rose, to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the act of the 57th of George III., for effectually preventing seditious meetings. The object of his bill was, to lessen the expenses attendant upon actions instituted to recover damages done by riotous mobs. To show how necessary it was that the present system should be amended, he would state the expenses that had been incurred upon some actions which were tried at the two last assizes for Surry. Eleven actions were brought to recover damages to the amount of 69l. 7s. 6d. the taxed costs upon which amounted to the sum of 1,106l. 9s. 10d. The costs upon four other actions for the recovery of 7l. 6s. 5d. amounted to 501l. 6s. 10d. The taxed costs upon one action for 15s. amounted to 112l. 9s. 6d. The remedy he should recommend was, that the party receiving the injury should at once render an estimate of the amount to the overseer and two neighbouring magistrates; that appeal should lie to the quarter sessions; and that the treasurer of the county should be enabled td levy a rate on the hundred for the amount.

said, he had intended to introduce a measure having the same object as that now proposed. He fully concurred in the propriety of the bill. The evil complained of arose out of the necessity of bringing the action before the higher courts, which, as the law now stood, could not be avoided.

thought, there might be some mode of investigating the actual damage, so as to prevent imposition, without the verdict of a jury, which would save the unnecessary expense, and upon which the magistrates might assess a rate upon the county.

said, it was a great misfortune that in a well-regulated country the costs of an action of this sort should be twenty-two fold the amount of the damage done. He trusted that this measure would be a precedent for other bills, which might save the people from being law-ridden as they now were—their best blood being sucked up by this vampyre. It was the duty of parliament to devise means by which the people should have justice brought to their doors without this enormous expense.

rose, to move for leave to bring in a bill to alter the mode of chusing Juries to serve on Criminal Causes in Scotland. It was well known, that the justiciary, or criminal court, sat in Edinburgh at all times of the year, except while it was going the circuits, which occurred twice a year. To this court all matters of a criminal nature might be referred. Besides this, there was another, under the jurisdiction of the sheriff, who was not art officer chosen as in this country, but a magistrate appointed by the Crown, with the power to administer justice in certain civil and criminal cases. In all cases, except those of high treason, the lord advocate proceeded by a process similar to our ex officio information, there being no grand jury. A jury of fifteen persons decided upon the guilt or innocence of the accused; but in this decision it was not necessary that they should be unanimous, a majority of them being sufficient. On the day of trial 45 persons appeared, from whom the jury was afterwards selected. Now, the measure which he intended to submit would not object to the manner in which those 45 persons were brought into court, but to the mode in which the 15 who were to try the case were selected; namely, by the presiding judge. They were taken by fives and fives; and being thus selected, they sat down to try the case. The parties accused were not allowed to object to the selection as such; for that would be to impute an improper motive to the judge, which would not be admitted. The only objections which could be made on the part of the accused were certain legal ones. They might object to persons against whom a conviction for any crime had been recorded; to parties as bearing spite and malice against the accused; and to persons who were deaf or dumb, or who were under age. All these, no doubt, were very proper objections, where they could be made, but he believed it rarely occurred that they were made. The alteration which his bill would make was small in appearance; but be considered it of import in principle. It was, that instead of the selection of 15 being made by the presiding judge, it should be by ballot out of the 45; and he would also propose that both to the accused and the prosecutor, certain challenges should be allowed. This alteration was not his own; it was modelled on a measure which had been recently introduced into Scotland, in juries appointed to try civil actions. This was enacted by an act of the 55th of the late king, and, after an experience of four years, it was made permanent by the 59th; which was a proof that it was considered a salutary measure. The hon member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the bill.

did not rise to offer any objection to the introduction of the measure, but begged of the House not to allow itself to be prejudiced by the statement which the hon. member had made, for he should be able to show, on the second reading, that a more uncalled for and unwise measure could not be devised.

presented a petition from Petermrough, complaining of the distressed state of Agriculture. He fully concurred al one statement of the petitioners; namely, that a great portion of the distress arose from the return to cash payments. He did not now mean to dispute the propriety of a measure of which he had been a worm advocate, but he stated the fact as it was—that prices had been reduced by the increase which that measure gave to the value of the currency. The increase of the burthens of the people had been most enormous. He could prove, even admitting the argument of his hon. friend (Mr. Ricardo), that the increase in the taxes since 1819 amounted to 9,000,000l. This was made up by the increased value of the currency, and the three millions of taxes imposed in 1819. Taking the average of several years, it would be seen that the farmer had now a far greater portion of his produce to pay in taxes. He would not maintain, that the low price of commodity was not in itself a sufficient cause of the existing agricultural distress; but this he would maintain, that a superabundance of produce could not of itself have produced it. Supposing the farmer were to pay all the demands made upon him—for instance, his rent, tithes, and taxes—not in money, but in kind—would it not be clear that, in such a case, an abundance of produce would be of considerable advantage to him? How, then, could it be maintained, that abundance of produce, under the existing state of things, was the chief cause of the evils by which the agriculturist was now oppressed?

said, it was true, that, if the produce of the land was divided into certain proportions, every party would be benefitted by an abundant crop; but his learned friend having come to that conclusion, left his argument there, instead of extending it a little farther. Now, he would ask his learned friend whether, if the quantity of commodity were excessively abundant, that was to say, the double, treble, or quadruple of an ordinary crop, it would not be a cause of poverty to the agriculturist? He maintained that it would be so; for the farmer, after having satisfied the consumption of himself and family, would find, upon going to exchange the surplus of his commodity for other commodity, such a competition in the market as would compel him to dispose of it upon very low terms; and thus abundance of produce would be to him a cause of distress. It was true that, from the alteration of the currency, the evil had been aggravated; for it was clear that it rendered it necessary to sell a greater quantity of corn to answer the demands of the government and the landlord. But he now contended, as he had at all former times contended, that, up to a certain point, for instance, 10 per cent, great loss had been derived from the change in our currency; but that the rest of the distress was to be attributed to the increased quantity of produce.

said, that having last night endeavoured, but in vain, to persuade the committee to reduce the number of men for the service of the year, he now wished to put upon record the opinion which he entertained regarding the large amount of the present standing army. He was not anxious to prevent troops from being sent to Ireland to put an end to the disturbances which existed there: quite the contrary; he wished those disturbances to be put down with all speed, whatever might be the of original causes of them. The only difference which existed between himself and the members of his majesty's government was, that he thought that there were already in Ireland troops enough to effect that object. The way he made that assertion out was this. By the estimates that had been presented to the House, it appeared that in Ireland there were 18,397 men, and that in England, including reliefs, there were 22,462 men, making a total of 40,859 men. There were also three veteran battalions, which increased that total to 43,550 men. Now he contended, that such a number of men, exclusive of the assistance to be derived from the artillery, who amounted to 7,000 men, from the marines, who amounted to 8,000 men, anti from the troops in the colonies, exclusive of the East Indies, who amounted to 27,943 men more, was more than sufficient to quell the disturbances now raging in Ireland. The noble lord in his statement had omitted to take any notice of the artillery, marines, and veteran battalions, and had stated the amount of the forces at home and in the colonies at 68,802 men. Now he maintained, upon the declaration of the noble marquis opposite, that as the marines were performing the duty of regular soldiers in the Mediterranean, and the veteran battalions the same at home, they ought to be included, in future, with the artillery in the account of the regular army; and, in that case, the military force of the country would amount to 86,493 men, instead of of 68,802 men, as stated by the noble lord. From that number he wished to take 10,000 men. That was the extent of the proposition he had made, and for making it he had been taunted with inconsistency by hon. gentlemen opposite. He maintained that, upon the necessity of reducing the army, he had always been consistent. The noble marquis opposite had said, that any saving, however small, that could be made without detriment to the public service, ought to be made without delay. Now, he had kept that declaration of the noble marquis continually in his view; and, upon seeing that the expenses of the army in the year 1822 amounted to between seven and eight millions, whilst in the year 1792 they did not amount to more than 2,331,149l., he had become convinced that the difference of expenditure in the two years was greater than ought to be permitted, He had therefore proposed a reduction of 10,000 men, by which a saving of half a million would he gained to the country. The hon. gentleman who was under-secretary for the colonial department had called the saving which he had proposed a petty, paltry saving, and had implored the House upon that account to reject it with disdain. He did not know whether the being a few weeks in office had produced such an effect upon the hon. gentleman as to make him conceive the saving of half a million a petty, paltry saving; but he did know this, that the hon. gentleman had told the House, that the hon. member for Aberdeen, in his petty, paltry public savings, wished to sacrifice the honour and safety of the country. Now, he trusted that no proposition which he had ever made was deserving of the disdain of the House. Indeed, he thought that the term "disdain" was an improper term for one member of parliament to use towards another: and if it were used for the purpose of deterring him from examining the financial arrangements of the country, he treated it with that contempt which he trusted he should always treat such propositions as talked of half a million being a petty, paltry saving. Having said thus much to the hon. under-secretary, he must now express a hope that the gallant general, the member for Liverpool, was in his place, as he had a word or two to say to him regarding the insinuation which he had thrown out against his (Mr. Hume's) profession. My profession, Continued Mr. Hume, is as well known as that of the gallant general; and if I were to ask him, what part of his professional conduct got him the regiment which he now has the honour to command, he would perhaps find more difficulty in answering the question than I should, were he to ask me to what measures my success in life was chiefly owing. [Loud cheers from the ministerial benches.] Hon. gentlemen may cheer as much as they please; but when allusions are made to the private history of any member, it is done for some mean, improper purpose, and not from a sense of public duty.—He was sorry to say that there were several gentlemen on his side of the House, who viewed a standing army with as much delicacy as the gentlemen opposite, and who were inclined to look upon it as the best protector of our rights and liberties. He would, however, ask those gentlemen whether, if 53,000 men were a sufficient force for the country in 1792, 76,000 men were not sufficient in 1822? He had said nothing of the considerable increase which had taken place since the former period, in the number of our militia regiments, and our volunteer and yeomanry corps. After this statement, he thought he had said enough to convince the House, that 76,493 men would be sufficient for the service of the year. He would not dictate to ministers. He would merely take from them 10,000 men, and leave them to decide from what force they were to be taken. He should now move an amendment, by leaving out "68,802," and inserting "58,802" instead thereof.

thought, that the hon. member for Aberdeen would have done better if he had made the speech with which he had that evening favoured the House, on a former evening in the committee, and when the hon. member for Liverpool was present to repel the attack which had been made upon him. He begged leave most distinctly to assert, that he had never made use of the expressions "petty, paltry savings," whatever might appear to the contrary in those historical fragments of the day of which they had recently heard so much. Neither had he said that the proposition of the hon. member ought to be rejected with disdain. He would show the House, by a repetition of what he did say, that he could not have used any such language. The hon. member for Aberdeen had said, that the reduction effected in the colonies did not exceed 400 men. Now, he, (Mr. W.) had shown, that the forces in the colonies last year amounted to 32,467, and in the present year to 27,913, which proved a reduction of from 4 to 5,000 men. He had then said, that if the hon. member took no more care in his other financial assertions than he had done in that which he had exposed, he should feel it right to reject his propositions in future with disdain.

explained how the mistake, which he allowed he had made respecting the amount of the reductions in the forces of the colonies, had arisen. It was from having found the forces differently stated in two different papers: in the one, they were only stated rank and file; in the other, their officers were also included. He assured the 0House that he never made any statement without deliberation.