said, that on the fullest consideration which he could give to this subject, he was of opinion, that the House had not the power to accede to the prayer of the petition. But even if it had the power, this was not a case in which it would be expedient for the House to exercise it, as the petitioner ought to have come earlier.

said, he had to request the indulgence of the House, while he called their attention to a subject in its nature certainly not very entertaining, namely, the delays in the high Court of Chancery. But though this was a dry subject, it was one which was interesting to a great part of the community, who unless some aid was afforded by parliament, would continue to suffer greatly from such delays. He should state the grounds on which he brought forward the present motion, with perfect respect to the judges who presided in the courts referred to in his motion; but at the same time he should do the subject fair justice, and should shrink from nothing. The question to which he should call their attention was, whether the aid afforded to the public in 1813, by the appointment of a vice chancellor's court, had answered the end which the legislature intended it should have, and whether any other step was not now necessary to relieve the Court of Chancery. He did not wish at present to enter into any of the particulars of the mischief which had arisen from delay. He attributed the delay of decision to the pressure of business, which no human strength could perform, and from which he wished to relieve the lord chancellor. He owned that he wished to propose that the House should agree to a committee; and if the House should grant this, then he should prove, from the authentic registers of the court, by the officers of the court, and by professional men, that great actual injustice took place from delay in the Court of Chancery. He begged the House would look to the expense of proceedings in chancery. He did not ask this for his own part, for he had never writhed under the pressure of that court. But he had seen families ruined and undone by it; he had known many families who had lost their all by it. Though facts connected with this subject had been given to him by persons of the highest rank and character in the profession, yet he should not bring them forward except in a committee, where they might be examined into, when no doubt would remain of their truth. The question was, whether the separation of the bankruptcy business from that of the great seal, might not give fair time for the expediting of all the matters which would then come before the Court of Chancery. The House would recollect, that in 1811, he had moved for a committee to inquire into the causes of the delay in the Court of Chancery. A committee was appointed, but as the session soon broke up, it was necessary that the committee should be revived the ensuing session. That committee was accordingly revived, but when he moved in the committee to call for persons professionally connected with the Court of Chancery, to give evidence respecting the causes of the delay, that motion was resisted in the committee, and on his bringing the same motion before the House, it was successfully resisted there. The committee had before them the register-book, and received information of the number of causes which remained undecided, but they never could get to the ground of the subject. In the mean time a bill was brought into the other House, by the lord chancellor, for the appointment of a vice chancellor. That bill was opposed in the House on the ground that it would give no actual relief to the court—that there would be a revulsion from the vice chancellor back to the chancellor in the shape of appeal. There were 35 appeals only waiting for decision, when the vice chancellor's court was established. He found, the other day, that there were now upwards of 100 appeals watting for the lord chancellor's decision. His information might be incorrect, but it came from a solicitor of the first eminence, and he had communicated it to the learned solicitor general opposite. The number of original causes in the lord chancellor's paper was 114 in 1811. With all the assistance derived from the vice chancellor's court, the number of original causes was now 289. The number of appeals, in 1811, was 35. In March 1819, the number was l01. The bankruptcy business stood on the same footing as in 1811: there was no variation in the number of petitions, at least in March. It had been argued, that the appointment of a vice chancellor's court would give great relief to the House of Lords. But there were 140 causes in the appellant jurisdiction of that House; and there stood 26 appeals, besides writs of error, which had been in hand two years without being decided. Now, if the lord chancellor were freed from the pressure of the bankruptcy business, with all his knowledge and talent, he could not get through this business in less than two years. He did not mean to impute any blame to lord Eldon, or to say that the vice chancellor's court, had not been, in some respects, a relief to the lord chancellor. But though the number of cases decided by the vice chancellor had been considerable, and though the business of the great seal had been done, and well done, still there was a long list of appeals undecided. Let them look at the situation in which the lord chancellor stood. Like all other lord chancellors, he had much to do with the political business of the country—he had to attend to the appeal causes in the House of Lords—he had the care of lunatics— he had the care of infants. Any man who had seen the multiplicity of business which came before the lord chancellor, and the number of times the learned lord was called from the bench to attend to political matters, could easily understand how so many causes remained. He could show, that since the time of lord chancellor Hardwicke, business had greatly increased —the number of bankruptcy cases had doubled—the number of motions was doubled. Besides this, there were the appeals to the House of Lords, appeals from Scotland and Ireland, and writs of error. If any one man were to unite all the talents and knowledge of the present lord chancellor with the decision of lord Hardwicke, it would be impossible for him to go through the business. No man doubted the talents, perseverance, or labour of the lord chancellor; he was always in the court of chancery, except when called away on political business, or when in the House of Lords. If he, then, could not go through the arrears, it was in vain to expect that any other lord chancellor could go through it. Human strength could only go through a certain quantity of business. The Court of Chancery was a court of equity. Now, bank- ruptcy business was of a legal nature, and belonged more to a court of law than to an equity court. In this he was fortified by the opinion of some of the best lawyers of the country. He understood it had lately been said by the noble lord, in deciding a bankruptcy petition, that if the bankruptcy business was to be transferred, it must be transferred to some competent judge. But the same talents which qualified a person to decide in any other court, would fit him to sit in a court for the decision of bankruptcy cases; and with respect to the remuneration to such a judge, it was to be recollected, that there was a sinecure place connected with bankruptcy cases—the office of patentee of bankrupts, which was worth from 5,000l. to 6,000l. a-year. Why should that be given to an inefficient man? That should go into the pocket of the person who did the actual business. The bankruptcy business at the present moment was supposed to bring 5,000l. a-year into the pocket of the lord chancellor. Then there was 1,700l. received annually by the secretary of bankrupts. He would take the amount received by the patentee at from 6,000l. to 7,000l. a-year. It was fit that the man entrusted with the great seal should be largely and liberally remunerated; but he ought not to be recompensed for business that he had not power to perform. If this question was carried against him this evening, the question should not rest here. He would try it in every possible way. He wished ministers themselves would take the subject up. Many cases had been before the court of chancery for six, seven, eight, or ten years, without a decision. Causes were two years in hand before they were set down in the chancellor's paper. Suppose, in the first instance, that a case was brought before the vice chancellor, it was two years before it could come on for a hearing; an appeal might then be lodged wish the chancellor; with him it remained for two years more; if an appeal from him was carried to the House of Lords, two or three years more were spent; so that it was six years before it was finally decided. He had known a case in chancery, concerning the beneficial interest of two women in a lease which had twelve years to run. It was there thirteen years before it was decided, and both the claimants were then dead. The question then was, of what part of his business the lord chancellor should be relieved? It was known that the bank- ruptcy business was entirely distinct; that it was originally a part of the business of the great seal. Where, then, would be the harm of now separating it from it? Many professional men could be found competent to decide in matter of bankruptcy; and if the noble lord who now held the seals were the person in the country the most fit to decide those questions, yet the country might be at any time deprived of his services. Another expedient might be resorted to, which would not only give the lord chancellor more time to attend to the peculiar business, but would improve the judicial system of the country. As the judicial business of the House of Lords was at present managed, there were many suitors in this country to an immense amount, who had, in fact, no appeal from the primary court. There was an appeal from the chancery of Ireland; there was an appeal from the court of session of Scotland; but from the chancery of England there was, in fact, no-appeal, but from the chancellor in chancery to the chancellor in the House of Lords. The constant advice, therefore, of all gentlemen at the bar to suitors was, not to appeal to the House of Lords, as it was only an useless addition of expense to expense. It was of course a mockery for the judge who was appealed from to decide on the appeal. The increase of property of chancery suitors was such as almost to exceed belief. In 1752, the whole amount of money lodged in the Bank of England, belonging to such parties, was scarcely 3,000,000l.; in the present year it amounted to nearly 34,000,000l. But this was not all the business of the court; it was to be remembered that one-third of all the estates in England, one-third of our entire landed property, was decided in a court from which there was no substantial appeal; that to the House of Lords was in fact none. He could take upon himself to assert, that there was now in the Bank a sum of not less than 10,000,000l., which, from the procrastinated duration of suits, should have been either the property of persons deceased, who had no representatives; or of persons now living, but ignorant, from the books not being open to them, of their claims altogether, or if they knew themselves to possess such claims, ignorant in what manner or names the property was vested. It was his object hereafter to move for the production of those books, in order that people might ascertain and vindicate their rights.—The hon. member then adverted to the opinions expressed by the late sir Samuel Romilly, that the only way to relieve the chancellor from the daily accumulation of the arrears he had alluded to, would be to separate the jurisdiction of bankrupts from the great seal; of the right hon. the president of the board of control (Mr. Canning), at the time the vice chancellor's bill was discussed, that it should only be a measure of experiment; and of the vice chancellor himself, which was in opposition to its expediency. He contended, that the object of that enactment had not been nor could be attained. The difficulties and embarrassments of the chancellor, as regarded the increase of cases in arrear, bad been sensibly increased. The hon. gentleman proceeded to pass a high eulogium upon the talents, perspicuity, and wisdom of the lord chancellor, and to acknowledge the clearness, precision, and integrity of his judgments. But whilst he admitted the great learning and ability of the lord chancellor, and bowed to his superior qualifications for discharging the duties of his office, he felt it due to the interests of the suitors in courts of equity and the court of final appeal, that those duties should not be rendered too numerous and weighty for any talents or any industry to perform. He concluded, therefore, by moving, "That this House will resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to take into their consideration so much of the statute of 13 Eliz., c. 7, as gives jurisdiction in matters of bankruptcy to the lord high chancellor or lord keeper of the Great Seal of England."

said, that he rose to second the motion, not only because he believed that it would be productive of great public benefit, but also because be felt convinced that it might, indirectly, prove essentially useful to Scotland in particular, by enabling the lord chancellor to devote a larger portion of his time and attention, to the consideration and decision of appeals from the court of session. The delay, which now occurred, in respect to these appeals, was considered, from one end of Scotland to the other, as a most serious national grievance—it is the source of great loss to individuals, of distress and embarrassment to private families, and of serious mischief and inconvenience to the community at large. Not only do many sessions pass over, before these cases are heard, but, even when the pleadings have taken place, whole years are suffered to intervene, without any decision; so that many cases must be nearly forgotten, before they are determined. He did not mean to cast the slightest imputation upon the noble lord on the woolsack, whose unsullied integrity and unequalled legal knowledge could not be too highly panegyrised; but he had more business to go through than the human powers are equal to; and, unless he were endowed with a supernatural ubiquity, and could not only sit in several courts at once, but have a separate mind for treasuring up and considering the proceedings which took place in each, he could not possibly do justice either to the country or to himself; he should therefore give the motion his cordial support.

observed, that the object which the hon. and learned member evidently had in view, was the foundation of another jurisdiction for cases of bankruptcy. His argument was, that the late institution of a vice chancellor's court, had, instead of diminishing, added to the arrear of business in chancery. It was not, however, a correct statement of the fact, to represent that arrear as having increased. The contrary was the case; but if otherwise, his objection to a new and separate jurisdiction for bankruptcy would not be removed. Before he referred to that subject, he should show, that the vice chancellor's court had been productive of the most important assistance and relief to suitors in equity, and had materially facilitated the hearing of appeals in the House of Lords. So far was it from the fact to state, that causes were entered two or three years before they were heard, that those now remaining to be heard had been all set down in the last term. With regard to cases of bankruptcy, no less than 570 had been set down during the last year, of which only 170 remained to be heard, and 100 of these had been entered since Hilary terra. The other 70 were cases for rehearing. The arrear therefore was less than had ever before been known; and had it not been for the lord chancellor's late illness, there would not now have been a single bankrupt petition remaining to be heard. As to the number of causes, there were 206 set down for hearing before the lord chancellor, of which 140 were not set down till last Hilary term, and of these, many consisted of appeals. Undoubtedly, the number of appeals was increased, as must always happen by the establishment of an inferior jurisdiction. But it was equally clear, that suitors had great reason to be satisfied with the facility which had been given to the hearing of original causes. The institution of the vice chancellor's court had also enabled the lord chancellor to sit three days a week in the House of Lords to hear appeals and writs of error. Judgment would very soon be given in several important cases, one of which bad occupied a greater share of attention than any suit of late years. He was surprised to hear it stated, that questions of bankruptcy were not in their nature questions for an equitable jurisdiction. Courts of law often decided questions of fact in the course of a bankruptcy case, but the general merits fell peculiarly within the province of courts of equity; nor did he believe any man, whatever might be his learning and ability, qualified to decide them, unless conversant both with the principles and practice of those courts. But the pressure of business in the court of chancery did not arise from this cause; and the separation of the bankruptcy jurisdiction would therefore afford but little relief. If 300 petitions were to be now filed, they would probably be all disposed of within a fortnight after the long vacation. No ground had been furnished for the interference of the House upon this subject. The statement he had made, appeared to him a sufficient answer to the argument of his hon. and learned friend. He should wish likewise to observe on this occasion, that the establishment of the jury court in Scotland would tend greatly to lessen the number of appeals from that part of the united kingdom; many of those appeals having turned upon mere points of fact, and there being one now before the lord chancellor, in which the only question was, whether a hogshead of whiskey had or had not been delivered in a certain year. He should not follow the hon. member into his reasoning in support of a farther division of the present functions of the lord chancellor, because it had no reference to the immediate subject of consideration. Neither was it necessary for him to express his sentiments concerning the characters of the judges in chancery. It would be agreed, however, even by those who objected to the delays of that court, that it never was presided in by a judge with greater ability, in whom the country had greater confidence, or whose judg- ments would be held in greater reverence by posterity.

shortly replied, and contended that the true causes of that delay which was a subject of universal complaint, could not be fairly understood, except by the examination of professional persons before a committee of that house. The appeals now pending in the House of Lords amounted to 141, and would probably not be determined for three years to come. Many cases had been now 18 months waiting for judgment; and if any accident, which he should regret as much as any man, were to happen to the noble and learned lord, these cases must be reheard at an enormous expense to the parties. Hence, the Buccleugh, the Roxburgh, and the Queensberry cases, in each of which, not less perhaps than 5 or 6,000l. in costs had been already incurred, must be re-heard. This was an evil, against which it was the duty of the legislature, as much as possible, to provide; and that could be done most effectually by accelerating the decision of appeals, and this could not take place without reducing the quantity of business assigned at present to the lord chancellor. That reduction being the object of his motion, he hoped the House would accede to the appointment of a committee, in which he pledged himself to prove the correctness of the statements he had made.—The House divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 151.

rose, pursuant to notice, to ask for leave to bring in a bill to repeal certain acts imposing a duty on Sea-borne coals. This act was one bearing peculiarly and partially on the metropolis and neighbourhood, and formed just grounds for complaint. He was aware if antiquity could be considered as a just ground for taxation, then this might be well defended. The taxes had been laid on upon some extraordinary emergency for a temporary purpose, but had been continued after such necessity had long ceased to exist. He observed, that the first tax appeared to have been levied in the reign of Richard 2nd, when two ships and two barges were fitted out to protect the northern coast from pirates, and for which coals, among other things were subjected to a duty of 6d. per chaldron. In 1627 the next addition was laid on coals. The towns of Newcastle and Sunderland offered to pay another 67l. if Charles 1st would assist them, by protecting their trade. The king very readily agreed to that, and appointed a special commission to fit out six ships, not having had money with which he could equip a few of his own men of war. In 1670, a duty was levied of 2s. more, in addition to the 1s. for rebuilding London; and this was only to have lasted for twenty years; but the fact has since proved how little reliance was to be placed upon the royal promise. In 1677, Charles 2nd granted a charter to his son, the duke of Richmond, for ever, of 1s. on the Newcastle chaldron, amounting to about two of those used as the measure of the present time; but in 1696 (in the reign of William 3rd) the parliament took off the 3s. duty altogether. In 1698 (9th and 10th William 3rd) after the treaty of Ryswick, the expenses of the war having amounted to between two and three millions, parliament agreed to take five years to pay it off, and for which many taxes were then levied; among others, a tax of 5s. per chaldron was laid upon all coals carried coastwise for five years only. But almost immediately after, upon the accession of queen Anne, it was made perpetual, and exists to the present day. In 1710, the 3s. tax, formerly repealed, was revived for the purpose of building 50 new churches, out of which number 10 only had been built; but still the tax continues for the port of London only. Such it dreadful increase of taxation would never have since continued, if it were not that no attempt had since been made to shake it off. In the reigns of George 1st, and of the present king, several per centages were laid on, amounting to 1s. 4d. together per chaldron, besides war duties imposed during the late war, amounting to 3s. 2d.: but these latter were withdrawn in 1814, still leaving 9s. 4d. to be paid by the counties of Middlesex and Surrey, and 6s. for 14 other bounties, the former paying 7s. 2d. duty, and the latter 1s. 1d. per annum for each human being; the population of each gross amount of the duty being regarded. It would also appear, that four counties paid only two farthings each, and 21 other counties paid nothing; a fact only to be accounted for, because they were mining counties, possessing, beside, the advantages of inland navigation. A proportion of these aggregate taxes was applicable to the Orphan's fund. It was not his object to affect by the present measure any amount of the duties applied to this fund. The bill would be confined to the reduction of the duties on coal and culm, forming part of the public revenue. The propriety of lessening to the consumer a tax levied on a raw article so essentially necessary to manufactures of almost every description, could not be for a moment a matter of doubt in so commercial a country as England; nor would it be likely the proposition would want support where the manufacturing interest was so ably and competently represented as in that House. The expediency of establishing a bounty on coals imported into the port of London, had, with the view of lessening the price, been long since submitted to the public, and Mr. Adam Smith, whose opinion was in itself a tower of strength, had said, that of all duties imposed on the necessaries of life, the duty on coals was, with the exception of a tax on bread, the very worst that could possibly be levied. The original cost of the coal was calculated at 13s. a chaldron; its cost of conveyance or freight was generally about 12s. or 14s. The price of the conveyance, metage, shooting, carriage, and merchant's profits, raised the cost of the article enormously to the manufacturer and consumer, whilst coals were supplied at the first cost price to the manufacturer and consumer in the country. Admitting for a moment, as it had been urged with some plausibility, that it was unadvisable to encourage the increase of the number of manufactures in the metropolis and its immediate neighbourhood, still the interest of the manufacturers in the counties adjoining London were not to be sacrificed to any such vague hypothesis. By the existing duties, a population of four millions and a half paid annually 865,000l.; four additional counties paid 20,000l.; and the remaining counties paid nothing in the shape of coal duties: so that a poor labouring man in the neighbourhood of London paid from 200l. to 300l. per cent more for his fuel, than a poor labouring man in the country. He regretted that the persons who first introduced this (subject to the House should have shown so little knowledge of the materials of which that House was composed, as to imagine it would consent to any thing like an equalization of duties on coals generally. The manufacturing districts were sure to oppose it, and petitions, it was well known, had flocked in from all parties likely to be affected. They had represented it as a tax about to be levied on one part of the country, with a view to relieve another part from an existing tax. The present motion merely went to the abolition of the tax. It would be unfair not to admit (if the admission would do the petitioners any service) that the people of London were not completely ruined, though they were dreadfully cramped and injured by the existence of these duties. The petitioners of Birmingham had stated, that misery and discontent would be the result of any equalisation of these duties, as they would no longer be enabled to carry on their manufactures. The petitions of other manufacturing districts had stated the prospect they each entertained of immediate distress and ruin. But would it be fair to argue, that because the levying a trifling tax on coals in these districts would ruin the manufacturer, the manufacturers of London should not be relieved by the repeal of acts levying enormous duties on the same article? Nor would it be thought worthy of serious refutation that the metropolis was said to be likely, by the facilities thus given to manufactures, to be constantly enveloped in a still darker cloud and denser atmosphere of smoke. The existence of such an atmosphere was undoubtedly a subject of general regret; but was it not likely in this improving age, that by the application of philosophical principles, as in the case of count Rumford, this evil would be surmounted, and the smoke itself applied to some useful purposes? The object of his bill was to effect the repeal of so much of the duties as formed a source of revenue generally, without affecting the amount or security of that fund commonly called the Orphans' fund. He particularly wished to remind the House that the persons in whose behalf he was principally interested, the inhabitants of the county of Surrey, were those who, during the late arduous and protracted war, were the firmest and most liberal in contributing to its support, and trusted the House would not recompense their fortitude and zeal during a period of unprecedented danger, by sacrificing them to the interests of others during a period of profound peace. He then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to repeal the several acts now in force, for imposing duties on coal and culm sea-borne and carried coast-ways, together with so much of the act 39 Geo. 3, c. 84, as makes the duty purchased of the duke of Richmond, under the authority of that act payable to his majesty, as other duties on coals."

seconded the motion, He said that the hon. mover had gone so ably and at such length into the general question of the impolicy of the duties on coals, that he should confine his observations to its effects on that part of the country with which he was connected. The duties on coals in Devon and Cornwall last year amounted to near 60,000l. and this impost was paid at twelve ports. The consumption of coal in Devonshire was confined to a small part of it comparatively; it was chiefly among the higher classes, and that part of the population residing near the sea ports. This was a consequence of the high price of that article; the same cause operated to depress the manufactories, and prevent their establishment; It was not, perhaps, generally known, that a great portion of the clay now used for the making of the finer sort of china in the Staffordshire potteries, was the produce of the county of Devon, and neither spirit nor industry was wanting in that county to turn it to account. A china manufactory was set up some time since at Plymouth. But the difficulty of procuring coals caused it to be abandoned; another manufactory of coarser ware was undertaken afterwards, and also on the same account nearly given up. All who were acquainted with the west of England knew, that the best ma- nure for the soil of Devonshire was lime: lime was not to be had without fuel; so that the high price of coal and culm, had a directly injurious effect on agriculture and the improvement of land. In making these observations, he did not entertain a sanguine hope, that this or any other tax would be given up in the present distressed situation of the country. In the early part of the sessions, when the noble lord (Castlereagh) had drawn so flattering a picture of the finances and prosperity of the empire, those who felt that this picture did not apply to their case, had flattered themselves that they might have been relieved from some of their own burthens out of the overflowing prosperity of their neighbours, but, it now appeared, that the agricultural and commercial interests were labouring under one common and general depression, the consequence of which would naturally be a considerable falling off in the revenue. Under these circumstances, it was hardly to be expected that any of the existing duties could be abandoned. At the same time, he hoped, since the subject had been brought before the House, that the chancellor of the exchequer would consider, whether some substitute might not be devised; or if it was necesssary in this instance, that the tax gatherer should interpose between the raw produce of the soil and the consumption of the people, that, at least the burthen would be put upon a more just and equal footing than at present, when those who from their situation could obtain the article the cheapest, were wholly exempted from it, in order that it might fall with increased weight on those who have the other heavy expenses of freight and carriage exclusively to contend with, in addition to it.

considered this a question not between the chancellor of the exchequer and the city of London, but between the consumers of inland coals, and the consumers of sea coals. It had not been necessary to make any reference to the time of Richard 2nd. It would have been quite sufficient to have gone back so far as the Revolution. After several manufactures had arisen under certain taxes, to repeal those taxes at once would occasion a revulsion injurious to those manufactures, and most injurious, for a considerable time, to the country at large. If 6s. per chaldron were taken off Newcastle coals, the consequence would be to force

‡

them into the country so far as 6s. would pay the carriage, at least thirty miles from the present markets. How injurious must this prove to immense capitalists in the coal trade! Coals could be carried far into the country by the grand junction canal. At least, if this reduction should be made, all barriers and exclusive privileges in favour of Newcastle coals should be done away at the same time. The coal miners at Newcastle would not be well pleased that Welsh coals should be allowed to come into competition with their's. The comparison instituted between London and Staffordshire was not fair. The comparison should be between Devonshire and Berkshire or Oxfordshire. In Devon they paid the original price of the coals, the carriage and 6s. In Oxfordshire or Berkshire, they paid the original cost, the freightage, and the duty on canals, which, unlike the duty on sea coals, increased with the distance. In the one case, the duty was to the revenue, in the other to the canal-proprietor; to the consumer, however, it was the same. But he doubted much, whether the city of London would benefit by this repeal. At least 5s. of the 9s. would go to the pockets of the coal miner and ship-owner. If his view in this respect was correct, and he was sure it was, it formed a conclusive argument why the chancellor of the exchequer would find it much better to retain the duty. He did not believe that there were twenty English counties which paid no duties. But in the counties which paid none inland coals were dearer than sea coals elsewhere. It had been stated, that the family which paid 22l. a year in London for coals, would pay only 7l. in Birmingham. Such an argument might impose upon those who had not inquired into the subject as he had done. He did not mean that it was fraudulent, but it was calculated to mislead. The quality was very different—. 27 cwt. of Newcastle coals were equal to 40 cwt. of Staffordshire coals. He believed, upon the fairest calculation, that 3s. per ton upon all coals would be necessary to produce a revenue equal to that proposed to be repealed. Only sixty petitions had been procured for the repeal. The friends of the measure had worked hard, but this was all they could get. From many places they failed to get petitions in answer to their applications. Many of the inhabitants of London thought the tax was one that ought to be imposed if there had been none, and no petition had been presented from Westminster.

said, that the supporters of the measure before the House were placed between two fires. Last year the chancellor of the exchequer gave hopes that this tax would be altered in the course of this session, but now those who advocated an equalization of duty were charged with endeavouring to repeal the tax altogether. But this was not his object; he wished to have the duty equalized, and if a tax of 1s.per chaldron was imposed on all coals coming from the pit, it would bring a sum of 100,000l. more to the revenue than was raised by the existing system. It was said that inland coals, though exempted from the duty, became as dear, from the addition of canal and land carriage, as sea-borne coals; but the House should recollect, that the price of sea-borne coals was also much increased by land carriage. If the duty was taken of from Newcastle, it might go to check the inland coal trade in some measure, but then manufacturers and consumers generally could obtain coals much cheaper than they now do. It was said that gentlemen concerned in the in-land coal trade would be ruined by this; but what right had those persons to claim an exemption from a tax levied on the rest of the country? Could they expect that the chancellor of the exchequer, when he wanted money, would not call upon them to contribute their proportion to the public wants? Let the present duty be continued if necessary, but then let the proprietors of inland coals be also taxed. He could not see why Wales should be exempted from this tax more than any other part of the kingdom. If the poverty of the country was the cause, then Cornwall had an equal claim, as the labouring classes had been reduced to great distress at the period when the chancellor of the exchequer extended his favour to Wales. The period of this indulgence, however, would expire in 1820, and he hoped the chancellor of the exchequer would take a lesson from what had passed, and not allow any one part of the country to be relieved from a burthen at the expense of another. He was the more anxious that some remedy should be applied, from a knowledge of the sufferings of the lower classes of London from the high price of coals: he had known them pay be much as 7s. a bushel in times of scarcity, when the inhabitants of other parts of the country could purchase coals at half that price. The manufacturers of iron were also seriously injured by the existing system. There was no necessity of placing the duty to be taken at the pit's mouth, under the excise, as it could be collected as tolls, as other taxes now were.

thought it was an odd way of making coals cheap, to lay an additional duty upon them. He, however, preferred the existing system. He thought the cause why the coal tax was taken off in Wales, was not distinctly understood. The Welch coal was principally of a sort that would not be used in London. It was principally used to burn limestone to manure the mountainous part of that country. When the tax was proposed to be taken off in Wales, he believed there was a substitute in view, which a distrust of the chancellor of the exchequer prevented from being mentioned. And he doubted not but the hon. member for Surrey had also a substitute in view, which he kept back from a fear that the chancellor of the exchequer would continue the present tax, and adopt the substitute also [a laugh]. If the hon. member had a substitute in view, which could be borne without distressing the country, he ought in fairness to mention it in place of the present tax. If any tax could be spared from the revenue of the country, he could name several which had an equal claim with the coal tax. He thought a mitigation of the salt tax would be beneficial to the country, if it could be done; but he allowed that at present it was impracticable. He could also mention another. He thought a part of the excise duty on candles, might, if any tax could be spared, be taken off. The people were now obliged to go to the chandler's shop for candles, but in his country, though it was a little irregular, they made their own. This tax brought in 300,000l. but the collecting of it cost 50,000l. The fact was, that parliament commenced taxation at the wrong end; they relieved themselves from the burthens, and threw them on the shoulders of the poor [Hear!]. The city members had been active against the property-tax, but they would have been better employed in relieving the poorer classes from the weight with which they were saddled. For his part, he voted in favour of the property-tax and had received the thanks of his constituents for so doing. He did not know what were their opinions at present as to such a tax; but, for himself, he was of opinion, that a moderated property-tax would be the most beneficial tax that could be imposed on the country. A duty of 2s. upon each chaldron of coals, made a serious difference to those concerned in iron works; it would, in fact, determine whether they could export or not. A petition upon this subject from the lord mayor of London was alluded to, in which he complained that all coals coming into the port of London, whether inland or not, were considered as carried coastwise. It seemed there was a large stone at Staines, to which the port of London was said to extend by some old regulation. Any coals brought below that stone, whether inland or not, were considered as arriving in the port of London. Some time back, a cargo of coals was brought to this stone from Wales; an excise officer was immediately dispatched, who completely frightened them away, and no coals from that country had appeared there since. The officer, however, still remained at his post. The evil might be remedied by removing the stone to London bridge. The poor of the city would then have the advantage of inland coals. He thought that this question had gone to sleep, but unfortunately he was mistaken; he must, therefore, give his decided negative to the motion.

wished to explain with respect to the great stone. It was by direction of government, not of the city, that coals were not allowed to come lower down.

said, that this was a tax which pressed heavily upon the poor, and injured manufacturers very much. In Exeter, where the population was only 18,000, they paid 10,700l. in coal duties. The inequality of the tax was so evident, that it would be wasting the time of the House to attempt to dwell upon that consideration. He would support the motion, in the hope that the chancellor of the exchequer would place the tax more equally on the country. If the tax had existed during a long time, no just argument could be derived from its antiquity, that an alteration ought not at present to be made; for the length of its continuance ought not to sanctify an unequal and unjust tax.

expressed his surprise that a debate on the subject of repealing a tax should have proceeded so far without the House being made acquainted with the intention of the chancellor of the exchequer. But surely when relief was to be afforded from the pressure of the present impost, that relief ought not to be partial but general. Take away, however, the present tax, and the relief would be partial. The hon. alderman had adverted to the great amount levied on the cities of London and Westminster; but was not its greater proportion paid by the wealthy citizens and rich families at the west end of the town? He viewed the present question with considerable apprehension, because he believed, though it was not avowed, that it was but an indirect way of getting at an equalization of the tax; a measure most injurious to the interests of the great manufacturing parts of the kingdom. It was also to be recollected, that though the lord mayor and aldermen of the compassionate city of London were thus solicitous for the repeal of the parliamentary part of the tax, which was applicable to general purposes, they would not give up that very large portion of it which was received for their own purposes. The noble lord concluded with expressing his determination to give the motion his decided negative.

observed, that his views on the question must have been known, from what he had at different times stated when petitions were presented on the subject to that House. That was one of the reasons for his not having previously taken a part in the discussion. Besides, he was willing to hear the opinions of gentlemen, who, from their local connexions, were calculated to afford the House the fullest information. Since the subject was first introduced, it was his decided opinion, that it would be most inexpedient to stir a question of this nature, when the circumstances of the country were such as not to allow the hope of a favourable decision. Enough had passed on the discussion of a former night, to show that it was the intention of parliament to watch with jealous and peculiar care any thing that tended to produce a diminution of revenue. Indeed, it would be his duty in a few days to call the attention of that House to the manner in which they might best add to the revenue of the country. With respect to the cities of London and Westminster, it was to be recollected that they had received a considerable relief al- ready by the cessation of the war tax. Coals, which, in 1814, were at 62s. per chaldron in the pool, were now to be had at 48s. giving a relief of 14 shillings b}-that measure. He did not think the House could act otherwise, under the circumstances of the country, than to reject the motion.

said, he had heard with great regret, though certainly not with surprise, the determination of the chancellor of the exchequer not to agree to the repeal of this most oppressive tax— not only, it appeared, did he mean to refuse the relief now claimed, but he contemplated the levying of fresh taxes on the people, in a period of profound peace. He and his friends would most steadfastly oppose the introduction of new taxes. He knew not whether the House would or would not support them—he knew not whether their opposition would be successful—but they would, at all events, have the consolatory reflection that they had discharged their duty [Hear!].— The hon. member (colonel Wood) had made a very facetious speech, on a very grave subject. Like an hon. member (Mr. Marryat) who, on a former evening made several observations on the price of tallow, the gallant colonel had entered into a dissertation on tallow-candles. He hoped the similarity would not end here, but that, like the hon. member to whom he had alluded, the gallant colonel having made his speech, would quit the House without voting. He had entertained the House with a supposed bull made by the city of London, in denominating coals on the Paddington canal, sea-borne: but the fact was not so—Inland coals brought to London did not pay the coast duties, but a particular duty imposed by government for the protection of the revenue they derived from the importation of sea-borne coals into the port of London. The House were next amused by the gallant colonel with the history of the great stone in the River Thames. He stated, that a Customhouse officer was sent down to this stone for the purpose of preventing a cargo of Welsh coals from being introduced into the port of London. The consequence was, the vessel returned, and the unfortunate officer remained ever since at his post—"Infelix These us sedit et semperque sedebit." [Hear, hear!].—But really the subject was of too much importance to be trifled with in this way. In Consequence of the heavy duty payable on sea-borne coals, those carried by canals were preferred whenever they could be procured. The consequence was, that a great number of vessels were thrown out of employment, and thus the principal nursery for seamen was discouraged. Sea-borne coals had lately been excluded from several ports and districts which they formerly supplied viz. Boston, Lynn, Northampton, Bedford, Newport Pagnell, and many others. That exclusion had diminished the sale to the amount of 50,000 chaldrons in the year 1817, when the last calculation was made; and had those 50,000 chaldrons been taken, as before, from the port of Sunderland, employment would have been given to 50 ships, now laid up, and 350 seamen annually, besides numerous labourers employed in loading and delivering ships.— He need not impress on the House the importance of protecting that coasting trade, from which in the event of any war breaking out, our best seamen were drawn. They had heard from the hon. member the reasons which caused the tax on coals in Wales to be removed—and they knew, that in 1793 it had been repealed with respect to Scotland. Why, he asked, was this boon withheld from England and Ireland? Three hundred and fifty thousand chaldrons of coal were annually imported into Ireland: and in his opinion, that favour which was shown to Wales should be extended also to Ireland. When they considered the impoverished state of the people of this country, surely it was right that this boon should be bestowed on them. Day after day they saw charitable societies formed to supply the poor with coals, either gratis or at a cheap rate. But surely more good would be effected by repealing the tax than could ever be derived from the benevolent assistance of the charitable and well-disposed. It was a most extraordinary circumstance, that this article should be taxed in places to which it was brought at a great expense and with considerable difficulty; but that it should be free from impost, where it could be procured with scarcely any trouble. This surely was not the liberal principle on which taxation should be founded—but he could point out many instances where the same defect was observable. The inequality of the tax would easily be demonstrated by the fact that Middlesex and Surrey paid 9s. 4d. duty per chaldron—14 other counties 6s. The former paying 7s. 2d. duty, the latter 1s. 1d. for each human being: whilst four counties paid two farthings, and 21 counties paid nothing. And supposing the population of England and Wales to be 11 millions. The House would find that the duty was levied on 4½ millions, whilst 6½ millions paid nothing. The chancellor of the exchequer had said, that were the duties taken off, the price to the consumer would remain the same, because the proprietor would raise the price. That he denied—and all experience was against the assertion. The repealing the war-duties had occasioned no increase—on the contrary the price had diminished at the mouth of the mine 1s. a chaldron—and this would always be the case whilst that competition existed in the north, which natually arose from the great extent of mineral property in full work. It was said, by the hon. colonel, that the income tax did not affect the poor; but, setting aside its inquisitorial operation and the vexation with which it visited persons of confined income—leaving these considerations out of the question—he would maintain that it was a tax, which if not directly, did indirectly, press on them, since it prevented those persons from employing them, who, if it were not in existence, would have possessed the means as they really possessed the inclination. If ever that detestable impost was introduced, he would humbly, but as firmly as he could, express his abhorrence of it. [Hear, hear!].—If it were brought forward again (notwithstanding the taunts of the hon. colonel) who said that the tax had been repealed, in order that the incomes of the rich should be spared, while the poor were oppressed (a sentiment which he was astonished to hear so loudly cheered), he hoped the House would do its duty, and repel the proposition with the indignation it deserved—[Hear].

in explanation, said, he had expressly recommended a property, and not an income tax.

opposed the principle which many gentlemen had expressed themselves in favour of, namely, that of a tax on coals at the pit's-mouth. Such a tax would affect every person, of every description, in the country. It would be worse than that odious tax which disgraced their history, called the poll-tax. The latter only affected persons who had arrived at the age of puberty, while a tax on coals at the pit's-mouth would affect every man, woman, and child, in the country. The hon. member censured, in strong terms, the part taken by the city of London on this question, and concluded by expressing his determination to vote against the motion.

thought that the whole question might be resolved into this issue —whether coals should be subject to little or no tax in places where it was cheap, but be subject to a considerable addition in places where it was already dear. A tax which in its nature was unequal, must be injurious to the country at large. He thought that the argument derived from the antiquity of this tax was of no importance, and that if coals were introduced in those parts of the country where wood was at present grown for fuel, an opportunity would be afforded of adding to the extent of land fit for cultivation. It was for the advantage of the country that every thing of service to the community should be furnished to the public as cheap as possible.

supported the motion, principally on the ground that the tax operated so heavily on one part of the country, when other parts, and particularly the vicinity of the coal countries, were exempt. The only just principle of taxation was, that it should be equal on the taxed commodity upon every class of his majesty's subjects. But he thought the tax on coals one of the most partial and grievous taxes under which the metropolis and its vicinity laboured, and therefore he should vote for its repeal.

rose amidst loud cries of question. On which he observed, that the hon. member for Donegal should not prevent him by clamour from doing his duty to his constituents [Order, order]. If any other member, connected with Scotland, had addressed the House on this subject, he should have thought it highly indecorous in him to have trespassed, for a second time, upon its indulgence, but he rose to protest, in behalf of his native country, against any measure which could possibly lead to a general equalization of the duties upon coal throughout the empire. Such an impost was anticipated in every part of Scotland with the strongest feelings of alarm and dismay; not only because it would be highly injurious to the manufacturers, but because it would be an act of gross injustice towards the community at large, inasmuch as the tax on sea-borne coal had already been commuted in Scotland for an impost of a different kind. It had been said, that this motion was not for an equalization; but he was decidedly of opinion, that this measure if successful, must inevitably be followed up by a proposition from his right hon. friend the chancellor of the exchequer, to make up for the deficiency thus occasioned in the revenue, by imposing a fresh duty upon coals throughout the kingdom (cries of No, no). Other gentlemen might think otherwise; but this was his sincere conviction, which had been greatly strengthened by the candid avowal of an hon. and learned gentleman behind the treasury bench (Mr. Courtenay), who supported the removal of the existing duty, on the ground that it must inevitably lead to an equalization. The hon. mover had stated, that he had an excellent substitute to propose; but he (Mr. S.) was of opinion, that, in the present state of the country, any unexceptionable tax that could be suggested, should not be adopted in lieu of, but in addition to, the existing imposts. As to taking off this duty, without providing a substitute, such a course was quite impracticable. He had voted, during the present session, against the abolition, or even reduction, of any existing tax, and should continue, however reluctantly, to pursue the same course; because he thought that, in the midst of our actual embarrassments, it would be unfair towards his majesty's ministers, and unjust towards the public creditor, to increase the difficulties of the one, and impair the security of the other, by cutting off, at such a crisis, from the national treasury, any productive source of revenue. He considered the present question to be, whether we should leave the coal duties to be paid by those, who, from time immemorial, had been liable to them, or impose a fresh burthen (by equalizing the tax) upon many industrious and public-spirited manufacturers, who, after struggling for years under the pressure of unexampled difficulties and privations, were only beginning to emerge from this state of suffering and distress, and would naturally consider an additional duty to be an unjust and grievous hardship. They were a class well intitled to the protection of the House, because they contributed very largely, not only to the revenue, but to the maintenance of the poor, in the districts to which they belonged; and he should therefore show the interest he took in their welfare, by opposing the present motion.

said, that after the personal allusion made to him by the hon. member who had just sat down, he must require an apology from that hon. member to the House.

was about to reply, when a loud cry of Chair, Chair! called up the Speaker, who said he was sure the hon. member must be aware, on a little consideration, that if he thought any hon. member interfered with his right of expressing his opinion, it was his duty to address the House on the subject, and not that hon. member. He was persuaded, therefore, that under the circumstances of the case, the hon. member would see that he had been wrong.

disclaimed any offensive personal allusion; but as there was a loud clamour the moment that he rose to address the House, it was natural that he should feel annoyed by it. He certainly was ready to make every proper apology for his warmth [Hear, hear!].

rose to vindicate the city of London from the aspersion cast on its conduct by an hon. member. The hon. member should not forget that on every emergency the city of London had always been foremost to manifest its loyalty, and to advance its extensive and liberal aid to the government. The celebrated income tax, the discontinuance of which was so much lamented now by his majesty's ministers, he believed originated with the city of London, and he had the satisfaction to add, that it was the spirit and persevering firmness of the 'city of London which gave the mortal blow to that odious and inquisitorial tax. The hon. member should also recollect that although the city of London petitioned against this tax as a heavy grievance, the population of the city was not as one to ten of those in its vicinity who felt its pressure, and who were much less able to bear it; and more especially the manufacturing orders and labouring poor in its suburbs and surrounding vicinage, who were most grievously affected by this tax.

in the present exigency, was not for reducing the revenue. On the contrary, if the finances of the country were placed on a sound footing, and a rigid system of public economy adopted, no man would be more ready to pay himself, and to vote for the payment by the nation at large, of such taxes as the good of the state might require. But the duty under consideration was most unfair and partial, and he must enter his protest against it.

said, that with repect to the apprehension expressed by some gentlemen, that if the tax were repealed in London, instead of lowering the price here, it would only transfer it to the owners of coal mines, who would directly charge a much higher price on coals at the pit's mouth, he could speak from his own knowledge, that for the last 18 or 20 years, not a shilling had been raised on the price of coals at the pit's mouth; on the contrary, it had diminished one shilling per chaldron for three years past. The coal owners charged at the pit but 16s. the chaldron, and this at a time when the poor of London were paying 1s. the bushel. He should support the motion.

supported the motion, because he thought an equalization of the duty preferable to the present tax, which he considered partial and oppressive.

said, he should vote against the tax, because he thought it extremely oppressive in the metropolis and the surrounding country, and he should vote against an equalization, because he thought it would be ruinous to the manufacturing districts.

defended the conduct of the city of Bristol in petitioning against the equalization tax, because they thought it would immediately occasion a considerable rise on coals at the pit's mouth. But with respect to any tax on coals, there was but one opinion in all Bristol, and that was, that the tax should be repealed altogether. He trusted the time was not far distant when all the taxes of the country would call for revision, and when the relinquishment of this oppressive tax would be forced upon his majesty's ministers.

said, that in rising to oppose the motion, he was directing his hostility to the equalization of duty; for he was convinced, that if the present duties were repealed, new ones of such a nature would be immediately resorted to. Any alteration to which his conception led him would be unjust and grievous to his constituents. The county which he had the honour to represent, and the district in which he lived, was filled with coal mines and studded with manufactories; to it any duty would, in consequence, be highly injurious and unjust; for they had built large edifices for their manufactures, upon the faith of cheap fuel, and the coal proprietor had embarked his capital in mines on the faith of their continuance. But what would be the situation of the poor in many parts without wood and without coals, and to whom coals must be carried more than twenty miles on almost impassable roads, and under a latitude of nine months winter? No man agreed more fully in what fell from the hon. member for Durham on the subject of taxation. He would oppose every tax which tended to support corruption or military despotism; but when he could see that the tax was just, and it was, in his judgment, necessary for the conduct of the state, he would as readily vote for its continuation. London had such advantages as no other part of the kingdom could boast.—A court, a parliament, a judicature, and all the attendant wealth belonging to them expended in it—a national bank—an East India monopoly— charities—donations — schools — asylums without end—high prices for labour, and every comfort and convenience, when the power of working ceased, gave it privileges and advantages no other place could attain. He opposed this bill, then, in its first stage, and should continue to oppose to the best of his ability.

observed, that as the existing duty was most oppressive and unequal, and bore peculiarly hard on those whom he had the honour to represent, he felt it his duty to support the motion.

replied. After which, the House divided: Ayes 49; Noes 15.1. Majority against the motion 102.

in calling the attention of the House to his intended measure for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors in England, observed, that the unanimity with which the committee appointed to investigate the subject, had agreed to the principles of the bill which it was his intention to propose, relieved his mind, in a great measure, from the embarrassment he should otherwise feel, in bringing forward so important a question. He was bound to apologize, however, for introducing the bill before the report of the committee was printed. His motive in doing so was, the necessity impressed upon his mind of originating the bill without farther delay, at so late a period of the session, in order that it might be printed as soon as possible, with a view to a full discussion of it in the future stages after the report had made its appearance. For this reason he should now enter more into detail than would be proper under other circumstances in so early a stage. It was unnecessary for him to explain to the House, that the old law of debtor and creditor gave to the creditor a power of inflicting unlimited imprisonment on an insolvent. The principle on which it went was this—that the debtor was able to pay, and therefore ought to be confined until he had paid. But, beside the falsehood of the principle itself, the consequences proved most injurious both to the debtor and the creditor in many instances. On the one hand, unfortunate persons who had not the means of paying were kept in confinement, while, on the other, many persons who could pay remained in prison, and set their creditors at defiance. The first measure of relief to the severity of such a system was that entitled the Lords' acts. The principle of this measure was, to entitle the debtor to his discharge on surrendering his property, except it was objected to by any one of his creditors: and in order to secure him against malicious detention, the objecting creditor was obliged to pay him what was called his groats, a sum which was afterwards increased to sixpence. Notwithstanding this regulation great inconvenience was experienced. The gaols be- came so crowded, that recourse was had to temporary insolvent acts, which were also objectionable in many respect. They were objectionable as ex post facto laws; they were also objectionable, from the inequality of their operation. Tile debtor, who was confined but a few months, was liberated under their provisions, as well as the debtor who was confined for as many years. The consequence was, that whenever an insolvent act was expected, the gaols became crowded with debtors who were anxious to take advantage of it, in many instances, to defraud their creditors. Under these circumstances, it was found necessary to enact a permanent law, which was first brought forward in 1813. The principle of this law was, that not the body, but the property of the debtor should be considered as the satisfaction to which the creditor was intitled. Such a principal was obviously the best for both parties, and in order to carry it into effect a new court was established. Every one approved of the principle, but the bill contained defects in its particular enactments, which led to great abuses. Two attempts were made to remove those defects, but the whole of the four acts that were passed upon the subject had proved inadequate. Among the principal defects, was that of conducting the examination of accounts in open court. It was clear that they could not be examined in such a place with that accuracy which was desirable, and many instances occurred, in which property was kept back instead of being given up to the creditors. Another defect was, that the debtor could choose his own time, after the lapse of three months, to demand his discharge, from whence it often happened, that the prisoner lived in the rules of the Fleet or King's-bench until he had spent all his property, and then applied for his release. He was aware that there were provisions in the present act to remedy these imperfections, but they were found to be insufficient. The third defect was, that the creditors had no power to compel the debtor to apply for his release before his property was entirely expended. These were the main objections to the law as it stood, but there were minor ones, into which he would not enter at present, as they must lead him more into detail than he was willing to enter until the bill came regularly before the House. To remedy these disadvantages, he should propose, in the first place, that an examination of the accounts should fake place before they were examined in court, as was done under the bankrupt laws. For this purpose, it would be necessary to appoint three commissioners in the Insolvent debtors court, instead of one, and as the court was one from which there could be no appeal, such an addition to the number of the judges was the more reason-able. One of the commissioners should preside at the meeting of the creditors, and no creditor who did not prove his debt at that meeting, should have any claim upon the property. This, he thought, would lead to a bonâ fide division of the debtor's effects. To correct the second evil, he would propose that the debtor should be obliged to make his option whether he would take the benefit of the act within fourteen days after his arrest. If he did not do so within that time, he should be considered to have forfeited his claim to be released under it; but the creditor should still be enabled to apply to the court for the purpose of obliging the debtor to apply for his release, in order to come at his property. This provision was not intended to apply to persons confined on mesne process, as it was possible they might not have been arrested for just debts. There were other parts of the system which required improvement. Fees were established now in the Insolvent court, which the bill in contemplation was intended to abolish. He was aware that some objections might be made to such an arrangement, with a view to particular instances; but the best mode of proceeding he thought would be, to adopt the principle of abolition; and if there were any instances in which it might be proper to retain the practice of allowing fees, to make those instances exceptions to the general rule. What he had HOW said applied to the case of debtors confined in London; but in order to apply the bill to those confined in the country also, he would propose that the magistrates of the quarter sessions should appoint examiners to investigate the accounts, who should report to them in the same manner as the commissioners should report to the court in London. He certainly did not expect that any great objections could be made to the principle of the bill; it was possible that some might disapprove of the additional expense to which the appointment of three commissioners instead of one must lead; but when they considered that the object was to relieve unfortunate debtors from oppression, and also to benefit creditors themselves, he trusted that the expense would not prove an insurmountable difficulty. As great abuses had taken place in consequence of the removal of debtors in the country, from the place at which their creditors resided, to a distance where they could not attend to oppose them, the bill contained a provision, enabling the court in London to select that part of the country for the examination of their accounts where most of the creditors resided. The power of removal should, for the reason already stated, be made not to depend on the debtor himself. Having so far detailed the nature of the measure, he should now move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors in England."

agreed with the noble lord, that the present was not the time to enter into any discussion, but as much misconception had gone abroad with respect to the views of the petitioners, he wished to state, that no indisposition was shown, cither by the petitioners, or by any of the witnesses, to the adoption of some measure for the relief of unfortunate debtors. He concurred with the noble lord in general as to the remedy with which he proposed to meet the evils of the present system, but wished to reserve to himself the right of discussing some of the points when the bill came properly before the House.

said, that this question was of so much importance to the interests of the country, and to the cause of justice and humanity, that he should be the last man to oppose the measure because a little more expense might be incurred by it. He should think it his duty, when the bill was introduced to consider what would be the most economical arrangement. He could safely assert, that with the exception of the question regarding the poor-laws, his mind-had been more embarrassed upon this subject than on any other. The bill originally brought forward in the other House, by lord Redesdale, had almost totally failed; it had been productive of the most lavish waste of property on the part of the debtor, and of great hardship towards the creditor. After complimenting the zeal with which the noble lord had entered into the subject, and the success with which he appeared to have encountered its difficulties, he pledged himself to afford every assistance in his power to render the bill as perfect as possible.

also complimented the noble lord on his exertions, and expressed his entire approbation of every part of the bill. The object being one which had frequently occupied his mind, and the disadvantages of the present system having frequently come under his observation, he was the more anxious to afford every assistance in his power towards the completion of a measure so beneficial to the public.

thought that a favourable opportunity now presented itself to his majesty's ministers, to correct the general administration of the law with respect to bankruptcy and insolvency. A great expense might also be avoided. There were at present fourteen lists of bankrupt commissioners, costing the country 35.000l. a-year. Now if, instead of these, three judges of insolvency were appointed, with a salary of 3,000l. a-year each, a great saving would be effected, and the property of bankrupts and insolvents would be divided with greater promptitude and advantage.

could not agree with the hon. member, that such an alteration as he proposed would be attended with any advantage. On the contrary, he thought it would create a complicated and expensive system, which would be intolerable. He did not think that the increase of commissioners, as suggested by the noble lord who proposed the bill, would be attended with advantageous re-suits. He would admit that the introduction of some auxiliaries to the present commissioner might prove advantageous.

hoped that the bill proposed to be introduced would be extended to Ireland. The evils of the present system had been deeply felt in that island.

had no doubt but that the laws of Ireland could be assimilated with those of England in this respect, and that the provisions of this measure could be extended. He entirely agreed in the defects of the bill which at present existed, and the melancholy effect it had upon Ireland.

wished to put a question to the chancellor of the exchequer on the subject of an article in the Courier newspaper of this day, which appeared to be, and would be considered by the country, to be official. The article in question was as follows:— "As a parliamentary measure calculated to facilitate bullion payments, it is proposed to make provision for the gradual repayment of the sum of ten millions due to the Bank. Such repayment to take place before the commencement of bullion payments, that is, before the 1st February, 1820."—Now, as this was a subject of the greatest importance to the country, he wished to Know from the right hon. gentleman, whether any intention was really entertained by government of paying to the Bank this sum of ten millions before the 1st February 1820? The article in question expressly stated this to be the principal feature of the resolutions to be moved in both Houses. When the public were filled with apprehensions respecting the diminution of the circulation, such a paragraph, bearing to be official, could not fail to fill them with the greatest alarm. A statement however from the chancellor of the exchequer, of its being an unauthorized paragraph, would relieve them from their anxiety.

rose to object to articles in newspapers which any member might choose to consider official, being made the foundation of questions like this. The House were bound to interfere to prevent any question being put to a minister on the subject of an article in a newspaper bearing no signature. In such a case, ministers must either remain silent, or commit the public interest by a premature declaration of their intentions. He rose to protest against a practice which had never yet been suffered, and never would be suffered by the House.

was surprised that any member should consider any article in a newspaper official. In the resolutions to be moved, there was indeed an allusion to the payment of 10 millions to the Bank, but not a syllable about the time when it was to be paid. He hoped that no answer would be given to a question so irrelevant.

said, the article in question carried on the face of it the stamp and character of official.

trusted the hon. member would, on a little reflection, be convinced that this was the first time that a question was put to any minister on an article in a newspaper, on a subject of such conse-

§

quence. A practice like this would be attended with the most inconvenient consequences.

said, he felt all the objections to the question which had been stated. He was sorry that the hon. gentleman should have been misled by a private communication to put the question; and he hoped the hon. gentleman would never hereafter consider any article in any newspaper as official. With respect to the paper in question, he could not help saying, that he had seen much in that paper that he entirely disapproved of.

proposed a resolution, that leave be given to bring in a bill, "to limit the continuance of the operation of the several acts for imposing Fines upon Townlands and places in Ireland, in respect of offences relating to the unlawful distillation of Spirits, and to amend the said acts, and to provide for the more effectual prevention or suppression of such offences." He intimated that it was his intention, in the event of his obtaining leave to bring in this bill, to accompany it with several regulations, which would, he trusted, in the interim, obviate many' of the objections that had been made to the present mode of preventing illicit distillation in Ireland. It was known that in the barony of Innishowen, where illicit distillation at one time raged, it was effectually extinguished by the energy of an effective police; now his intention was, that wherever this police was established, and effectively acted upon, no townland fines should be levied, and that after the summer of the ensuing year, the effect of the measure should be reviewed. He wished, in the interim, to have a clause in force, giving any county a power to apply to the lord lieutenant to call into action, in the particular district, the townland fine system where it might be deemed necessary. He was also prepared to mitigate the operation of the existing practice, and instead of levying the fine where the head or worm of a still was found concealed, only, to levy it where the machine was found complete. Another mitigation would be, to bar the infliction of fines after three years. In the event of a county calling in the aid of the police system, it was intended that government should pay one-half of the expense, and the county the other. With respect to the encouragement of small stills, he thought such a measure could be better introduced in a separate bill. He concluded by moving, "That the chairman be instructed to ask for leave to bring in the said bill."

did not rise on the present occasion to oppose this motion. No man was more anxious than he was to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. But he was afraid that the effect of this measure would be to divert from the resources of the country a portion of the revenue of Ireland; and when this result was known, then they would be taunted with the unproductive nature of their revenue, though in fact the defalcation was occasioned by mismanagement. Though he had strong objections to the motion, on account of what he considered would be its effect upon the revenue, yet he had a still greater and more insuperable objection to what he conceived would be its operation upon the morals of the people. The effect of the existing system had been, he thought, in a great degree, to rescue a large portion of the lower classes from the miserable condition into which they had been previously sunk by the practice of illicit distillation. He sincerely hoped his predictions, that a repeal of the existing law would renew the old evil, would not follow. He honestly and fairly thought the proposed measure a bad one, and that it would induce a recurrence of the old evil. Being of this opinion, he would certainly in a future stage oppose the bill.

expressed his cordial satisfaction that the attention of ministers had been at length drawn to the abominable operation of the townland fine system in Ireland. He had always been of opinion, that the moment the evils and distresses which that system provoked were fully explained to the House, redress would be inevitably obtained; and the result verified his anticipation. The proposition of the right hon. gentleman was, to substitute another, and a modified measure for that which was now in such oppressive operation. He earnestly hoped the alteration would succeed, and answer every fair purpose. Whether it did or not, no consideration should induce him to countenance a continuance of the townland fine system. Independent of its notorious inefficiency, he had a fundamental objection to it, which would not be shaken if even the existing system was successful instead of being unavailing—this objection was, that it was unconstitutional and unprincipled—it broke down the barriers between the guilty and the innocent, and punished with indiscriminate severity.

urged the necessity, in whatever measures were taken, of keeping in full view the necessity of suppressing illicit distillation, which was so fruitful of evil. He did not believe the existing law to be so unjust and improper as it had been represented to be, nor did he hope for much good from the proposed measure.

felt himself bound to go hand in hand with the chancellor of the exchequer, in using every exertion to render his meditated measure available. Nobody doubted the necessity of suppressing illicit distillation; but the consequences of the townland fine system were dreadful, and could no longer be endured.

said, that the operation of the existing system was so oppressive and intolerable in Ireland that no change could be for the worse. In fact, the people would have preferred the terrors of martial-law to the continuance of the townland fine system. It was, indeed, the same thing. The only difference was, that the people were oppressed by disciplined troops in a brown uniform instead of a red; and instead of having, in cases of outrage, the protection of honourable men on courts-martial, they had a court of excise, which he was sorry to say, showed no disposition to mitigate the oppression of the system, and which constituted in itself the separate offices of judge, jury, and executioner. The experiment, as it was called, of the townland fine system, was bad; it failed to produce any thing but indiscriminate oppression wherever it had been tried—look, for instance, at the county of Donegal, where armies of excisemen were let loose upon the people— their motive was their rewards, and their rewards were provided by the existing law: fraud, and chicanery, and cunning, were sure to triumph. He had for a considerable period called the attention of the House to the oppression of the existing system in Ireland; he had repeatedly moved for papers with the view of exposing its monstrous effects. His motions were either met with an unseemly refusal, or when carried, their effect re- tarded, he might almost say lost, by the dilatory manner in which the orders of the House had been obeyed. Three separate motions had been in succession made for the production of papers ordered by the House, and it was only when the terror of committal was resorted to that they were found to be forthcoming. He was glad to find the eyes and ears of ministers open to this question; and he was sure, now that they looked at the existing oppression with a serious intention of removing it, they would find the most cordial co-operation, on the part of the gentlemen of Ireland, in suppressing illicit distillation, which, besides being the bane of the morals of the people, withdrew their labours and attention from the cultivation of the soil, which pro tanto subtracted from the wealth of the country, by diminishing the rent of the landlord, and operating injuriously upon the profit of the labourer.

stated, that, as the representative of a city which contained a large body of opulent distillers, whose interests were at stake, he thought, on their part, he had a right to complain of the conduct of his majesty's government on this question. They first displayed a decided hostility to this motion; they then yielded to their opponents, and without notice, or giving any reason for changing sides, took the opposite course; the consequence of which was, from its versatility, very injurious to the interests of the chief distillers of Ireland. He begged to guard himself against any idea of being supposed to countenance the means by which the townland fine system was carried into execution in Ireland. No man could suspect him of countenancing arbitrary or oppressive proceedings; but he still thought the chancellor of the exchequer, after his avowal upon the subject, had placed himself in rather a perilous alternative, in submitting to the abandonment of a system which, according to his opinion, had considerably tended to put down illicit distillation in Ireland. A great alarm prevailed respecting the intended measure for the establishment of small stills. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would not overlook the protection and consideration which was due to the existing large distilleries. He hoped that full time would be given to have this bill printed, so as to let the large distillers understand the situation in which they would be placed by the alteration.

strongly contended against the evils of the existing law. He did not wish to see any interest unequally operated upon, but he denied the right or the power of the larger distilleries to impose restrictions upon the operation of a measure which, he was persuaded, would have a most salutary tendency. The county of Donegal, was an example of the oppressive effect of the existing system.

reprobated the existing system. On the Connaught circuit the calculation was, that it annually led in that district to a thousand perjuries. He was sure that the alteration of the law would have the support of ninety-nine out of the hundred Irish members.

repeated, that the measure was not likely to produce universal satisfaction. He had that day attended a most respectable meeting of Irish distillers, who were certainly at sea upon the question. They had had communications with the chancellor of the exchequer, but were by no means satisfied with the projected measure.

said, that the only object, and he thought it a fair one, of the Irish distillers was, after having embarked large capitals on the faith, he might say, of parliament, to be protected against the consequences of an alteration in the chancellor of the exchequer's system.

said, that some of the Irish distillers had waited upon him that morning, in a state of considerable alarm; but, previously to their leaving him, they did not seem dissatisfied at his projected measure, while they certainly wished, and very naturally, for protection for themselves.

congratulated general Hart on the perseverance he had shown, in bringing this question to what he trusted would be a successful termination.