said:—In pursuance, Sir, of my notice, I am now about to submit to House a motion respecting the noble and munificent gift which his majesty has, with so much liberality, presented to the nation; and I feel that if, in doing so, I were to enter into any length of detail, I should do but little credit to the grace and dignity with which the present has been made. It is a donation which, I am satisfied, every man in this House, and in the country, will feel to be of the highest importance. If, indeed, there be any person—and I do not consider it possible that there can be—who may think that there is no connection between the literature of the country and its general wellbeing—to that person, undoubtedly, the grant, or the possession, of so valuable a library as that to which my motion will refer, will be a matter of no sort of interest. But by those who take a more enlarged view of the subject—by those who think that there is an intimate connexion between the literature and the morals of the country—by those who think that there is an analogy between a love of letters and a love of freedom—it is impossible that this transaction should not be regarded with feelings of the deepest interest. This library, Sir, which it has been his majesty's pleasure to give to the nation, was collected by his late venerated father, during the course of a long and exemplary life; and although, perhaps, the circumstances which attended his youthful education, and the fact of his having been at so early a period oppressed with the cares of royalty, might reasonably seem to have precluded him from applying himself to objects of this kind; yet it is, I think, on these very accounts, the more honourable to the character of his late majesty, that, from his accession to the throne, down to the unhappy moment in which, by one of the most calamitous visitations of Providence, he was deprived of the means of pursuing any object relating to his own benefit or to the good of his people, he employed himself actively, zealously, and carefully in forming this collection. But, if it is surprising that his late majesty, under such circumstances, should so have occupied himself, it is not surprising, I conceive, that his present majesty, influenced by that finished taste, that love of science, that enlarged and liberal spirit, that disinterested generosity which belong to him, should have applied himself, upon becoming possessed of this most valuable treasure, to consider in what way his people would be likely to derive from it the greatest benefit. If his majesty had chosen to consult merely his own gratification, or his own taste, he would obviously have retained this admirable collection in his own hands: and it would have constituted in his palace, or in that of his successors, one of the most distinguished ornaments. But his majesty has considered, that a much more noble object would be attained, if this library, instead of being confined to his own palace, should be placed at the disposal of parliament, for the benefit of his people. His majesty, therefore, has proposed, that this library should be placed at the disposal of parliament; and it now becomes necessary for me to suggest to parliament the best means for its disposal. I think, then, that under all the circumstances of the case, we cannot do better than confide the custody of this most important collection to the British Museum. At all events, it would be a very desirable object: and I believe it to be an object, also, which his majesty has very much at heart, that it should be kept distinct and separate from any other. Such an arrangement, indeed, we owe it to his majesty's father who collected, and to his majesty himself who has given these books, to make. I think it would be unjust, if we were to suffer the collection to be mixed with any other of the same kind; while it seems to me most desirable, both on general considerations and in a pecuniary point of view, that it should be deposited in the British Museum; for this library of the late king's, though possibly not the most valuable in existence, is unquestionably the most valuable, as the collection of a single individual, that ever did exist; and I believe that, if to this library be added that which is already possessed by the British Museum, increased as it will very shortly be, by the library of the late sir Joseph Banks, there will be contained under one and the same roof, a library, without all question, the finest in the world. It will be most advisable, therefore, I imagine, to intrust the collection in question to the guardianship of the British Museum. At the same time, it is possible, that if we should appoint a committee for the better consideration of this subject, some suggestion which it may be more expedient to adopt than the one I now throw out, may be proposed. I therefore move, "That the Papers relating to the Library which his Majesty has been graciously pleased to present to the British nation, be referred to a Committee, to consider the matter thereof, and to report their observations thereupon to the House."

said, that the donation was unquestionably of the greatest value to the country, because, for its extent, it was the most complete library ever collected. It had been accumulated by his late majesty, during the whole course of his reign, and without any regard to expense. It had been collected under the direction of Dr. Johnson, who had laid down the plan for its formation, and which plan had been followed as closely as possible. Having had communications with his majesty on the subject, he was enabled to say, that his majesty earnestly wished that the public might have the freest access possible to this library, limited only by such regulations as were necessary for the safety and preservation of the collection. His majesty had also another and a very natural wish, that as the collection had been entirely made by his late father, it should be kept separate and distinct. Having had frequent opportunities of inspecting this library, he was bound to say, that he believed there never was a library so complete in its arrangements, with catalogues so admirably framed, and in every respect so well calculated to afford the means of ready reference. He thought it right to mention this fact, because it did the greatest credit to the persons under whose care it had been placed. He was perfectly sure, that the union of this library with that of the British Museum and the library of the late sir Joseph Banks (which, although small, was perfect in one branch of literature), would constitute the finest library that existed in Europe. He had the gratification also to say, that it was his majesty's intention to add to the donation a most valuable collection of medals, formed under the superintendance of himself and of his late majesty. To his knowledge, his majesty had been a most liberal patron to the fine arts. By the present splendid gift he would show himself an equally zealous friend to science and literature. He was sure, therefore, that all who heard him would agree, that by his conduct on this occasion, his majesty had entitled himself to the thanks and gratitude of the country.

rose to submit the motion of which he had given notice. He feared that the time which had elapsed since that notice, and the repeated discussions which had taken place in the interim, upon the bill of the chancellor of the exchequer, had greatly prejudiced the chance which his (Mr. M.'s) motion might possess of adoption by the House. This great question had, indeed, been prejudiced; but although the chancellor of the exchequer's bill had passed, it did not therefore follow, when he came forward to ask for the repeal of certain taxes, that he was to be denied, on account of the passing of that bill. That bill did, in fact, contain a clause, by which the House was enabled, during the present session, to alter, repeal, or amend it. It was needless for him to say, that he disapproved of that bill; but in the argument which he was about to bring forward, he should take the saving to be, as the right hon. gentleman had thought proper to put it, five millions. The chancellor of the exchequer had admitted, that it was expedient to reduce taxation to repeal, in fact, the very species of taxes which he was now about to require the House to do. The great question between himself and the right hon. gentleman was this—Whether, under all the circumstances of the case, the proposition now to be submitted to the House was more likely to benefit the country generally, to support public credit, and to maintain national honour and dignity, than the proposition of the right hon. gentleman. He confessed, that he thought the mode in which he should propose to support public credit, and enable government to reduce taxation, would have a much more beneficial effect than the plan suggested by the chancellor of the exchequer; because it would give a much greater relief to the people. Now, before he stated to the House the taxes, the repeal of which he intended to propose, he would take a short view of the financial state of the country. That would enable them to ascertain whether they could with safety, and with advantage to the country, repeal the whole of those taxes, the repeal of only part of which was proposed by the right hon. gentleman. He would first acknowledge, for the argument's sake, that the surplus disposable income was, as the right hon. gentleman had described it, 5,000,000l. He would then advert to the proposition to which he had alluded the other evening; namely, the sale of the land tax, a proposition against which he had not heard a single substantial argument. He was himself thoroughly persuaded, that no better measure could be adopted. It had been first suggested by Mr. Pitt, for the support of public credit, and the reduction of the public debt; and he was not to be diverted from the plan by the hon. member for Taunton having called it "a bubble." He must say, that he thought that a very coarse and unfair expression. If it was a bubble, it was a bubble originally proposed by. Mr. Pitt: it was a bubble which had been carried on, to a certain extent, to the present hour; and all that he desired was, to make it more efficient for the public benefit than it had hitherto been. In the first place, and for the first year, he took the surplus of income at 5,000,000l.: he supposed a sale of the land tax to the extent of another 5,000,000l., and he calculated the extra revenue arising from the reduction of 3,200,000l. taxes at 400,000l. In this last calculation he was borne out by the right hon. gentleman, who had allowed, that a repeal of taxes must necessarily improve the remaining revenue. Those three items together would make a sum of 10,400,000l. applicable either to the repeal of taxes, or to the reduction of the debt, or to both purposes. The mode in which he proposed to deal with that 10,400,000l. was to repeal assessed taxes, to the amount of 3,200,000l., and thereby, in the first year, to leave a balance of 7,200,000l. applicable to the redemption of debt. He trusted that no one would deny the practicability of such a sale of the land tax. He was convinced it was so saleable, that it would be easy, in the course of two years, to sell as much as would redeem 41,000,000l. of debt. But, he would only take 5,000,000l. for the first year. That would leave a balance of 7,200,000l. to redeem debt, after the repeal of taxes to the extent of 3,200,000l. In the second year, there would be the balance of the first year brought down, namely, 7,200,000l. In addition, he would make an extra sale of land-tax to the amount of 2,000,000l. He would also suppose, that the operation of purchasing so much stock, would enable government to reduce the 4 per cents, which would cause a saving of 750,000l. Gentlemen opposite might laugh at this; but for himself, he could see no difficulty in it. Thus it appeared that, in the second year, there would be a balance applicable to the redemption of debt of 9,950,000l. In the third year there would be this balance of 9,950,000l. to carry down. He also calculated that there would be an extra revenue from reduction of estimates and collection of revenue of 1,000,000l. more, making together the sum of 10,950,000l. applicable to the redemption of debt in the third year. In the fourth year, he would take the sum at the same amount. In the fifth year, a deficiency must be deducted of 2,000,000l. in the sale of land tax (approaching as that operation would approach, to its conclusion), from the balance of 10,950,000l. brought down from the fourth year, leaving a balance applicable to the redemption of debt of 8,950,000l. He now came down, in the sixth year, to that which, in his opinion, ought to be the eventual sinking fund. In the sixth year he would deduct a deficiency in the sale of land tax of 5,000,000l. from the balance of 8,950,000l, brought down from the fifth year, leaving a balance applicable to the redemption of debt of 3,950,000l., the sum at which he would fix the subsequent sinking fund. The difference between his plan and that of the right hon. gentleman was this—that while the right hon. gentleman redeemed only 5,000,000l. annually during the whole period of six years, his (Mr. M.'s) plan would, in that period, redeem 62,000,000l. of nominal capital of debt, and would also annually repeal taxes to the amount of 3,200,000l. This was not a mere fancy; it was a plan which might be easily and effectually realized. He knew not whether ministers had made up their minds to sell the land tax; but sure he was, that it could not stand upon its present footing, unless they wished to have its profits swallowed up by its expenses. Whether they would apply its profits to the reduction of taxation was another question: it did not, at all events, appear that they meant to do so during the present year.—He would now state to the House the nature of the reductions which he was about to propose, and which, he would show, could be made without the slightest danger to the state. His first resolution would apply to that portion of the window tax which remained unrepealed; for he should consider the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer for a partial reduction of the window tax as passed. That tax amounted to 1,205,000l. It was not necessary to state the reasons which induced him to select the reduction of this tax, and the house tax. Both taxes were, in a partial degree, a property tax, and extended to a much greater degree, than members might at first suppose. He could not calculate to a certainty the per centage of the window tax, but he should estimate it at 20 per cent throughout the kingdom. He was in possession of a return for one parish, and according to that, the house and window taxes, taken together, would amount to 33 per cent. He would ask the House whether these taxes could be considered in any other light than as a property tax? What an outcry would be raised, if it were attempted to impose a similar tax upon the property of the landowner or fundholder! He was furnished with positive documents to prove the per centage of the house tax, and he could state that it amounted to 11½. A more impolitic or unjust tax he could not imagine, and therefore he would move for its repeal. The next tax which he would propose to abolish, was that upon male servants, including clerks, travellers, and shopmen. It appeared to him to be a partial tax upon labour. It would be said, that the tax was paid by the master. True; but would any man say that the master would not employ more servants, if there were no tax at all? It must be admitted, then, that the tax cramped labour; which it was not worth while to do, for the trifling sum derived from the tax. He next came to the tax upon four-wheeled and two-wheeled carriages, and coachmakers' licences. The tax upon carriages he considered extremely unfair. Not only was a tax paid upon the vehicle when it came out of the hands of the manufacturer, but an annual duty was entailed upon it as long as it was continued in use. It was said of this tax, as of many others, that it was paid by the consumer; but, in his opinion, it was a heavy burthen upon the manufacturer. The total amount of the taxes which were paid upon a carriage and three horses, attended by two servants, was 36l. 5s. 6d. The tax upon carriages was defended on the ground that it was a tax upon an article of luxury; but why did not the House, upon the same principle, impose a tax upon looking-glasses, some of which cost 2 or 300l.? Surely a looking-glass was more an article of luxury than a carriage. In fact, it was impossible to consider a carriage otherwise than as an absolute necessary to families of rank in this country. The tax on horses generally, including those employed by butchers and bakers, was one which he would endeavour to repeal. Nothing could operate so materially against consumption, as the tax upon horses. If persons were allowed to keep as many horses as they pleased without paying any tax, the consumption of agricultural produce would be increased to a great extent. The last tax which he would propose to repeal was the composition for the assessed taxes, amounting to about 35,000l. a year. He had now pointed out a way by which relief might be afforded to the people, without injury to public credit. No man could be more anxious than he was to maintain public credit; and if, in the plan which he had laid before the House, there was any thing opposed to that principle, he should regret it exceedingly. He did not intend to move for the repeal of the tax upon carts; for if his resolutions were not adopted, the chancellor of the exchequer would himself have an opportunity of proposing the abolishment of that tax, which pressed so heavily upon persons in a humble rank of life. The several taxes he proposed to repeal were as follows:—

in seconding it, mentioned the fact of an old lady having been frightened into fits at the sight of the window tax gatherer.

said, that his right hon. friend, the chancellor of the exchequer, had so fully and so eloquently explained the nature of his plans, that it would be unnecessary for him, even were he competent to the task, to enter into a detail of those plans. The question now to be considered was, not what was the partial pressure of any tax, but whether, under all the circumstances of the, case, we could afford to make any further reductions than those which had been already proposed. The hon. member opposite admitted the necessity of supporting a sinking fund, "but," said that hon. member, "if you will adopt my plan, you will have a more effective sinking fund than the one proposed by the, chancellar of the exchequer." This he (Mr. H.) denied. On the contrary, he maintained, that the hon. member's plan would leave no sinking fund at all. If we saw in the country signs of distress—if we found a diminution in the consumption of articles of taxation—then we might begin to look about, and consider whether taxes so oppressive ought, or ought not to be continued. But we had not arrived at that state. Every view which we took of the state of the country, gave ground for a contrary opinion. He did not mean to deny, that amongst some classes distress prevailed; but he contended, that the general state of the country was by no means such as could justify them in forsaking that system, which, he considered necessary for the maintenance of the public credit. The hon. gentleman talked of the distress that prevailed. But what was the fact? Why, there was a considerable increase since the year 1817, of carriages, servants, &c. There was also an increased consumption of most articles. He, therefore, did not conceive that the House would be at all justified in adopting the proposition of hon. member.

regretted that the National Debt Reduction bill should have passed the House. It appeared to him a singular inconsistency, that, after having admitted the true principle of a sinking fund to rest in a surplus of revenue, and after the admission that the present surplus did not exceed three millions, the House should have sanctioned a bill, which went upon the assumption, that we had a sinking fund of five millions. If he were asked he would do with he would do with the surplus revenue, he would say, let it be applied to the relief of the people from a part of their grievous burthens, and to the restoration of that word which was now almost obsolete in the English language—"comfort." It was said, "Why trouble ourselves about the debt: let it alone; it will last our time." He, for one, did not think it would; but that some terrible convulsion would be brought about, if a timely remedy were not applied. He would say what that remedy was—and what it was not. It was not a fallacious sinking-fund, such as was now proposed; but it was a coming forward with a portion of our property, to preserve the remainder.

rose, for leave to bring in a bill for the repeal of the Insolvent Debtors' act. Of the evils occasioned by the act, no man could doubt, who was aware of the fact, that five farthings in the pound was the whole amount of dividend received from the estates of those who had taken the benefit of it. He might be asked, why he did not move to go into a committee upon the act, instead of moving to repeal it? There had already been 200 committees upon it; and the result which all of them had come to was, that they did not know how to remedy its evils. Even his noble friend (lord Althorp), who lived only to benefit mankind, would confess, that his object in passing this bill had been completely disappointed; for, instead of relieving the unfortunate debtor, it served to form the basis of, a system of fraud, profligacy, and perjury, such as had never before been witnessed.

could not agree to the repeal of these acts, unless a new act was brought in to remedy the evils which they were said to have created. He was surprised that the hon. member should have repeated the statement of five farthings in the pound being the whole amount of dividend received under the present acts. The return to which the hon. member alluded, was made under the act as it existed before it was amended. The present law was founded on a very salutary principle; but he would not deny that, in its details, it might require several amendments. He was, therefore, glad to hear, that the solicitor-general had pledged himself to take it under his consideration. He wished the House would compare the law as it now bore upon insolvent debtors, with the one which had formerly existed regarding them. Formerly, the creditor might imprison his debtor for life, and the imprisonment served as a discharge for the debt. The consequence was, that the gaols became filled by degrees; and acts were constantly passed to empty them. He was of opinion that, under the present law, the confinement was not long enough. He likewise thought that it would be a considerable amendment of the present system, if a power were given to a certain number of creditors to object to an insolvent's discharge.

said, that when the small sum recovered from insolvents under the present act was spoken of, they should consider what would have been the sum recovered if the present law had not passed. Under the old system occasional insolvent acts were passed by which the gaols were emptied of debtors without any examination; so that the practice was constantly resorted to by the debtors of suffering a mere simulated confinement, in order to get rid of the claims of their creditors. He was glad the solicitor-general had undertaken the amendment of the act; as he could by no means agree to abandon the principle of it.

was convinced, that no one who was acquainted with the ancient law on this subject, would assent to the motion. He was, however, free to confess, that the existing law stood in need of amendment, and that the House was bound to provide some improvement of it, by which equal justice might be done both to the debtor and to the creditor. The House, after having so often heard the statement, that only five farthings in the pound had been received from the estates of insolvent debtors, would be surprised to learn, that there was now 10,000l. in the hands of the assignees of the insolvent court, which nobody had come forward to claim. The reason of this might be, that the dividends in question were so small as not to be worth claiming; and that circumstance might arise from most of the parties who took the benefit of these acts being in reality insolvents. He was convinced the salutary principle of this bill would in time be fully recognized by the people of England. He felt that conviction from knowing, that in Scotland, where the law of debtor and creditor was much more lenient than it had been in England, the cessio bonorum was a measure to which the people had clung with great tenacity.

hoped his hon. friend would withdraw his motion. It had been stated, that there was 10,000l. now lying unclaimed in the hands of the assignees of the insolvent court. He did not think this circumstance very singular, when he recollected that the sums claimed were millions, and the dividends unclaimed only as many thousands. Besides, the insolvent court was a very expensive one. The fees levied in it absolutely swallowed up all the property that came into it. A paper had been put into his hands by one of his constituents, who had unfortunately come into the insolvent court. His creditors were, however, so satisfied with his conduct, that they consented to his discharge, after the ordinary forms had been gone through. He was accordingly discharged; but a paper had just been delivered to him in regular form, in which he was made the debtor of the attorney of the court for the sum of 42l. 1s. 10d.; the consequence of which was, that notwithstanding the clemency of his creditors, he expected to be arrested tomorrow at the suit of the attorney. Among the items of the bill were—"Attending, taking instructions for your schedule, 6s. 8d.;"—"Drawing same, 10l. 10s.;"—"Fair copy of schedule, for your own use, 3l. 10s." He did hope, that when the solicitor-general amended this act, he would do something to remedy abuses like these.

said, that though his constituents had met to consider of these acts, there was not one of them who had held up his hand for the repeal of the principle on which they were founded.

thought that some means might be found of conciliating the principle of the Insolvent acts, with security to creditors. Imprisonment, for example, might be proportioned to the amount of the debt: a long period might be awarded for a large debt, and a smaller period for smaller debts. The principle of the cessio bonorum was good; but the attempt to enforce it, had failed. The objection of the commercial part of the world was, not that the law was bad, but that it was inefficient, and that it encouraged fraud. He was of opinion, that the Habeas Corpus should be taken away, in order that the debtor might continue imprisoned in the neighbourhood where his character was known. Debtors ought not to be allowed the rules of the prisons before they appeared to take advantage of the act; and when remanded, they ought to remain in the power of the court, without any creditor being able to grant a discharge. The system of appointing assignees was complicated, and required revision. There was also a species of fraud now prevalent; namely, accommodation bills. The court should be instructed to judge of this species of fraud in insolvents; or some other court should be appointed for this purpose.

said, the question was, whether the Insolvent act should be totally repealed, or only amended. He was in favour of the latter. He complained that the provisions of the act before magistrates in the country were executed in a very loose way. The debtor was discharged almost without inquiry, as opposition was ineffectual.

said, that the feeling of the House was clearly in favour of the principle of the bill. If, however, the motion of the hon. gentleman were carried, the future effects of an insolvent would not be liable to his creditors, because that provision of the existing law would be repealed. Besides, every individual discharged, and now able to plead the statute in answer to a renewed claim, would be deprived of that protec- tion. A difficulty would also arise, as to the property of insolvents now in the hands of assignees. These observations Showed, that the repeal was impossible; and, as to the necessity of doing so, it was to be recollected, that in any new measure many of the present provisions must of course be revived. The only practicable method was, for a number of competent individuals, in the first instance, to investigate the defects of the present bill. In the petitions upon the table he had looked in vain for any useful suggestion; and on inquiry how the insolvent law stood in Ireland, he was told that neither debtor nor creditor had reason to complain. On looking at the acts, therefore, for the two countries, he was surprised to find that they were in all respects similar. With regard to the evils growing out of the present law, he was satisfied that, though some might exist, they had been very much exaggerated. His principle was this—that where a debtor had conducted himself fairly and honestly, without incurring claims he had no prospect of satisfying, that he ought not to be subjected to imprisonment—all his future property should be liable, but his person ought to be free. That principle he could never, abandon. Imprisonment in this country, was a punishment for crime; and to allow imprisonment for debt, was to make the creditor an interested party, a judge in his own cause, deciding without inquiry, and punishing without appeal. He hoped, therefore, that the House would support lain in improving the law, upon the principle he had stated. As to fraud, it seemed to him, that the provisions of the act were extremely well calculated to prevent and to detect it. Most extensive powers were given to the commissioners for this purpose; but the fault lay in the inertness of creditors, who had no right to turn round and assert, that frauds were committed with impunity, when they themselves neglected the means of detecting them. It was a mistake to say, that the debts in the schedule amounted to ten millions, while the sum divided did not exceed 60,000l. Many of the debts were of course, upon bill transactions, and they were necessarily multiplied, often ten fold, in order to include all the indorsers who might have a claim upon the insolvent. He thought that no argument could fairly be derived from cases of bank ruptey. An honest man did not go to prison until he had nothing left to satisfy his creditors; so that he could not give any account of assets; while a man was often made a bankrupt, who possessed large funds. No solicitor would work a commission, unless there were considerable assets. He did not mean to withdraw the pledge he had given of bringing in an improved measure. He would set himself to consider what frauds had been practiced, and the best means of preventing and detecting them; and, after he had so done, he would submit the result to the House.

concurred in the general principles stated by the solicitor-general. He congratulated the House and the country, that the law officers of the crown had pledged themselves to frame a measure to remedy the evils of the existing act.

thought the enormous expense of proceedings in the Insolvent Debtors' court, were worthy of the serious attention of the solicitor-general. If the law gave creditors no power over the persons of debtors, they would be more cautious in trusting. He thought it would be for the advantage of debtor, the creditor, and the public if imprisonment for debt were wholly abolished. But, while the House sanctioned the principle of not detaining people in prison for debt, he was surprised they should permit the crown to imprison its debtors for life. In Scotland the case was different. He could conceive no worse means of getting payment of a debt, than to confine individuals fur 10, 15, or 20 years. It threw into the hands of government a power of confining for life an individual obnoxious on account of his political principles, and of letting those at large, who would purchase their liberty by subserviency. It was a cruel thing to confine a poor wretch for a paltry debt of 10l., and to allow such a defaulter as Mr. Theodore Hook to go at large.

explained the operation of the Insolvent Debtors' act in Ireland. No complaints were made in that country. The people were not much disposed to give credit; and it was from the facility of giving credit, that most of the evils arose.

said, that the bill of costs complained of by an hon. member did not affect the constitution of the court. It was merely a bill between solicitor and client.

said, it was the bill of one of, those attorneys to whom the forms of the court obliged persons to apply. The bill was made out from the printed regulations; and it was so far a recognized bill, that the debtor might be arrested at any moment for its amount.

wished that en adviser, in the way of amicus curiœcould be appointed to assist country magistrates who were called upon to sit upon questions of insolvency.

asked for leave to bring in a bill to repeal an existing statute which subjected a clergyman to 5l. penalty, if he omitted to read the act of parliament against profane swearing four times a year in his parish church. The statute in question, as well as the custom of reading the act, had long since fallen into disuse, and was only revived occasionally for the purpose of distressing any particular individual. He had known several clergymen, who had succeeded in tithe suits, curried by informers before magistrates, and fined under this statute out of revenge.

supported the motion.

hoped the hon. gentleman extend his repeal to the reading of the new Marriage act in parish churches.

thought that no acts of parliament whatever ought to be read in churches. Few congregations stayed to listen to them.

supported the motion. He had never heard the act against swearing read in a church in his life; and yet he knew a vicar who had been twice fined for omitting to read it.

said, that the clause in the Marriage act compelling it to be read in churches had been none of his suggesting. On the contrary, he had distinctly opposed that provision. He agreed with the hon. baronet, that it was improper to read any act of parliament in a church; but he called the attention of the House to the act against profane swearing particularly, because he believed it was the only act for the non-reading of which a penalty was provided.

adverted to the atrocious, and unmanly system of flogging which was still kept up in the army, and which he had hoped the government would, ere this, have seen the propriety of taking some means to abolish. The summary, dismissal of an officer for the cruelty with which he had inflicted this punishment, proved that the government were not in sensible to the evils arising from this system. The conduct of that officer would almost justify a stretch of power in the mode of his dismissal; but it would be much better to put an end at once to so odious and degrading a punishment, than to attempt to mitigate the evils arising from it by another act of arbitrary power. This was a subject which deserved the separate consideration of the House; and he should content himself at present with giving notice that he should, on a future day, bring forward a motion, in which he would endeavour to persuade the House, that the time was arrived when this most odious, unmanly, and detestable punishment ought to be altogether abolished.—That he might not be supposed to acquiesce in the conduct which ministers seemed determined to pursue Abe present contest between France and Spain, he could not omit that opportunity of expressing his extreme surprise and regret at that conduct—conduct, to which he scarcely knew what epithet to apply, and which was utterly unworthy of this country. A standing army had only been introduced and maintained in time of peace in this country, under the pretence of the necessity of preserving the balance of power, and the independence of the nations of Europe. This being the only cause for which a standing army was kept up in time of peace, he might fairly enter his protest against that dereliction of duty betrayed by his majesty's ministers, when, calling upon the House for the support of so large a military force, they at the same time abandoned all the objects for which that force could be constitutionally employed. In the absence of the secretary of state for foreign affairs it might not be considered altogether correct to enter fully into this question; and he was disposed to wait, in order to hear what ministers had to say. From the statements which had been made at the commencement of the session they had led the House to believe, that they would maintain the honour of England and the independence and liberties of Europe. Undoubtedly, the incur- ring of, fresh debt and fresh difficulties by a new war was a very, serious consideration; but these calculations must give way, when the character, and, honour, and permanent interests of the country were at stake. There was but one sound and manly course of policy to pursue, unless those very men who had already reduced the country so low, had at length brought it to that lowest depth of degradation, when they no longer dared to say to the family of the Bourbons, "You must not commit acts of unprovoked aggression on the independent nations of Europe; you must not overturn that balance of power, on which the safety of this country depends, and never more than at the present moment when from the policy of our government, so contrary to that of our forefathers, all the secondary governments were absorbed under the dominion of two or three of the coalesced despots of the continents, If any thing like a balance of power were to be maintained, Spain and Portugal must be supported, and this country should be prepared to make any sacrifice rather than the sacrifice of its character and honour. If we submitted to the degradation which ministers would impose upon us, England, to use the expression of Mr. Burke at the commencement of the French revolution, would be blotted out of the map of Europe. The conduct of ministers was not only base and degrading to the character of the Country—it was not only mean and unjust—but it was unwise and impolitic. One of the greatest statesmen that ever sat in that House, Mr. Fox, who was naturally a friend to peace, and averse to plunging the country into an unjust and unnecessary war, had declared, that if there was one circumstance above all others which could justify a war, it was where the national honour was concerned. Was the national honour to be tamely sacrificed, and were we to sit still without daring to let We Bourbons know that we had the right and the power to restrain them from making aggressions on the liberties of an independent nation. Setting side the question of feeling—putting out of view those generous impulses which should induce us to aid a brave nation in the noble struggle for independence—what was the obvious policy which this country was called upon to pursue? If France succeeded in over turning the liberties of Spain, could any man suppose that she would stop there? Would not Portu- gal be included in the aggression. And if Portugal was included, how could we guarantee her independence, in conformity with the note of the right hon. secretary except by an armed resistance? There, was no more sense nor policy, than honour or good faith, in the conduct of his majesty's government. The question was not, whether this country would be compelled to take a part in the contest between France and Spain; but whether we should now come forward with honour, and with the certainty of success, to aid a gallant people, who had shown themselves capable of sustaining the brunt of the battle, and who, with the slightest assistance from England, would crush their infamous aggressors? If it had been finally determined that this country should pursue so mean, so dastardly, and so impolitic a course, what was the inevitable inference? Why, that the government had resorted to the cowardly expedient of advancing the views of the holy alliance, by means from which every Englishman must revolt with abhorrence. If this was the course on which the government had determined, why was not parliament acquainted with it? Why had parliament been deluded into a ridiculous forbear ante? Had it not been for this artifice on the part of ministers, he (sir F. B.) knew not whether one-half of the eatimates would have been granted, or whether any of the measures proposed by them would have met with the acquiescence of the House? They had excited hopes in the country, that they would pursue a system of policy worthy of a great nation; and they must abide by the consequences to which the disappointment of those hopes would expose them. For his own part, he protested altogether against any acquiescence in the line of policy which ministers had thought fit to pursue, nor could he express any other feeling with regard to it than that of unqualified contempt.

rose rather to deprecate discussion, than to reply to anything which had fallen from the hon. baronet. The admission of the hon. baronet himself, justified, this course; because, if it was not proper without due notice to bring on a motion for the abolition of military flogging, still less was it prudent, without regular notice, to discuss that subject to which the latter portion of the hon. baronet's speech had applied. His right hon. friend, shortly after the recess, would be prepared, if matters remained in their present position, to lay a full statement before the House. He could have wished that the hon. baronet had waited, before he made his charge, to hear what case the government could make out. For his own part, he, was free to confess, that he differed entirely from the hon. baronet in principle upon the subject; and he believed that the country would hear, with almost universal satisfaction, that, perfectly consistent with the maintenance of her honour and interests, there was nothing at present in her foreign relations which induced government to think that her tranquillity would be disturbed.

thought that his hon. friend had merely followed the line of his duty. A strong suspicion prevailed, that, so far from observing a strict neutrality, the English government had supported the proposed oppressions of France, rather than remonstrated against them. It was rumoured, that the English minister at Madrid had been endeavouring to persuade the Cortes to give up some portion of that constitution which both Spain and the holy alliance had sworn to support. He trusted no such conduct had been pursued by ministers. With respect to the Mutiny bill, he felt indebted to his gallant friend for mooting the point afresh as to the right of the crown to dismiss Officers without subjecting them to a court-martial. As to the arguments of the noble secretary at war, upon the exercise of the prerogative on the point in question, they were absolutely absurd. To talk of an inherent prerogative of the crown to dismiss officers from the army, when it was well known that, anciently, the kings of England had no such thing as a standing army, was ridiculous. He admitted, that the right had been frequently claimed for the prerogative; but to represent it as being undisputed, was far, indeed, from the fact. Let the House look to what passed on the celebrated affair of lord Cobham's dismissal. The right was so far from being admitted, that it was emphatically denied by all the greatest men in the House. His hon. friend had been rebuked for citing Montesquieu and Blackstone upon such a question. He would offer an authority of more weight than either—that of George 1st. Upon the debate occasioned by lord Cobham's dismissal (which tool place in the reign of George 2nd), lord Stanhope informed the House, that he had once had a conversation with George 1st;in which his late majesty pointedly disapproved of the exercise of the prerogative, doubted the existence of the right, and expressed his intention of employing lord Stanhope to frame a bill, and bring it into parliament, to abridge it altogether, by declaring, that no such right existed with the crown. To be sure, the authority of a dead king was not equal to that of a living secretary; and it might be as little valued as that of the commentators on the law of England. When they talked, however, of the danger to the constitution from denying the right to the crown, they talked as if they were addressing the parliament of 1640, and not the present House of Commons. He trusted that a specific motion would be brought forward, to withdraw this power from the crown.

confessed he entertained an opinion upon the subject diametrically opposite to that which the hon. gentleman had just expressed. He was prepared to maintain, that in the eye of the law, every thing must be considered as the undoubted right of the prerogative, which had so remained from the time of the Revolution down to this period. That this power in the prerogative had been enjoyed and exercised since the Revolution downwards, was what he positively asserted. That it had been occasionally called in question, he did not deny. Nothing could be more strange than the authority adduced by the hon. gentleman. George 1st, a foreigner, though called to the government, under circumstances certainly dear to the feelings of the country, was yet the last person to be cited upon the doctrines of a constitution with which he could not be over well acquainted. Supposing the question, whether such a power did or did not exist in the crown, were now agitated for the first time, could it be answered in any way but in the affirmative? Could an army be kept on foot without that law? Were there other means to prevent an army once on foot, from becoming the greatest nuisance to the constitution and the liberties of the country? With respect to the other point, he denied that the hon. baronet was correct in the assumption, that the country was prepared to go along with him, in the propriety of plunging into the war. That was the general feeling of the people of England. It was undoubtedly true that they would be ready to undergo considerable sacrifices, in order to preserve the honour of the country unimpaired; but it was as true, that they would concur in their praises of ministers, if, keeping that honour unsullied, they should be enabled to bring to a consummation that happy state of prosperity which the country were now enjoying.

denied that the people would entertain those feelings, with respect to the preserving of neutrality, which the last speaker had asserted they would do. They would consider the causes of the war; they would see that it was not a war against Spain merely, but a war of tyrants, fanatics, and bigots, against the rights of free nations. They would see that it was a war against liberty; they would observe who were the crusaders; they would see who were the advocates of neutrality, now that the strife was against liberty; and, probably, they would find them to be the very parties who had preached up war when it was raging against liberty. For, what was this war of France upon Spain? Was it not for that which it was impossible for any nation to give up? Was it not to forte Spain to yield the point of honour? And, after she had done that, they might bid her take back her inquisition, and all the other engines of ignorance and slavery. There was, in short, no point of degradation at which she would stop. The French had dared the dishonour of Spain. He was an unworthy Briton who would tamely see France trample on the rights of Spain. Let the war proceed, and he felt certain that the people of this country would discharge the duty which they owed the Spaniards. He hoped and trusted, that this brave and generous people would, notwithstanding the Foreign Enlistment bill, go over in crowds, and rally round the banners of honour and freedom.

trusted that the country would be satisfied with the explanation given by ministers. For his part, he was not afraid of being charged with possessing a dastardly spirit, because he hoped that the national honour might be preserved, without the hazard and difficulties of a war.

expressed his surprise at what had fallen from the hon. city member. That hon. gentleman had attended the meeting convened, for the purpose of making a sort of confession of faith with regard to Spain. Why, in the name of God, had that hon. gentleman, holding the opinions he now professed, given his countenance and aid to that solemn ceremony? For what did they call the meeting; and what was their object in inviting the Spanish ministers? To wish them well? It was a cruel mockery to inform them that they wished them success, and then to talk of neutrality.

protested against the inference, with respect to those who had attended the dinner given to the Spanish minister. He felt a deep sympathy with the Spanish people; but he was very far from intending, by his attendance at that meeting, to pledge himself to engage the nation in war. He had no hesitation in declaring his opinion, that it would be wise in this country to keep out of the war. At any rate, the House ought to hear what ministers had to say, before it came to a decision on the subject. Right or wrong, it was not fair to condemn them unheard.

said, he had refused to attend the meeting, because he would not be considered as pledging himself to support a war on behalf of the Spanish nation. He was for preserving the national honour, without the hazard of war, if that were practicable. He was sorry to differ from his friends; but he was convinced the country ought to do any thing, consistently with its honour, to shun that abyss from which it had so recently escaped.

said, that no man deprecated more than he did, the conduct of France towards Spain; but that would not make him forget the calamities of war. The evils of the late war had been severely felt. We could not help them now. But they should teach us to pause, ere we plunged the country into another. He hoped he should be understood. Rather than compromise the honour of the country, he would go to, war; but still he thought that war should, if possible, be avoided.

said, that during the late war, he remembered hearing the hon. baronet opposite deprecate the interference of one country in the internal affairs of another; whether that country were ruled by a lawful king, a directory, or a republican government. He should like to hear explained, the circumstances which had induced the hon. baronet and his friends to change their opinions upon this important point.

said, that when he recollected the conduct of ministers on the occasion of the infamous attack upon Naples, he felt that he could not give them credit for liberality. He was most impatient, therefore, to see the documents which were to be produced. Respecting the dinner at which he had attended, he denied having the least idea of pledging himself to any particular line of conduct. His object was to hold out to the world his detestation of the principles upon which France was proceeding, with regard to Spain. It was impossible for him to convey, in suitable language, what he felt with regard to the conduct of the despots of Europe. He should best come near it by using the words of a modern poet:—

"Nations would do well

T' extort their truncheons from the puny hands

Of heroes, whose infirm and baby minds

Are gratified with mischief; and who spoil,

Because men suffer it, their toy, the world."

said, that the object of the bill was, to bring back the law to the same state as it was under the act of George 2nd, with respect to licences and the solemnization of marriages; in short, in every respect, save the invalidating marriages, when some of the provisions of the latter act had not been complied with.

said, that so far as the object of the present bill was to repeal all that part of the act of last session which had proceeded from the House of Lords, and to retain all that had originated with the House of Commons, it was impossible he could object to it. It was valuable also, because it contained a distinct recognition of the principle for which he had so long struggled. But he thought the bill objectionable, because on the face of it, it purported to be a temporary measure; that was, it took off several restrictions, intimating that some months hence other restrictions would be imposed. The House might depend upon it, that when the other restrictions were imposed, however lenient they might be, they would excite clamour and discontent. This was an unfortunate expedient, a vacillation in a most delicate branch of legislation, which he wished had been avoided. The same bill which took, off the restrictions, ought to have imposed those which were to be substituted for them. The bill as it came from the Lords was objectionable on another ground; it was so ill drawn, as to be totally unintelligible; and it actually did not accomplish by its enactments its own object, clearly showing its descent from the same parent stock which had produced the clumsy amendments of last year. The attorney-general had obviated this difficulty by the alterations he had proposed, which were so extensive, that when the bill reached the other House, their lordships would not find above two or three lines of the enacting part of it sent back to them. He should offer no opposition to the passing of the bill, though he regretted it was not a permanent and final regulation of the law. The amendments, and also a clause, brought up by Dr. Phillimore, for directing the king's printer to send copies of the act to the officiating ministers of the several parishes and chapelries of England and Wales, were agreed to.

said, that in rising, in pursuance of his notice to offer to the House the interesting petition which had been intrusted to his care, he felt confident, that the subject of the petition would of itself recommend it to the attention of a British House of Commons, and that an additional motive for that attention would be found in the character of the parties from whom the petition proceeded; a body of individuals who seldom came forward to take any share in public concerns, and who could be induced to do so only when they felt themselves called upon by considerations and objects affecting the hest and highest interests of society. On the part of the Society of Friends, commonly called Quakers, in Great Britain and Ireland, he held in his hand a petition which he begged leave to present, praying for the Abolition of Slavery throughout the British dominions. He well remembered, to the great honour of the same class of individuals, that they were the first to present a petition to parliament for the abolition of the slave trade. On that occasion, they had appealed to the great principles of humanity and religion. They had also maintained, and the event proved the accuracy of their reasoning, that the abolition was required by considerations of true policy, as much as by considerations of justice and humanity. The retiring disposition and quiet habits of the petitioners prevented them, as he had already observed, from obtruding themselves on public attention, except in such cases as appeared to be of paramount duty. When such a case occurred, however, they were never found deaf to the call of justice and humanity. Their sentiments on the present, as on every occasion, were expressed with moderation and a seriousness, calculated to give them great additional weight; although it was natural to suppose, that the very circumstance of their feeling themselves called upon to bear testimony against the continuance of slavery in the British dominions, might be calculated to excite some degree of warmth in their bosoms. It certainly was an extraordinary anomaly, that the freest nation that ever existed on the face of the earth—a nation in possession of true liberty—in. which the blessings of equate law was extended to the whole community—that such a country should be chargeable with the guilt and inconsistency of allowing slavery in any place under its control. It was, indeed, strange, that those who were so justly jealous of the slightest infringement of their own liberty, should, year after year, and century after century, persist in depriving a great number of persons of that blessing. It was under these circumstances that the petitioners had come forward: and they were entitled to the greater attention, because their efforts were directed against slavery wherever it existed. They asserted, that it was the duty of parliament to put an end to slavery in the British dominions, and to restore those unhappy persons who were suffering under its yoke to the moral dignity of the enjoyment of liberty. There was this to be said with respect to slavery in the East—namely, that there it had, from time immemorial, built for itself a nest—that there it had fenced itself round with mounds and ramparts, and had almost become a part of individual existence; but, an attack had commenced upon that strong hold of cvil; its outworks had been demolished, and the territories invaded; and the cause of truth and liberty was advancing. Ancient history proved, that in the part of the world to which he alluded, many of the evils which were so much deplored, had existed so long as two thousand years ago. The accounts of recent travelers scarcely differed from the descriptions which had been left by the ancients. But, how different were the circumstances attending the existence of slavery in the West Indies! There the evil was of our own creation. The slaves had originally been carried thither, not by their own will, but against it; being seized by fraud, and conveyed by force. To those men, and to their posterity, the country owed the solemn duty of making the best reparation they could for the injustice which had been inflicted upon them. It was really astonishing, that parliament should now be called upon to put an end to slavery, in any part of the British dominions. Never, perhaps, since the world began, had there been known such an extraordinary instance of the sufferance of an evil, in consequence of its being removed out of sight. By degrees, the country had be, come habituated to it; until at length it had actually been considered as a necessary part of the constitution of society, in the place where it existed. He now regretted that he, and those honourable friends who thought with him on this subject, had not before now attempted to put an end, not merely to the evils of the slave-trade, but to the evils of slavery itself. When the question of abolition was in its early progress before the legislature, he well recollected that many honourable members of high character and attainments expressed their decided opinion, that it was the duty of parliament, not to confine itself to the mere question of the abolition of the trade in slaves, but to abolish slavery altogether. Such had been the declared opinion of the late lord Thurlow, of Mr. Sheridan, of a noble friend of his, still living, but, now in the other House, then lord Percy, the present duke of Northumberland: who, when in the House Of Commons, absolutely proposed the abolition of slavery. It might be asked, why that proposition was not warmly supported by those who were then endeavouring to effect the abolition of the slave trade? The truth was, that they were apprehensive, that to press it might prove fatal to the measure which they were desirous, in the first place, to secure. It was, at the period to which he alluded, objected to the friends of the abolition of the slave trade, that their great object was total emancipation. The friends of the abolition of the slave trade allowed, that the abolition of slavery was, ultimately their object; and they certainly, felt that there was no mode by which it was more likely that that object would be obtained, than by, in the first instance, abolishing the slave trade. Among other advocates, however, for the abolition of the slave trade and slavery together, was the late lord Melville, who, when Mr. Dundas, proposed to the House of Commons, that the slave trade and slavery should end together on the 1st of January, 1800. He, however (Mr. W.), and his immediate friends, were satisfied with endeavouring, in the first instance, to secure the abolition of the slave trade. That object had at length been effected, as far as it could be effected by a legislative measure. It would be impossible, however, to prevent the slave trade entirely, until a complete system of registration were established. There was reason to fear that, in some of the colonies, the trade had been secretly permitted. He owned he thought, that at one period, there was strong circumstantial evidence to show, that in the island of Jamaica, illicit importation of slaves had been permitted. What rendered it still more probable that to a certain extent illicit importation of slaves was carried on, was the universal declaration, previous to the abolition, of every individual possessing property in the West Indies, that it would be absolutely impossible to prevent the importation of slaves into the West India islands. That declaration had made a strong impression on his mind. One great principle by which the friends of the abolition of the slave, trade had been actuated was, that the conviction that there was no possible way of obtaining fresh negroes, would induce the planters to adopt, towards their present slaves, a mode of treatment calculated to effect with regard to them, a great physical and moral reform. They had trusted, that the abolition of the slave trade would induce a diminution of the labour of the slaves, a greater attention to, their health, a communication to them of the blessings of religious instruction, and an advancement of their rank in the scale of human beings. Such had been their expectations. They had hoped, that the despair of being able to obtain any addition to the number of their slaves by importation, would be binding on the planters to diminish the evils to which the slaves already in their possession were subjected. That the moral effect had not been so great as was anticipated, was, in a great measure, attributable to the defective registration, by which the illicit importation of slaves was encouraged. He remembered but too well, that an individual, of whom he could never speak but with the highest respect, Mr. Burke, declared his distrust of all general principles, which were not connected with positive regulations for carrying them into effect. The immediate friends of the abolition, however, were satisfied, at, that time, with the attainment of that single object, for the reasons which he had already stated, and which might, perhaps, extenuate his own guilt in not having sooner proposed the termination of that evil, against which the prayer of the petition which he held in his hand was directed. He might be mistaken; but he sincerely believed, that, while the great measure which he and the petitioners were now endeavouring to recommend to the House, was enjoined on them by the highest motives which could actuate, human beings, it was also recommeded by every view of true policy, and of the best interests of the West India proprietors themselves. He hoped, therefore, that the question would be made one of serious consideration. He earnestly commended the House to take this great subject up, not with violent zeal, not with headlong haste, but with a determination to do their duty, If, in the course of their deliberations upon it they should find, that the great object in view, could not be obtained without injury to individuals in the colonies, it would be for them to consider by what means those individuals might properly be compensated by the mother country; never, however, forgetting, in their solicitnde, to discharge any obligations, of that nature, that they had no right to pay British debts with African freedom. All he meant to request was, that the question might receive the fair and impartial consideration of that House; and let hon. members keep it in mind that, this question involved the liberty and happiness of several hundreds of thousands of their fellow creatures; men who, when transplanted to a more genial soil, and blessed with the benefits of education, had shown, by the very rapid progress which they made in humanity, religion, and civilization, that they were nor inferior to any other nation in capability of improvement. He felt that, when arguing upon the fate of a great number of human beings, it would be degrading the subject to confine himself merely to the necessity of supplying them with food and clothing. He regretted, that it had, for some time, been too much the fashion to confine the wants and necessities of slaves merely to food and clothing. Let hon. members look to the principle upon which those unfortunate personages had been, for a long time, indtteed5 to work. That principle was, that they were incapable of recollecting a past, or looking forward to a future punishment; and that it was necessary to go on, constantly applying the stimulus of the whip. In adverting to the former conduct of slave owners, he wished to make every possible allowance for the prejudices and feelings by which they were actuated, and to which he himself would have been equally subject, under similar circumstances. He was fully aware of the feelings entertained, and the difficulties which he had had to encounter, when he first brought the question of the African slave trade before parliament, between thirty and forty years ago. He well remembered, that those who were neutral, as well as several who were friendly to the question, repeatedly told him, it was impossible he could ever succeed in his object. He, however, determined to persevere, feeling quite sure, that in England such a cause must finally be successful. He would say the same now. He stood upon principles which, however tardily, would at length make their way with the people of England. In presenting this petition, he considered that the first stone was laid of an edifice which would flourish at some future period an ornament to the land. The Petition was brought up and read. After eulogizing the perseverance with which the legislature had followed up the measure of abolition of the slave trade, it went on point out the evils to which hundreds of thousands of fellow-beings were still-exposed, by acontinuance of their bondage in the British colonies, and concluded by imploring parliament to adopt the most efficacious measures for redeeming them from their present degraded situation.

asked whether it was the intention of his hon. friend to found any motion upon the petition.

said it was not, but that such was the intention of an hon. and much esteemed friend of his.

then gave notice, that on the 22nd of April, he would submit a motion, that the House should take into consideration the state of slavery in the British colonies.

admitted the details of the estimate to be in general satisfactory, although he thought that the accounts might still be furnished in a more simple and intelligible shape. The charge for colonies he principally objected to. That item was only 8,000l. less in the present year than it had been in the last; and he could not see the policy of keeping up colonies which were to be a burthen to the mother country, instead of a support. He could not help thinking, that it had been unwise to lay out between 2 and 300,000l. in forming a harbour at Bermuda. There was also a charge, for the Cape of Good Hope, of 170,000l. Now, he was convinced that, under a different system of management, the sale of lands being fairly conducted, and the revenue of the colony judiciously applied, the Cape would be capable of fully maintaining itself. Indeed, but for the commission of inquiry which had been sent out, he should have brought forward a specific motion on the subject. The hon. member then touched upon the administration of our colonies in North America, and upon the charges of Mr. Gourlay against the government of Canada. He adverted to the condition of the Ionian Islands, and complained heavily that England should have paid 150,000l. a year, for more than six years, not to protect the people of those islands, but to coerce and keep them in subjection. Among other vices in the administration of sir T. Maitland, he deprecated the arrangement by which that officer had been allowed to hold the two situations of governor of Malta, and high commissioner of the Ionian Islands at the same time. Surely, if Malta required to have a governor at salary of 5,000l. a year, there must be sufficient duty there to occupy that governor's attention, without his holding any offices elsewhere. The only advantage which the country had reaped from sir T. Maitland's holding office in Malta, and in the Ionian Islands also, was, that it had paid for his occasional transport from the one place to the other. He was glad, however, to see some prospect of a more liberal system being adopted towards the Ionian Islands. He could only attribute such change of principle to the change which had taken place in the office of foreign secretary. He believed that, under the new policy, we might reduce our force in those Ionian Islands by 2,000 men. The hon member then reverted to the union of offices under sir T. Maitland; and complained, that certain new regulations which that officer had introduced as to quarantine, cramped the operations of commerce, and occasioned loss as well as inconvenience. He objected farther, with respect to the expense of foreign stations, that Heligoland was no longer of any use to this country. It might have been valuable during the war, as a nest for our smugglers; but it had cost ten times more than it was worth, and might now be given rap, He concluded by protesting against the heavy cost which arose out of our military establishment at New Brunswick, and declared, that the whole charge of that military establishment might, under proper regulations, be spared.

said, that the value of our colonies was not to be determined by the mere expense they cost, but a great variety of other circumstances. As to the crown lands in Canada, he would say, that Mr. Gourlay had grossly vilified the government of Canada. Considering the political situation of Canada, it was not possible to separate it from the empire; and, owing to that situation, the expense incurred was necessary. As to Bermuda, it was a naval station, and the expenditure for it was determined by very different principles and motives. He would not notice what had been said regarding the Mauritius, further than by observing, that the commissioners sent thither would shortly furnish such information as would render all dispute as to the facts unnecessary. As to the Ionian Islands he could not allow it to be supposed from his silence, that he acquiesced in the assertion, that our troops were stationed there to suppress independence, and keep down disaffection. He could assure the hon. member, that the change to which he Alluded was not the conse- quence of any recent change in the policy of this country. No alteration whatever had been made in the instructions since the beginning of the Greek contest. Before the hon. gentleman attacked the character of a gallant officer, it wet his duty to point out distinct facts, which showed that the neutrality had been violated. At no former period had the prosperity of the Ionian Islands been greater than now; and if, at any time; the occupation of them could be justified, it was at the present moment. He concluded by insisting, that in all the colonies government had united practical economy with the most extended views of general policy.

said, he had proved the charges which he had brought against the governor of the Ionian Islands. The conduct of sir T. Maitland had been completely changed towards the Greeks since he had brought forward his motion. The fact was notoriously so, and all he (Mr. H.) had ever wanted was, that a strict neutrality should be observed. A communication from the Ionian Islands, of a very late date, expressed the gratitude of the inhabitants for the total change in the tone and conduct of the British authorities, as regarded the Greeks and their cause. If this did not arise from any order on the part of ministers, it showed, that in this, as well as in some other cases, too much credit had been given them. As to Mr. Gourlay, he considered him a severely oppressed man, who had been troublesome, and of whom the colony had taken care to get rid. It did not follow, that because a man was troublesome, he ought to be expelled. He spoke feelingly. He did not wish, like Mr. Gourlay, to be driven tot break stones upon the public highways. He had no hesitation in saying, that Mr. Gourlay had been removed from Canada most unjustly; because he entertained liberal opinions, and charged a public officer with receiving fees after he had accepted a fixed income in lieu of them. He (Mr. H.) earnestly recommended, that freedom and independence should be given to the Canadas'. They would then be able to stand by themselves: where as if a war broke out between this country and America, we might spend a vast deal of blood and treasure in defending them, and yet lose them in the end. At present we could relinquish them with honour. Here after we might be compelled to abandon them with disgrace.

from personal knowledge and long intimacy, bore testimony to the honesty and disinterestedness of the public officer accused by Mr. Gourlay.

was quite sure the charges would turn out to be unfounded. The resolution was agreed to. On the resolution, "That 40,000l. be granted for Works and Repairs of Public Buildings,"

rose to make some remarks on the ruinous and disgraceful condition of St. James's Park, the Green Park, and Hyde Park. The trees were falling to decay, the railings broken down, the paths were not attended to. They were kept open all night, and were the resort of the lowest and most profligate characters; in short, no attention was paid to their preservation, or appearance, or police, or to the convenience of the public. They gave the perfect idea of an estate which one sometimes passes in travelling, and which was described as the property of Mr. So and So, whose affairs were unfortunately in Chancery. In every possible way the public were incommoded. If there was a gate, it was so small that no, man with a burthen could pass; if there was a useful footpath, it was stopped up; if there was an entrance in a particularly convenient place, it was kept locked. In fact, every thing was done in such a way as if the favour to the public were yielded as grudgingly as possible. Cattle were turned out into the Green Park, by which one of the finest meadows possible was turned into a quagmire, like a stable-yard. Two gentlemen condescended to pocket a considerable sum as rangers, and this practice, he supposed, conduced to their profit. As compared with the management of those parks, the Regent's Park, which was under the woods and forests' board, presented a striking contrast.

concurred with the hon. gentleman, that the subject was one of sufficient importance to the comforts of the people of the metropolis to deserve consideration, and he thought the House would agree, that, if the revenue of the parkas, was too limited to keep them in proper condition, no moderate sum could be better employed than in supplying the deficiency. He had made inquiries into the subject, and should take steps in consequence; though some of the matters complained of had a view to public convenience. For instance, the putting an end to the keeping of cows in the park, would greatly disappoint parties who were in the habit of regaling themselves, in their morning walks, with the produce of those cows. However, the, hon. gentleman had said enough to awaken attention to the subject.

objected to the establishment. He believed that other institutions in the metropolis, which did not receive a shilling of the public money, far excelled this establishment in utility. He wished this vote to be postponed until a return, showing what had been done by this establishment, was laid on the table.

defended the public establishment, as an institution of the greatest utility, and contended, that the vote was absolutely necessary for its support. The return would show, that the establishment had been productive of great benefit. This was the only institution to which the country could look for pure vaccine matter.

did not wish to put down the establishment altogether, but objected to the manner in which the money was expended. He could not agree to pay 800l. a year to eight medical men, who were mean enough to take an annual salary of 100l. each. Dr. Jenner had withdrawn himself from the establishment, because he disapproved of the manner in which the money was wasted.

said, that where so eminent a physician as sir H. Halford devoted two hours of one day in every week to the business of the institution, he could not be overpaid with 100l. a year. If he employed those two hours in visiting his patients, he would make a much larger sum.

said, that the country was under great obligations to Dr. Jenner, and he trusted the government would see the propriety of erecting a monument to his memory. He thought the House ought to add 500l. to the present vote, for the purpose of raising a statue to perpetuate his fame, and to manifest the gratitude of his country.

said, that such a motion could not be made. It had been decided, that a vote of money could not be increased in the committee.

said, he had no doubt, that the eight medical gentlemen alluded to, would willingly give their hundred pounds a-piece towards raising a monument to Dr. Jenner. In that case, the desire of the hon. baronet would be gratified, without any addition being made to the vote.

was of opinion, that the public money was never better expended than in erecting monuments to those who had made great and useful discoveries. Dr. Jenner was one to whom the country was deeply indebted. He hoped the hon. baronet would move, in a fuller house, for the sum he had mentioned.