said, it might be thought requisite for him make some apology to the House for submitting to it the general state of the financial operations of the year, before it had acceded to a large portion of the estimates which it was generally thought necessary to pass previously to any winding up of the statement of the public expenditure. It had generally been deemed proper to go through the whole of the votes of Supply before the Ways and Means were submitted to the House, containing a review of the operations of finance by which they were to be substantiated. He was obliged, however, to deviate from that course on the present occasion, owing to the late period to which the session had been protracted. Each side of the House mutually charged the other with being the cause of delay; but, without staying to inquire to which of them it ought to be attributed, he should take it for granted that they were all agreed to let the public business proceed henceforth with as little interruption as possible. He could assure the House that his statement could not be deferred any longer without great inconvenience to the public interests. In the first place, it was desirable that the general statement of the finances should be submitted to parliament before the arrival of that period of the year in which its members left their residences in London for the country; and, in the second place, it was necessary that certain votes should pass before the 5th of July. The House was aware that the sinking fund, according to the resolution passed in 1819, was only voted to the 5th of July. Now, the sinking fund for 1821 would expire within a few days; and unless a vote to continue it were passed before the expiration of that time, it would be impossible, without much irregularity to prevent the loss of a quarter. If no vote were passed before the 5th of July, the commissioners would be bound to apply a fund of three or four millions, which they now had in hand, in a manner which would not only be highly inconvenient to themselves, but which would also create an irregular purchase of stock by no means desirable. He should therefore state the expenditure according to the estimates laid before parliament, although the whole of them had not yet obtained its sanction; taking care, however, to observe the constant rule and practice of parliament, that the grant of no sum should be made that was not absolutely required for the public service, and leaving, with all due constitutional jealousy, in the discretion of the Crown, no sum of un appropriated money, which, even though it were not misplaced, would still be dangerous from the precedent it would establish. He should therefore proceed to ask for a sum which would cover all the services of the year, as well those which had been sanctioned by parliament as those which had not; and in doing so, he could assure them that he was not asking for a single farthing more than was necessary. Having stated to the House his reasons for bringing on the budget at a time when several of the services of the year were yet under consideration, he should next proceed to state the amount of the different votes, and the Ways and Means by which he proposed to defray them. The sum wanted for the military service of Great Britain and Ireland amounted to 7,925,000l. of this sum 6,530,000l. had been already voted, and the remainder had not. The naval services amounted to 5,480,000l. and had all been voted. So had the ordnance services, amounting to 1,200,000l. Of the miscellaneous services, amounting to 1,700,000l.—764,000l. had been voted for Great Britain, and 50,000l. for Ireland, besides which 100,000l. had been voted to Ireland in a committee of Supply. The remainder, amounting to above 790,000l. was to be found among the estimates which at present lay upon the table. There was also on the table a charge of 310,000l. for the out-pensioners of Greenwich hospital; 1,200,000l. for interest upon Exchequer bills; and 291,606l. for payments for services charged upon the aids of the year, but not specially voted. Thus the amount of services already sanctioned by parliament was about 15,300,000l. and there remained for services for which the estimates had not been voted 2,500,000l. making a grand total of 17,815,000l. But there had likewise been made during the present session considerable advances for t he reduction of the public debt. There was a charge of 290,000l. for sinking fund on Exchequer bills, and of 2,801,000l. for the re-payment of the holders of 5 per cents, of which 62,000l. for the re-payment of the holders of Irish 5 per cents remained yet to be voted. There was likewise to be voted 290,456l. for the deficiency of the Ways and Means for 1821. He would here enter into an explanation to show that be had not been negligent of his duty last year, when he left a deficiency to the amount he had just stated. Gentlemen who had attended to the debates of last year, would recollect that he had at that time submitted to the committee that a deficiency was likely to arise in consequence of some circumstances which affected the out-pensioners of Greenwich hospital. The whole expense both of the in-pensioners and out pensioners had been defrayed, up to the last year, out of the funds of the hospital itself. A great part of those funds was vested in stock, and arose out of the share of prize money to which it was entitled during war. Now, as there was no prize money coming into its coffers during a time of peace, its funds had become so reduced, that the accountant-general of the hospital had found it necessary to state to government his opinion that no payments could be lawfully made from it to the out-pensioners, and that the expense of supporting them must thenceforwards devolve upon the public. That opinion was referred to the consideration of the Crown lawyers; and though their decision upon it was not known at the time he made his last year's financial statement, he had still felt it his duty to state that a deficiency was likely to arise, and that a demand of the nature he had just mentioned would be made upon the public. As soon as that demand was made, he proposed an act of parliament to enable him to issue Exchequer bills to meet it. About 260,000l. had been so paid; and an explanation of the services for which the remainder was required would be found in a paper upon their table. Now, if these three last mentioned sums, amounting together to 3,381,456l. and all employed for the i reduction of the debt incurred, were added to the 17,815,000l. of which he had before spoken, it would appear that the total sum wanted for the services of the year was 21,196,456l. To make good this amount, he should now propose his Ways and Means, stating at the same time, that part of them had been already agreed to by parliament. In the first place, annual taxes to the amount of 3,000,000l. had been already voted. These taxes last year amounted to 4,000,000l. but they had been reduced this year to 3,000,000l. by the reduction of the annual malt duties, which formed a large constituent part of the annual taxes of last year. The next item was 1,500,000l. reserved upon the tea duties, and 200,000l. upon the lottery. [Hear, hear!] There was some objection, it appeared, to this latter mode of raising money; he wished that those who objected to it would point out to him some other mode less objectionable of raising it. The next item was, old stores 151,000l. That item last year amounted to 163,100l. but, as it was one that arose from the general equipment of our forces, it was evident that it would diminish during peace, from time to time, until it reached the average of consumption. In the last year's budget, they had had the advantage of 500,000l. the surplus pecuniary indemnity payable, by France. He was not able to transfer this sum longer to the credit of the country. The accounts of the manner in which it had been expended last year lie had not been able to present to parliament; but he trusted that he should be able at the commencement of the next session to show the full appropriation of it. There was, however, 110,000l. to be the commissioners for issuing Exchequer bills for public works. These sums, added of together, amounted to 4,961,000l. To complete, however, the supply for the service of the year, he proposed to contract a sinking fund loan of 7,500,000l. And here he thought it might be as well to explain why he did not intend to take a greater sum under the present circumstances. Last year 13,000,000l. had been voted from the sinking fund alone; but this year 7,500,000l. would answer his purpose. He would explain to the House how that happened. In the last year the sinking fund loan had been 13,000,000l. in the two preceding years 12,000,000l.; and now, he again repeated, he intended to reduce it to 7,500,000l. His for so doing were these. In the first place, his wish was, that the sinking fund for the present year, instead of extending from the 5th of July 1822, to the 5th of July 1823, should only extend to the 5th of April 1823. His reason for this was, that that in the next session of parliament he intended to propose to its consideration a measure for a general revision of the sinking fund. He should not therefore like to tie up the commissioners by a strict appropriation to so late a period as the 5th of July; and for that purpose he limited his sinking fund loan to 7,500,000l. If they supposed four quarters to be taken at the same general amount, it would amount to 10,000,000l.; and one reason why he did not wish it to amount to more was, that a great reduction of the nominal amount of the sinking fund would take place at the end of the session. The House, by an act of this session, had appropriated 2,800,000l. to the payment of the pensions and the half-pay, which it was very evident would have an effect upon the nominal sinking fund. By referring to the papers on the table, it would be seen that of the 7,500,000l. borrowed from the sinking fund, there was taken from the sinking-fund of Great Britain, 7,350,000l. and from that of Ireland, 1.50,000l. It was proper that he should now call the attention of the com- mittee to the terms upon which this loan had been obtained every100l. sterling, 100l. had been give in the 3 per cent reduced annuities, and 24l. 10s. 7d. in the 3 per cent consols. Comparing the prices paid in the present year with those of last year, it would be found, that 130l. three per cent stock had been given in 1821, for 100l. sterling, which had been purchased this year 124l. stock. In one point of view it was not a matter of public importance whether a loan from the sinking fund was obtained at a lower or a higher rate; but it was of material importance, with a view to the public credit of the country, to know that there was an improvement of 6 per cent. He should now proceed to state what sum would be appropriated to the real purchase of stock. It would be found from the vote come to by parliament in 1819, and confirmed by that of the present session, that a clear sinking fund of at least 5 millions should be established. The total sum that would be applicable to the purchase of stock between the 5th July 1822 and the 5th July 1823, was 5,433,855l. Last year the sinking fund, it was calculated, would amount 4,415,333l.,, including 110,820l. to be paid by the East India Company. It would therefore be seen that the sum to be applied to the reduction of debt exceeded by about 900,000l. that reckoned upon as applicable to the same purpose last year, including in both cases repayments to the Bank; and in the present year a reserve for paying the dissentient holders of 5 per cent stock. The next item was a sum of 557,000l. from the East India Company. And here it might be for the convenience of the committee that he should enter into an explanation of the state of the claims of the East India Company. It was well known that during the last two years the company had advanced considerable claims upon the government, on account of various services performed for the country, and particularly on account of the St. Helena establishment for the detention of Buonaparte. The claim originally amounted to a sum of 1,900,000l.; which, if interest were granted upon the scale usually allowed, would establish a claim on the part of the Company to 5,000,000l. To that claim, however, a variety of objections was made by the agents of government; and a settlement was afterwards, adopted, on the only principle which could be adopted between the two parties. Each of them agreed in the arithmetical accuracy of the other's account. But it appeared to the Treasury and its commissioners, that several of the claims of the Company were not justified—that some of them had been previously rejected, and that others were even then under consideration. On the other hand, a large counter-claim of the public on the Company was disputed by the Company. The House would see that the only mode of settling such a dispute between two such parties was by a compromise. Hence the discussion of the question assumed the appearance of negotiation between two independent states. On the one side was the Company consulting the interest of the proprietors: on the other, the Treasury struggling to prevent any unjust claim from being made upon the public service. The question was therefore submitted to arbitration, and it was thought better by both parties that a sum should be first fixed on by the arbitrators, and afterwards be submitted to the wisdom of parliament, than that both of them should adhere to their strict rights, on which point no tribunal could decide between them. After much consideration it was thought fair and just to both parties, to allow the Company 1,300,000l. on its claim of 5,000,000l. [Hear, hear! and laugh.] He trusted that those who had read the papers would not think the Company hardly dealt with. He verily believed that the Company was satisfied, [Hear!] and on a review of the papers he thought that parliament and the public ought to be satisfied also. After this sum was allowed to be due to the Company, the next consideration was, to what purpose it should be applied? And here it appeared to him to be most just and equitable, that it should be applied to the reduction of the loan made to the Company by government in 1812. In proof of this, he referred to the act of the 52nd Geo. 3rd, under which that loan had been made. It was afterwards agreed, that the Company, upon the payment of 557,000l. in addition to the 1,300,000l. allowed to be due to them, should be freed from any future call for the repayment of that loan. It was more convenient to the public service that this sum should be carried to the amount of the present year, than that it should be disposed of in any other manner. By that arrangement, the public would be relieved from all claim on the part of the Company, and the Company from all claim on the part of the public. Of the 557,000l. agreed to be paid in liquidation of their debt, 27,000l. had been already paid to the government, and had been applied by it to the repayment of the holders of 5 per cents, and the remaining 530,000l. was at present due from the Company to the government. Now, if to the sums he had mentioned, 2,450,000l. were added, which would be received for the commissioners for payments on account of the half pay and pensions, they would have all the Ways and Means for the year, except that portion of it that was connected with the unfunded debt. And this led him to say a few words upon that important subject. In 1821, the Exchequer bills, unfunded, amounted to 29,000,000l. the Irish Treasury bills to 1,000,000l., and the bills for public works: and churches to 368,330l., making a total of 30,368,330l. Now, turning to the actual amount of the unfunded debt of Great Britain and Ireland, he found that in the year ending the 5th of January, 1822, the Exchequer bills were 31,566,550l. and Irish Treasury bills 1,105,181l., making a total of 32,661,731l. Adding to this sum 3,100,000l., which had been voted during the year for the deficiency of the Ways and Means of the last year, and for the payment of the holders of 5 per cents, they would have a sum of about 35,000,000l. The increase of the unfunded debt in the last year would, therefore, be nominally about 5,831,670l., but in reality not much more than 1,000,000l. if it were considered that part of the above sum was expended in renewing old Exchequer bills, and in paying off holders of the 5 per cents, which was equivalent to the extinction of a certain portion of our debt. The right hon. gentleman proceeded to observe, that lie should endeavour to show the actual amount of our means to meet the expenditure. He would assume that, unless some circumstances occurred to influence them, the produce of next year would at least equal that of the present. He found, that, for one year, ending the 5th April, 1822, the produce of the Customs of Great Britain was 9,325,000l.; the Customs for Ireland 1,418,000l.; making, together, 10,743,000l. The produce of the Excise of Great Britain for one year, up to the 5th April last, was 26,195,000l.;that of Ireland 2,111,000l.; making 28,306,000l.; but, from the Ex- cise must be deducted the amount of malt duty repealed, 1,500,000l., and also the loss on the salt duty, calculated at one half year's produce, 650,000l., making, together, 2,150,000l., leaving a nett sum of 26,156,000l. The stamp duty, to the 5th April, amounted to 6.637,000l. The post-office, 1,335,000l. The assessed taxes 7,525,000l. The assessed taxes, for Ireland, 1,300,000l., making 8,835,000l., from which should be deducted 500,000l.; leaving a nett sum of 7,335,000l.; but a further sum of 100,000l. might be expected, when the receivers-general should have paid in the balances; but calculating that sum at one-half, he would take the whole sum at 7,385,000l. The miscellaneous produced for the same period 380,000l. Old stores, 151,000l.; making, together, 53,033,000l., to which should be added 1,220,000l.; being one-fourth the produce of our annual taxes and tea duties; the whole amount would then be 54,253,000l. If the returns could have been made up to the 5th instant, the progressive state of the surplus would be found much more considerable; for, although the accounts only reached to Saturday last, he had the satisfaction of stating, that a surplus appeared beyond the receipts of the whole corresponding quarter of last year of no less a sum than 622,000l. So that, should the receipt of the total revenue for the present quarter only equal that of the corresponding quarter of last year, it must be highly satisfactory to the country, if the number of reductions in taxation which had since taken place were taken into consideration.

said, that the sinking fund was put forward by the right hon. gentleman, as what he might call the hocus pocus for the year. He had taken from that fund, and added to it in such a manner, that it was impossible to make the true state of it intelligible, without a distinct discussion with regard to it. The next point was the debt of the East India Company, upon which topic he must say, that he found some difficulty in comprehending the sort of liquidation that had been made. He was sorry that it had been pressed to a settlement; for it now appeared that we were debtors to the Company: at all events we were minus, as regarded that Company, 1,300,000l. The right hon. gentleman then went to the finances of 1823, and from this part of his statement, the House had learned, that the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues had come to the end of their reductions of the public expenditure. For in his estimate of the year 1823, he took all the estimates for the present year at the same amount for the next. But he should say, that if they were to have six millions of sinking fund next year, they ought to have nine or ten millions if those reductions were made which ought to be made. The annuity plan was a complete violation of the principle of the sinking fund, by placing a certain portion of debt upon posterity to relieve the present generation. The way that he should have recommended ministers to reduce taxation, would have been, by reducing the whole expenditure of the country. The finance committee of 1817 had declared, that the charge of the army, navy, ordnance, and miscellaneous services, ought not for the future to exceed 17,350,000l. Since that year, however, these services had regularly exceeded that sum, and the total excess had been 6,190,000l. This year there was only a decrease of 800,000l. He was sure, that if the committee of 1817 could have foreseen that a reduction of 30 per cent in all articles would take place, they would have made the estimates much lower. No saving, therefore, had in fact been made on this head; as would appear by their comparing the present estimates thus reduced with the amount which the committee of finance had stated the estimates at. Government should have reformed abuses, and particularly have pruned away the excrescent abuses of the mode of collecting the revenue. To give the House an idea of this, he would state a few facts. The revenue of the Excise amounted to thirty millions, and the charge for collection was 1,420,000l. being at the rate of 4l. 19s. per cent. The Customs produced somewhat less than 13 millions, and the expense of collection, was 1,479,000l., being at the rate of 13 per cent. He begged the House to look at this remarkable difference—the lesser sum requiring the larger amount for collection. This surely demanded investigation. For the hackney-coach duties, which produced 26,000l., the expense of collection was 4,000l. The hawkers and pedlars³ duty, yielding 31,000l. cost 6,000l. to collect, being at the average rate of 22 per cent. Was it to be borne by the public, that 22l. should be paid out of every 100. before it passed into the Exchequer? In the management of what was called the hereditary revenue of' the Crown, there was a similar necessity for inquiry. Again, in the Colonies, instead of being a source of revenue to the country, they were a source of expense. The commissioner for woods and forests, and an hon. colleague of his in the ministry, were colonial ministers upon large salaries. The business of the colonies ought to be transferred to the commissariat. It might be said that the sums paid to those colonial agents did not come out of the pockets of the people; but it mattered not from whence it came; it ought not to be needlessly squandered. He next came to a dead weight. Ministers, instead of filling up all vacancies from the half-pay and pension lists, went on creating new appointments. In the lottery-office returns, there appeared under the head of first appointments, one gentleman, aged 47, who received a salary of 255l. a year; there were also many other first appointments, in one of which cases the party was 57 years of age, and in another 69. In the hackney-coach returns, there were various first appoint- ments, one of the parties being 62, and the other 70, years of age. In short, there was only one instance in the returns of a person having been appointed who previously been removed from another office. He could not avoid alluding to the Bank of Ireland; for while the chancellor was issuing Exchequer bills here, at 3l. per cent per annum, he was actually paying 5l. per cent in Ireland. The Bank of England too received 275,000l. a year from government, and had been receiving not 3 per cent but 6 per cent from government [Hear, hear!]. It appeared that there was to be no reduction in the army, navy, or ordnance. Those establishments, it seemed, were kept up at a larger expense in consequence of the ill government of Ireland. The disturbances and distresses of that country arose, first, from the mal-administration of government; and, secondly, from the number of absentees. What objection could there be to a thorough examination of the public expenditure; not by commissioners, but by suitable committees of that House? There ought to be a complete revision of the financial system of the country. He was far from drawing a gloomy view of the situation of the country. The cultivators of the soil were in a state of considerable distress, and nothing would be more grateful to them than a reduction of taxation; and, regarding the present situation of all the great interests of the country, he thought this was the best time to look into these matters. The talent, the industry, the knowledge and science of the nation were increasing, and would enable them to pay even greater than their present burthens; but that formed no justification for increasing them unfairly. He was convinced the country would go on increasing in prosperity, not in consequence of its good government, but in spite of its bad one.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the result, if result it could be called, of the statements of the chancellor of the exchequer. He did not think that any gentleman would derive consolation from the determination to which government had come of keeping up the establishments of the country as they at present existed, without any reduction. The right hon. gentleman had told them, that the charge for 1824 was to be exactly the same as the charge for 1822. The second part of the result in question, was the state of the sinking fund. He had understood the right hon. gentleman to say, that we had for the present year a sinking fund of 5,000,000l., and that he hoped next year to have an equal sum applicable to the same fund, making together a clear surplus revenue, on the two years, of 10,000,000l., but he thought he should be able to show, that instead of our having in the two years a sinking fund of clear surplus revenue beyond the expenditure of 10,000,000l., we should have one, in reality, of about 2,000,000l. only. The surplus revenue was estimated by the right hon. gentleman at 5,000,000l. But of this amount, 1,830,000l. was charged on account of the transaction with the East India Company, making an addition of 70,000l. a year and upwards, for interest, on account of a burthen from which the Company had been relieved, and which was now imposed on the public. The next amount was to be paid to the commissioners for the management of the sinking fund, from the dead fund; but be confessed he did not at all understand this part of the arrangement. That amount was to be 2,400,000l. Add to this the East India charge, say 1,800,000l., and the total would be 4,200,000l. Then the right hon. gentleman admitted, that the increase of Exchequer bills was equivalent to 1,000,000l. Thus, the whole surplus, or rather more, was accounted for, and thus they would find the amount would stand in the ensuing year. An hon. friend of his had, in the beginning of the session, clearly proved that from the injudicious manner in which the sinking fund had been managed since the termination of the war, by the issue of Exchequer bills for the purchase of stock, and by the consequent raising of the market against the government, a loss of 5,000,000l. had accrued to the public. He must notice, in the next place the amount of the unfunded debt. The prices of stock, it was true, were high—from 81 to 82; and the right hon. gentleman might have good reasons or supposing that no event was likely to arise of a nature hostile to the public peace and prosperity. In this view of the case, the prices of the funds, it was most probable, would increase. But suppose hat any unforeseen accident should lower hem—what would happen then?—that hey would have been greatly raising he market against themselves, on account of buying with Exchequer bills. These gills they might be called on at some inure time to fund. This contingency had occurred once before; and why should it not occur again? The right hon. gentleman had talked a great deal about the present state of public credit. There could be no doubt that the finances of the country were in a flourishing condition. But if they really possessed the sinking fund of which the chancellor of the exchequer had spoken; it would be much better to remit taxes to the extent of such sinking fund. This would afford a sensible relief. They had already received one petition from Kent, praying for a reduction of the dividends; and although he would go along with the feelings of the House on that occasion, in reprobating such a violation of faith, as partially applied to the public creditor, and as more likely to aggravate than mitigate the evils complained of by the petitioners, he did not wonder that men who had been nearly ruined by proceedings which had so much added to the property of the public creditor should complain of the additional burthen continued upon them for a sinking fund. Let the House look back to the relative situation of the parties in 1814, or subsequently at the renewal of the war in 1815. The 3 per cents were then at 53, and gold at 5l. 8s. The 3 per cents were now upwards of 80, and gold only 3l. 17s. 10d. Nearly every shilling of funded property, which the public creditor possessed in 1814 or 1815, was now nearly doubled in value. On the other hand, every other species of property was now depreciated in about an equal proportion. The farmer's property was reduced in value, at least one-half. The public creditor's stock, on the contrary, had increased to double its former value and this, too, not in the ordinary course of things, but in consequence of the proceedings of the legislature. Really he must be of opinion, that the House ought to look into this matter with a view to reduce the national debt by some fair and equal contribution of all descriptions of property.

said, that the chancellor of the exchequer had held out great hopes of what was to be expected from the sinking fund, and had stated, that a mere accident only had prevented all those hopes from being realized this year, but that next year we should receive its full and effective benefits. He (Mr. R.) feared, however, that we should go on as well had done, and that some accident or other would continue to prevent us from enjoying those benefit which the chancellor of the exchequer had so flatteringly held out. If the committee took the account in the way in which the chancellor of the exchequer wished them to view it, there would appear a surplus of 5,000,000l. this year, and, that in 1824 there would be a surplus of 6,000,000l.; The right hon. member had, however, come at last to that point from which he (Mr. R.) wished to start, namely, that without a surplus of revenue over expenditure there could be no real or effective sinking fund. Now let the committee observe the manner in which the chancellor of the exchequer had made out the existence of such a surplus in the present year. He said that we had a surd plus of 4.961,000l. But, how stood the fact? Taking the total exchequer deficiency at 14,144,000l. and deducting it from 15,481,000l., the sum to meet it, there would remain only 1,400,000l. as a real and effective sinking fund this year "Oh!" said the chancellor of the exchequer, "We have by accident to pay the Bank 530,000l. this year, but next year we shall have no such incumbrance, and therefore our surplus will be complete." He wished to know by what process of calculation the chancellor of the exchequer could made out his 5,000,000l. this year? The revenue of the country was 53,037,000l, the expenditure was 51,119,000l. making a surplus of 1,965,000l.; this appeared to be the entire surplus of the year; but "No," said the chancellor of the exchequer, we have 700,000l. saved by the alteration of the five per cents.; we have also to make allowance for 2,600,000l. received." How this could be brought in under the head of surplus revenue he could not perceive. A sum of live millions might be easily made out; but would the committee call it a surplus of revenue? Then, again, the right hon. gentleman stated, that in 1821 there would be a surplus of 6,000,000l. But how was it to be obtained? It was to be obtained by taking credit for 4,875,000l. which was to be received from the trustees of half-pay and pensions. Now he would ask, whether there were no payments to be made on the other side of the account? The chancellor of the exchequer must know, that money so obtained could snot be looked upon in the light of receipts at all. The receipts in 1821 were calculated at 52,100,000l. and the expenditure at 50,600,000l. so that the real surplus on the 5th Jan. 1824, would be 1,800,000l. He agreed, with his hon. friend (Mr. Ellice) respecting the impolicy of diminishing our funded, while we increased our unfunded debt. He should recommend a diametrically opposite course of proceeding. Adverting to what had been said relative to the. Bank having reduced its rate of interest, he expressed his satisfaction at having heard the chancellor of the exchequer say, that the usury laws were unfair. There was no period at which an alteration in those absurd laws could be so properly and effectively introduced as the present, when they were, in fact, a dead letter, the market price of the loan of money being lower than the legal price. But he could not believe, that the reduction of interest made by the Bank had any general effect upon the value of money in the market, or upon the price of land, or of any commodity. If the Bank had doubled its circulation, it still would have no permanent effect upon the value of money. If such a thing had taken place, the general level of interest would be restored in less than six months. The country only required, and could only bear, a certain circulation; and when that amount of circulation was afloat, the rate of interest would find its wholesome and natural level. Undoubtedly he was very glad to hear that the Bank had at length began to discount at 4 per cent.; and he thought they should have done so long before. Had they persisted in demanding 5 per cent, they would have been without a single note to cash.

considered the nominal amount of the debt to be of much less consequence than the actual yearly annuity which the public had to pay in perpetuity. In 1815, the clear permanent charge of the funded debt was 27,638,902l. This year, he meant the gone-by year, had increased the charge to 29,800,000l. and upwards. Thus it was that we had increased our funded and lightened our unfunded debt. But the chancellor of the exchequer, instead of lessening this permanent charge, had augmented it to 30,911,000l., thereby increasing the annual charge of permanent annuity by about 1,100,000l. In this case, too, there was no reduction of funded debt. On the contrary, there was this year to be an increase of between four and five millions. As for the amount of the sinking fund, he did not know where his hon. friend (Mr. Ellice) had been able to find any fund at all.

said, before he f had heard, the statement of his right hon. friend, he was satisfied, from his own knowledge of the public accounts, that there was what the hon. member for Portarlington described to be the only true sinking fund—a surplus of income, above all expenditure, of five millions. According to the judgment of the hon. member for Aberdeen, there was no surplus whatever; in the opinion of the hon. member for Portarlington, there was about one million surplus; but he thought he could convince him the real amount was very different, even according to the hon. member's own mode of stating it. He had stated the expenses of the army, navy, ordnance, miscellaneous, extra expense in Ireland, and Greenwich hospital, to amount to 17,815,000l. Add to this the deficiency of ways and means for 1821, 290,000l.,making together the sum of 18,105,000l. The first item of ways and means of this year for the discharge of these services, as taken by the hon. member for Portarlington, was, for annual, taxes, tea duties, &c. 4,961,000l., leaving the sum of 13,144,000l. The resources for making good this charge, were, first—The sinking fund of the year 15,481,000l., one-half year's, of interest on the five per cents 700,000l., add payments by the commissioners for half-pay pensions, 2,450,000l., making 18,631,000l., deduct from this sum the charge of 13,144,000l. leaving a surplus of 5,487,000l.The hon. member for Abingdon seemed to be dissatisfied with the settlement of the accounts between the public and the East India Company. Now what was fact? An account of 30 millions, that had not been closed for nearly 30 years, had been settled in a manner satisfactory to both parties. The result of that settlement was, the payment by the Company to the public of 530,000l., the entire extinction of all demands upon either side up to April 1822, relief to the Company from all future charge of interest for the loan of 2,500,000l.contracted in 1812, and a charge upon the consolidated fund for the future, of 70,000l. per annum. The hon. member also objected to his right hon. friend, that he had estimated the expenses of the coming year, at the same amount as the past. But this should rather be matter of congratulation than complaint; because, as his right hon. friend had estimated, the surplus of five millions in the next year with the expenditure upon the same scale as the last, it followed that, if any reductions should be found practicable, the surplus would be, to that extent, augmented. In respect to those commissions of inquiry, of which the hon. gentleman thought so lightly they had done more, in conjunction with the executive government, towards retrenching the expenditure during the last five years, than could have been accomplished by any committee of that House.

thought the right hon. gentleman had forgotten, in taking credit for 530,000l. to be paid by the East India Company, that, by receiving that sum, we cancelled an account of 1,800,000l., which we had against them. He had, therefore, now 1,800,000l. less in assets than at the commencement of the year. But since that Company was to pay 530,000l., that must be deducted from the 1,800,000l., leaving 1,300,000l., which we had been entitled to receive, but should be so no longer.

declared himself friendly to a sinking fund. When they looked at the amount of the debt due to the public creditor, they must he satisfied that a sinking fund could alone tend to its extinction. It was on this account that he had ever felt disposed to advocate the principle of keeping up the funds at the highest price. The right hon. gentleman might thus hope reasonably enough, that he should be able to reduce the interest due to the public creditor. There were two ways of effecting such a reduction of interest. One of them he should denominate as fraudulent and scandalous, as one which would involve the country in ruin, overthrow all the institutions of the country, and prove effectually destructive to the landed interest. The second, and the more equitable mode, was, to raise the price of stock so high that the individual creditor should be contented to take a smaller interest on his debt than he had received before. If government performed its promise on the subject of economy, he was not without hope that the 4 per cent stock might be reduced to a lower rate of interest, and perhaps the 3½ per cent. stock reduced to three. With regard to the present distresses of the country, he saw no reason to suppose that they would be permanent: he had never known any article at an extremely low price that did not afterwards become excessively dear; and it might be the case with wheat. The disease carried its own eremedy,—cruel, he admitted, but effectual; for the ruin of the small farmers would occasion the growth of less grain, and a consequent rise what was produced.

said, that if; instead of dealing in fulsome panegyrics on his colleagues, the hon. secretary to the Treasury had come at once to the pinching view of the subject taken by the hon. member for Abingdon, he would have rendered more service to his colleagues than he had clone by the eulogiums which he had thought fit to pronounce upon them. What had these admirable ministers accomplished by all their unheard-of labours? The finance committee of 1817 had estimated the expense of the establishments of that year at 17,550,000l.; exclusive of the charge for collecting the revenue, or with that expense 25,100,000l. By that standard were to be tried these heaven-inspired ministers. Their estimate for last year was nearly 26,600,000l.; and upon their own showing, the establishment this year would amount to 24,250,000l. or only 850,000l. below the calculation of 1817. Let it be observed, also, that the committee of 1817 did not mean to limit the reductions to the estimates of that day. They thought it very well to begin with; but they entertained and promulgated the idea of pushing the reduction of expenditure much farther. Since that period the House knew that every article of subsistence had been reduced 25, perhaps he should speak with greater truth if he said 50 per cent. The operation on the currency—an operation not contemplated by the committee of 1817—had made an alteration of 25 per cent. The expenditure, instead of being but three quarters of a million less than it was in 1817, ought in point of fact, to be at the very least 5,000,000l. less than it was in 1817. The charge for the collection of the revenue in 1817 was 7,750,000l.;it was reduced for the present year by a sum of 50,000l., the amount for collecting being 7,700,000l. With respect to the East India Company, he would not stop to observe on the compromise with that Company further than this, that if any man in private life had made a certain demand, and afterwards consented to take one-third less than his demand, such conduct would expose him to well-merited censure. Much had been said with re- spect to the public credit. There was, in his opinion, but one way to support that credit, namely—by following a rigid system of economy—nay, of parsimony, in the expenditure of the public money.

begged to put a question regarding the Austrian loan, from which he was sorry to see no sum carried to the credit of the year. Last session the noble marquis had held out a hope that something might be obtained; and, certainly, when the debt was contracted, more solemn assurances of good faith could not have been given. In the whole, reckoning principal and interest, it was, he believed, 17 millions. He apprehended that some bonds were given at the time of the loan, and there seemed no reason why they should not be put up to auction: no doubt speculators would give something for them, and however little, it might be applied to: the public service.

said, that a negotiation was still in progress. From the state of the Austrian finances a moderate compromise only could be expected. It would be too much for him to give any assurance that some arrangement might possibly be made, but still he was not absolutely without hopes upon the subject.

declared be would take the sense of the committee upon it.

observed, that the chancellor of the exchequer had hinted that he would give it up, if some other tax were substituted. As the wishes of the country had been so often expressed against lotteries, he thought 200,000l. should be spared out of the surplus revenue of which the right hon. gentleman had spoken.

was of opinion, that if lotteries were continued, one commissioner only was necessary. All of them had not been able to prevent their secretary from appearing on the list of public defaulters.

said, that when he beard that it was intended to introduce this measure to the House, he stated that he would oppose it by every means in his power. In saying that, he did not allude to any vexatious opposition. He did not mean that he would divide the House every minute, but that he would give to it the strongest opposition in the ordinary acceptation of the term. Yet if he pursued a different course, he believed he could find a precedent for it. In the debates of 1816 a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Wynn) now a member of the government, had declared that those who opposed, this measure ought to use "bodily force and physical resistance against it." The right hon. gentleman to whom he had alluded was in his place a few minutes before, and, as a minister of the Crown, he should have remained there. But he had always taken especial care to be absent upon every one of the discussions relative to this measure. Until the 7th or 8th of May, in the present session, no notice was given of the intention to move for a renewal of this bill; and when it was brought forward, no pretext was stated for having recourse to the measure. He had hoped that the would never have been introduced by the present secretary of state. He had cherished the idea, that that right hon. gentleman would have declared to his colleague that he would not call for a bill, the existence of which, whatever might have been the case when his predecessors were in office, was now perfectly unnecessary He was, therefore, astonished when the measure was introduced; and in a moment of irritation very natural he was sure and creditable, he might hope, when all the circumstances were considered, he said what he had done on a former occasion. It was not, however, a weak or foolish feeling by which he was actuated at that time; for he must declare, that during the short time he had been in parliament, he never was so shocked, so mortified, as when he heard the right hon. gentleman give notice of his intention to move for a renewal of this obnoxious measure. But if the announcement of the measure had surprised and shocked him—much more was he surprised—much more was he shocked, at the manner and terms under which the demand for this extraordinary proceeding was made by the new secretary of state for the home department.—Never was he so astonished as when he heard the right hon. gentleman say—"Give me this power, for I want it" Give me this power, for I will not abuse it". When the right hon. gentleman came down to ask for this bill, his whole demand was a demand for confidence. It seemed that there was some reason of state for re-enacting this measure; but what that reason of state was, right hon. gentleman would not inform the House. He wondered that the right hon. gentleman could not assign better reasons than he had deigned to adduce; and his wonder was not diminished, when, on examining the debates on former Alien bills, he saw that other ministers had always deigned to employ some pretexts in order to recommend so unpalatable a proceeding.—It might be useful to look a little at these several pretexts, and to see by what steps this tyranny had stolen upon us. The more this subject was considered, the more deeply would gentlemen feel the necessity of adhering to the maxim, principiis obsta. The more would they perceive how important it was that they should oppose, in the very first instance, the introduction of any principle that was likely to touch upon public liberty. When the Alien bill was introduced in 1792, the bill from which all the successive Alien bills had sprung, and which, there fore, must be taken into consideration, Mr. Burke said, "It was to keep out those murderous French atheists, who would pull down church and state." All the individuals in both Houses who supported it, declared it was "a great addition to the power of the Crown, justified only by the emergency and by the right of self-defence." Mr. Burke particularly said, "If the Crown possessed such power in time of peace, it would be too great for liberty." This high authority, for he supposed the opinion of Mr. Burke was still looked upon as high authority, was entirely at variance with the attorney-general for Ireland. That learned gentleman said—"This power was not too much for the Crown;" and he argued, that "the Crown always possessed it." But so great an alteration did this Alien bill make, not only with respect to the ancient constitution of the country, but with reference to the observance of treaties, that, when the country went to war with France, the government of France complained of the power exercised under the bill "as a direct infringement of the treaty of commerce ratified in 1786." What was the case in 1802? Some of the severities of the old Alien law were then removed. And why was the measure introduced? On account, it was alleged, of the unstabic situation in which the power of Buonaparte was supposed to be placed. The instability of the first consul's authority was the reason then assigned for having recourse to the bill. Again in 1814, the instability of the house of Bourbon was the reason stated by Mr. Hiley Addington for renewing this measure. He (Mr. H.) stated this to show that special causes were regularly assigned for bringing the Alien bill forward. No minister before the right hon. gentleman has ever come down, and called for this confidence all his power. Without advancing some argument to prove the existing necessity. They regularly stated something which served at least as a pretext for introducing the bill. Mr. H. Addington hoped that no objection would be offered to the passing of the bill, "because the period of its operation was limited to one year." Here was the authority of the under secretary of state of show that the measure was not considered a mere matter of course. Lord Castlereagh said at the time "that he could not at once dispense with those precautionary measures which had so long been thought necessary." His lordship, it appeared, could not give up those measures "at once." At what period that now arrived? They were in the year 1822—seven or eight years after the time of that declaration; and a minister of the Crown came down to the House and said, "You must accede to this bill on principles (if principles they could be called), and you must make its provisions a part and parcel of the law of the land." In 1816, the noble marquis (Londonderry) confessed that "in that reference to particular circumstances it was foreign to the genius and character of the institutions of this country, to confer on the executive government a power so liable to abuse."—The noble marquis mentioned what these particular circumstances were. He said, "That every vicious principle had not been eradicated in France." He also said, that, "The bill would be a mild shield against dangers that had not altogether ceased." This declaration showed that the noble marquis thought it necessary to come forward with a pretext of some description or other, although the present secretary of state did not seem to feel that any such necessity existed. In 1816, when the measure was introduced, it was made contingent on a particular circumstance which was then in operation in Europe—he meant the occupation of the French territory by foreign troops. The language of the noble marquis, on the 31st of May, 1816, was, "that the bill would expire in July 1818, and the convention might cease with respect to the French fortresses in the November following; so that if it should appear necessary to extend the duration of the bill to the same period, under the circumstances which might then exist, parliament might have the opportunity of renewing their precautionary policy." So that the House would see that in 1816 the noble lord absolutely held out to the House, that the bill might expire before time removal of the Allies from France, and that at any rate it was only meant to last as that occupation. In 1818, the excuse offered by the noble marquis (and certainly it was a most notable one) was, that there were 38 French exiles and three French newspapers in the Netherlands, which proved that the revolutionary spirit was still abroad; and that therefore this country must have an Alien bill. The noble marquis still made the occupation of France the excuse for his bill. He said, "that at all events we must wait until we saw the result of withdrawing the army from France." Up to this period the bill had, since the French war at least, been defended solely with a reference to foreign policy; but in 1820 the pretext was a good deal changed. The noble marquis then said, "we were to contend not with foreign but with domestic enemies, which made all precautionary measures peculiarly advisable." He did, to be sure add, "that we were not to compromise our character with our allies;" and thus gave a sort of mixed reason for the renewed measure.—Reasons such as they were had at all times been attempted to be given, and never until now had a minister ventured to demand the passing of this bill merely as a matter of course and on the ground of confidence. Previously to this, time the bill had been recommended on the pretext of temporary causes. There was but one individual who had spoken out on the question—he alluded to Mr. Serjeant, now Mr. Justice Best. That learned person said, "This bill will do for any circumstances and for any occasion; and I see no necessity for defending it on the grounds that have been taken." This was perfectly honest. The learned gentleman seemed to have been gifted with a spirit of prophecy, or rather of imprudence, which was denied to the noble marquis. He believed this bill would be found, so long as the noble marquis presided at the head of his majesty's government, "a measure that would do for any circumstances and for any occasion." When he (Mr. Hobhouse) said, that the right hon. secretary had not condescended to argue the question, he did not forget that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel) had endeavoured to handle the law on this subject, and had quoted Magna Charta. He was always afraid when a secretary of state referred to Magna Charta that he would use it in the same way that a which would the Lord's Prayer, namely, that he would read it backwards for the purpose of mischief. In referring to the great charter, the right hon. gentleman said, that he would quote "from the original document." What was meant by that assertion he (Mr. H.) could not conceive. Neither did he understand how the right hon. gentleman could twist the great charter to his purpose. He, however, would quote what lord Coke said n that part of Magna Charta, which the right hon gentleman had quoted. The right hon. gentleman had argued that the passage ending with the words "nisi antea publice prohibiti," related only to merchant strangers, that was true as to words, but merchant strangers then included all strangers. There were no gentlemen, at that time, traveling about to make the grand tour, and, as a matter of course, merchant strangers were mentioned generally. Lord Coke, in speaking on this passage said, "And, therefore, the prohibition intended by this act must be by consent of the public council of the realm; that s, by act of parliament; for it concerneth the whole realm, as is implied by the word "publice." The right hon. gentleman said, that "publice prohibiti" meant an order in council: but lord Coke took a very different view of the phrase. He did not wish to be captious; but, when a secretary of state, in the very outset of his career, mistook an act of parliament for an order in council—when he confounded the usage and laws of the realm with the prerogative of the king—when a secretary of state happened to fall into such an error, it was a mistake worthy of recording. It ought to be detected, noted, and, not to use too harsh a term, a little condemned. This was a thrice-committed blunder, and had been detected every time it was brought forward. He thought the right hon. gentleman would have come down with Puffendorff, sir Edward Northy and the thrice-refuted blunder of sir W. Blackstone. He imagined the right hon. gentleman would have quoted the statute of Henry 4th, that he would have referred to one or two occurrences in the time of Henry 7th, and that he would have alluded to a few of the cases which had been cited by the attorney general for Ireland, as the law (or rather as his law) on the subject. He was, however, contented with one blunder only. That blunder had been repeatedly exposed and held up to ridicule, and he did not think it would have been left to a person of the right hon. gentleman's learning again to bring it before the country. The right hon. gentleman, when asking for a measure that gave him complete power over 25,000 individuals, said be should be astonished, if it were refused. He (Mr. H.) was astonished, how the right hon. gentleman could so far forget the soil that gave him birth, the atmosphere which he breathed, the lessons of freedom which he must have heard, as to demand such a power, without assigning any necessity for it. Had he been addressing one of the old parliaments of France, or a Venetian council, he might have been surprised at opposition, but here in England, how could he expect acquiescence? He had declared, indeed, that this power should be used with reason and moderation. But there was no reason—there was no moderation, in intrusting to the discretion of a minister of the Crown, such an authority as this. If the act gave that power, nothing in its execution could make it moderate or reasonable. He would say, with his learned friend (sir T. Mackintosh) "that it was the law itself that was the abuse. It was not the method in which the power was used that constituted the abuse; the abuse was actually in the law itself." But the right hon. gentleman said "here is my responsibility." He (Mr. H.) never heard that word responsibility," but it excited a smile. The meaning of it was, that, hereafter, the House might call him to account for the manner in which he exercised the power entrusted to him. But he would appeal to the common candour of the right hon. gentleman whether there was any such thing existing as ministerial responsibility? It was, in fact, a perfect nonentity. There was nothing like it since the Revolution. It was true that by a happy coalition of parties some danger might for a time seem to threaten a discarded minister. A minister might stand a chance of being sent to the Tower, like lord Oxford; or of being threatened with impeachment, like sir R. Walpole; or of being placed in considerable danger, like lord North. With respect to the latter nobleman, if it had not been for the coalition, he would have run the chance, not of losing his head, but of losing his honours and emoluments. But, generally speaking, to say that a minister was responsible to parliament, was only saying, that he was responsible to his friends, to his accomplices and in fact to himself. The noble marquis had asserted that his right hon. friend (Mr. Peel) would raise liberty to a pitch to which it had never before been fexalted—that he would do much more for freedom than ever had been done by gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House. And what was his first effort in favour of freedom? Why he came down to the House and called for this unheard-of power; for unheard-of it certainly was, as the circumstances under which it was now demanded were different from those which formerly existed, when it was asked for. The right hon. gentleman had talked so much about his personal responsibility, that he seemed to think there was something about him which would recommend this measure. It was unpleasant to speak of individuals, but, in his opinion, there was something about the right hon. gentleman's principles which was very far from recommending the measure to him. He could not avoid looking on him as a minister of the Crown from whose actions the constitution was likely to receive much harm. He saw nothing in the right hon. gentleman but a minister who would be most dangerous to the liberties of his country. He saw in the right hon. gentleman a politician who had imbibed and cherished principles which could flourish only during the decline, or at the extinction of public freedom. He said this conscientiously, but without any wish to hurt his feelings. The right hon. gentleman was Consistent, he was doubtless conscientious, but those very qualities gave an edge and polish to those talents, which if they continued to be employed as they were now directed, would prove extremely detrimental to the country. He thought the right hon. gentleman had taken a view of the liberties of this country, of its laws and usages, totally different from that taken by some of his great predecessors. Why should the right hon. gentleman think himself, young as he was in office, entitled to demand this authority? If the great lord Chatham came down after his glorious career and made such a demand, he (Mr. H.), if a member of parliament, would have raised his voice against intrusting him with such inordinate power. There had not been a word of the right hon. gentleman's speech on opening this measure that did not assume unadmitted facts or unadmitted reasonings. The right hon. gentleman said, "the measure was necessary for our domestic security." Now, looking to the papers laid before parliament, be found that the bill had been put in operation only against four persons during the last two years. Was it, then, for domestic security—was it to prevent the subversion of the constitution, that three men and one old woman were sent out of England in the last two years? If those four persons endangered the government, the House had a right to know how it was; they ought to be informed why those people were sent out of the country. The right hon. gentleman asked, "whether they would not provide against it great and admitted evil?" He must, in answer to that, make use of language similar to what was adopted by a French writer, in speaking of the Holy Roman empire. He said, "it is neither holy nor Roman, nor an empire." In like manner he would contend, "that it was not great, nor admitted, nor an evil." If it were an evil, which he denied, it was so only in the mind of the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues. If it were an admitted evil, it certainly was not a great one; and when the right hon. gentleman said it was, he must take the liberty, vulgarly speaking, to bring him to book. Were there a number of individuals running through England for the purpose of disseminating revolutionary doctrines? Certainly not. Where, then, was this dangerous evil? What did the ministers call an evil? It was right that they should come to particulars, and know exactly what was meant by this denunciation. His learned friend had alluded to the case of Poland, and asked, "If a Pole, residing in the country, was to bring forward a scheme to recover the liberties which belonged to his native country before it was partitioned and despoiled, would that be viewed as a great and admitted evil which ought to be met by deportation?" He (Mr. H.) would come nearer to the events of the present day, and would ask if, in London, several Neapolitans were found devising the means of expelling the Austrians from their country, would the right hon. gentleman call that a great and admitted evil? Would he send those persons out of the country? He either would or he would not. If he said he would, he declared himself an abettor of all the tyrannies in Europe—he declared himself a foe to the liberties of those states which he must himself admit to have been most infamously in treated. Suppose a Piedmontese, n England, endeavoured to restore his country to that liberty which he felt she ought to enjoy, would the right hon. gentleman think it right to send him away? If he would not, then he must say that the right hon. gentleman departed from the spirit in which the Alien bill was framed; if he would, then did the right hon. gentleman condemn all the deeds of our ancestors; and depart from those glorious principles on which the right of resistance to tyranny had been asserted by the great men who had given to England all her right to predominance amongst the nations of the earth. The fact was, that the great and admitted evil in the eyes of ministers was neither more nor less than the longing of the expatriated friends of liberty to overthrow their tyrants at home. The right hon. gentleman assumed, "that no abuse had taken place under this bill." It was a mere assumption. Much abuse had been committed under it. The learned gentleman (sir S. Romilly), who formerly stood in the same relation to Westminster which he now had the honour to do, had instanced two cases in which very great abuse had been committed; and no longer back than a year and a half since, the interests of justice had nearly suffered in consequence of this measure. He alluded to the case of the younger Marietti, who was counselled not to come forward and give evidence, lest the act should be put in force against him. But the right hon. gentleman told them, that the security against abuse consisted in the publicity of the proceedings under this act. What publicity could there be in a case like this? How were the public to know what took place before the privy council? A man might take refuge, for aught they knew, at the toot of the Andes, or in the bosom of the Pyrennees, before his treatment was made known to that House. At length, perhaps, a petition was forwarded to this country, and a member was found bold or imprudent enough to present it. Then down came the secretary of state, and said, "What is stated in this petition is very true, but there are other reasons which induced us to send this man away." He would then be asked, "What are those reasons?" The answer was quite ready, "I cannot disclose them, they are secrets of state;" and then came the usual majority of 3 to 1, or 10 to 1, as the case might happen to be.—The noble marquis had told them that this measure would support the character which the country bore for hospitality. This was what called in another country "taking the bull by the horns." Supporting hospitality! It was rather a novel way of supporting hospitality to place 25,000 individuals at the mercy of a secretary of state. So then we were now to look upon this Alien bill not only as mat deterring but as absolutely alluring foreigners to our shores; and as inducing them, after they had got over the dampness of our atmosphere and the coldness of our manners, to choose a residence amongst us. Lest, however, the noble marquis should be misunderstood, he took care to tell us what he meant by this hospitality, for he said he would treat aliens as he would treat the petitions of the people—in other words, that our guests as well as our natives may think themselves very well off if they are not kicked out of doors. Such powers, when used, should be resorted to in cases of emergency, and without any reference to an act of parliament: That might be considered a strange doctrine, coming from his side of the House; but it was the doctrine of lord Chatham. He had, on one occasion, treated an alien contrary to the laws of the country. In the year 1764, on the debate relative to general warrants, lord Chatham said (alluding to his having sent the count St. Germain out of the country)—"Preferring the general safety in time of war and public danger to every personal consideration, he ran the risk, as he would of his head, had that been the forfeit, upon a like motive—and did an extraordinary act against a suspicious foreigner just come from France, and who was concealed at different times in different houses—the real exigency of the case and the apparent necessity of the thing, would in his opinion, always justify a secretary, of state in any extraordinary act of power." This was an old English constitutional language. That great man declared that the act was justified by the necessity of the case: "I would have done it," said he, "if it cost me my head; but I never would do it unless the most over-ruling necessity compelled me." Lord Chatham differed so far from the attorney-general for Ireland, who thought this power always belonged to the Crown in all times, that he thought an apology necessary for using it even in time of war. The learned gentleman had complained, that those who proposed such a measure were put on their defence. To be sure they were: and why should they not? When any minister of the Crown came and demanded a measure that was contrary to the laws and liberties of the country he ought to be put on his defence, and he ought to be compelled to make a defence, which, in this instance, had not been done. The learned gentleman had counted on the acquiescence of the people. He (Mr. H.) believed that the people did not acquiesce. At all events, such an argument came with a very ill grace from the right hon. gentleman. Suppose any one had used this argument against the learned gentleman for the sake of continuing the penalties against the Catholics. How would the learned gentleman have decried and ridiculed such an argument? Suppose that it had been proved the people were against his Catholic bill, would the right hon. gentleman admit that circumstance as any argument against him? Still, even if the people did acquiesce, he (Mr. Hobhouse) would feel it to be his duty to rise up in his place and oppose any proposition that endangered the liberties of the nation. The learned gentleman had said that the people would always interest themselves when the liberty of man was concerned. What! did the learned gentleman mean to say that this measure did not concern the liberty of man, when it gave the secretary of state the power of fining, imprisoning, or sending out of the country, any person he pleased to select from 25,000 individuals? The learned gentleman had said, "he thought if Mr. Fox had lived, that he would have changed his opinion on this subject." He (Mr. Hobhouse) could not say what would have been said or done by that great man if he had been spared; but when he was told that Mr. Fox would have approved of such a measure as this, he could not help thinking that it was libelling the dead for the sake of insulting !the living. He did not find, in the conduct of those who I knew as much of Mr. Fox as the learned gentleman, any thing which could lead him to suppose that Mr. Fox would ever have changed his opinion on this subject. The learned gentleman had said the power of expelling aliens had always lain, however dormant, in the Crown, but had been called into play in 1793 because; why?—the learned gentleman's words were strange enough—because—"there was then a revolutionary devil abroad." Of that, devil he (Mr. H.) knew nothing, if he had ever assumed that character it was before his time; the devil that had allured men to danger with the hopes of liberty had long changed his mode of attack as even the learned gentleman would hardly deny.

"For Satan, now is wiser than of yore,

"And tempts by making rich—not making poor."

This was the only devil, the demon that tempts with places, and pensions, and string, and titles, and with those charms induces men to forfeit all their former glory, and to forget all their former pledges to their countrymen and to Europe. The learned gentleman had talked of the law and the constitution as favourable to this measure. He stood put for the prerogative upon this point. But if there were such a prerogative why come to parliament. The truth was, there was neither ancient law, nor prerogative nor usage, in favour of this preposterous measure. He (Mr. Hobhouse) thought this point had been settled. The present president of the board of control (Mr. Wynn) had said on a former occasion when this question had been under discussion, "a great deal had been said respecting the sovereignty of the king. Where did the sovereignty of this country exist? The term was, indeed, as a mark of honour and respect, given to the king alone; but the sovereign authority existed, in the king and the parliament; there only could it be properly said to preside; and if any honourable member maintained that the prerogative of sending aliens out of the country was vested in the Crown, by him the sovereignty must be supposed as only existing in the king. The right hon. gentleman who last sat down (Yorke) had been at much pains to persuade the House, that by the common law, this prerogative existed in the king; but he would put it to the House, whether for the last 150 years, amidst the many troubles and dangers in which the country had been involved, one single instance of the exercise prerogative could be given? Did our forefathers consider that this power was vested in the Crown, although disused? There were, primâ facie, several cases which showed that the king in former times had not the power to send foreigners out of the kingdom. For instance, it was on record, that in the reign of Charles the 2nd, whew the prerogative was stretched to the utmost, the king dared not attempt to send out of the country a Frenchman who had deprived his majesty of one of his favourite mistresses. But having forbidden this Frenchman, the court, and yet seeing him seated with his conquest at the theatre, his majesty complained to the sovereign of France, who at length recalled his subject. Thus Charles 2nd was relieved from the mortification of seeing his triumphant rival, and the French writer who recorded the anecdote, lamented truly, that any sovereign should not be empowered to send the cause of such an annoyance out of the country. There might be persons even in our times who would join in the lamentations of the writer, and therefore approve of an Alien bill; but he certainly could not concur with them in supporting a measure so liable to abuse, and for which no necessity whatever existed. As to the assertion of the learned serjeant (Best), that the liberty of England was for the enjoyment of Englishmen only, he could not conceive upon what authority such an opinion rested; for he had always been taught to think, that the moment any man, however previously enslaved, touched British soil, he became entitled to freedom. Such had been the doctrine of all our constitutional writers; and such was his decided opinion" Such was the opinion of Mr. C. Wynn, in 1816, and such it might be presumed was his opinion now, for he had kept away from the discussions on this bill. It might be a question whether his duty to his country and to his conscience did not demand something more than this absence. Ought he not to have opposed the bill; and here a word as to responsibility—whose was this measure? It ought to be, it must be, the measure of the whole cabinet, yet here they had a cabinet minister and other persons in office, showing distinctly they were pot in favour of the bill. What a farce then to talk of responsibility, when they knew not whom to accuse as the parent of, this mis-shapen offspring. To be sure the ministers might be easy on that score, for they had only to say to parliament accuse not us, the measure is your [Hear, hear!] In concluding, he (Mr. Hobhouse) would only say, that the best proof that there could be no pretext for the bill was, that the learned gentleman had found no other excuse for it, but that them were certain "phantoms flitting about," which though not so wicked as his revolutionary devil, were still nearly allied to him. A phantom there was still abroad, but not the phantom alluded to by the learned gentleman, it was the phantom which Madame de Stael described as preventing every individual from seeing what had occurred before the revolution, obscured the intellect, and led men to look to the period of the revolution as one from which the whole history of mankind was to be derived! [Hear, hear]. He moved, "That the bill be committed this day three months."

said, the hon. member contended, that the present measure was inconsistent with the liberality and hospitality of the English character; that it was brought forward under false pretences, in subservience to the views of other states, and for the purpose of aiding them in preventing the general diffusion of liberty. The main ground on which he had rested his argument, that the bill was inconsistent with the spirit of the British constitution, was the language of Magna Charta. Now, the right conferred on aliens by Magna Charta was a right accompanied with an exception and a qualification, which proved that our ancestors, who established the right, foresaw Ate possibility of cases occurring, in which it might be necessary to impose restrictions. It could never be justly contended, that the law of England was tyrannical and oppressive, because it did not extend to foreigners those rights and privileges, which the natives of this country enjoyed. He denied that the conferring of this power was any, impeachment of those virtues of liberality, hospitality, and generosity, for which this country was distinguished. Could it be fairly imputed to any individual, who opened his doors to a party who sought refuge from oppression, that his conduct was ungenerous and illiberal, if he made it a condition of his hospitality, that that party should do nothing to embroil him with his neighbours? But it was said, that this measure was brought forward on false pretences, and that its real object was, to promote the despotic views of foreign governments. This assertion was easily made, and as easily contradicted. For his own part, he could state most conscientiously that he was influenced by no such motives: and before they could be justly charged, the hon. gentleman was bound to show that some advantage would be gained by acting on this principle. He did, not see what advantage this country could gain by any attempts to check the general diffusion of liberty. What imaginable motive could this country have for entering into a combination to deprive other countries of those blessings which it was our pride to enjoy? Another argument in support of, the present measure, was, the mode in which the, power had been uniformly exercised. There were many foreigners residing in this country, who were objects of jealousy to the states to which they belonged; yet it was not pretended that, they were molested, or that they did not; live in perfect security. No man could deny that it was the policy of this country to preserve the relations of peace, as far as they could be maintained consistently with the national honour. Now, there were circumstances in the present state of the world, arising out of the French revolution, which might affect those relations. It could not be denied that the events of the last thirty years had given rise to a contest between the unlimited principle of absolute power on the one hand, and the unlimited principle, of unqualified revolution on the other. He considered this a most unfortunate contest; because it contributed tend to the security of no state, and must tend to the injury of all. It was the danger, arising out of this state of things, which called upon us to be jealous and oven timid as to the residence of foreigners in this country. Upon these grounds, he supported the present measure, and not for the purpose of arresting the progress of liberty—an object which, if it were even entertained by his majesty's governments, it would be impossible, in the present state of knowledge and civilization, to effect.

said, he objected to the bill in every point of view, but he felt that no objection to it was more striking than the very principle on which it was recommended for adoption. The right hon. secretary and the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down, both called upon the House to invest the government with a dangerous; because discretionary, power, on the presumption that it would not be absused. Setting aside mere insinuation and surmise, not a single direct allegation had been made to prove the necessity of this bill. The right hon. gentleman had said, that particular emergencies might arise out of a particular crisis, but lie had not had the nerve to state that those emergencies had arisen, and surely it would be time enough to invest ministers with extraordinary powers when such a period had actually arrived. The learned gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunkett) had contended for the right of the sovereign to send foreigners out of the country by analogy, from his supposed right of restraining his subjects from quitting the country and he had referred to the writ of ne exeat regno. Now he (Mr. W.) maintained, that the Crown, did not possess the absolute right of restraining the subject from quitting the country; and he had the authority of lord chancellor Talbot for saying, that the writ of ne exeat regno had never been issued, unless a bill had previously been filed. The learned gentleman had said, that the prerogative of the Crown conferred a power, by which aliens could be sent out of the country, and that the temporary allegiance which foreigners residing in the country acquired, made them amenable to the laws, in the same manner, and nearly to the same extent, as natives. Now, if this were the case, what was the use of a legislative measure? Why invest ministers with a power which already belonged to the Crown? There might be cases in which such a power would require to be exercised, but for such cases the common prerogative of the Crown was fully adequate. If this was the case, then, the House ought to pause before it re-armed ministers with such a power. The learned gentleman had further contended, that the measure was not new. This he would grant; but it was new under circumstances like the present. In 1793, it was enacted during war, and when continued in the 46th of the late king, it was to last for only six months after the concluding of peace. Let the House compare those periods with the present. Let them say whether there now existed the alarms which had agitated the country in 1793. The war had ceased for seven years—a long period of tranquillity, as might be seen by consulting the annals of the country; and if this was not to be called a time of pence, in the name of God what would be called so?" It would lie recollected, that at the former period an eloquent gentleman, who ought to have so far felt the effects of age as to have had his imagination cool, and his judgment mature, had come down to the House with a dagger under his cloke, and had displayed that dagger as an emblem of the fate which awaited every man who would not vote for some such measure as the present. He trusted that there was nothing in the arguments which the learned gentleman had attempted to draw from the legal question, or from the aspect of the times. The domestic disadvantages of the bill were great; but the argument to be deduced from them was strengthened by those which immediately affected foreigners. He would put the case of the Greeks. If they should, trusting to that historical character which this country had before alien bills were in existence, come to this country to seek assistance, and even to plot against their tyrants, was there any man that could bear that they should be sent back to bare their throats to the knives of their barbarous oppressors. Let no one suppose that the bill would affect only the 25,000 friendless individuals to whom it more immediately applied. Another mischief was, the precedent which this measure furnished, of giving ministers too great to discretionary power—a power in consequence of which they might act improperly; and if they so acted in any if they so acted in any one case, what was fact to-day, might became doctrine to-morrow. The proper course was, not to give misters credit for what they would do, but to prevent them from doing what they by possibility might do.

said, he could not but think this bill had been opposed in speeches of outrageous exaggeration. He had never before given any vote on the measure, as feeling really incompetent to decide either on its necessity or its utility. But though he was by no means carried away by the extravagant declamation of the hon. and learned member for Knares- borough on a former night, yet on the showing of the right hon. secretary who introduced it, he should now vote against the bill. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman, that it was highly desirable, in the present state of the world, that this country should offer an asylum to the persecuted of all nations and of all parties. He farther agreed with the right hon. gentleman, that it was the duty of the government to do all that in them lay, to prevent this country from being made the centre from which the tranquillity of other countries might be disturbed, with which countries we were at peace. But the right hon. gentleman had stated there were 25,000 aliens in England—that the powers given to the secretary of state had been exercised only in four instances—and he allowed, if exercised in a sweeping manner, the probable abuse would be unbearable. Now, if there were any great conspiracy going forward, it really appeared that any use of these powers so limited would be ineffectual to their object. But, in fact, the number of political emigrants in England was extremely small; and for the sake of keeping some slight check over the proceedings of these persons, nearly 25,000 others—people for the most part having affairs, and being many of them as it were domiciliated in this country—were to be placed in a situation of insecurity—or imagined insecurity; which was pretty much the same thing as to the feelings of the individual. Be knew the measure was regarded by foreigners with great uneasiness; and such being the case, no countervailing advantage appearing to be secured by it, he should vote against the bill.