begged to state the substance of a petition that had been intrusted to him by that respectable body the booksellers and publishers of London and Westminster, praying a repeal of the copy-right act. It was enough to mention the names of Messrs. Longman and Co., Messrs. Baldwin and Co., Messrs. Rivington, Mr. Murray, and Mr. Mawman, to secure it attention; in short, it had been signed by all the respectable booksellers of the metropolis. The Petition was then read, setting forth, "That the petitioners presented their humble petition to the House in the last parliament, respectfully stating the grievances which they endured from the operation of that part of the act of the 54th of his present majesty, intituled 'An act to amend the several Acts for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies and Copy-right of Printed Books to the Authors and their Assigns,' which enjoined the delivery of eleven copies of every book and volume for the eleven libraries therein mentioned, which after the passing of that act should be printed for sale, and humbly praying for relief, that the petitioners said petition was referred, with a number of others, to a select committee named by the House, who examined many witnesses concerning the matters therein-mentioned; and whose report, together with the minutes of the evidence taken before such committee, was laid upon the table of the House, and ordered to be printed; that the petitioners humbly submit, that the grievances which they have experienced from such delivery have been fully shown on such evidence; it appears thereby, that the actual cost of the books delivered by the house of Longman and company, since the passing of the said act, in July 1814, to the month of April 1818, was about 3,000l.; and that another bookseller, Mr. John Murray, had lost 1,275l., by the books be had delivered during the same period; it also appeared, that the delivery of eleven copies of only five works, namely, Degdale's 'Monasticon Anglicanum,' his 'History of Saint Paul's,' 'Portraits of Illustrious Personages,' Ormerods's 'History of Cheshire,' and Wood's 'Athenæ Oxonienses,' would amount to 2,198l. 14s.; and that the delivery of eleven copies of only one work, Dodwell's 'Scenes and Monuments of Greece,' would, at the trade sale price, be about 275l.; the petitioners will not intrude on the attention of the House, by stating the various injurious effects on arts and literature in general, which this delivery is stated, in such evidence, to have produced, as well as on the property of the owners and authors of books; but they earnestly state, that if the grievance is manifestly great on high-priced books, it is not less individually severe in its general amount on the usual publications of the year; and the petitioners humbly submit, that the increasing custom of printing English books abroad is an additional urgency to the petitioners to solicit the House to remove from them the burthen of delivering these eleven copies, which so manifestly tends to increase the price of English publications; the petitioners therefore most humbly pray, that the House will be pleased to grant them such relief as to the demand and delivery of the eleven copies of books for the libraries in the said act mentioned, as in its wisdom shall seem most expedient, and more especially, by repealing the clauses of the said act which enjoins the delivery of the said eleven copies, excepting one copy to the British Museum."

presented a petition from Sheffield, setting forth "That the petitioners being decidedly of opinion, from the declarations of scripture, and the voice of experience, that whatever is at variance with strict morality and pure religion must be inimical to the prosperity of any kingdom, and being convinced that the state lottery is in a great degree destructive of both, they have no hesitation in affirming, that the continuance of it must be injurious to the best interests of the state; that the petitioners are fully persuaded that these sentiments are likewise those of almost all reflecting, people, as well as of a majority of the members of the legislature, because when, the act for the continuance of the state lottery was passed in the last session of parliament, not a single argument was adduced in its favour, the necessity for it alone being insisted upon; that the petitioners were happy to learn from the report made, on the 8th day of February last, to the House, on the finances of the country, that the aforesaid plea of necessity is now entirely obviated; that the petitioners believe that the loss to the state, even in the revenue, from the pernicious effects of the state lottery on the morals and habits of the lower classes is far beyond any profits which can arise from it; that the petitioners have great apprehensions, since banks for the savings of the poor, under the special sanction of the legislature, are become so general, that if the state lottery be suffered to continue, its pernicious consequences will be much increased, and that the effects of the saving banks will be rendered frequently prejudicial; it is even probable, that emissaries will be employed by the lottery offices to traverse the country for the purpose of personally tempting the depositors to speculate in the state lottery, and these will be ready to insinuate, that the legislature has encouraged the establishment of such banks for the purpose of enabling them so to do; that the petitioners moreover are of opinion, that before the country be farther called upon to establish and support national schools for the education of the children of the poor, and to build free churches for the religious instruction of the lower classes, the state lottery, which is so directly and strongly opposed to the success of such institutions, ought to be abolished; that the petitioners cannot but feel and acknowledge, that the Almighty hath not dealt so with any nation as he hath done with this, having exalted her to unexampled riches, and honours, and power; and that therefore we should, as a people, be wanting, in gratitude to him, and be deserving of the most exemplary chastisement, were we to continue legislatively to sanction and enforce a, measure which is now acknowledged on all hands to be offensive in the sight of Him who is of purer eyes than to, behold iniquity; the petitioners do therefore most earnestly and respect- fully solicit the House, that no bill in future may pass which shall have for its object the raising of money for the public service by way of lottery.

presented a petition from John Thelwall, of Lincoln's Inn Fields, gentleman, setting forth, "That the petitioner, in common with every subject of these realms, hath a vital interest, but he hath also a particular and personal reason for feeling and expressing that interest, in the inviolable preservation of so much of the ancient constitutional right of appeal as is connected with the security of the lives, limbs, and personal liberty of individuals, subjects of these realms, against the violence of abused power, whether civil or military, and in the precautions which that wise and salutary law has for many centuries most jealously preserved, for securing, even against the exertion of royal prerogative, the Just punishment of those who, instigated by the hopes of pardon, might otherwise be induced, in times of political division and party heats and animosities, by kidnapping, by maiming, or by murder, to execute a rigour, not only beyond the law, but in direct violation and defiance of all law, but which nevertheless might happen to be agreeable to a wicked administration; and the petitioner further showeth to the House, that the said law of appeal hath ever been held and declared, by the highest legal and constitutional authorities of this realm, and particularly by that most virtuous and upright judge, the lord chief justice Holt, (who for his firm integrity, and undeviating loyalty to the constitution, was, at the period of that glorious Revolution which prepared the way for the house of Brunswick to the throne, elevated to the presidency of the court of King's-bench), to be a noble privilege, and a true badge of English liberties, and that therefore the liberties of Englishmen, and the security of their lives, limbs, and personal freedom, would be essentially impaired by the total abolition of the said right of appeal; and the petitioner further showeth, that he believes himself capable, if called for such purpose to the bar of the House, and there examined (either upon oath or otherwise as to the House shall seem meet), to lay open a series of most iniquitous practices and conspiracies all tending to show the importance of this law, which iniquitous practices and conspiracies he believes himself also capable of still further proving and exposing, by the testimony of other credible and respectable witnesses, relative to the repeated attempts that have heretofore been made upon the life, limbs, and personal liberty of the petitioner; and from the reiteration and further perpetration of which, and the accomplishment of a formed design to murder the petitioner, or convey him forcibly beyond seas, there is reason to believe there would neither have been prevention nor means of redress, if the law of appeal had not been then in existence; and the petitioner therefore prays, that such parts of the ancient constitutional law of appeal, as have heretofore been regarded, and ought still to be regarded, as protective of the life, limb, and personal freedom of the subject, may not be revoked or abolished; and that the petitioner, and the subjects in general of these united realms, may still continue to enjoy, as their forefathers have enjoyed, the advantage of this sacred and venerable institution, which puts it out of the power even of royal prerogative, however instigated by a corrupt and tyrannical administration, effectually to shelter from due punishment the perpetrators of any murder, or similar atrocity, such as have been attempted upon the person of the petitioner, on any factious, political, or other pretence whatever; hereto the petitioner craves the particular attention of the House."

expressed his surprise at the expense which this building had cost, and condemned the erection in it of a steam engine.

replied, that that plan had been adopted which seemed, in all respects, to be the most eligible for the attainment of health, security, separation, and inspection. The object of the steam engine was to grind corn, and raise water for the convicts, they being employed in such a way as would enable them to be useful to themselves and to the public on their liberation.

, while he admitted the propriety of the mode of employment adverted to by the right hon. gentleman, observed, that the water might have been raised, and the corn ground (as he had seen in a prison in Paris), by the labour of a very small portion of the prisoners.

observed, that a prison capable of containing the same number of felons might have been built at one-half the expense, he might almost say one-third. There were carpenters, shoemakers, and other trades at work in the Penitentiary. Indeed, no one could go there without seeing persons hard at work.

stated, that a vertical wheel had been constructed in the prison at Aylesbury, for raising water to supply the prison and the town. The height to which the water was raised was 70 feet; eight men were employed at a time, and they were relieved every hour.

objected to the voting money for a steam engine. If they were to credit the newspapers, disturbances of a serious nature sometimes took place in the Penitentiary, and in his opinion, pumping water, grinding corn, and other severe labour, would be a proper punishment for the refractory.

observed, that the statement of disturbances in the Penitentiary was greatly exaggerated. There would be an end to the plan of separating the prisoners, if they were to be employed in raising water, for that would necessarily bring a number of them together.

then moved, "That 50,000l. be granted to his majesty, towards defraying the expense of making an inland navigation from the Eastern to the Western sea, by Inverness and Fort William, for the year 1819."

wished the right hon. gentleman would state all the items on which he grounded this claim. It was asked for the Caledonian Canal; but where was Caledonia? The name and the race of the Caledonians had been extinct for 600 years; for since the thirteenth century there had been no such place as Caledonia. Tacitus had told us where Caledonia was in his time; but since that it had been inhabited by the Picts and the Scots. This canal, he believed was begun in 1803. He supposed it was then calculated what it would cost; but how much had been granted since? It was originally devised for the purpose of employing the labourers of Scotland; but all that benefit had been reaped by Ireland.

said, that the original estimate in 1803 was 500,000l. but it had already cost 700,000l. The question now was, whether they should withhold 50,000l., which were necessary for the completion of a work that gave employment to so many. It had already employed annually 100 workmen of that country. When the nature of the work was considered, it would not be wondered at, that English and Irish labourers had been employed. The chief benefit, however, had been enjoyed by the Scots, the Picts, and the Caledonians—those objects of the noble earl's solicitude. The work had been undertaken at the request of those concerned in the Baltic trade, and on petitions from Ireland, Liverpool, Bristol &c., showing that many ships had been lost in going round the northern extremity of Scotland. In fact, such a canal had been projected as far back as the time of Charles 2nd. There was every prospect that the canal would answer all the purposes for which it had been originally intended. During the last year 152 voyages had been performed through it. The invention of steam-vessels would, he had no doubt, remove those obstacles which, it was feared at one time, would frustrate the object for which the canal was proposed. He believed, that 30,000l. next year would entirely complete the work.

hoped the commissioners, before they applied again to the House would have a new estimate, and say expressly what sum would complete the work. His opinion was, that when the canal was finished, the duties on ships would not repay the expense.

said, that the canal was begun with the best prospect of success, and it was the opinion of every person qualified to judge, that it would be productive of the greatest benefits. It had been supposed, that while the trade to the Baltic would be benefited, labour would incidentally be provided to a great number of workmen, he believed that this incidental advantage had proved even greater than had been anticipated. The spirit of labour which had been introduced into that part of Scotland, was, in his opinion, worth more than all the money that had been voted. Of those who had been employed in this labour, there were not two in a hundred who were not Scotchmen; and surely the noble lord would not object that now and then a poor Irishman should be employed. The work had cost 700,000l., which was more than had at first been thought sufficient; but the question was, whether they should lose that sum altogether, or reap the advantages originally expected by giving an additional sum of 80,000l.

said, he thought it his duty to state the grounds on which he should give his vote on this bill. He meant that his observations should be addressed not to the present ministers only, but to all their successors; not to the present generation, but to all futurity. He begged to assure the attorney-general, that he gave him full credit for purity, of motive, and integrity of intention. When this bill was first brought in, none was a greater enemy than he was to the trial by wager of battle. That part of the bill which abolished all appeals to the judgment of Heaven, he most fully approved of. The practice of calling for judicia Dei by the exercise of -sticks, staves, and other weapons, had its origin in the ignorance and superstition of a barbarous age, and could not stand the light of truth and the test of reason; but the right of appeal to a jury against the prejudiced verdict, or an unwarranted pardon was a very different question, and seemed to him to merit a very different kind of treatment. It might be said that this was a very difficult question for him to argue. It was true indeed that he was not very conversant with the intricacies of the law, but he would always endeavour to perform his duty as a representative of the people; and in. contending for the reasonableness and utility of the right of appeal, he was not less the advocate of the army than the representative of the people. The people ought to be governed, not by the sword of the soldier, but by the authority of the civil magistrate. If soldiers should ever be called to suppress a popular tumult, they ought to be restrained by every consideration, from a rash and fatal use of military weapons. Lord chief justice Holt had warned an officer on such an occasion to beware of firing upon the people; for if he should, he would be found guilty of murder. The officer must further have known, that the Crown would not have the power of granting him a pardon. The officer would, therefore, be very cautious in his proceedings. If, on the other hand, a minister of the Crown could have said to him, "Obey our orders, and if any conviction against you should be the consequence, we have a pardon in our pockets for you," might not the officer have forgotten what was due to the constitution, to the army, and to his fellow subjects? He was most anxious to prevent the power of life and death from being placed in the hands of persons who might be influenced by private or factious motives. He contended for a great constitutional principle. He did not wish to encroach on the prerogative of the Crown, but he was against its interference with public justice; he wished not to restrain the exercise of mercy, but he deprecated its being made the instrument of bloodshed and cruelty. He had read of the opposition made to the Riot act; but if this bill should pass, they would consummate the evil of that measure. He concluded by moving, as an amendment, "That the bill be read a third lime this day three weeks."

said, he had heard a very able speech from a learned gentleman on the other side of the House, in support of the bill, but the right of appeal appeared so important to the liberty of the subject, that on that ground he would vote against the bill.