtor. But the effect had not corresponded. Millions of property had been disposed of, of which the creditors had not received a farthing in the pound; and he was convinced, that for every instance in which justice had been done to a debtor, much more injustice had been done to the creditors. This was not a mere question between the debtor and creditor—it was one which concerned the public morals and public interest; first it clearly, appeared before the last committee appointed by parliament, that respectable traders were obliged to shield themselves from the losses entailed by this act, by putting an additional price on their goods. He believed that for one act of justice towards an honest debtor, occasioned by the operation of this act, fifty frauds were committed upon the creditor.

said, he quite agreed with his hon. friend, the worthy alderman, and with the hon. gentleman who spoke last, that this was an important question, which ought to be maturely considered; he quite agreed with them, that it ought to be duly and carefully weighed, from the immense interests which were at stake on the issue. Its operations on the mercantile, the general and trading interests, and on the administration of justice, were of the highest importance, and alike entitled this act to the most serious and cool consideration. He did not mean on the present occasion to anticipate a discussion which would be more regular at a future period, but he could not allow the statements which had just been made to go forth to the world without protesting against them in one point of view. These statements, or at least the great point or principle upon which they were founded, though guarded with some special qualifications, went generally against the whole measure. He objected to this sweeping way of denouncing the act, and particularly to the manner in which the comparisons seemed to be made. The comparison between the state of this particular law now, and the previous state, should not be made upon an ideal standard of law which never did exist, but upon what was the actual fact, and then, indeed, a fair estimate might be made of the practice in one case and in the other. If hon. gentlemen meant to make a fair comparison, they must refer to the former practice, which was, to pass every year or two ex post facto laws to clear the gaols from debtors, and compare that with the principle of the present act, which was prospective in its operation. The act as it was might have many imperfections, which it would be well to remedy. It had not emanated from that House. The bill was lord Redesdale's, with a few and not important alterations. This act might be liable to objections, though many of them, he hoped, would be found capable of being removed; but what he protested against was, its being compared with a state of law which never had existence. As an instance how easily a clamour might be raised on this subject, though he acquitted the worthy alderman of any intention of producing an unfair impression, he should refer to the statement of properly disposed of under this act. Suppose no insolvent act had passed, would the creditors have had the whole of the fifteen millions? Was it not more probable that they would not have had even the fortieth part of the farthing in the pound, which it was said they had actually received? The petition was ordered to lie on the table. After which, on the motion, of Mr. Alderman Waithman, returns were ordered, "1. Of all persons discharged under the Insolvent acts up to the first of February 1819, the amount of the respective sums to which such discharge extended, and the amount of dividends, that have been received and paid to Creditors. 2. Of all instances in which debtors have been remanded under the operation of the Insolvent debtors acts, with the grounds of such remanding."

brought up the report of the committee on this bill. On the motion that it be agreed to,

said, that but for an accident, he should have had that day a petition to present against this bill, and on that ground he wished the further proceedings on it to be postponed. The act which the present bill was intended to renew, was passed in 1811, professedly only for two years, in which time inquiry was to have been made. It had been continued from that time to the present, and no inquiry had ever taken place. It threw the whole expense of the hustings on the candidates. The petition which he should have the honour to present would show that there were funds to defray the charge; that the high bailiff bought his office from the dean and chapter, and that if that body had not sold the office, but had bestowed it as they should have done, the officer would have been able to erect the hustings without charging the candidates. The charge upon one of the candidates alone had been 900l. and odd at the last election. He hoped the house would not compel a candidate for the representation of Westminster, to be fined to that amount; but would previously appoint a committee to inquire into the merits of the case.

said, that the bill was only to continue for one year what had been law for six years. He was very willing that a committee should be appointed, to inquire whether the candidates or the dean and chapter (neither of whom he did not know to be legally liable) should be charged with the expenses of the hustings. But he believed it would be agreed on all sides, that the high bailiff should not be saddled with the expenses. He therefore could not consent to postpone the bill, at a time when they were on the eve of another election for Westminster; and when an individual might be ready without the slightest hope of success, to raise a disturbance in Westminster, and, from a vindictive spirit towards the high bailiff, compel him to raise hustings and keep open a fourteen days poll, with the expense of which he would attempt to saddle that officer.

thought the better course would be for the citizens of Westminster to erect some permanent place, which would answer for the business of their elections without being obliged, on every occasion to erect a hustings, as was the present practice. He thought that this measure should not be pressed through the house in such a hurry, and that time ought to be given to ascertain whether funds could not elsewhere be found for the purpose. If the office of high bailiff was, as was said, an office of considerable emolument, and one for the purchase of which a large sum was given, it might be necessary to see if this expense could with any degree of justice be attached to it. He was quite of opinion that no burthen of this nature ought to be thrown upon the freedom of election, and the postponement of the report for a day or two could not affect the approaching election, and some permanent arrangement might be made which would prevent so heavy a burthen from falling on the shoulders of a candidate.

said, that the urgency of present circumstances evidently admitted of no delay. This bill must pass, or the election must take place, without any act existing on the subject. The shortness of its duration would, however, soon afford ample opportunity for inquiry and deliberation.

thought the operation of the present bill could not be said to affect the freedom of election. It was surely very hard, if an individual who had in fact caused the expense should refuse to pay the amount which the law justified, and which was absolutely necessary, and that the whole should fall on the high bailiff. He thought it would be equally hard to throw the expense on the inhabitants generally. In his opinion the candidates were the proper persons on whom it should fall.

said, he could not agree with the hon. member who spoke last, that, under any circumstances, so large an expense should be thrown upon the candidate. The candidate came forward as much in obedience to the king's writ as the electors did who gave him their votes. To put an extreme case: suppose nobody came forward, and that no return was made, then the city would be punished by fine for not obeying the king's writ. Parliamentary service might be cast on a man with or without his consent, and no man, should be fined for seeking or accepting it. He therefore should propose inquiry. If the dean and chapter had funds (and he was inclined to believe they had none) which could be legally liable to this charge, the expense should be defrayed by them: if not, a rate ought to be levied on Westminster, and a permanent building be erected, or hustings which might be put up when required, and which would not entail any considerable expense on the city.

said, he concurred generally in what had fallen from the hon. gentleman who spoke last, and thought it an unconstitutional principle which went to fix the expenses on the candidates: especially as they were sometimes brought forward without their previous assent; a case of this sort had actually occurred in Westminster. There seemed as little propriety in fixing the expenses on the high bailiff or dean and chapter who were not more materially interested in the repre- sentation of the city of Westminster than any other individuals there. The argument of an hon. baronet, who seemed to think the candidates were the proper parties to pay the expenses, was founded in the idea that a seat in that house was a beneficial possession for which something was to be paid. He (Mr. T.) thought it clear that the inhabitants generally or the electors of Westminster, who had the benefit of being represented in parliament, were the parties who should be called upon to pay the expenses incident to the election of their members.

said, that the House was called on to pass a bill of whose object it appeared to him that it was utterly ignorant. For his own part, he must observe, that it was unknown to him, and that therefore he could not support it. The reasons which had been urged by hon. gentlemen to induce the house to pass this bill in a hurry, inclined him to pause before he gave his sanction to it; and he should therefore willingly second the proposition for time to inquire whether the high bailiff had any funds with which to defray these expenses, and whether there was any place in which the hustings could be permanently held and the expenses incurred in erecting them avoided in future. He scarcely knew what the law on the subject was, and he believed that other gentlemen were in a similar state of ignorance. This was an additional reason for delay. It might be hard on the high bailiff, if he had to pay the expenses incurred in the election out of his own pocket; but he would rather indemnify him for them by an express act of the legislature, than impose them on others by the operation of an ex post facto Jaw like the present.

said, that the act which the present bill was intended to renew, had passed in 1811, it was repassed in 1813, and had expired a month ago. The bill only continued for a year longer what had been law for eight years. He wished to have the bill passed before the circumstances could arise which would be affected by the bill, which seemed to him to be directly the reverse of an ex post facto law. If the house wished to have the bill postponed, he should bow to its wishes [cries of No, no!]; but he had no doubt that he should be able to give a sa- tisfactory answer to the petitions, as he had had an interview with one of the principal petitioners.

proposed, as an amendment, that Friday next should be substituted for to-morrow for the third reading. He also thought that some inquiry ought to be made to ascertain the emoluments of the high bailiff. Suppose a member were elected, and did not choose to attend at the hustings lest he should be called upon to pay this large expense, in what a situation would he not be placed! He would be exposed to the penalty of the House for not attending, and to the high bailiff's bill if he took his seat.

suggested to the hon. mover whether it would not be right to limit the scope of this bill to the 1st of April next. If this suggestion were not adopted, he would vote for postponing the discussion until Friday next.

said, that the first of April would be rather an awkward day but he had no objection to the first of May. He never meant to propose this as a permanent measure; on the contrary, it was his intention hereafter to move for a committee, to take the whole subject into consideration.

submitted to the house, whether they would allow a bill, not yet printed or known to the members, to be passed in so hasty a manner. The hon. gentleman who had brought this bill forward was, on all former occasions, one of the readiest persons to demand inquiry; but on the present occasion, he was most hostile to it, and said, if not in form, at least in substance, "Do the act first, and then inquire into the reasons for doing it." He must consider the whole of the proceedings in this affair as most rash and precipitate, and must in consequence, deprecate them with all the ability in his power.

rose to present a petition from the principal merchants and manufacturers of Leeds, praying that the Bank might not be called upon to resume its cash payments at the present crisis. He was advised that there were several other petitions of the same tenor now preparing in that quarter of the country, and which would be shortly laid before parliament.

said, it was material to trace the origin of this petition. He begged, therefore, to ask, the hon. member, whether the petition was the result of any public meeting of the bodies in whose names it was drawn out? Was, there, in fact, any public meeting at all? He put this question because he had heard that certain active persons, well known in the metropolis, had prepared petitions here, and sent them down to different parts of the country, to have signatures surreptitiously obtained. Bankers had been the principal agents in procuring them; and every body knew how reluctant a country gentleman indebted to his banker would be to refuse his name to a petition of this nature, when asked to give it by this accommodating banker. One very strange circumstance in this petition was, that the very first name at the foot of it was Beckett, the name of the principal bankers at Leeds.

observed, that the bankers had not signed it. The Messrs. Beckett who had signed it, were not the bankers, but another firm, sons of the bankers of that name.

observed, that he did not know the bankers had been so artful. He only wished that all the petitions which they were to have, had been presented that day, that they might see whether they all came from the same shop. Meantime he wished to ask, was this petition the result of any meeting.

said, it came to him accompanied by a letter from a respectable merchant, desiring him to present it. He was not informed whether any public meeting had taken place.

said, he had received a letter from Leeds, complaining that such a petition was to come up, that it had been privately circulated, and that no public meeting had been held.

said, that as he saw a gentleman belonging to the home department now in his place, he should take the opportunity of putting a new questions to him. A certain foreigner had been seized under the Alien act, on the 14th of last November, and sent out of the country. One of the provisions of that act was, that any individual arrested under it should be carried, if he wished to appeal against the execution of the sentence, before the privy council. He understood that this foreigner had expressed his determination of making this appeal, but had not been allowed to do so. He wished to know what explanation could be given of these circumstances, and under what authority they had also seized his papers.

said, that he had not a minute of the facts, to which he could then refer for the accuracy of his statement, but must trust to his own imperfect recoltion of them. The foreigner in question had certainly wished to lodge an appeal, not indeed before the privy council, but before a magistrate. To a magistrate he was therefore taken, who, upon hearing the facts detailed against him, did not think it consistent with his duty to interfere on his behalf. With regard to his papers, he should give a very short, and he trusted, a satisfactory answer. They were brought to the office for the home department, and forwarded from thence to the ultimate destination of the individual arrested by his orders, and according to his directions. When they were restored to him, the individual complained that they were restored with their seals broken. This complaint attracted the notice of the British government, and in consequence letters were written to the agent of the packets at Harwich, (from which place the papers had been sent to Cuxhaven), to learn in what state these papers were when they arrived at, and when they were sent from, Harwich. The answer returned was, that the portfolio which contained them was in a sealed envelop, and had been sent from Harwich in the same state in which it arrived there. From Cuxhaven they were sent to Hamburgh, and from Hamburgh to the individual in question. Similar inquiries were made of the agents of the post office at Cuxhaven and Hamburgh, as had been made of the agent of the packets at Harwich, and a similar answer was invariably returned. When the portfolio was delivered to the individual in question, he refused to break the envelop, except in the presence of a certain foreign general; he was introduced into his company in consequence of this refusal, and there he himself broke the very seals which he now insinuated were broken by others.

said, that as the answer returned by the different post-agents was merely confined to the fact of the papers being in the same state as they were when they left the office of the home department, he wished to ask the hon. gentleman, whether the portfolio was or was not unlocked, during the time it remained under the care of the home department.

replied, that it went back to the owner in precisely the same state in which it was brought, except with the addition of a paper cover, fastened with the government seal.

rose to say a few words on the petition from certain inhabitants of the city of Oxford, presented on a former evening, which complained of the interference of the duke of Marlborough in the election of representatives for that city in parliament. He observed, that as this petition had stated that 2,500l. had been expended by the noble duke to secure the election of general St. John; and as it also mentioned other specific acts of corruption, the House had only one course left them to pursue. The Grenville act expressly declares, that when any petition, complaining of an undue election and return, shall be presented to the House, it shall be referred to a committee gifted with sundry powers, which are afterwards described. Now the petition before the House complained both of an undue election and an undue return, and therefore the House had no discretionary power regarding the manner in which it was to be treated. He did not mean to deny to the House the power of punishing offenders and vindicating its privileges, either by its own acts, or by instituting suits at law; but the present petition fell under a particular act, according to the provisions of which its merits must be tried. It would therefore be impossible for the House to accede to the present motion, which was, that the petition do lie on the table: but should that motion be withdrawn, as he trusted it would, then the regular order would be made as usual in cases of petitions complaining of undue returns.

said, that after the consideration he had given this subject since he had presented the petition, he was ready to view it in the same light as the hon. and learned gentleman. He therefore wished to withdraw the petition, for the purpose of enabling the petitioners to make their own election of the course they should take.

concurred with the hon. and learned gentlemen, that the House could not properly take cognizance of the petition in the manner it was presented, since it was, to all intents and purposes, an election petition.

observed, that the act of parliament said, that when an election, petition had been presented, an order should be made for its consideration on some particular day, and the parties prohibited from withdrawing it. As no order of the kind had yet been made out, the petition might still be withdrawn, and another presented before Thursday.

said, that he persevered in his original opinion, that the petition could not be considered in any other light than as an election petition. The facts stated by the petitioners, if true, must go to affect the return of the member in whose behalf the noble duke was alleged to have interfered. If, therefore, such a complaint was to be considered in the light of a breach of privilege, and was referred to the committee of privileges, the example would operate so, that every other complaint affecting the return of members, and many of which might be considered breaches of privilege, would be referred to that committee, instead of the select committee, with powers to examine upon oath pursuant to the Grenville act. Parliament and the country had, before the passing of that act, pronounced its opinion on the incompetency of the former course, and on the universal confusion that attended its continuance.

contended, that the petition was not an election petition, but merely called on the House to vindicate its own privileges. The facts asserted could not affect the return of the hon. member for Oxford, unless a connexion was proved between him and the noble duke, so as to show that the latter had been his agent. He was convinced that the language of the petition was so framed as to avoid bringing the return into question. If that was the intention of the petitioners, to refer the petition to a select committee would make it fall to the ground, as they would not enter into the cognizances required. He thought it therefore desirable, that it should be referred to a committee of privileges. An election committee would not be bound to make any report; and, in a case like the present, it was of importance that a report should be produced. It would be referring the question to a fair test, if the House would enquire whether in case his hon. and learned friend had not presented this petition until the fourteen days for the reception of election petitions had elapsed, it would have closed its doors upon it as an election petition. He thought the House would then have received it, and accordingly that it should now be referred to a committee of privileges. If any other course were taken, he plainly saw, that the privileges of the House would remain unvindicated, and the complaint of the petitioners unredressed.

said, he had no desire to prolong the discussion; but there was one observation of the hon. member who preceded him, to which it was necessary to advert. It seemed to be his opinion, that unless a petition was couched in certain technical terms, it was not to be considered as an election petition, and of course not to be referred to a select committee, in conformity with the act of the 10th of the king. The principle and practice were wholly different, as it was the substance of the allegations that gave a character to the petition. In the case of the petition of Mr. Home Tooke, many members were inclined to view it. in the light of a libel upon the House, and to treat it as such; but as it adverted to an undue return of the silting members for Westminster, it was decided to be an election petition. Enough had been stated in the present petition to accuse the noble duke of being an agent for others. Corruption and bribery were alleged, and if such allegations were proved before an election committee, the election would be reported to be void. It was not for him to say what course the House should pursue, if the question were brought before them properly as a breach of privilege. The present was no question of discretion: the law was imperative upon the course to be pursued: the petition must go before that tribunal which the law had marked out, and could not be withdrawn. The question, that the petition do lie on the table, was then negatived. The Speaker then observed, that in order to render the proceedings of the House on the petition intelligible, it would be convenient that the motion should be preceded on the Journals by an explanatory Resolution, viz.—"That the said petition comes within the description of a petition, the proceedings upon which are regulated by the several acts passed for the regulation of the trials of controverted elections, or returns of members to serve in parliament," Mr. Bankes moved a resolution to that effect, which was carried in the affirmative; and the petition, being an election one, was ordered to be taken into consideration on the 9th of March.

said, he should only state, in moving the estimates for the havy, that the number of seamen would be the same as last year; yet a considerable saving had taken place in that branch of the public expenditure; and that saving had been effected by placing the whole of the naval force kept up in a state of activity, which supplied the deficiency of numbers and rendered their increase unnecessary. He then moved, 1. "That 20,000 men be employed for the sea service, for thirteen lunar months, from the 1st Jan. 1819, including 6,000 royal marines. 2. That 565,500l., be granted for wages of the said 20,000 men, at the rate of 2l. 3s. 6d. per man per month. 3. That 520,000l., be granted for victuals for the said 20,000 men, at the rate of 2l..per man per month. 4. That 533,000l. be granted for the wear and tear of the ships in which the said 20,000 men are to serve, at the rate of 2l. 1s. per man per month. 5. That 91,000l., be granted for ordnance for sea service on board the ships in which the said 20,000 men are to serve, at the rate of 7s. per man per month."

begged to take that opportunity of putting a question to ministers, whether it was in their contemplation to afford any relief to the navy, from the hardships of impressment? No season for such a proceeding could be more propitious than the present, when we were in a state of profound peace with all the world. The system of impressment was a stain upon the country.

said, he was well aware of the importance of the subject in all its bearings, and hoped that the House would not expect him to give any positive and distinct answer on the sudden. It was certainly a question to which ministers had turned their most anxious attention; but they felt also the danger of holding out any thing that might lead to misapprehension. Impressment was a part of the ancient system of the country, and though it certainly was attended with disadvantages and inconveniences, it had produced, he believed, far greater benefits than any evils it had occasioned. He had it in his power, however, to state, that effective measures had been taken to ameliorate the condition of seamen, and by means of a registry of those who were receiving a sort of half-pay, to secure on an emergency a supply of sailors well acquainted with, and well fitted for, their duties. He trusted that the hon. gentleman would not require him to commit himself and ministers further at the present moment.

then moved, "That a sum, not exceeding one million, be granted to his majesty, towards defraying the charge of his majesty's Land Forces for service at home and abroad (excepting the regiments employed in the Territorial Possessions of the East India Company), for the year 1819."

said, that he did not intend to oppose the motion, but he wished for a little explanation. The votes of the last year would have been exhausted on the 25th of December, and he begged to be informed how the operations of government had gone on from that date to the present without any new vote by parliament. At least a month's pay had become due to the army subsequent to the 25th of December last, and in what way had that been furnished?

observed, that as the hon. member's observations applied to all parts of the public service, he should beg leave to answer them. It was obvious, that if government were limited in the application of any grant to the exact period for which it had been voted, parliament would be always obliged to meet previous to the last day to which the votes extended. But his majesty's ministers always conceived they had the power of applying any sums that might remain, after discharging the expenses of the year, to that branch of the public service for which they had been granted. In the estimates, the charges were not made prospectively, but retrospectively, and on that account, balances, in many instances, necessarily remained, and a running account was kept up from one year to another. He did not see any irregularity in thus applying the surpluses of public money, provided the sums granted were always expended on that particular part of the service for which they had been voted.

then moved, "That a sum, not exceeding 24,954,300l., be granted to his majesty, to pay off and discharge exchequer bills made out by virtue of an act of the last session, for raising 11,600,000l. by exchequer bills, for the year 1818; and also by another act of the same session, for raising 30 millions by exchequer bills, for the year 1818, outstanding and unprovided for."

did not rise to make any opposition to the motion, but he availed himself of the opportunity to press upon the attention of the House the necessity of obtaining for the public a participation in the profits of the Bank—profits arising from the balances of the public money in their hands. The House were aware that two loans, as the Bank termed them, one of six millions, the other of three millions, had been made by the Bank to the public. The loan of three millions was negotiated in consequence of the investigations of the committee of that House in the year 1807, when it was concluded between Mr. Perceval and the Bank of England, that such a sum should be advanced, free of interest, to the public, on the admitted ground of the right of the public to participate in profits wholly arising from the large balances belonging to it, of which that body availed themselves to their own advantage in the same way as any other bankers did. The amount of these balances was between ten and eleven millions, and had continued undiminished until the year 1817. He regretted that the hon. member for Corfe Castle and also the right hon. gentleman at the head of the department of Woods and forests were not in their places, as he could appeal to them whether he was not fully authorized in asserting that this loan of three millions was concluded on the express condition of being granted without interest, and as a compensation to the public for its share in the participation of the profits of the Bank. The period of that loan of three millions without interest expired in April last, and as it had not been paid off, the country was now giving the Bank interest upon it to the amount of 120,000l. per annum. At this very moment, too, the Bank were deriving enormous advantages from the balances of public money in their custody, which, if in the hands of private bankers, would produce not less than from 550,000l. to 600,000l. per annum, and without affording the nation the slightest participation therein. He asked the right hon. gentle- man how he could give his assent to such a contract? He could scarcely believe his eyes when he saw in the accounts of the last year 4 per cent charged on the sum of three millions from April, an item of 120,000l. against the public, merely because the Bank allowed it to draw out of their hands three millions out of nine, or ten of their own money. He merely threw out those few remarks then, intending to speak at large on the subject at another opportunity. He should be happy to hear of any arrangement by which those large balances could be rendered available to the public.

observed, that as an occasion would so soon occur for fully discussing the concerns of the Bank, he did not mean at present to enter into that subject at any length; but upon some points to which the hon. gentleman had adverted, he had no hesitation in explaining the views of government. With respect to the loan from the Bank of three millions, in 1818, there was a new arrangement in contemplation upon that loan and the interest granted for it, which he would take an opportunity of stating to the House to-morrow. Then, as to the public balances in the hands of the Bank, there had been some communications respecting them between government and the directors, and the object was, to make such arrangements that the public balances should in future be applied to the public service. Here he thought it right to state, for the correction of some floating errors, that the amount of the public balances in the hands of the Bank were by no means equal to what many gentlemen appeared to think. A great reduction had taken place, in the amount of those balances, in consequence of the termination of the war and the reduction of the public expenditure, and partly also, in consequence of the economical arrangements of his majesty's government. Whether any retrospective measure should be adopted with respect to interest upon such public balances as had been heretofore in the hands of the Bank, he would not then say; but he could distinctly state, that it was in contemplation to make prospective arrangements for the application of all public balances to the public service. He thought it necessary to correct a mistake which had gone into circulation, with regard to the sum due from government to the Bank. That sum did, as was stated, amount to eight millions; but of that sum, five millions were already paid, and provision would be made, out of the ways and means for the year, for the liquidation of the remainder. He was sorry for the misconception which had gone abroad, as to what he had said on a former evening upon this subject; but that misconception was, no doubt, owing to his not having been distinctly heard.

expressed his satisfaction at hearing that it was at length determined by the right hon. gentleman to propose that arrangement upon the subject of public balances, which he himself had so long and so eagerly sought to establish.

declared, that it had always been his object to propose such an arrangement, but that he felt the difficulty of carrying it into effect, without the approbation and cooperation of the Bank; and he was now happy to say, that the directors fully concurred in his views.

observed, that the right hon. gentleman had not attempted to controvert any point advanced by his hon. friend. On the contrary, the right hon. gentleman had expressed his intention to adopt the suggestions of his hon. friend, and to act upon his views. This he had heard with peculiar satisfaction. But there was one point connected with this subject, to which he was surprised to find his hon. friend had omitted to make any allusion. His hon. friend had forcibly animadverted upon the extraordinary transaction of the Bank lending three millions to the public without interest, on the condition, forsooth, that the public balances amounting, on an average of several years, to ten millions, should be allowed to remain in its hands. But his hon. friend had omitted to ask, why those balances should be at all deposited in the Bank? Such a system of deposit appeared to him inconsistent with the provision of the several appropriation acts: upon what ground was it that the money appropriated by these acts, was not advanced according as it was required, for the use of the army, the navy, or any other department of the public service, for which it was voted, instead of being transferred to the Bank? Why should not such advances be made by the exchequer itself, to each of the public departments, instead of being sent to the Bank? Such a system appeared to him quite incomprehensible upon any fair public grounds. The chancellor of the exchequer had now shown what use could be made of these balances. He had shown that what was deficient in one department was made up out of the surplus of another. But instead of issuing five millions for the service of the navy and army, why did he not take them from those balances?

insisted, that he had never said that the surplus of one department had been applied to the service of another. However proper or economical such a plan might be, it would not be authorized, and he should therefore consider it a breach of his duty. All that the executive government had considered itself at liberty to do, was, to apply any part of the sums granted by parliament for any service, and which might remain unexhausted, to that particular service, beyond the time for which it had been voted.

pursuant to his notice, rose to call the attention of the House to the state of the law as it respected wild animals reclaimed from their original barbarism and natural ferocity. He was aware that he might be exposing himself to some degree of ridicule by leading the House into such a discussion. There were honourable gentlemen on the other side of the House, whom, however, he did not then see in their places, who, from their manner of treating his observations on a recent occasion, might perhaps allege that he had undertaken this subject from a fellow feeling, he being himself ferœ naturœ. It was very far from his wish, he could assure them, to increase the number of penal enactments, or add to the severity of a code, against which the sentiments of the public were now so loudly proclaimed. He had not been hunting through the volumes of our criminal jurisprudence for the purpose either of filling up chasms, or lopping off exuberances. He had been induced to submit his present proposition, not by any impatience to become a legislator, but because he thought the law defective in this particular case. At a late trial during the last assizes at Hertford, a man was indicted for stealing a number of tame ferrets. The jury found him guilty; but the case being referred to the judges, who were just equal in number to the jury, but who had not the advantage of being starved into unanimity, they unani- mously agreed, that ferrets being animals ferœ naturœ no property could be held in them, and that the stealing of them was not punishable. Now, he contended that a ferret was not the useless creature which it was generally thought. It was a most powerful antagonist to that most noxious, odious, and destructive animal the rat [a laugh], and more effective against it than poison, traps, gins, and all that the hammer and the anvil could forge. One of our great poets had told us, that "all things were made for man's delight and use," and therefore he proposed that whenever any animal of whatever description, became of delight or use to its master, his law should protect it. Some gentlemen seemed much to enjoy his allusion to rats, but if even these animals could be reclaimed, he would have them deemed property, and so protected. If, indeed, a rat could be so reclaimed as to run from one side of that House to the other [a laugh], he would have such an animal protected from traps or gins. He also proposed to have menageries protected; for what just reason could be assigned for not protecting the property of Mr. Polito, or any other proprietor of wild beasts who resided in town, or who travelled through the country? Such animals ought, indeed, upon every just ground, to be protected by law; for their general exhibition was known to be of great utility, especially to the youth of both sexes, in presenting them with a practical illustration of the natural history of those animals. Why, for instance, should not property in a lion be protected? for he was not a base animal; certainly not so base as an ass; and yet the latter was protected by the law, while the former was left without protection. Why should not badgers and monkies also be protected by law? Badgers and monkies had their useful qualities, and if they themselves were not often stolen, it could not be denied in this age of foppery, that many stole their faces, anticks, and gestures. His object would be, to punish the offence of stealing them by seven years transportation, or by whipping, at the discretion of the sessions. The receivers of them, when stolen, should, he thought, be subject to the same, not a greater punishment, as was sometimes the practice in other cases. With regard to their becoming nuisances, he considered the law to be quite effectual upon that subject, and should not, therefore, introduce any new provision with reference to it. He did not boast of possessing any squeamish or morbid sensibility, but he could not see property of this kind in a different state with respect to its protection by the law from any other, and know that the owners of it as well as their families depended on its security, without being anxious to see that protection extended to them. He moved, therefore, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to amend the laws for the protection of Wild Animals reclaimed and retained as private property."