presented two petitions, one from the mayor and corporation of Coventry, stating the distresses under which the ribbon weavers of that place were now suffering, and praying that their case might be taken into consideration by the House; and another from the employers of the ribbon-weavers, corroborating the statements and concurring in the prayer of the former petition. These distresses originated in the reduced wages which were now paid to the ribbon weavers; and the petitioners in order to give the House some idea of their extent and magnitude, declared that they were obliged to pay in poor rates, by which the weavers were almost entirely supported, 45s. per acre on their landed property and 19s. in the pound upon the rent of every House of which they were occupiers. They also stated, that unless some relief was granted them, they must all perish in one common ruin. The mayor and corporation of Coventry, in their petition submit to the House, that during these scenes of unparalleled misery and distress, no inclination to disorder or tumult had exhibited itself among this suffering body. He was happy to be able to add his own testimony to theirs, and to say, that if ever patience and tranquillity under distress deserved the careful attention of parliament, the present was a case to which it ought to be extended. It was on this account that he had now come forward to the House with a bill, whose clauses were principally founded on the report of the committee appointed to examine into this subject during the last session. In 1816, the distress among the weavers had been very great, and the master manufacturers had, out of compassion to those who were in their employment, agreed not to pay them for their labour by the week, but by the value of the work which they performed. This agreement, however, was not of any long duration; first one and then another of the manufacturers disregarded it, till at last it was entirely rescinded. The ribbon-weavers wanted to make these parties stand to their agreement, and the bill which he should ask leave to bring in was intended to effect this purpose. A rumour had gone abroad that he wanted to fix a maximum and a minimum of wages: he wanted no such thing, he merely wanted a standard regulation to be appointed, by which a due remuneration might be paid to the artisan for his labour. If that had been previously done, the House would not have had to listen to the melancholy details which he felt it his duty to make, in order to show the necessity of some legislative enactments on this subject. In the town which he had the honour to represent, there were five classes of manufacturers, each working 96 hours in the week, or 16 hours in the day. The first of these classes gain, in return for their labour, 10s. a week, or two-pence halfpenny an hour, which was but a very trifling share of what they were formerly in the habit of acquiring. The second class gained 5s. 6d a week. The third 2s. 9d. The two remaining classes received 2s. and Is. 6d. per week. The consequence of this reduction of wages was, that the weavers had been obliged to resort to the funds of their friendly societies; and he was sorry to say, that not merely had these funds been exhausted, but also the funds of their saving banks, which were now becoming a mere mockery. The hon. member then, went into some farther details of the distress of his constituents, and argued that if a similar sys- tern had been adopted at Coventry, as had been adopted at Spitalfields and Dublin, there would have been as little distress in the one place as there now was in the others. A fraction of a farthing added by a legislative measure on each yard of manufacture to the produce of the weaver, would remedy the whole distress. All the manufactures expressed their hearty concurrence in the principle of his bill, and he therefore hoped that the House would not refuse him leave to bring it in. He then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for the better Regulation of Persons employed in the Silk Manufacture in Great Britain."

could assure the hon. gentleman, that no man sympathised more deeply than himself with the individuals whom the hon. gentleman represented, and whose condition that hon. gentleman had done his duty in laying before the House. Entertaining that feeling, as he did, it was with great regret he found himself under the absolute necessity of declaring, that in his opinion, the measure proposed by the hon. gentleman was not calculated to remove the evil. If he understood the hon. gentleman his principal object was to extend to the silk trade in general the existing legislative regulations, respecting the wages of persons employed in that trade in London and Dublin. Objecting to the principle of such a proposition, he should be acting unjustly, were he not to take the earliest opportunity of expressing his sense of its impropriety. He was sure the hon. gentleman would not be disposed to deny, that on all general principles by which such matters ought to be regulated in a commercial country like Great Britain, it was inexpedient to allow the wages of labourers, of whatever denomination, to be settled by any other means than by the natural demand for their labour. Indeed, he was almost ashamed to use so trite and acknowledged a principle—a principle maintained by every able writer on the subject of political economy; and which received a farther confirmation by the recorded opinion of a committee of that House, appointed in 1809, to investigate grievances in the cotton trade, similar to those now represented to exist in that of silk. The committee to which he alluded came to an early and unanimous resolution "That the committee had taken into their serious consideration the proposition for passing an act, establishing a reform in the wages of per-

§

sons employed in the cotton manufacture, and that the regulations to a similar effect in the silk trade had been laid before them: but that, after the most mature deliberation, they had resolved unanimously that any such legislative provision would aggravate, rather than alleviate the evil. That the committee, not conceiving that by any mode of legislation a beneficial effect could be produced, felt it their duty to come to as early a decision and declaration of their opinion as possible, in order that false hopes might not be entertained by those whose sufferings, arising from natural and political causes, could be remedied only by the change which time would occasion." The committee from which this report proceeded was composed principally of those members of the House who were qualified to for in the most accurate judgment on the subject, viz. Mr. Blackburn, Mr. D. Giddy, Mr. Eden, Mr. Homer, the hon. mover of the present bill, Mr. Rose, Mr. Whitbread, sir R. Peel, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. H. Thornton, Mr. Davenport, &c.; so that the report was entitled to the highest consideration. If, then, the general principle, that it was inexpedient to interfere in such cases, was firmly established, it remained for the hon. gentleman to show that there were some peculiar circumstances in the ribbon and silk trade which entitled it to be treated as an exception. For his own part, lamenting as he did the condition of the individuals in question, he could see nothing in their case to distinguish it from that of persons in other trades. There was one argument, indeed, urged by the hon. member in favour of the proposed measure which was very portentous in its nature, and which of itself would induce him decidedly to object to it. The hon. member had expressed his hope that his example would be followed by all members whose constituents were suffering pressure; thus stimulating the representatives of all the manufacturing districts to make similar propositions for the relief of similar distresses. Should that take place, and should the House accede to such propositions, there would be an end to the system of free labour in this country. But he was persuaded that the House would never acquiesce in any measure that set at defiance all general principles founded on the soundest views of political economy; and it was on that account, and not from any disposition to dispute the facts alleged by the hon. gentleman, that he felt bound to oppose the motion.

while he lamented the state of great distress in which the ribbon and silk weavers were placed, contended, that of all the measures which it was possible to devise on the subject, none could be so generally prejudicial as that recommended by the hon. gentleman.

, in answer to the remark of the right hon. president of the board of trade, that the great object of the bill moved for by his hon. colleague, was to extend the interference of the legislature with respect to the wages of labour in the silk trade of London and Dublin to the silk trade generally, and that he saw nothing in the circumstances of the silk trade different from those of any other trade, which rendered the adoption of such a measure expedient, maintained that the silk trade was peculiarly circumstanced. In the first place, there were excessive duties on the raw material. The right hon. gentleman had talked of general principles; but was it a good general principle to lay a heavy duty on the raw material of any manufacture? It was very well to argue in favour of general principles; but it was sometimes necessary to look at the suite of particular cases. If parliament had always acted on general principles, the present application would have been unnecessary. It was because they had departed in some instances from general principles—it was because they had adopted, in some instances, temporary expedients, that other expedients became indispensable to correct the evils of the former. He maintained that his hon. colleague and himself had a right to call on the House to adopt some expedient to prevent their constituents from starving; as the House had adopted expedients to relieve the distresses of the constituents of the representatives of the landed interest. One of the right hon. gentleman's arguments, though urged against the measure, was, in his opinion, decidedly in its favour. He had said, that when in 1809 the manufacturers were in the same state, a committee of that House had declared they must look for relief from the change which time would bring. But that relief had never arrived. And so great was their present distress, that relief, in some way or other, was absolutely necessary. If the mode proposed, was an improper one, he entreated the House or government to point out some other course by which the enormous evils that existed might be alleviated, if not removed. The present was no interference of one party with another. Both the master manufacturers and those employed by them, were unanimous in their wish for legislative interference.—There was another point of view in which he wished to put the subject. It was calculated that above 30,000l were levied in poor-rates in Coventry and the adjoining districts in Warwickshire; in order to feed those persons, and tar supply the deficiency of their wages. Now, it was stated by the weavers, that all the increase of wages that they wanted, was the eighth of a penny on every yard of ribbon, which would produce a sum exceeding that at present raised by the poor-rates. He wished to know, therefore, with what justice a tax of above 30,000l. was laid on the landholders of Warwickshire in the shape of poor-rates, in order to save the consumers of a luxury from paying what they ought to pay. It ought to be also considered, that in a bill at present pending in the House, called the poor-rates regulation bill, there was a clause preventing the magistrates from giving relief to able-bodied labourers from the poor-rates. Now, if a ribbon weaver, earning with all his exertions only five shillings a week, was to be denied assistance from the poor-rates, what was to become of him and his family? He did not advocate the proposed bill on general principles, but he advocated it as an expedient to relieve the distresses of people who, he believed in his conscience, could not go on without relief. An additional reason for allowing the bill to be brought in was, that there were some parts of it to which he was persuaded even the right hon. gentleman would not object. For instance, a system had many years ago been introduced of employing poor children in the ribbon and silk trade, as what were called half-pay apprentices; the meaning of which was, that half their earnings were withheld by their employers and the other half went to their parents. While the trade went on well, that was a good plan enough, but the moment any unfavourable change occurred, the unfortunate children were thrown on the parish. One of the provisions of the proposed bill went to remedy that evil. There were other provisions for regulating the silk trade similar to those by which the cloth weavers were at present regulated, and which he was sure would be found wholly unobjectionable. For all these reasons, he trusted the House would give his hon. colleague leave to bring in the bill.

said, that if there was one species of interposition more injudicious than another, it was that which had for its object to dictate to the master the rate of wages he was to pay his servant. No case of particular exception had been made out; and as to the case of Spitalfields, he thought that it would have been much better, if, instead of an enactment, recourse had been had to the vigour of the law, and the authority of the magistrates. He approved of that part of the bill which related to half-pay apprentices; but he could not on that account consent to adopt the rest, which was so highly objectionable.

said, that having acted as a magistrate in the neighbourhood in question, he must declare that the distress was now arrived at such a pitch that he really believed the most alarming consequences would ensue, if some steps were not immediately taken. Though he was reluctant to interfere between the master and workmen, he considered the present a peculiar case. All the petitioners sought for was, to be placed on the same footing as workmen in the metropolis.

said, he felt some difficulty in delivering his sentiments on this subject; for to all the maxims of trade laid down by the two right hon. gentlemen opposite, no answer could be given. All legislative attempts to compel men to be prosperous under pains and penalties, ended in folly and oppression. But the maxims of the right hon. gentlemen did not apply to Coventry; for Coventry was now employed in a most unnatural and artificial trade. By whom were the wages of the workmen of Coventry paid? By the parishes. A skilful workman, after working sixteen hours a day, and aided by machinery which was his own property, could only earn 10s. a week; and another workman, without any capital, but with equal skill, after working the same number of hours, could only earn 5s. 6d. a week. There was nothing but the poor rates which caused this. The evil would long ago have remedied itself had it not been for the poor rates; for either the workmen would have abandoned the trade, and applied themselves to some other occupation, or the masters must have raised their wages. The question here therefore was, not whether they should abandon an unrestricted trade, and have recourse to a system of restriction, but in what manner they could diminish the distress, arising out of a trade diverted from its natural channels by themselves? The question was, whether they were to mitigate those evils which their own previous interference had occasioned? There could be no doubt of the distress of Coventry at the present moment. But it had been said that it was the nature of trade to fluctuate, and that if they were to interfere whenever there was a temporary distress in any branch of trade, they might devote their whole attention to this subject alone. It appeared, however, from the evidence, that this was not an ordinary distress. This was given in evidence by all parties, masters and servants. One circumstance, indeed, showed this in the highest degree. In this time of comparative prosperity, the poor rates of Coventry were nineteen shillings in the pound, and one-third of the population were receiving money from the parish. This was alone sufficient to justify the application of a remedy to the evil, if any could be discovered. Many causes had concurred to produce this state of things, but the great cause was that system which had been so fatal and injurious to the landed interest of this country, the system of paying wages partly out of the pocket of the master, and partly out of the poor-rates—that system, which, beginning in agricultural districts, had extended itself at last to large manufacturing districts, and had long been in operation in Coventry. A merchant in London, who had no connection whatever with Coventry, sent down a large order for the manufacture of goods at the rate of 5s. 6d. a week to the workmen; and as long as the remainder of the wages of the workmen continued to be paid by the parish, this would continue. Another source of the evil was half-pay apprenticeships; this system was indefensible in every point of view. All persons trained to the weaving trade in Coventry, became necessarily and certainly paupers. This system also by congregating young persons by day and dispersing them by night, gave rise to a system of debauchery and profligacy, which loudly called for the interference of the House. The evidence showed that the distress and the licentiousness were equally without example. This state of things called for the extension of an act already in existence, which in Spitalfields, the district under its ope- ration, had produced the greatest benefit. It appeared from the testimony of many masters living on the spot, that this act had produced the greatest benefit both to masters and to workmen. The principle of the act was, that if any dispute arose between masters and workmen, respecting the rate of wages, it should be settled by magistrates. This act made any agreement between the two bodies binding. The consequence was, that whereas in 1816, an agreement was entered into between the masters and workmen of Spitalfields and Coventry, that of Spitalfields was adhered to, and that of Coventry was not. An hon. friend of his had said, that bad consequences had resulted from the Spitalfields act. He could only say, that the people of Spitalfields were ignorant of such evil consequences. No part of the country had exhibited more loyalty and tranquillity than Spitalfields, which had before this act, been the scene of perpetual tumult and disorder. He said that an argument had been urged which he, in point of fact, must admit—and he would leave it to the wisdom of the House whether that argument was strong enough to decide the fate of the bill: it was, that the effect of the bill would be to enhance the price of manufactured goods. It certainly would; but to what extent? to the amount of one-fourth of a farthing per yard. That was the extent, and he would ask, whether it was not more reasonable that those who thought fit to wear silks should pay the fair wages of the labourer who manufactured them, than that the parish should pay him? The system of poor-rates was one which, in the better days of England, wa9 little known: it was a system which every friend to the country would wish to remove: it was degrading and demoralizing, calculated to deprive the people of the national feelings of pride and independence, and to fix in their stead base and degrading sentiments, subversive of the freedom, and the virtue of man. He concluded by expressing his intention of supporting the motion of his hon. friend.

resisted the introduction of the bill, because he thought it would set an example to the cloth-weaver, the linen-weaver, and indeed all classes of manufacturers, to come forward with unwarrantable demands. If the principle now contended for could be introduced—if magistrates on all occasions could settle the amount of wages—there would be no need of poor rates. It had been said, that one-fourth of a farthing in the yard Would not be felt; but there were limits to every thing, and the question was not whether this was a great increase, but whether it was one which the article could bear. In his opinion it was not. Gentlemen seemed to forget the consumer, and that he would not buy the goods at all, if they could, not he had at a certain price. With regard to the corn-bill, it was quite unfair to argue, that the object was to raise the price of grain: it was merely to protect the grower from importation and unfair competition.

said, that so far from all the master-weavers agreeing that the Spitalfields act had been beneficial in its operation, the very first witness examined, Mr. Stephen Wilson, who stated himself largely concerned in the manufacture of Spitalfields goods, was of opinion it had been highly injurious to Spitalfields. This witness had stated several instances of the mischievous consequences of the interference between masters and workmen in Spitalfields. The necessary consequence of interference was, the rendering the magistrate the judge of the reward of the workman, who could know nothing at all of the work. It had been said, that the Spitalfields act had produced quiet. Why, it had produced the quiet of death—the manufacture had been driven from Spitalfields to Cheshire, and if the Spitalfields act were introduced into Cheshire, it would be driven out of Cheshire. Nothing could more decidedly injure these manufactures than to interfere between the masters and their labourers. Nor indeed could he see any reason why labour should not be just as fair a commodity of sale and purchase, as any thing else sold or bought in this country. Why should they introduce a different principle in regard to the wages or price of labour than they adopted in regard to any other matter of sale? His hon. friend proposed to raise that price. And if he did, what would be the consequence? Why, that they would destroy the manufactory altogether. The arguments of his hon. friend seemed to be directed rather against the corn laws generally, than against any thing else. The house well knew that he (Mr. P.) was no friend to the corn bill. All attempts to alter the poor laws had only tended to aggravate the evils complained of. Any real relief to be now extended could only be attained by breaking up a system which had done so much to undermine that native spirit of independence, which was formerly the most distinguishing characteristic of the British nation.

stated, that a very large number of his constituents were deeply interested in this question. He had himself carefully read over the evidence given before the committee appointed to examine the Coventry petitions last year; but the evil appeared to him, not to arise from the causes to which it was traced by his hon. friend, but from the half-pay apprentice system. He hoped the house would not be induced to apply to evils professedly temporary, a remedy which must be permanent.

suggested to his hon. friend the propriety of withdrawing his motion. In its present state, the House was unable to extend relief to sufferings which he was sure it compassionated. If, therefore, his hon. friend would amend his bill, on his again bringing it in, parliament would feel disposed to further and assist his views. By doing so, he would convince his constituents, that there was a decided feeling in the house in their favour, although, from the present state of the bill, it could not grant that relief which it was called upon to do.

, in reply, observed, that Mr. Stephen Wilson, the witness alluded to by an hon. gentleman, was an exporter and a capitalist, who, of consequence, was only interested in obtaining goods at a cheap rate for exportation, and had no concern with the manner in which the workman was paid. But when goods were exported at a cheap rate by means of paying workmen out of the poor-rates, we were only making the people of the continent a present of all that was taken from the poor-rates. He had done what he considered his duty, in endeavouring, as far as possible, to remedy the evils of the system which prevailed in Coventry. Leaving it to the responsible ministers of the crown, to take some measures to save that city from starvation, he should, as such was the sense of the House, withdraw his motion for the present. The motion was then withdrawn.

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the motion he was about to submit, said, he did not regret that from various causes it had been postponed from day to day; because the delay which had taken place had permitted him to acquire far- ther information on the subject, and to make such alteration in the form of his motion as he originally intended it should stand, as had removed the objections of some of his hon. friends, who were at first not entirely satisfied with it. The subject of that motion was one upon which he had addressed the House at some length in 1814—five years back. The object he had now in view was to convince that House of the expediency, and to urge to the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, and to those at the head of the financial department of this country, not merely the expediency, but, looking to the state she was now in, the absolute necessity of applying that state fund which was generally termed the sinking fund, in diminution of the loan about to be raised for the service of the current year; which application, he would, observe, was provided for in the act which; was read from their table on the preceding day, by a particular clause, called Mr. Fox's clause; it having been suggested to Mr. Pitt in the year 1786, by that great and ever-to-be-lamented statesman. Before, however, he proceeded to state the general grounds of his motion, and feeling anxious to guard against the possibility of misunderstanding, as to any opinions he might be supposed to entertain in relation to that measure of finance called the Sinking fund, of which, unfortunately, little more than the name now remained, he would beg leave to state what were the principles of its formation. The principles upon which it was founded by Mr. Pitt, in 1786, were soon afterwards affected by a material change in the state of the country—a transition from peace to war. They were, indeed, principles of which no gentleman who now heard him, was a more warm admirer than himself; he having always considered the sinking fund, as established by Mr. Pitt between 17856 and 1792, the most splendid feature in that statesman's financial character. By the act of 1786, the existing excess of our income beyond our expenditure, to the amount of 1,000,000l., was applied and secured (so far as a transaction of this nature could be said or considered to be secured) to the gradual extinction, on the principle of compound interest, of a debt of 238,000,000l. But in 1792, it became necessary to alter, in some degree, the provisions of the act of 1786; inasmuch as the expenses incurred by one or two years of war were sufficient to swallow up all the savings accumulated in the six years before. Accordingly, then, the act of 1792 provided, that every new or future loan should be accompanied by such an increase of the revenue arising from taxation (which in a country like this was the only legitimate source of that increase) as should be equivalent, not only to pay the interest of such loan, but to provide also a fund of one per cent, or in short a sinking fund, which should in time extinguish the original debt itself. It was then calculated that the period of effecting such extinction could in no instance exceed the term of 45 years. The act of 1786 implied an existing excess of income; that of 1792, provided for the extinction of every new debt incurred on every new loan, by making the loan carry with it the means of its own annihilation. In all these instances, the excess of income beyond expenditure was made the vital principle of the extinction of debt. And it would be found, that such excess of income was the only principle, after all the reasoning and research which had been exhausted upon the subject—upon which the reduction of debt, either of a public or private nature, ever was, ever could, or ever would be effected. These principles, then, adopted by Mr. Pitt on the two acts of 1786 and 1792, in creating the sinking fund, were pursued and acted upon from 1786 to 1817, a period of 27 years. Such was the sinking fund. What is it now? In the year 1814 came the plan of the right hon. gentleman opposite—a plan immediately adopted by parliament, and one to which he (Mr. Grenfell) gave his most zealous and unqualified support; and the opinion he then expressed of its merits was one which nothing since had, in the slightest degree, shaken or altered. In the state of exhaustion in which the country then found herself, after twenty years of war and difficulties, the distressing nature of which was only to be rivalled by the firmness, endurance, and unshrinking fortitude with which they were borne, he did not then think, nor was he now of opinion, that in such a state of things, it would have been wise or expedient to add to the weight which the nation was already sinking under, by additional taxation. He thought it better to give the country a little breathing time, before her burthens were increased. Whether this view of the subject was a right or wrong one, he would not now inquire. One thing was very clear; that, united to former embarrassments, there had been of late years great profusion in our public expenditure. The effects of those two causes combined, had been almost to sap the principles upon which Mr. Pitt had legislated, and to leave no sinking fund at all. In the last year the excess of our expenditure beyond our income was somewhere about 18,500,000l taking and considering a sum of about 15,000,000l. as part of our expenditure under the head of the sinking fund. So that with a nominal fund, for that was the fact, of 15,000,000l. we had last year, in reality, a sinking fund of not more than 1,600,000l. Certainty, he was not at any time one of those who were inclined to take a gloomy view of the state of the country; but nothing was more dangerous, in contemplating a subject of this nature, than self-deception. It would undoubtedly give him great satisfaction if he could flatter himself that the revenue of the present year would equal that of the last. It was also to be remembered, that provision was to be made this year for the loan which the chancellor of the exchequer was contemplating. In taking that into view, was it not probable that the whole of the sinking fund would be required for the charges likely to accrue from it? And if so, there would not be one single shilling reserved for the reduction of the national debt. True it was, that 100,000,000l. stock stood in the names of the commissioners for the redemption of that debt, which the right hon. gentleman, who never failed to advert to the circumstance, called a treasure; and well he might, for it was such a treasure as no nation ever possessed before! [A laugh]. Though those commissioners were sent four times a week into the city to purchase stock, let it be remembered, they bought with borrowed money—the money borrowed from the loan-contractors. For their money they got stock; with their new stock they bought old stock. This was creating a new debt for no other purpose than to destroy an old one: selling new stock cheap, in order to buy old stock dear; buying at a very high rate of interest to pay off a debt contracted at a very low one. Yet this was what his majesty's ministers were doing. It was mere delusion; an attempt to impose their system on the country for a new sinking fund, when it was the very reverse of one. This was the course of operations prosecuted by means of a fund which was re- presented to the country as applicable to the extinction of 800,000,000l. of debt. The whole machinery, so wisely constructed in the year 1786, was now erect and in full play without any useful effect. He might indeed say, that it was worse than useless, and productive of no profit except to a class of individuals who contributed nothing to the service of the state. It was true, that loan-contractors, and speculators in the public funds, might be, and. were in numerous instances, very respectable and conscientious men; but they were not persons to whose care the interests of the country should be intrusted. The question therefore now was, whether the House would sanction the continuance of a system of intricacy and delusion that could produce no beneficial consequences; or whether it would, by the vote of this night, put an end to it? He was prepared to contend, that it would have been highly advantageous if the sinking fund had been applied to, in aid of all the loans contracted since the year 1793, under the power given by Mr. Fox's clause in the act of 1786. According to a calculation which he had made, the saving which would have been thus effected, from the period he had mentioned up to the year 1813, did not amount to less than 20,000,000l. He held in his hand a paper showing the amount of saving to the public that might have been derived upon the loan of 1815, if the commissioners for the redemption of the national debt had been allowed to invest the sinking fund in the new stock created by that loan. The capital sum which might have been so saved was upwards of 2,000,000l,. and the annual interest 77,000l. An hon. friend of his had moved for some other returns, which were not yet presented, respecting the loans of 1813 and 1814; but from his recollection of the premium which they bore, he was satisfied that a similar profit to the extent of several millions would have accrued to the public, had the sinking fund been resorted to in those cases. The only ground on which his principle was opposed was, that the effect of the system acted upon since 1797 was to keep up the price of the funds. He did not deny that in time of war, and so long as we were a borrowing country, the high price of the funds was a great advantage, as we obtained loans on easier terms; but that advantage became very doubtful when we entered, as he hoped we one day should, on the work of redemption. The facility of redemption must be increased in proportion to the lowness of their price. But whatever might be said on this subject, he denied altogether the foundation of the argument, and contended, that the system had no such effect as that of raising the price. At the end of this year we should probably have a sinking fund of 15,000,000l.; which, invested in stock at 70l., would amount to about 21,000,000l. It was his opinion, strengthened and confirmed by all he bad heard or seen, that whether the sinking fund was thus invested or applied to the service of the year, the price of stock would remain the same. Its price did not depend on any of those mysterious causes to which it was often attributed, but permanently, like the prices in all markets, on the proportion on which the demand bore to the supply. He was aware, that many respectable persons differed from him in this opinion, and that some of them were not under any bias from self-interest. Others, however, who were considered as great authority on this question, were under that bias; or, if they were not, they were not composed of the same materials as other men. Now, loan-contractors were not in his judgment exactly that description of persons by whose advice in these matters a chancellor of the exchequer ought to be governed. In 1814, the right hon. gentleman had stated in his place, that, having conferred with a number of gentlemen contracting for the loan with regard to the propriety of acting on his (Mr. Grenfell's) suggestion, they all, with one exception only, signified their disapprobation of it, and recommended a loan of 24,000,000l. instead of 12,000,000l. The exception to which he alluded was that of his honourable friend (Mr. Ricardo), who, greatly to his credit, observed to the chancellor of the exchequer, that if he considered his own interest merely, he must agree with his brother contractors; but if he were to consult the advantage of the country, he should advise the application of the sinking fund, and a loan of 12,000,000l. only. Perhaps, at a time when large loans were regularly raised, such a proceeding might have been inexpedient; but now that they were comparatively small, and of less frequent occurrence, he could not believe that the right hon. gentleman was so infatuated as to adhere to the present useless and unprofitable system. Reserving, however, all further observations on this subject till he should have heard what were the right hon. gentleman's views, and the opinions of other hon. members who might take a part in the discussion, he should conclude by moving, "That this House will resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider of the act of the 26th of the king, c. 31."

observed, that so far from coinciding in the views taken by the hon. gentleman with respect to the most proper application of the sinking fund, he considered them highly objectionable, and the more so, from the manner in which they had been brought forward and embodied into the present motion. The effect of it would be to fetter the discretion of government in providing for the financial exigencies of the country, and impose upon them certain terms without reference to the circumstances of our situation. The first motion which the hon. member had had in contemplation at least comprised a distinct and definite object. The present, involving the same principles and arguments, was altogether uncertain and indefinite, and could be productive of no possible advantage. By the act of 1786, a power already existed of taking the course which the hon. gentleman had recommended; and the commissioners were authorized, if it should appear expedient, to apply the sinking fund in aid of the service of the year. It would not, however, in his opinion, be wise to make it compulsory on them to apply it in this manner. He knew that it was a question on which much diversity of sentiment existed; but as to the case of the loan in 1815, and the saving of 2,000,000l., which it was alleged might have been effected, the hon. gentleman had overlooked the circumstances attending it, and the causes which had produced that state of things on which he formed his calculations. It was true, that a great profit had been made upon the loan alluded to, but it was contracted for previous to the battle of Waterloo, and the profit was derived from conquest, and the successful termination of hostilities. If these results could have been foreseen, this proceeding, or some other measure of equal benefit, might have been adopted. Had the battle of Waterloo been lost instead of won, the subscribers to that loan would probably have experienced a considerable loss. This alternative always existed, and the chances must be submitted to. He admitted that, in the year 1814, in conformity with established practice, he had referred to the parties contracting for the loan of that year, to learn whether they would accede to more favourable terms, if a part of the loan was supplied from the sinking fund. They gave an opinion adverse to the proposition; but if it had been otherwise, he did not know that it would have been well in the Treasury to have acted upon it. With regard to the supposed saving of 20,000,000l. upon all the loans contracted for during the war, if the system of applying to the sinking fund had been adopted, it must be recollected, that nearly 900,000,000l. had been borrowed in that period, and that the saving therefore did not exceed two per cent. Instead of a profit, however, a loss had been sometimes incurred, which would probably have balanced the amount of the saving. The contractors, too, would have objected, and offered less favourable terms. If they had been sincere in their declarations, the Treasury had, notwithstanding all the calculations of the hon. gentleman, taken the safest and most prudent course. One great advantage attending the present system was, that it produced a general steadiness of prices, which was extremely favourable to the operations of the money market; and the chancellor of the exchequer, as well as the loan contractors, participated in this advantage. Were it not for the regular purchases made by the commissioners, there would be few real buyers, and persons under the necessity of selling would be at the mercy of stock-jobbers. This at least was the view entertained by many, and was supported by reasoning too plausible, and he believed valid, to be hastily rejected. When the effect of agreeing to the present motion would be to adopt a system which might be attended with such dangerous consequences, the House was bound to act with the utmost caution. As the law now stood, a discretion was vested in the commissioners which might under some circumstances be usefully exercised, but which it must be inexpedient to fetter at any time. It would be most inexpedient to fetter it at a moment of so much expectation and uncertainty with respect to the financial operations of the year. Upon that subject he agreed with much of the hon. gentleman's reasoning; but it would not only be premature, but a breach of his duty, were he now to enter into the discussion of it.

said, that the House would remember, that when, five years ago, a similar proposition to the present one was brought forward, the chancellor of the exchequer was not so much disinclined to it as he was at present. He allowed that it was difficult to argue, a priori, what the effects were of buying stock with one hand, while we were borrowing money with the other; but when it was said, that this system produced steadiness in the price of the funds, they all knew, that up to the beginning of the war in 1793, the prices of the funds were just as steady as they had been since. It might be objected, that at that time the transactions in the funds were not of their present magnitude. But this argument would tell another way: for individuals had undoubtedly a greater power to command a small market than a large one. The question was not, whether the sinking fund should be abolished, but whether it should be applied according to Mr. Fox's clause? And it could not be said, that the existence of the fund was involved, when it was only to be considered, whether it should be applied to the reduction of the debt of 1819, or of any other period.

said, he had felt somewhat startled at the hon. mover's proposition, conceiving that the system which he recommended would be productive of many fluctuations and false alarms in the money market. If the present plan should be departed from, no one would know what to look forward to in the following year. A dangerous precedent would have been established, and a future chancellor of the exchequer might be tempted to continue providing for the public service in the same way. In the present financial 6tate of the country, we ought to look our difficulties in the face. The regular application of the sinking fund might be convenient, but it would endanger the revenue, and render the necessity of retrenchment less obvious. If such a proceeding, however, were modified, and limited to a particular exigency, he should not oppose it. There was one difficulty under which we laboured, as he believed that all were agreed in the propriety of the recommendation contained in the report of the Bank committee: he alluded to the necessity of putting the Bank into possession of its own means, with a view of enabling it to resume cash-payments. It appeared to him, that 10,000,000l. would be too large a sum to pay to the Bank out of any loan, and that 5,000,000l. might therefore, on this occasion, be advantageously taken from the sinking fund.

said, that he understood the hon. mover to have argued, not that the commissioners, if subscribers for the loans, would have procured for the public the profit which arose from the events of war or peace; but that they would have retained for the public that regular premium which the contractors obtained independently of the events of peace or war—which they were entitled to for undertaking the risk of such extensive undertakings, but which of course, under the present plan, was lost to the public. In that opinion he heartily concurred, as he could not conceive the advantage which could arise from giving the commissioners sums to lay out in the purchase of stock, while sellers were sent by the government to supply them with the stock which they were to buy. The contractors for the loan brought their stock to market just in the same degrees as the commissioners purchased it: they did not dispose of it in the mass, but brought it weekly and daily to market to provide for their instalments. Any gentleman who supposed that if process did not go on, it would be in the power of the jobbers to make hard terms with the sellers of stock, must have been perfectly ignorant of the stock market [Hear! hear!], for competition was no where carried to such an extent, and no where operated with more benefit to the public. His hon. friend had alluded to the opinion which he (Mr. Ricardo) had given before the chancellor of the exchequer in 1814. He had certainly then given the opinion which he had long entertained. He should have shrunk into the earth before those who had long known his sentiments if he had given any other; but he knew that those gentlemen who gave a contrary opinion, had given it just as conscientiously; for great and sincere differences of judgment on this subject existed in the city. To him it certainly appeared, that if the process of the sinking fund had an effect on the stock market, a similar process must produce an effect on all other markets in the country, and that, for instance, it must be contended that the chancellor of the exchequer could produce an effect on the corn-market, by sending a commissioner to buy a quarter of wheat, while he sent a contractor to sell the same quantity.

said, he did not mean to occupy the attention of the House (more than a few minutes in giving his opinion on this question. The hon. member called upon them to go into a committee on the sinking fund act, but he had not stated what course of proceeding they were to adopt; he had not even given an opinion on that point. By the act, as it now stood, the commissioners were empowered to subscribe to any loan for the public service, if they thought proper. There certainly existed a great difference of opinion as to the propriety of the commissioners so subscribing to any loan; many thought that it would be right, and others that it would be wrong of them to do so. But surely the House was not prepared to go into a committee to make it imperative on the commissioners to dispose of the sinking fund in this manner. And if so, to what purpose was a committee proposed? Much had been said of the loss sustained by the country, from not having so applied the sinking fund, but it was impossible to come to any decision on such a complicated question as this was, by arguing on abstract grounds; any such arguments must always lead to fallacious conclusions. He hoped the House would perceive the necessity of leaving the commissioners of the sinking fund free and unfettered, to apply it as may conduce most to the public interest. On these grounds, and on the ground that nothing definitive had been proposed by the hon. member who made the motion, and that acceding to it would fetter the chancellor of the exchequer in his measure of finance for the year, he felt it his duty to oppose it.

said, that his hon. friend had added one to the many obligations he had already conferred on the country, by bringing forward this question. It was objected that the motion had no definitive object, and at the same time it was said, that it would be improper to decide upon it at present, as it would fetter the chancellor of the exchequer in his financial plans for the year. He thought the House had heard enough to show that this subject was one which called for their most mature consideration. It puzzled him exceedingly, to understand how any benefit could be derived from borrowing money,

§

when the borrower had a sum in his pocket equal to what he borrowed. It only served to explain, that there was some mystical operation performed by buying and selling in the funds, which by a second operation of the same kind, enabled the borrower to get money on better terms than if he had not previously sold to an equal amount. Every market must be in some measure kept up by buying and selling, and he thought the sinking fund tended to keep up the prices of the funds, as any person having stock to sell, was sure of a purchaser in the broker of the commissioners, when he could find no other. But where could be the benefit arising from this, if an equal number of buyers and sellers be sent into the market at the same time? He could conceive a benefit arising from it, if the sellers were to make large sales at stated periods, while the commissioners went on buying regularly, but in small quantities; but this was not the case. He was anxious to have this subject fully investigated, as he was strongly impressed with the idea that the country suffered severely from the present system of finance. It could not be imagined that the contractors would lend money without a profit. If an individual were to go on annually borrowing 15,000l. on the one hand, for the purpose of paying annually a similar sum on the other, could it be supposed that by so doing he would not add to his debt, or that such a system would not finally end in his ruin? But this was precisely the nature of our present financial system; the debt of the country was annually augmented by the amount of the profits made by the different loans. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer had objected that the commissioners, by subscribing to a loan, would be liable to the risk of loss attendant on such speculations. But this was foreseen when the clause, empowering them to subscribe, was made in the sinking fund act, and it was left to them, as to all other speculators, so to contract as best to avoid a loss. He could not conceive the advantage of taking from the people a part of their surplus earnings to be applied in this way, without any benefit to the country, which, if left to them, would be augmented in the same proportion as their other capital. He could not perceive any objection to his hon. friend's motion; on the contrary, he thought it would have a beneficial effect.

said, that whatever might be the opinion of gentlemen on the proposition now before the House, all who heard the discussion this night must, he thought, be convinced of this—that in the fourth year of peace, with a debt of 800,000,000l. we ought to have a real and effective sinking fund, not a nominal one. The case of a country was the same as that of an individual: no man would say he had established a fund for liquidating his debts, if he could not show an excess of ordinary income over his ordinary expenditure. To establish a sinking fund of this sort, we must either reduce the expenditure, or raise the income. Out of an outgoing of 51,000,000l. which the estimates of the year amounted to, (39,000,000l. whereof were fixed and not reducible), he doubted the practicability of effecting any material diminution of expense; but when he considered the resources of the country, he thought it perfectly possible to raise the income; and if he were asked how he would remove the present distress, he would answer, "Raise your income, and establish an effective sinking fund." Our income was once at 70 or 80 millions, and he thought that by prudently taxing commodities which would admit of it, it might, without adding to the national pressure, be brought nearer that sum than it was at present. He could not assent to the motion, as the sinking fund was the foundation of public credit.

thought there would be a difficulty in going into a committee, until the chancellor of the exchequer made known his plan of finance. This difficulty was increased by the manner in which the motion had been brought forward, If the question was for appropriating the sinking fund of the year to any loan which might be necessary for the public service, he would agree to it, as he did not think the chancellor of the exchequer had answered the expectations of the country, who thought that after four years of peace they would be relieved from the great pressure which they had borne during the war. But if the hon. member opposite meant, by increasing the income of the country, that any new tax was to be introduced, he would oppose such a measure to the utmost of his power.

rose to reply. He had heard a good deal said of the effect which the purchases by the commissioners of the sinking fund had in keeping the price of stock from fluctuating. Now, he held in his hand an account of the different prices of the three per cents, from which it appeared, that in 1816, they were at 61; since that period they had been at 83, and to-day the price was 72. So much for the steadiness of the funds! The next objection was, that this was an improper time to bring forward his motion. But when could he do it; if not at the eve of a loan? If he waited for ten days, or a fortnight to come, it would be of no use to bring the question forward; the loan would be contracted for; the mischief would be done. It had been said by an hon. member, that the appropriating the sinking fund to the loan, might be used as a precedent by a future chancellor of the exchequer. He did not mean to do away with the sinking fund: he wished to keep its machinery as it now was; but his object was, to save to the country the profit, which the contractors for the loan would have, as they have had for the last 27 years, by applying the sinking fund of the year, as far as it went, to lessen any loan to be made this year. It was objected to him, that his motion was not of a definite nature. His object was now the same as It was five years since, that some measure should be adopted, either by resolution or otherwise, to make it imperative on the commissioners to apply the sinking fund in this way. The only effect of the present system was, to depress the stocks for a short time, and cause a rise after the loan was contracted. The contractors were anxious that there should be a loan, as they derived profit from it; but this was his reason for objecting to it. He considered the question of such importance, that he should certainly take the sense of the House upon it.

rose to move for leave to bring in a bill, to alter and amend the salt revenue laws. On a former occasion it had been stated to the House, that the number of prosecutions for breaches of the salt laws were numerous and severe; and that the number of compromises under these prosecutions, amounted to 3,000, for which large sums had been paid. From the papers which had been moved for on that occasion, it appeared, however, that the total number in three years was 13, the charge on which was 357l.; and that of this sum, 265l. had been exacted. The whole costs amounted to 128l., of which no more than 45l. had been received. This was the result of the numerous cases of hardship which were said to have taken place. He was anxious to point out to the House on what ground reflections injurious to the collection of the revenue were made. He knew the gentleman who was solicitor to the board of excise, and he could assure the House, that there was not any where a man less capable of abusing the power vested in him. There were twenty-four points on which he intended to introduce amendments in the salt revenue laws. He would mention two or three of them to the House. First, he intended that the bonds given by persons using salt should be cancelled after a certain period. With respect to conveying salt coastwise, such regulations would be adopted as would at once protect the revenue and the individual. Such alterations would also be made, as would enable poor fishermen and persons residing on the coast to lay up food for their families. He was aware that great benefits might be derived from the use of salt on land; and that the difficulty with which it was to be procured, more than the price of the article, was the cause why it was not more used; by the bill he was about to introduce, it was provided that depots should be established in different quarters of the country, where salt could be had at a moderate rate. The bill was one of details, and he thought it would be better to discuss its different points in committee. He did not mean to have it hurried through the House; so that gentlemen would, when it was printed, have an opportunity of considering it at their leisure.

was happy to find that remedies were to be applied to the grievances complained of. He was not present when a motion was last made on this, subject; but if he had, he would have felt it his duty to oppose that motion. With respect to the solicitor of the excise, he could say, that as far as he had the pleasure of knowing him, he was as honourable and upright a man, as any in the community. He would attend to the bill in its different stages, and he had no doubt but great benefit would be derived from it to the public. As long as it was necessary to continue this tax, the excise laws to be effective must be vigorous.

hoped the fisheries would be relieved from the heavy obstructions that now existed against their making use of salt.

said, that the returns which had been read by the hon. member, stated that the prosecutions and compromises under the excise laws had been few, and the expences comparatively trifling. It gave him pleasure to hear this; but he was surprised that those returns on one part of the question had been furnished, while others had been refused. In a few days he would take an opportunity of moving for some other documents on this subject.

rose, to move for leave to bring in a bill to prevent enlistments, and equipments of vessels for foreign service. Every state, he observed was at liberty to set restrictions on its subjects to prevent them from entering into the service of other states for the purpose of warfare. The law of our country on this subject, founded on a statute of Geo. 2nd, made it an offence amounting to a felony to enter into the service of a foreign state. The object of that law was, to prevent his majesty's subjects from engaging in the service of any state at war with another state with which he was not at war. But it was important to the country, that if neutrality was to be preserved, it should be preserved between states that claimed to themselves the right to act as states, as well as between those that were acknowledged to be states. The words of that statute might, however, raise a doubt how far it was intended to embrace those entering into the service of states not acknowledged to be such. It would be a most absurd statement of the law to say, that those enlisting in the service of an acknowledged prince or state, violated the law by doing so; and yet, that they were not prevented from entering into the service of unacknowledged states. The object of his bill, in a certain degree, was to amend the statute, by introducing, after the words, "king, prince, state, potentate," the words, "colony or district who do assume the powers of a government." The intention of introducing these words was to make enlisting in the service of unacknowledged powers, the same as enlisting in the service of those that were acknowledged. The law, as it stood, on two statutes, the 9th and the 29th of Geo. 2nd, annexed the heavy penalty of felony to the offence of enlisting in the service of a foreign state; but although the law, as it formerly stood and as it now stood, was equally against entering the service of acknowledged and unacknowledged states, yet it could not punish those who entered the service of unacknowledged powers. If any mother country were at war with her colonies and the subjects of this country enlisted in the service of those colonies, the law could not punish them; but if they enlisted in the service of the mother country, which was a legitimate power, they were liable to the penalties of felony; for to enlist in the service of an acknowledged state certainly was a felony, as the law now stood. Looking at the circumstances of the times in which those laws were passed, it was not necessary to enact, that persons enlisting in the service of unacknowledged powers should be considered guilty of felony. But to make the law consistent, it was his object, by this bill, to reduce the penalty from a felony to a misdemeanour, and to make the law equally applicable to acknowledged and to unacknowledged powers. Enlisting in the service of those persons who had assumed to themselves the powers of a government (whether they were justifiable or not in assuming those powers he should not inquire, because he wished to avoid the political discussion of such a question), was a violation of that neutrality which this country professed to observe. He wished merely to give this country the right which every legitimate country should have, to prevent its subjects from breaking the neutrality existing towards acknowledged states, and those assuming the power of states. It was in the power of any state to prevent its subjects from breaking the neutrality professed by the government, and they were not to judge whether their so enlisting would be a breach of neutrality or not. It was important to the country that the law should decide, that no man should have a right to enlist in foreign service. That, in fact, was the meaning of the acts of George 2nd; and those acts would have been so expressed, if the circumstances which had since occurred had been foreseen. The law was "You shall not enlist in warfare under any foreign power, whether assumed or not, unless with the sanction of the executive government." The first object of the bill, then, was, to make the law equal, and to make the restriction extend, to self-assumed as well as acknowledged powers. The second provision of this bill was rendered necessary by the consideration, that assistance might be rendered to foreign states, through the means of the subjects of this country, not only by their enlisting in warfare, but also by their fitting out ships for the purposes of war. It was extremely important, for the preservation of neutrality, that the subjects of this country should be prevented from fitting out any equipments, not only in the ports of Great Britain and Ireland, but also in the other ports of the British dominions, to be employed in foreign service. The principle in this case was the same as in the other, because by fitting out armed vessels, or by supplying the vessels of other countries with warlike stores, as effectual assistance might be rendered to a foreign power as by enlisting in their service. In this second provision of the bill, two objects were intended to be embraced—to prevent the fitting out of armed vessels, and also to prevent the fitting out or supplying other ships with warlike stores in any of his majesty's ports. Not that such vessels might not receive provisions in any poet in the British dominions; but the object of the enactment was, to prevent them from shipping warlike stores, such as guns and other things obviously and manifestly intended for no other purpose than war. These were, the objects of the bill, and unless it appeared to the House that they ought, to distinguish between legitimate states (perhaps he ought not to use the word] legitimate—he meant acknowledged states), and those self-constituted states that were unacknowledged, he could not anticipate any objection to the bill. If he were asked, whether enlisting in the service of an unacknowledged state was an offence against the common law as it now stood, he would say it was; but the only way of putting the law in force was through the medium of the legislature, as an act of parliament would embrace the subject at large. He then moved for leave to bring in a bill to prevent enlistments and the equipments of vessels-for Foreign Service. Before he sat down he begged to add, what he had forgot to mention when explaining the objects of the bill, that he proposed the penalty on the first offence should be for a misdemeanour, and on the second for a felony.

said, that if he could consider the present measure of his hon. and learned friend, merely as the introduction of a reform into our criminal legislation, he would not, on the present occasion, have made a single remark; or if he had, would merely have expressed his approbation of the proposed amendment of the law. The repeal of the two statutes of the 9th and 29th George 2nd, which constituted the entrance into the service of a foreign government a felony, he highly approved of; and he might, if they had not now been brought into discussion by his hon. and learned friend, have felt it his duty to have brought them soon under the notice of the House. They were founded merely on temporary circumstances, and enacted penalties which were revolting to humanity, and which, therefore, now could never be inflicted. His hon. and learned friend had given to these statutes a general character, as applying to all times and circumstances; but if he had looked into history, he would have seen that they were intended merely for temporary purposes; namely, to prevent the formation of Jacobite armies, organized in Spain and France, against the peace of this country. Though his hon. and learned friend, however, had endeavoured to disguise the subject, and to keep out of view the immediate objects which the measure was intended to serve, it was impossible to mistake its general character, or to avoid seeing its evident tendency. It was indeed a measure of temporary policy, affecting deeply the character and interests of the country, and requiring the most serious attention of the House before they proceeded one step in the enactment The bill which his hon. and learned friend, moved for leave to introduce might, how ever it was worded, and however cautiously its object was concealed, be entitled, "a bill for preventing British subjects from lending their assistance to the South American cause, or enlisting in the South American service." The cautious abstinence of his hon. and learned friend from the political question could not cover his purpose. On the general subject of the law, as it was now proposed to be amended, he would not make many observations. It was impossible to deny that the sovereign power of every state could interfere to prevent its subjects from engaging in the wars of other states, by which its own peace might be endangered or its own interests effected. His majesty could command his own subjects to abstain from acts by which the relations of the state with other states might be disturbed, and could compel the observation of peace with them. The question, could not therefore turn upon this. He was surprised indeed to hear that this principle could be made a matter of dispute or doubt with his hon. and learned friend. It was from the assertion of it, at the present moment, that his suspicions were awakened. Why was the House called upon, at the present time, to assert a doctrine which no one doubted, unless it was meant to apply it to temporary objects? Was the principle itself doubtful, or was honest neutrality intended by the measure? The principles of neutrality only required us to maintain the laws in being, as they might affect the character of the belligerent; but they could not command us to change any law; least of all, could they require us to alter our laws for the evident advantage of one of the parties [Hear, hear!]. He was aware that his hon. and learned friend had said, that the enactments of his bill had placed both upon a level; but so far. as they exchanged the existing law, they were in favour of one of the parties. According to the two statutes which this bill was intended to repeal, an evident advantage was enjoyed by one of the belligerents; and this bill was intended therefore to make the condition of one of them better, and of the other worse, than it was before. It was so far, therefore, a departure from our neutrality; as it made a law to affect one party to the detriment of another. His hon. and learned friend, therefore, instead of introducing a measure to preserve the equal rights of the parties, had introduced a measure in effect quite the reverse, it ought to be recollected, that those who engaged in the service of insurgent states, or states that have not been acknowledged among the family of nations, however respectable in themselves, were in a much worse situation than those who assisted recognized governments, as they could not be reclaimed as prisoners of war, and might, as engaging in what was called rebellion, be treated as rebels. This, therefore, might be one reason why they were exempted from the penalties authorized to be inflicted by the statutes of the 9th and 29th of George 2nd, the dangers to which they exposed themselves being considered sufficient to deter them. This new law, or this declaratory law, as his hon. and learned friend had called it, would go to alter the relative risks, and would become in fact a law of preference in favour to one of the parties. It was an impolitic and severe measure against a people struggling, not to throw off the yoke of the mother country, but contending against its re-imposition, after they had freed themselves from it. It was, in fact, an act of hostility towards South America, and of favour towards Spain; and viewing it in this light, he was sure it would be looked upon with regret by all the friends of freedom, and excite the indignation of the people of England. If the House did not oppose it—if they did not show their disapprobation of a measure so impartial in its nature—he would say, that they were dead to the interests of the nation, and were acting contrary to the opinions and the wishes of their constituents. He would not now enter farther into the proposed measure; other opportunities would occur during the progress of the bill for pointing out its tendency, as an occasion would arise in a few days for considering the general course of our policy towards those states against which it was directed. In the meantime, he could not refrain from expressing his disapprobation of a measure which he could consider in no other light than as an enactment to repress the rising liberty of the South Americans, and to enable Spain to re-impose that yoke of tyranny which they were unable to bear, which they had nobly shaken off, and from which, he trusted in God they would finally be enabled to free themselves, whatever attempts were made by the ministers of this or any other country, to countenance or assist their oppressors [Loud cheers].

protested against the: introduction of the political topics with which the hon. and learned gentleman had filled his speech—a speech which while it professed to advocate the principles of neutrality, was as far from the spirit of neutrality as any that he had ever heard in that House. He would appeal to the House and the country—who he trusted, too well understood what the principles of neutrality and the character and honour of the nation required, to be deceived by the sophistry of the hon. and learned gentleman—whether they would depart from that regard which they owed to an acknowledged and friendly state, by allowing our subjects openly to take part with its enemies. With regard to the law as it formerly stood, he would say nothing; the policy of repealing the statutes of Geo. 2nd, referred to, even the hon. and learned gentleman admitted. He (lord Castlereagh) conceded to him that these statutes were not so much intended to secure a neutral conduct, as directed against a species of armament which threatened this country. But as his hon. and learned friend had moved for the repeal, it was thought proper to bring in a bill to uphold our neutrality, and to prevent the subjects of this country from entering into a service injurious to an acknowledged state. This law was necessary to prevent us from giving cause of war to Spain against us; and he was sure that the House was too just and generous to think, that because Spain was weak, and because her fortunes had declined, we ought therefore to permit her to be oppressed, and to do that which we would not have done if she were in other circumstances. He would ask the hon. and learned gentleman himself, whether, if common justice was not sufficient, it was not our duty to carry into effect the intentions which we professed? Was not the proclamation issued about eighteen months ago approved of, both in this country and America, as perfectly just in the principles of neutrality which it declared? And was it not a breach of that proclamation, when not only individuals whom perhaps it would not have been impossible to restrain, not only officers in small numbers went cut to join the insurgent corps, but when there was a regular organization of troops, when regiments regularly formed left this country, when ships of war were prepared in our ports, and transports were chartered to carry out troops and ammunition? It was to prevent this that the present bill was brought in; and he would ask any member of the House, if such things were permitted, how we could boast of our neutrality? Indeed, so far from doubting the policy of the present measure, he owed some apology to the House and to the country, for not bringing it forward sooner; and he thought that the best apology would be an explanation of the reasons for delay. Till lately there was some hope of a mediation between Spain and her colonies; and so long as that expectation lasted, he wished to say nothing concerning the general policy of the existing laws. All these hopes were at an end, and it was now our duty to adopt a general system by which our conduct ought to be guided towards the parties while the war continued. It was a duty we owed to Spain, and to our own honour, while we professed to be at peace with her, not to allow ships of war to be equipped in our ports, or armaments to sail from them against her. The government of this country, during the whole of the contest, had observed the strictest neutrality even from the beginning; we were allied with Spain in active warfare; we had declared that we would not assist her against the South Americans; and we had hitherto carefully abstained from every act that could bear the appearance of favour or preference to one party or the other. It now became us to adopt a measure by which we might enforce the common law against those whose conduct would involve us in a war, and to show that we were not conniving, as we were supposed with one of the parties. Spain had made many remonstrances on the subject, and it was not till every hope of a reconciliation between her and her colonies had failed, that government had been induced to propose a law which ought to have been sooner introduced. It was, therefore, a little too much in the hon. and learned gentleman to censure the government of this country, as being hostile to the South Americans and partial to Spain, while we had delayed doing what another government, which he would allow to be free and popular, had done long ago. He would ask him, had the United States done nothing to prevent their sub- jects from assisting the South Americans? They had enacted two laws upon the subject, nearly of the same tendency as that now proposed. Would it not be a breach of our neutrality to allow whole regiments to join one side, while it was felony for a single individual to join the other? Was it not a disgrace to the country to preserve a law so unequal as that which inflicted death for assisting Spain, and allowed no means of preventing assistance being given to her enemy? The object of the present bill was only to make the law uniform, as regarded both, and to reduce the severity of its penal enactments. He should be ready to give explanation at the different stages of the bill, or to support its different clauses: but he must again protest against such conduct as that of the hon. and learned gentleman, who found out partiality where none was intended, and declared that we were unjust to one of the parties, because we wished to place both on the same footing [Hear, hear!].

said, that he could not profess any desire to maintain the neutrality for which the noble lord was so very solicitous, as he had no hesitation in avowing that he was a decided friend to the cause and object of the people of South America. Though the present measure was one of apparent neutrality, it was an act of real favour to one of the parties, and of hostility to the other. He would therefore watch it with severe jealousy. The government of this country had acted inconsistently; for either they had encouraged British subjects to embark in the American cause, or why had they not prevented them by adopting this measure sooner? He would ask the noble lord whether he did not know that upwards of 5,000 perhaps nearly 10,000, persons from this country had engaged in the naval and military forces of the insurgent states? Were all these subject to the penalties of the proposed law. Would the noble lord send out a fleet to the Pacific, to bring home the 3 or 4,000 seamen who were now on board the vessels of the new republic? He rose to express his dissent from the bill, and to declare that at every stags he would give it his decided opposition.

said, it was not intended that the measure before the House should be retrospective.

contended, that if this measure was now justifiable, we were remiss in not having enacted it sooner. It appeared to him, however, to proceed from no regard to neutrality, from no returning sense of justice, but to be intended to prevent the people of this country from going to the assistance of those who were struggling for their liberties, against what he would not trust himself with describing. It would have been much better to have declared this specific object than to have concealed it under a general enactment through which it was easily seen. The statutes which it was to replace referred only to particular circumstances, tot he enlisting of troops in France and Spain against this country, and was never intended to be permanent. Instead, therefore, of improving the old law, this measure constituted an entirely new one, to answer new circumstances. It was an egregious error, to allege that a measure of this nature was in accordance with the principle of the statutes of George 2nd for the object of those statutes notoriously was, to prevent British subjects from being engaged in hostility with the British government. But such was not the purpose of the bill proposed by his hon. and learned friend. That bill had indeed a materially different object. He admitted the right of the government to prevent its subjects from enlisting in the service of a foreign state, without the permission of his majesty; but he regretted to witness a disposition on the part of the government of this country, which ought to be the principal guardian, as it had long boasted of being the favourite abode of liberty, to restrain any part of its population from becoming the champions of that sacred cause, for which the people of South America were so gallantly struggling, against the universally degraded and fortunately decrepid government of Spain.

said, that the penalty of the former acts was by far too severe, and that, in consequence of their severity, they had become a dead letter on the statute-book. His hon. and learned friend, however, (sir J. Mackintosh) who was so well acquainted with history, was wrong, he thought, in supposing that they owed their origin to a design to prevent the formation of Jacobite armies. Before the 9th, and still more before the 29th, of Geo. II., all apprehension from the Jacobites had ceased. He believed that the statutes in question were rather intended to prevent British subjects from becoming soldiers of fortune in the service of other states—a practice common at that period. The substitution of the milder penalty proposed in the present bill, appeared to him a great improvement. This brought him to the second part of the question—Was it proper to prevent troops from being raised for the service of Spain in this country, and to allow them to be raised to assist the insurgents? When we heard of great bodies of men sailing for America, and saw transports preparing in the river, it was impossible to deny that we permitted acts in direct violation of our neutrality. The cause of blame was, therefore, not that we had proposed a law too soon, but that we had delayed it so long. But his hon. and learned friend had said, that the proposed bill was not of a neutral character, because it took away an advantage from one party, and placed them both on a footing. He would ask any hon. member if this was a breach of neutrality. It was a measure which we were bound in justice to enact. He was as little inclined as any hon. member to enter upon the political question. It mattered not what were the feelings and wishes of different individuals. They were here now acting as legislators, in behalf of England, and as a part of the supreme power of the state; and therefore it became them to maintain their relations with other states on an equal footing, not permitting unrecognized governments to enjoy what we refused to acknowledged governments. He objected to that part of the bill which went to aggravate a second offence into a capital felony—a severity of enactment which he thought unnecessary, as it was not likely, that offenders who had been punished by imprisonment once, would expose themselves a second time.

said, he was convinced that his hon. friends who spoke against the measure, expressed the sentiments of nine-tenths of the people of the united kingdom. Were we, whose boast it was to value freedom, and whose duty it was to extend its influence in every part of the globe, to sacrifice our character by restraining the efforts of those patriots in rescuing themselves from a bondage imposed on them for centuries? If the real object was neutrality, let the restrictions as they affected Spain, be repealed altogether, and let it be open to the people to give their services to whichever party they pleased: the public feeling on the question would then be manifest. It was not his intention, in that stage of the measure, to argue it on the nature of our external and internal policy, but he could not help observing, that at a moment when the gallant soldiers who had fought the battles of the country were in a great proportion paupers on their parishes, and when British officers were subsisting on a miserable pittance, it was most extraordinary they should be forbidden from following their own disposition to espouse the cause of liberty and independence in another hemisphere, under the penalty and disgrace of transportation for seven years.

said, the noble lord had stated, that the government of this country had postponed the proposed measure until the mediation between Spain and the South American provinces had terminated. In that assurance he did not concur with the noble lord. He was rather disposed to believe, that ministers had waited until they found that the negotiations of Spain with the United States of America had ended in a cession of territory to the latter. He should not go into the subject then, but feeling as he did, that it was a most important question—a question on which the opinion of the country was more decidedly made up than perhaps on any other political topic, he should give it his opposition in every stage of its progress.

believed the interests of the country were never more concerned than in the issue of the South-American cause. Any measure likely to operate against its success was most injudicious; and from information he spoke when he stated, that an armament was now preparing to sail from Spain against Monte Video. The nature of our commercial connexion in that quarter of the world was too important to be overlooked, or hazarded by any injudicious interference.

, of Galway, observed, that be certainly should vote for the bill, and he should do so, even were he in the habit of offering up his earnest prayers day by day and night by night, for the success of the South Americans, and the emancipation of that continent from the thraldom of Spain. But, whatever his opinion as an individual might be, as a member of parliament he was bound to view the question, as it affected the policy and interests of this country. That policy was on all sides admitted to be neutrality. To empower the crown to preserve that neutrality, the legislature must afford it the necessary means. As one of those necessary means then he supported the present bill. To the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke from the other side (sir J. Mackintosh) and to every observation of his, he had listened with profound respect; he had stated, that there already existed numerous disadvantages to restrain persons from engaging in the service of the South Americans without the present measure; that they were subject to be treated as rebels, and could not be claimed as prisoners of war. Knowing, then, that such penalties attached to such a course, was not that House, on the principles of humanity, bound to interpose, and to restrain the subjects of the king from precipitating themselves into situations of peril, where they were deprived of the ordinary rights of war? It was a principle on which the House frequently legislated: it did so when it endeavoured to restrain gambling: it interfered with no liberty of the individual, but the liberty of ruining himself.