presented a petition from Robert Hawkes and Edward Taylor, sheriffs of Norwich, complaining that the assizes for the city were only held once a-year. The grievance of which the petitioners complained was a very serious one. The House was aware that, under the present regulations, the assizes for Norwich were only held once a-year, and that the spring assizes for the county did not extend to the city. The city of Norwich had, therefore, the same grievance to complain of as the four northern counties, which had already been under the consideration of the House. The spring assizes for the county of Norfolk were held at Thetford, and the summer assizes in the city of Norwich. One individual, committed on the 11th Sept. 1819, was confined ten months in prison previous to trial; two were committed on the 30th Sept. 1819; one on the 6th Oct. 1819; two on the 15th Jan., and one on the 3rd Feb. 1820. The petitioners expressed their hope that the House would take the subject into their serious consideration, in order that they might enjoy the same right possessed by nearly the whole of the counties of England. The hon. member trusted that the wisdom of parliament would devise some means of redressing this great grievance.

thought that the grievance complained of could not be expressed in too strong language, and objected parti- cularly to the unhealthiness of the cells in which the prisoners were confined. Several of these cells were three feet below the surface of the ground, and the only day-room for the accommodation of the prisoners was eight feet below the ground, and consequently very damp and unwholesome. At the time he examined the prison, there were then ten untried prisoners, of whom the eldest was 18, and they were only divided from the convicts by an open railing. There were four cardinal points which were peculiarly deserving of attention on this subject—classification, inspection, constant employment, and moral and religious instruction. Three of these were wholly neglected in the gaol in which these prisoners were con6ned.

did not deny the existence of the grievance complained of, but thought it might be easily remedied. The Norwich sessions might be empowered to try those prisoners who had been confined for any length of time; or the prisoners might be removed to the town of Thetford, there to undergo their trial. He saw no reason why a short bill should not be introduced to this effect.

objected to the two remedies proposed by the hon. member: to the first, because he thought it would be an act of injustice; and to the second, because an unnecessary expense would be incurred.

brought up the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the possibility of Steam Engines consuming their own smoke. He said that the object of the inquiry had been completely answered, and he trusted that, ere long, the metropolis would be freed from the nuisance to which it had been long subject. He intended in the next session to introduce a bill, to declare the law upon the subject, and to prevent those nuisances from being longer continued.

said, he held in his hand a petition of rather a singular nature. It was one from Mr. Hugh Campbell, a student at law, complaining of the conduct of the Highland Society of London. The petitioner, it appeared, had been inspired by a laudable zeal for the literature of his country, and had undertaken tours through the Hebrides, and the province of Ulster, for the purpose of illustrating the topography of the poems of Ossian, and particularly that of Fingal. It might be worthy of remark, that in the college of Madrid were to be seen large and accurate maps of the tour of Don Quixote through the various provinces of Spain, and the petitioner seemed to be actuated by a wish to perform some such task with respect to the poems of Ossian. In the petition he had asserted that the Highland Society was bound to remunerate him for his labour, and he complained that that society had refused him compensation. The hon. member was not aware in what manner relief could be afforded to the petitioner; but he felt it his duty to lay the petition before the House.

having risen to make his motion respecting the Tax on Malt in Scotland,

said, he should inform the noble lord what he intended to do, that the noble lord might know how far his motion was rendered unnecessary. He should propose a temporary allowance of 6d. per bushel on malt made from big or beer, under certain regulations.

said, that this concession was so inferior to what the people of Scotland considered as due to them, that he should persist in his motion. The grounds on which he objected to the tax lately imposed on Scots malt were three. I, That it had been the practice for more than a century to impose on Scots malt only half the duty that was imposed on malt in England; 2, that a less tax had been generally imposed on beer or big than on barley malt; and 3, that the tax was passed at an improper time and in an unfair manner—in the last week of the last session, when scarcely any Scots members were present, or knew of the bill. The effect of the increased duty had been such in Scotland, that the distilleries could no longer work except at a loss. The fact was, very few of the great distilleries had worked during the last twelve months, and those only were satisfied with the duty as it at present stood who found means of defrauding the revenue. It seemed probable, indeed, that this in-crease of duty on Scots malt had originated in some mistake, for a letter written in October from the Treasury, in answer to an application from Scotland, the 23rd of August last, stated that the increase of duty on Scots malt was 1s. 2d. per bushel, whereas it turned out to be 1s. 9½d. Petitions had poured in against this tax from every part of Scotland. Upon the cultivators of inferior soils, where the inferior descriptions of barley were grown, it was most oppressive. The small stills, which had been encouraged by government for the counteraction of illicit distillation, were now obliged to cease working, and to give way to unlawful competition. The noble lord having urged his arguments against the tax, under the several heads mentioned, said, he should propose certain resolutions. The resolutions stated, that in the malt duty acts of 1725, 1760, 1779, 1780 and 1787, the principle had been recognized, that the rate of duty on malt in Scotland should be one half of the rate of duty on malt in England; that by those and various other acts, smaller duties had been imposed on beer or big, than on barley malt; that by the act of the last session, the duty on malt had been increased 16 per cent in Scotland and diminished 23 per cent in England. The resolution with which he intended to conclude the series was to this effect—that the departure from the principle previously acted upon in the imposition of the duties on malt had been injurious to the agriculture and general interests of Scotland. The noble lord moved his first resolution.

said the practice with respect to the imposition of the duty on malt had not been entirely uniform; for in 1713, six years after the Union, 6d. per bushel duty was imposed on Scots and English malt equally, though 12 years after it was reduced in the case of Scotland. There was obviously great inconvenience in the existence of unequal taxation in different parts of the island. It was to be observed that in 1802, a tax of 1s. O¼d. per bushel, and in the next year 2s. more per bushel had been imposed on malt in Scotland as well as England; a tax not much less than that which existed at present. Though on the whole the English might be somewhat superior to the Scots barley, yet much of the barley of Scotland was quite equal to that of England; and in many of the counties of England, especially the northern counties, the English barley was inferior to the average of Scot- land. He allowed that in the case of beer or big there was a claim for a reduction of the duty, and he proposed to grant a temporary allowance of sixpence per bushel. If the duty in Scotland were less than that in England, it would be necessary to prohibit the intercourse in grain between the two countries, because 250,000 quarters of barley had been imported into Leith from England, and would probably be sent back in the shape of malt or strong ales. He should, therefore, persevere in the principle which parliament had adopted, and would move the previous question.

could not agree that there should be no deviation from the old proportion of the duties in the two countries, though he wished the duty to be somewhat lower in Scotland than in England.

said, that the only point on which he meant to divide the House was this, that the existing duties were too heavy.

complained that the act imposing an additional duty on malt made in Scotland, was passed at a late period of the last session quite unexpectedly, when a great part of the Scotch members had left town. He professed his determination to vote for the resolution.

said, that if the agriculture of Scotland had improved, it was owing to a very spirited expenditure of capital in that country, and not to any cause connected with the taxes. Formerly, much encouragement was given to the establishment of small legal distilleries. The act for that purpose passed parliament four or five years ago, and produced the most beneficial effects. But since the act of July last, that encouragement was entirely taken away, and the consequence was that the revenue was very much diminished by the number of smugglers. He put it to the right hon. gentleman, whether it would not be for the benefit of the country, even with a view to revenue, to allow the occupiers of land to distil the corn grown within their own lands.

said, that from the variableness of the climate in Scotland, it frequently happened that a great part of the corn was damaged before it could be got in, and was rendered unfit for consumption in any way except in the way of distillation. But when the duty on all kinds of grain was the same, it acted to the exclusion of that damaged grain from the distilleries. He did not ask that the duties should be reduced to one half; but he thought it extremely necessary to diminish them to some extent.

rose, to call the attention of the House to a subject which materially concerned the agriculturists of Ireland; namely, the present system of collecting the tithes. As an instance of the practical inconvenience and injustice of the present system, he held in his hand a receipt for 3l. 8s. paid by a small farmer in Ireland to a tithe proctor, who, instead of summoning the farmer before a magistrate for a sum of 18s. 10d. which was due. issued a subpoena from the Court of Exchequer, on the 19th of May, calling upon the farmer, who lived at a distance of fifty miles from Dublin, to appear in the Court of Exchequer, on the 2nd of June following, thereby incurring an expense of 2l. 10s. for the recovery of a debt of 18s. 10d. The present was a system of oppression on the poor tenantry, as would appear from the returns on the table, in which it was stated, that in five counties there were no less than 1,400 tithe actions at one quarter sessions, besides exchequer subpoenas. He only wished that the law which passed the House in 1817, should be extended to Ireland. The measure which he had now the honour of submitting to the House had the approbation, not only of the parochial clergy, but of many of the Irish bishops, as it was intended at once to relieve the poor from the oppression of proctors and tithe farmers, and to secure the interests of the clergy. He should now move for leave to bring in a bill to enable the clergy to grant leases of tithes under certain regulations. He would wish the bill to be printed, and left in the hands of members until next session.

agreed that this would be a conciliatory measure, and tend to allay much of the discontent which existed in consequence of the system adopted in the collection oftythes. It would do away with much of the jealousy which existed towards the clergy of the established church, and would set at rest that which was growing up of late in Ireland; namely, the setting up claims to make articles titheable which had not been hitherto so. This measure had the approbation of the clergy.

had no objection to the bill being brought in and printed, but he wished it to be fully understood, that it was not a bill interfering with the general commutation of tithes, but a counterpart of a bill which passed the House in 1817, but which was thrown out in another House.

bore testimony to the oppression practised by tithe proctors in Ireland, and to the general approbation of the clergy of the measure proposed.

explained the object of the bill which he had supported in 1817, and said, if the present conformed in its provisions to that bill, he would support it.

said, in the present stage of the proceeding he should certainly not oppose it. He should, however, reserve to himself the privilege of examining its provisions carefully in a more advanced stage.

observed, that the bill of 1817 seemed not to be looked on by the church, generally speaking, with alarm, as might be proved from its not having been opposed by the bishops. It was solely rejected on the ground of its being brought forward so late in the session.

stated, that when he yesterday submitted to the House a resolution founded upon the king's message, relative to a provision being made by parliament for the other branches of the royal family, he had stated the general nature of the resolutions which he should this evening have the honour to propose to their notice. This would render it unnecessary for him to do any thing more than repeat the general principles upon which it was founded. The House were already aware that upon the demise of the queen a reduction of nearly 180,000l. immediately took place in the annual expenditure of the country; but that the saving really gained to the public did not amount to more than 160,000l., owing to the House thinking it proper that a provision, amounting to 18,000l. ought to be made for the menial servants who had been in the employment of her majesty. The saving of this sum was certainly of great advantage to the country; but as a set-off against it he must now propose that 24,000l. be granted to his majesty to enable him to provide for the servants of his late father. The House might, perhaps, be aware, that there was no precedent to sanction such a grant to the servants of a deceased king, though such a provision had been made for the servants of a deceased queen, after the demise of queen Mary, queen Anne, queen Caroline, and the dowager princess of Wales. To the servants of queen Mary a grant of 24,000l. had been made; but the provisions for the servants of her late majesty had been made upon a much more narrow and confined scale, no pensions being asked for her state officers, but only for her menial servants, though in former cases it had always been usual to grant them for life to both descriptions of persons. The House would also perceive that one reason why grants of this nature had never been made on any previous occasion to the servants of a deceased king was, that his successor, having his establishment to form, had it in his power to retain in his service those who had been in the service of his predecessor, and that in consequence of that circumstance it was not requisite to call upon parliament to make any provision for them. At present, however, the case was otherwise. His present majesty had had, for many years before he acceded to the throne, a regular establishment, which rendered it impossible for him to continue in his service those who had been in the service of his father, unless indeed he discarded some of those who had served him faithfully; and therefore it became necessary for the ministers of the Crown to apply to the liberality of parliament. This they now did, not in behalf of his late majesty's state officers, but in behalf of those who had attended him in a menial capacity. Of these there were four classes. The the first of these, which consisted of servants who were actually in the king's service at the time of his death, and had been so for many years previously, he should propose that a grant of 9,519l. should be made. To the second of them, which consisted of servants on the Windsor establishment, discontinued, on the reduction of that establishment some few years ago, he should propose that a sum not exceeding 4,100l. should be granted. The individuals who composed this class had, in consequence of the reduction to which he had just alluded, been provided for out of the privy purse of his late majesty; but gentlemen would recollect, that the salaries which were received out of it would naturally be discontinued as soon as that privy purse ceased to exist. To the third of them, which consisted of persons who had received pensions from his majesty's privy purse, he should propose that 10,500l. should be granted. He could assure the House, that of this sum 8,000l. had been granted by his late majesty out of his privy-purse previously to his lamented illness; and the persons who shared it among them might therefore be supposed to have? claims upon his favour and bounty, either as old and valued servants, as men of letters, or for various other causes which it was not necessary for him then to enumerate. All such salaries, allowances, and pensions, had not been brought before the notice of parliament, as it was clear that some of them had only been granted during his majesty's life, and therefore must naturally cease with it. It was only intended to continue these allowances to those who appeared to have the best claim to them. The fourth class consisted of persons who had only been a short time in his late majesty's service, and to whom it was proposed that one year's salary should be continued upon the discontinuance of their employment For these he should demand a grant of 403l. The whole sum which he called upon parliament to grant was 24,000l. The House ought to avail themselves of every opportunity which occurred of showing their reverence for his late majesty, and he thought that they could not have a more favourable opportunity than the present for doing so. He therefore trusted that the House would evince their liberality by supporting the grant which ministers felt it their duty to propose to its consideration, in order to provide for the late servants of his majesty.

observed, that if the House consented to grant these sums in their present shape, they would establish a precedent which would lead them an indefinite length in the way of example on every demise of the Crown. Though unwilling to object to the whole of the resolutions, he could not bring himself to vote for them as they stood at present, for many reasons:—first of all, because he found that a proper scale of compensation had not been adopted in the provision proposed, a person of 35 years of age being often placed in the same situation as a person of 65 years, who had spent half his life in his majesty's service: secondly, because many of the individuals to whom he alluded were not retiring on half pay, but were receiving their full salaries and allowances when they were performing no services, and were thus adding an additional and unexpected burden to those which already pressed upon the country: thirdly, because they were able to discharge other offices, and thus might be provided for in another manner. Indeed, he could not help observing that until the present time no one had ever beard of these charges on the privy purse. Why, then, might they not be continued on it, or why might they not be transferred to the pension-list? Besides, there were large savings out of the privy purse of his late majesty, and those savings were, he understood, in the absolute disposal of the Crown; why, then, might not the grants which parliament was called upon to supply be furnished out of those savings? If it should be deemed inexpedient to supply them in that manner, and if parliament should decide that they should come from the pockets of the public, he trusted that ministers would, as the lives on the pension lists of England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively fell in, place the individuals for whom it was now proposed to provide by those grants upon them, and would not, by rendering these grants annual create as it were a fourth pension-list. He thought these resolutions ought to be postponed, in order to their being further considered; and he would therefore advise his noble friend either to refer them to a committee, or else to reconsider them with his colleagues. He had no wish to press economy to an extreme; but extravagance, in the present state of the country, ought by no means to be tolerated, especially as one act of extravagance was now-a-days generally made a precedent for another.

said, the noble lord had Stated that there was no precedent for continuing the salaries and pensions to the servants of the king after the death of their illustrious master; and yet he had called upon the House to imitate the precedent of 1819, which he had defended by three others, and from which it appeared that it was usual to continue such salaries to the servants of a deceased queen. He also called upon the House to imitate it: for they would recollect that a committee had then sat and had recommended the scale of pensions which the House had afterwards adopted. If the noble lord would look to one of the documents then presented to the House, he would see that the committee had stated, that there were two classes of servants to be rewarded. In the first class no individual was admitted who had not been in the service of her majesty for 8 years at least. The salaries of the servants in this class amounted to 5,721l., and the pensions granted to them to 4,100l.; so that there was a difference of full 20 per cent between the salaries enjoyed and the pensions granted. The first case upon which he cast his eye was one in which the person enjoyed a salary of 183l., and had only a pension of 164l.: the next was one in which the salary was 377l., the pension only 300l. But, in the present case, the noble lord proposed pensions equal to the whole salaries, though the committee had recommended that not more than one-fourth of the nett salary, discarding all allowances, should be paid to any servant in the way of pension. If the noble lord thought the precedent of 1819 so worthy of imitation, why did he not recommend the same scale of reduction as was then adopted, and continue consistent to his own precedents? The committee of that day had recommended that only 4-5ths of their salary should be granted as pensions to those who had been in her late majesty's service for a less period than eight years; but in looking into the present estimates, he saw that one individual who had only been two years in his majesty's service, and who was only 22 years of age, and another who had been only one year in his service, and was 28 years of age, were presented with their whole wages, 16 guineas, as a pension for life. Now he would ask the House, if an individual who had been only two years in his majesty's service, and was only 22 years of age, was entitled to the whole of his wages as a pension for life, what ought an individual belonging to the first class of persons mentioned by the noble lord, as between 60 and 70 years of age, to receive as a reward for his services? The present was a question of great importance, and he could wish it to be postponed to a future day. If ministers should persevere in pressing this vote through the House, he should certainly feel it to be his duty to move, that the pensions should be reduced upon the same scale as was applied in 1819, and that the persons who enjoyed them should be placed upon one of the pension lists, as regularly as the lives of those now upon it fell in.

was extremely happy to hear that it was not the intention of ministers to grant any pensions to the great officers of state, as he had long thought that the great chamberlains, &c. about the court might be well content with the dignity which they enjoyed, without debasing it by receiving a-salary. Among the names of those who had received pensions out of the privy purse, he found those of Sir W. Herschel and Miss Herschel, for400l. There was not a man in the House who did not think that that pension had been most worthily earned—that it did the highest honour both to the head and heart of his late majesty, and that it ought, on every consideration, to be continued. But was it right that the claim of Sir W. Herschel, a gentleman 85 years of age, to the bounty of the nation, should be placed on a level with those of sundry musicians, only 45 years of age—respectable men in their situation in life he had little doubt—who were to be presented, according to the estimates, with 130l. a year for life? There was one circumstance which he could not refrain from bringing before the House. He had been told, that West, who was equally illustrious in his department of science as Herschel was in that over which he presided, had been presented with a pension by his majesty, and that that pension, on the demise of his majesty, had been stopped immediately, and without any notice. If the rumour was not true, he should like to hear it contradicted, because as West before his death was in want of assistance, it ought not to have been denied him. He thought that there was great weight in what had fallen from the hon. member for Corfe-Castle, about applying the savings of the privy purse to a provision for the servants of his late majesty. He could not agree to the resolution now proposed, as it was inconsistent with precedent, and economy.

observed, that, with a limited pension-list, however much it was to be regretted, it was still evident that circumstances would arise which rendered an application to the liberality of parliament absolutely necessary. He thought the circumstances of the present case fully justified him in appealing to it, notwithstanding the objection by which he had been met, that if this precedent were established, others would be defended upon it He could not see into futurity; but as the present circumstances were so very extraordinary, he thought it would be still more extraordinary if similar circumstances should again occur. In proposing the present pensions, they had by no means continued the late salaries, because the persons who held them had along with them board wages, and many other emoluments. The pages of the back stairs were particularly entitled to the pensions which it was proposed to grant, as they had been employed about the person of his late majesty till his demise, and, to their honour be it spoken, no anecdotes derogatory to his dignity or painful to public feeling had escaped to the public. With regard to the late Mr. West, he was not a pensioner on the Crown, but a repairer of his majesty's pictures under the lord chamberlain, and received his salary from the lord chamberlain's office.

enforced Mr. Hume's view of the proposed grants, thinking that according to the precedent referred to by the noble lord, they ought to be reduced at least one-fifth.

stated, that according to the recommendation of a committee upon the subject, there was a compensation granted to the queen's servants in lieu of perquisites, in addition to the vote alluded to by the hon member for Aberdeen, and therefore that hon. member's comparison was erroneous. With regard to Mr. West, he was enabled to say not only that the allowance from the lord chamberlain's department was continued to that illustrious artist to the end of his life, but to add, that Mr. West received 1,000l. a year from the privy purse of his majesty, with a view to encourage the arts, and that the whole of the sum thus granted by his majesty, whose patronage of the arts was proverbial, amounted to no less than 40,000l. The several resolutions were agreed to.

asked, whether it was the intention of the noble lord to keep the order which was fixed for Friday in abeyance, until the lords should pronounce their decision upon the subject? If such were the noble lord's intention, it would be a very uncommon course of proceeding.

observed, that the proceeding instituted by the lords might never be brought in any legislative way before that House, and, therefore, he proposed only that the order for considering his majesty's message should be delayed, but that the House should by no means abandon its right of inquiry upon the subject.

hoped the House would not agree to the course proposed by the noble lord. If no other member would take the sense of the House upon the subject, he should feel it his duty to do so.