said, he held in his hand a Petition from the merchants, bankers and manufacturers of Bristol, the prayer of which was against a too speedy Resumption of Cash Payments. It was stated to be the petition of the bankers of Bristol, as well as of the merchants and manufacturers; but on looking at the signatures, he did not see that it had been signed by any bankers, as bankers. However, when any of the partners in banking-houses happened also to be en-engaged in other concers, they had signed it, not as bankers, but as traders. The petitioners stated, "that they have heard with much apprehension that the design is entertained of proposing in parliament the resumption by the Bank of England of its cash payments; the petitioners have the most entire confidence in the resources of the National Bank, and that its issues are fully warranted by the property which it holds in deposit; and that they are firmly persuaded that if this measure shall be forced upon the

║

country before it shall by a favourable state of its foreign exchanges be fully prepared for its reception, not only the finances and revenue of the state must suffer, but even the stability of the Bank itself be endangered by the exportation of its bullion, and the depreciation of the property which it holds as the security of its issues; the petitioners conceive also, that the present is a period peculiarly hazardous for an experiment of so important a nature, when loans of unprecedented magnitude are in progress of payment in Europe, and when the exchange with both the continents is greatly against this country; the petitioners confidently anticipate that as the present state of our foreign exchanges may be justly attributed to causes which, although quite adequate to the effect, are not in themselves necessarily permanent, that the period may reasonably be expected to arrive at which a resumption of cash payments may be made with safety, and without inconvenience; awaiting then this period, the situation of the country can only be rendered alarming by a premature recurrence to measures which the petitioners are satisfied must cramp the commercial intercourse of England with foreign countries, contract its trade and manufactures, and be most injurious to its best interests; the petitioners therefore most humbly pray, that the House will reject every proposal which may be made for an hasty and premature adoption of such a measure."

said, he should have been guilty of great presumption, had he taken any part in the discussion of last evening. He could hot say the result of that discussion met with his entire approbation; but from the list which he had that day seen circulated, he indulged in the expectation of a satisfactory result. Whatever his views upon the subject might have been, he was, at all events, now glad to find that the question was not likely to be taken up as one of party. A noble lord whom he did not then see in his place, had said much about the influence of the exchanges on the resumption of cash payments; but had that noble lord referred to the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, for the cause of the depression of exchanges, he would have found a truer one than any which be had assigned. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, when stating that he would bring in a bill for the restriction of cash payments until March 1820, offered little else than an insult to the understanding of every rational man. For, would it not prove the height of mockery to say, that stock to be purchased with bank-notes, should be repaid in gold? If some settled system were not soon adopted, in order to free the country from the improper tricks and devices resorted to by the chancellor of the exchequer he could see but little hope of its prosperity or repose. If the issues of exchequer bills, still increasing our paper circulation, were continued, it would be totally useless to look for any benefit from the committee. Indeed, unless the present abominable system of finance were altogether abolished, every occasional remedy that might be applied to lighten its seventy would, he feared, prove abortive.

said, that had he been in the House, when the petition from Bristol was presented by his hon. colleague, he should have borne testimony to the respectability of those persons by whom it had been signed. With regard to the petition itself, he could only stale, that he had received no letter, nor instruction whatsoever on the subject.

said, he did not intend to oppose the reception of the petition, but he begged to state, that he understood it was got up by a club of merchants, without any public meeting whatever; and he therefore rose to enter his protest against the petition being received, as that of the merchants, bankers, and manufacturers of Bristol.

said, that he also had seen the treasury list, but he could not agree with his hon. friend that it was a fair list. It was unfair, in his opinion, on the very principle laid down by the honourable gentlemen opposite themselves; the principle laid down by them was, that the committee should consist of those members who were most conversant in the matters which were connected with the subject of the inquiry. Now, the leaving out of this list an hon. and learned friend of his (Mr. Brougham), who was as well, indeed he might say, who was better qualified for such an inquiry than almost any member in that House, was, to say the least of it, a gross deviation from candour. Besides, there were fourteen of the members who voted with ministers, to seven of the members who voted on the opposition side of the House. He could not therefore agree with his hon. friend in thinking this a fair committee. It contained, in fact, a greater majority proportionally than ministers had in ordinary divisions. He knew something of the fairness to be expected in a ballot of this nature; for he happened some time ago to be one of the scrutineers on a former occasion; and he could say, that above ninety, out of little more than a hundred lists, were written in the same hand, were written by one of the clerks of the treasury. He hoped some deviation from the usual practice would take place on this occasion, and that one of the most skilful and experienced members of the House would be named on it.

observed, that he had not said any thing relative to the fairness of the committee, not knowing much of the members who were to constitute it. He had merely expressed his satisfaction, that persons were included in the committee from whose efforts he expected some benefit to the country.

said, he hoped ministers would withdraw one of the names on their list, in order to introduce the name of his hon. and learned friend beside him; because he was sure it would be admitted, from every part of the House, that there was no man in the country from whom so much assistance could be derived, on an inquiry of this kind, as from his hon. and learned friend. He was not now talking with reference to political parties—his object was not a party question at all. He was sure nothing would give more general satisfaction to the country, than the adding the name of his hon. and learned friend to a committee of inquiry Into any branch of political economy, but especially into a subject like the present.

remarked, that the greater the unanimity of opinion that existed among the members of the committee, the more likely they would be to promote the object for which they were appointed. It was on this principle that he preferred a committee elected by ballot. He knew a case in which an order had been signed by two justices at their respective mansions, and the order was afterwards found to be illegal, because the justices had signed it separately. Let a man collect at random all the most elegant features that could be found, and pat them together, they would form a very ugly face. In the twenty-one names which were to compose the committee, he would propose the alteration of one, in order, as a gen- tleman of the Bank had said last night, "to exercise a little discretion of his own." In the proposed list he found the name of a gentleman of doctors commons, (sir John Nicholl), and he could not conceive why he should have been nominated, unless it was apprehended that there existed a criminal conversation between the chancellor of the exchequer and the old lady in Thread needle street [a laugh.] He had therefore inserted the name of lord Lascelles.

said, that whatever might be thought of the political sentiments of those who had signed the petition, he could only repeat, that he had never presented one more respectably sighed,

said, he had no doubt of the respectability of the signatures, but he objected to it on account of the manner in which those signatures had been obtained. He would put a question to the hon. gentleman. Was it, or was it not, a fact, that at a meeting of a club, of which Mr. alderman Daniel was chairman, that petition was put (whether by accident or not he should not inquire) into the hands of the chairman, in order to obtain the signatures of the members? He understood that all the signatures affixed to it, with the exception of one, were obtained in that club; and now it was brought forward purporting to be the petition of the inhabitants of Bristol. The fact was, that one half of the persons who had signed it, did not know what the object of the petition was.

said, that what the right hon. gentleman had stated was wholly new to him, for he had not even heard that the petition had been given to alderman Daniel. Of all those who had signed it, there was not one connected with a banking house. It was true, that some of them were both bankers and merchants; but it was in the latter capacity that they had signed the petition.

said, that they signed in one capacity, and acted in another.

suggested, whether it would not be better that ministers should hand in the list of names they had prepared, and so save the House much unnecessary trouble, and a round-about way of proceeding, which would only end in what he proposed.

expressed himself of the same opinion. It was quite impossible for the House and the country not to see that the ministers had the naming of the committee.

said, that till he heard a better reason for departing from the usual practice, he should adhere to that practice. The clerk then read over the names of the members, and lists of members for the proposed committee were thrown into the glass on the table. No member of the opposition put in a list. The chancellor of the exchequer next moved, that a committee be appointed to examine the lists, and to report what members had the majority of votes. The Speaker named Mr. Brogden, Mr. Calcraft, Mr. Serjeant Onslow, Mr. Lambton, Mr. M'Donald, and lord Binning.

said, that since it was already perfectly well known and determined who were to be the committee, he would rather decline taking any part in picking up their names.

said, that he had to apologise to the hon. gentleman, if he had named him to an office which was unacceptable to him. No names for the committee in question had been handed to him, and he had, at the moment, fixed upon those who occurred to him as fit to discharge the duty.

said, that there was no doubt that his hon. friend was fit for any duty which required impartiality; but there had been so little impartiality in the proceeding hitherto, that he should think it hard that the ministers, after having settled in private who should be the members of the committee, should show their impartiality by detaining for an hour or two a gentleman who had no interest in their proceedings. As they bad settled the list of the committee, they might as well name the scrutineers also. A member observed, that be did not understand the remarks of the right hon. gentleman, as to ministers dictating the names on the lists. He had that morning found a list on his table, but be had not adhered to it; he had inserted in place of some of the names, other names, from the opposite bench, of practical gentlemen. He, therefore, felt indignant at the imputation of having given in a prescribed list.

said, that he should be sorry to be supposed to have included in his charge all the members of the House. But he could tell the hon. gentleman, who was not, he believed, a member of the last parliament, that he had found, from uniform experience, that the same lists were found, by the same accident, on the table of a great number of other gentlemen, and, by the same uniform experience he had found that those who possessed the independence of the hon. member were in the minority, and the majority was composed of those who put the lists in the glass just in the same state as they had found them on their tables.

said, that he had found no list on his table [a laugh.] The Speaker then named another committee, retaining only Mr. Brogden and lord Binning of those formerly named. They immediately retired to examine the lists, and in the course of the evening, Mr. Brogden reported the names of the persons to be the secret committee, viz. lord Castlereagh, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Canning, Mr. Wellesley Pole, Mr. Lamb, Mr. F. Robinson, Mr. Grenfell, Mr. Huskisson, Mr. James Abercromby, Mr. Bankes, Sir James Mackintosh, Mr. Peel, Sir John Nicholl, Mr. Littleton, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. Manning, Mr. Frankland Lewis, Mr. Ashhurst, and Sir John Newport.

having moved that the bill be now read a third time,

said he should have been strongly inclined to forward any measure which would indemnify the gentleman for whose relief this bill was intended, from any unforeseen expenses which had fallen on him, if his public duty allowed him so to do. But on the consideration of this question, divested of private feelings, he could not agree that the gentleman who held the office of high bailiff of Westminster should be allowed to throw off his own shoulders the burthen of an office which he voluntarily had undertaken. Not only had this task been voluntarily undertaken, but he had paid a large sum of money for the office. The law which the present bill was intended to continue was first passed in the year 1811, on the re-commendation of a committee, which at the time of recommending it stated, that it was objectionable, but that pressed, as they conceived themselves to be, by the necessity of the case, imagining (as he thought, without any good grounds) that the peace of Westminster depended on its passing, they had brought it forward as the best measure which occurred on the spur of the occasion. This act, stultified as it might be said to have been by its authors, had now continued for seven years, and he thought the House would agree that they were not warranted in renewing a measure which was so objectionable in itself. The high bailiff had stated that the profits of his office were only 200l. a year—a statement on the face of it hardly probable with respect to a place for which that gentleman had given 4,000l. But if they looked into the accounts they would see the cause of it. The gross profits were 450l.; but out of this there was reserved a rent of 150l. to the dean and chapter, and the high bailiff moreover paid 100l. a year to a deputy. But if by reason of these deductions, the high bailiff was unable to bear the burthen of the office, he surely was not entitled to come to parliament for relief. It was a law principle, that benefit and burthen should go together. Where the benefit of the office was equal to the burthen, but the benefit was divided among a number of individuals, it was not to be contended, that they should be relieved from the necessary charges of it, because the sum could not otherwise be divided among so many. The dean and chapter had sold the office, and had reserved a rent out of it. The House had nothing to do with that. The high bailiff appointed a deputy to execute the duties which he did not perform in person; the House also had nothing to do with that. The high bailiff therefore was in the condition of any man who had made an improvident bargain, and was not entitled to come, to the House for relief. At any rate, it was not on the candidates that the burthen should be thrown. The dean and chapter had made the office a matter of emolument, which in its nature was an office, of the highest trust. The high bailiff in Westminster had to perform all the duties of a sheriff in a county. To impannel juries, to return the members, and to preserve the peace of the city. This office they had sold; and though it happened in the present instance it could not have been better filled, it was evident that this was mere accident, for they had only confirmed the appointment made by Mr. Browning, the present high bailiff's predecessor. On them, therefore, if not on the high bailiff, the burthen of the election should fall; for he considered the attempt to cast the expenses on the already over-burthened poor-rates as objectionable as the proposal to throw it on the candidates. The charges made at elections were formerly considered as an emolument, rather than as a bare remuneration to the high bailiff: the charges which had been made upon him (sir F. Burdett) on a former occasion he had resisted, as he thought the principle unjust. The chief justice of the court of King's bench had decided that he was liable to pay the expenses—but they were reduced to the legal charges, which turned out to be very trifling. It was proved, therefore, that even at present, under this decision (which he certainly had thought objectionable), the high bailiff could get his legal expenses; the present bill, therefore, could only be considered as a sanction for the extortion of excessive charges. He therefore should propose, that the bill should be read a third time on this day fortnight, to give time for a committee to inquire, that the House might legislate with deliberation. To him it seemed plain on whom the burthen should fall. The church had been very astute in taking the good things of the world, and throwing from its shoulders the burthens of it; but it seemed plain to him, that the collegiate church of Westminster, being in the habit of making a profit of the high office with the disposal of which they were entrusted and being possessed of estates charged with the performance of the duties of that office, should pay the expenses with which the duties of it were burthened. The hon. baronet expressed his opinion, that rather than let the present bill pass, it would be much better to have the candidates at the next election called upon to pay a specific sum for the expense of the hustings; for such a levy, although he could not think it strictly justifiable, would be a much lesser evil than permanently to burthen the people of Westminster. Such a burthen ought obviously not to be imposed without any previous inquiry, and especially on a place where the election was decidedly more free and popular than in any other part of the empire.

followed on the same side. He observed, that in his opposition to this measure, he did not mean to act invidiously towards the high bailiff, but he thought that the dean and chapter should rather be called upon to pay the expenses of the election. The law, he said, required that every member of parliament should be possessed of 300l. a year; but the enormous charges of the high bailiff of Westminster might oblige an independent man, of small fortune, to mortgage, for a space of three years and a half, the property which would entitle him to sit in that house. It was not true, that county members were obliged to pay the election expenses: it was altogether optional with them. If county candidates did not think fit to give three days notice of their intention to stand the election, they were not legally bound to pay the expenses.

said, that in a constitutional point of view he thought there were serious objections to the bill. He did not think that the expenses of elections should fall upon any of the candidates— not, certainly, on the unsuccessful candidate. It was unreasonable to demand that the political criminal should defray the expense of erecting that scaffold on which had been executed his hopes, his character, and not unfrequently his fortune. Nor was it fair at this game, that the loser should pay for the tables. According to the good old practice of the constitution, candidates were paid for their attendance in parliament, on the principle that elections took place for the benefit of the people; and he did not see why this practice should have been discontinued; for members ought to be remunerated for their trouble, whatever might be thought upon the subject by those who resorted to taverns instead of attending that House, and who looked for their remuneration to some casual extortion or unduly acquired place. But the opinion of such persons could have no weight with him [a cry of question!] He was surprised at the haste with which the hon. mover sought to press this measure. Although a professed advocate for parliamentary reform, the hon. member would not allow time to inquire upon a subject so interesting to the public. It was strange that the hon. mover, who was the other night such an advocate for in- quiry upon the subject of the Bank restriction, should on this occasion be such a strenuous opponent of Inquiry—thus preferring precipitate injustice, to tardy justice. If the high bailiff had made a bad bargain, and could not be reimbursed by the dean and chapter, he should seek it at the hands of those who derived benefit from the arrangements necessary on such occasions; namely, the parties represented. With this view of the subject, if a division were pressed, he should be happy to be in a minority with the hon. baronet.

observed, that no one but the hon. baronet had maintained the singular doctrine, that the expense attending the erection of hustings for the Westminster election should be defrayed by the high bailiff. If, indeed, this doctrine were admitted, in what a situation would, the high bailiff be placed! Seven years had elapsed since this officer had purchased his office, and if the hon. baronet's doctrine were established, he must have lost within that period no less than 3,000l. It had been stated, that the candidates at a Westminster election had to pay 2,000l. to the high bailiff for the expense of the hustings; but this statement was utterly untrue, as was another allegation very confidently made, that one of the candidates at the last election had a claim made upon him for 900l. So far was this from being true, that 900l. formed the whole amount of the charge for hustings, &c. at the last election. But dismissing these falsehoods, the question for the consideration of the House was this—was it fitting or just that the high bailiff should be obliged to pay the expense arising out of the erection of hustings necessary for the conduct of a contested election? The high bailiff had already suffered a severe loss, and a special act was passed for his relief from such a hardship. Yet to such hardship would this officer be again exposed, if the present bill were not passed into a law. But this bill was, in fact, in strict conformity with the principle of the law with regard to the elections for counties, and a mere transcript of the law which had existed in Westminster itself for above seven years, during which it was never petitioned against. No objection to this law had; indeed, ever been made either by the candidates for Westminster or their constituents, since its enactment. Yet it was now proposed by the hon. baronet to have this officer ren- dered liable for an expense which it was no more fitting that he should pay, than that be (Mr. B.) should be called upon for it.

observed, that although all sheriffs, and other returning officers in the country, were indemnified for any expense connected with elections, the high bailiff of Westminster should in equity be excepted from such indemnity: the services of the former being compulsory, while that of the latter Were voluntary. The former were compellable by law to accept their offices, and to discharge the duties attached to them; but the high bailiff had taken his office from choice, and for the acquisition of profit. This, indeed, appeared from the report of the committee with respect to that office, the high bailiff having confessedly paid 5,000l. for it originally, and avowed before the Committee, that in making that purchase, he calculated upon deriving profit from the return of members to that house. Was it to be endured as a principle, that a public officer should be allowed to obtain profit for executing the king's writ, and making the return of a member to that house? for these reasons he should vote with the hon. baronet.

observed, that the ton. mover had pat the question for the consideration of the house on this occasion rather unfairly. For the question was not, whether the high bailiff should pay the expense of a Westminster election or not, but whether that expense should be defrayed by the dean and chapter. This was the real question, and upon this he felt himself called to vote for the amendment, in order to afford time for examination. It was a principle always maintained by the chancellor of the exchequer, that where any man could obtain redress in a court of law, he was not entitled to make an appeal to that house. The high bailiff in making his contract for the purchase of his place, ought to have been apprized of the expenses to which be was liable in the execution of its duties. If so, he bad no grievance to complain of on the point before the house; but if not, he had his remedy by law, being entitled to tell the dean and chapter, that if they would not pay the expenses connected with the Westminster election, they must make the return themselves.