said, he rose to present a petition from Mr. Eagar, a merchant and inhabitant of the settlement of New South Wales against two provisions in the bill then in its passage through the House, for the better government of that colony. The first provision against which the petitioner prayed was that which deprived an English subject of his right; to the trial by a by the substitution of a court martial composed of a prescribed number of army and navy officers, selected by the govern or and by a strange perversion of language designated a jury in the present bill. The se- cond clause to which the petitioner claimed the attention of the House, was that which gave to the governor of that colony the extraordinary power, on the affidavit of an unknown informant, to send a British subject from his residence in that settlement over three quarters of the globe, to England without trial, or any defence allowed on the part of the subject. Against those two provisions in the bill, the petitioner prayed to be heard by counsel at the bar of that House. He could not, under the circumstances, anticipate any objection to so reasonable a request. If it should be communicated to him that there would be no objection, he should present the Petition without further comment; but if that assurance was not given, it would be his duty to make some further observations on the character and tendency of these two very extraordinary provisions.

said, he could not consent to such an application.

said, that after the intimation which he had received from the under secretary for the colonies, it became necessary to advert to the effect of these provisions on a numerous body of British subjects, whose interests were undefended in that House, and whose present claims and future prospects were seriously affected by them. The colony of New South Wales had ceased to be a mere receptacle for convicts. It had latterly grown into considerable importance, and was rich in all the capacities which promised eventually a high destination. Its inhabitants were composed of a greater number of European origin, than was to be found in the whole of our Asiatic settlements. Independently of the 20,000 convicts whose situation was not affected by the bill, there were the free settlers and the freedmen. The first class amounted to 4,000, the second to 7,000. There, was, besides, that numerous class, the progeny of convicts, born in the colony—persons whose innocence was unquestioned, and whose claims to the protection of British law were not vitiated by any misconduct of their parents. It was no argument to say, that heretofore these rights were overlooked in the administration of the colony; The parliament were now taking the first step in legislating for its interests, and it therefore was the more incumbent on that House not to entwine around such a principle the shoots of tyranny and arbitrary power. On what ground could it be contended that the 4000 English settlers were to be outlawed? And to similar rights were the emancipated convicts or freedmen, and the population born in the colony, entitled. No doubt it would be said, by those who supported those strange provisions, that we should recollect we were providing a system for a population, a great proportion of which had been convicts. Now, that very consideration was decisive with him not to grant arbitrary and unjustifiable powers to a governor. If he were to choose a situation where those powers were the most likely to be cruelly and wantonly exercised—where the danger and mischief resulting was most likely to be aggravated—it was precisely with a population so constituted. Let it not be pretended, that it was not the intention of this government to give trial by jury to New South Wales. The contrary expectation had been held out by governor Hunter, and after him by governors Bligh and Macquarrie. Neither could it be pretended that the settlement could not furnish a sufficient number of qualified persons from among whom juries could be formed. There were 3,000 landholders settled there, having between 50 and 60 acres each. The new regulation went to compose the juries of a majority of naval and military officers, from those who might happen to be on the station. It was plain that there might occur a deficiency of members, on account of the regulations of the service, or the particular stations of the ships, while no such circumstance could be dreaded with respect to the landholders. The other clause, which gave to the governor the power on the oath of an unknown informant, to transport a man from his family and business to Great Britain, on the mere charge of conspiracy or treason, was calculated to excite the abhorrence of every lover of the British constitution. To place the liberty and comforts of thousands of English subjects at the will of a governor, whose fatuity or whose malice might be worked upon by concealed accusations, was one of the most revolting propositions ever made; and if that House sanctioned it, it would be unworthy of the people whom it represented—a people whose glory, and whose principal source of national greatness, sprung from the love and the enjoyment of popular securities. He condemned in strong terms the illiberal system of Government, which inflicted on some classes unnecessary degradation and ignominy, and which, by encouraging the insolence of some orders of society, was likely to excite the vengeance of the majority of the population. He thought that invidious distinctions ought to be abolished, and the people generally admitted to the benefits of the British constitution, and above all to the enjoyment of the invaluable privilege of the trial by jury, by which means the interests of civilization would be most effectually promoted. He would now move that the petition be brought up and read, and he would afterwards move that the petitioner be heard by his counsel, before the committee on the said bill."

could have wished that the hon. gentleman had reserved his observations for the regular stage of discussing the bill, instead of incidentally arguing the merits of the question upon presenting a petition. The hon. gentleman must excuse him if he declined to follow so inconvenient a precedent, or to discuss with him now the propriety of practically applying the theory of the British constitution, and the institution of trial by to a state of colonial society so essentially different from that of the parent country. As to the bill, he considered it necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the report of the parliamentary commission, and did not see that there was any ground for hearing the petitioner by his counsel.

said, that the petition, complaining as it did of the non-introduction of the trial by jury into a British colony was most worthy of the consideration of that House. He regarded the trial by jury as quite necessary for the freedom and civilization of the colony. The real question in this case was, whether the colony was to remain to them a useful auxiliary, or become a source of inquietude and danger. The principle of the colonial government ought to be to amalgamate all the classes of society in the colony; and what better mode of doing so could be devised, than securing for them that invaluable privilege which brought the rich end the poor into an honourable contact.

thought it important that time should be allowed for ascertaining whether this bill was as perfect as it ought to be. As to the benefit of the introduction of the trial by jury, he looked on it as doubtful, in the present state of the colony. He was of opinion that several of the regulations in that government were harsh, and injurious to the principles of civilization; and he therefore thought the petitioner ought to be heard by his counsel.

was of opinion, that some clauses in the bill were objectionable. He defended the administration of governor Macquarrie, and objected to the report of commissioner Bigg, on which the bill was founded, and on which no confidence could be placed. He thought the instructions to that commissioner ought to be laid on the table for the purpose of ascertaining how far he had complied with or exceeded his instructions. On the whole, he thought more time ought to be allowed for the consideration of the bill.

vindicated the conduct and character of commissioner Bigg, than whom, he said, a more honourable man did not exist. He could assure the House he had not been appointed to that situation by earl Bathurst on account of personal acquaintance, but because he had filled with credit an official situation in the island of Trinidad.

, in rising to move that the petitioner be heard by his counsel, called the attention of the House to the important fact, that if the bill passed with the clauses which it at present contained, 8000 freemen were liable to be transported without trial, at the mere will of the governor. If the House should, after this statement, refuse to hear the counsel of persons who had so deep an interest in the measure, let the fault lie with them. For his own part, he would enter a practical protest against such a proceeding, and would call for a division, even though he should stand alone.

said, it was in tended, in the Committee, to introduce a clause by which the operation of the bill would be so limited, that instead of extending to 8,000 individuals, it would scarcely extend to as many hundreds. In fact, it would operate only on those who had just completed the term of their transportation.

observed, that according to the hon. gentleman's own shewing, the bill would deny to any person who had completed his term of punishment, and who ought therefore to return to the rights of an Englishman, the enjoyment of those rights.

remarked, that the question for the House to determine was, whether they would see with their own eyes or with the eyes of the executive government? He had great confidence in the disposition of the colonial department to abstain from any act of injustice, but he could see no reason for objecting to hear counsel. If the argument in support of the petition should prove invalid, it would have no effect on the House; if, on the contrary, it should prove valid, it ought to induce them to pause before they acquiesced in the measure.

rose, in pursuance of his notice, to move that the papers presented to the House, on the 19th of June last, relative to the capture of the ship Requin, in the river Garonne, in March, 1814, by Mr. Ogilvie, a commissary with the British army in the peninsula, be referred to the consideration of a Select Committee. The hon. member said, that he proposed, with the permission of the House, to lay before it a brief statement of the claims of Mr. Ogilvie, by whom the vessel had actually been taken. In the year 1814, in consequence of the succession of brilliant victories achieved by the British in the peninsula, the army under lord Beresford, who was then second in command, became masters of Bourdeaux. Mr. Ogilvie was directed by lord Beresford in the execution of his duty as a commissioned officer, to proceed in a boat, accompanied by one of his clerks, and take possession of the vessels in the Garonne. That gentleman accordingly proceeded to execute this commission and had discharged it; when the clerk suggested to him, that some vessels might possibly be stationed lower down the river. Upon which, Mr. Ogilvie, having engaged ten French royalist sailors, directed them to row down the river. This they accordingly did; and when they had proceeded about two miles, they discovered on turning an angle of the river, two vessels lying near the shore, one of which, was evidently a ship of war, and the other a merchantman. The sailors who were in the boat immediately recognised the ship of war to be an American privateer, called the Requin, which had been very successful against the English merchant-vessels. As the Requin had a number of guns, Mr. Ogilvie immediately retired behind a neck of land. And here he (Mr. Buxton) was ready to adroit, that but for some further information which Mr. Ogilvie received, he would not have attempted the capture. But, just at that moment, he saw a boat put off from the Requin; which he succeeded in capturing. In this boat was the gunner of the Requin, from whom he gathered that, owing to various circumstances, the ship's force had been very much diminished, and that it did not then amount to more than fifteen or twenty hands. The attempt to take the vessel, even under these circumstances, was an extremely hazardous one; but Mr. Ogilvie, nevertheless, resolved upon making the attempt. He promised a considerable reward to the few men with him, and taking the helm himself, and being favoured by the tide, he proceeded to the Requin, unperceived by the crew. Mr. Ogilvie immediately; sprang on board, and called out to them to surrender, when the sailors on deck, concluding that he had a considerable force with him, ran below: The captain of the Requin shortly after came up from the cabin unarmed. Mr. Ogilvie demanded to know whether he surrendered. The captain also supposing that Mr. Ogilvie had a considerable force with him, against which resistance would be unavailing, surrendered. By Mr. Ogilvie's management, it was arranged, that two or three of the crew should come up at a time; and, as they came up, they were hoisted over the side, and all safely secured in the boat; and in a quarter of an hour the vessel was in his possession, one wounded sailor and the captain being alone left on board the Requin. Mr. Ogilvie then directed his clerk to make the best of his way with his prisoners to Bourdeaux, and to return with a sufficient force to carry up the vessel. Mr. Ogilvie was then left on board the Requin, where he remained for four hours, until the boat returned with some soldiers, into whose possession he put the ship, and returned to Bourdeaux. During this time, he was lying within one hundred yards of the shore, and one hundred and fifty yards of a village, in which a detachment of the enemy's cavalry; was stationed; and, if they had had the slightest intimation of the affair of the affair of the vessel being taken by the British nothing could have, been more easy than her recapture and Ogilvie's life would have been in imminent danger. On reach- ing Bourdeaux, Mr. Ogilvie stated what he had done to an officer of great distinction, colonel Ponsonby. The American captain confirmed all his statements, and added, that it had been his intention to proceed to sea the next tide, which Would have been in three or four hours. This was the outline of the case; but, if the House required any confirmation of the details, he was able to afford the fullest and the most satisfactory. One was a letter from colonel Ponsonby, of the 12th regiment of light dragoons, in which that distinguished officer declared, that it was one of the bravest exploits that was ever achieved. He had also the testimony of sir R. Arbuthnot, major Annesley, and others; all of whom spoke of the success of the capture as attributable entirely, to the courage and conduct of Mr. Ogilvie. There was only one point admitting of any doubt. It might e said, that the enterprise was certainly one of great hazard, but that it was an act of superfluous intrepidity, as the river, if not entirely in the possession of the British, would have been so on the following day. In opposition to this, he had to state the fact, that seven and twenty sail of American merchantmen had escaped on the preceding night. Then there was the declaration of the captain of the Requin, that he had intended to sail the next tide. Then there was the conclusive circumstance, that the British merchantman which had been taken by the Americans actually escaped that night, and was never recaptured. Lastly, there were the orders sent on that Very day by the duke of Wellington to rear admiral Penrose, requiring the ships of war to come up the river; as, until that was done lie had not the command of it. Then came the question, to whom the prize belonged? If Mr. Ogilvie had been a private individual, there could be no doubt on the subject. But Mr. Ogilvie was not a private individual. He was a commissary attached to the army. The prize might be considered under one of two views; either as a droit of the admiralty, or as booty. He was quite ready to admit, that in either case, it belonged, in the first instance, to his majesty; but then that right was controlled by regulations which bad been made upon the subject. When a prize was held to be a droit of the admiralty, the general rule was, to give the captors a half, sometimes two-thirds, and occasionally even nine- tenths. If it were held to be booty, the duke of Wellington had previously issued an order, that every thing taken in that way should be divided among the captors. There had been many cases among them, the capture of a quantity of wool, and the capture of a quantity of money—in which that division had taken place. If it were considered, that it was merely the act of an individual, not a commissioned officer, and therefore not entitled to a share of the prize; there was a case of a person, a Mr. Stone, who, after the Isle of Bourbon had been taken from the French, having been left in custody of the transports, saw a French vessel come unsuspiciously into the harbour, in ignorance of what had taken place, and immediately collected some men together and captured her. By an order signed, "Liverpool, N. Vansittart, and Lowther," half the prize was given to the captors. All that he wished was, that Mr. Ogilvie should be treated in the same, manner as other officers had been. And, on either of these points, he was ready to rest his case. He had no interest whatever in the transaction. He was only anxious, that a gallant and meritorious individual, who had risked his life in an enterprise in which he had completely succeeded, should receive the reward due to his exertions. He would therefore now move, "That the papers presented to this House the 19th of June last, relating to the capture of the ship Requin, in the river Garonne, in March 1814, be referred to a select committee."

wished to state the reason why he, a mere tyro in the House, should come forward to second the motion. The reason was, that he had known Mr. Ogilvie for five-and-twenty years, and had the greatest regard for him, and the greatest respect for his character. During the years 1809, 1810, 1811, and 1812, he had served with him, in the peninsula, and that gentleman had there conducted himself in a manner which drew upon him the highest approbation of all who witnessed it. When the army was placed in circumstances of the greatest difficulty, Mr. Ogilvie by his activity and perseverance, had materially contributed to furnish it with the necessary supplies. In corroboration of these statements, the hon. member read the testimonials of several distinguished officers, among whom were sir W. Stewart, major-general D'Urban, &c. All that he wished was, that some adequate com- pensation should be granted to Mr. Ogilvie, for the brave enterprise which had been described to the House by the hon. member for Weymouth. Mr. Ogilvie did not come there to claim a reward for, the discovery of the longitude; he did-not come there to claim a reward for the discovery of the quadrature of the circle; he did not come there to claim a reward for the discovery of the philosopher's stone; he did not come there to claim a reward for the discovery of the perpetual motion; he did not come there with any claim similar to that of her royal highness the princess Olive of Cumberland;—but he came there, as a British officer, to claim that reward which was due for an action of singular zeal and bravery. If the House knew Mr. Ogilvie and his merits, he was sure they would not hesitate a moment on the subject. He trusted, that in the present case, the old adage, "might overcomes right," would not prove true. He trusted that this gallant and meritorious officer would not be turned adrift, without the means of sustaining the character of a gentleman, after he had spent so many years in the service of his country. He had heard that there was, in a certain high quarter, an indisposition towards granting Mr. Ogilvie's claim. He could not believe that it was so: and he hoped the illustrious duke, who had had an opportunity of witnessing Mr. Ogilvie's merits, would express in that quarter the good opinion which he entertained of him. But, whatever might be the sentiments elsewhere entertained, he trusted that in that House the full force would be felt of two words, with which he should conclude—Fiat Justitia!

begged to assure the hon. member who had introduced the present subject, and the gallant gentleman who supported him, that in opposing the motion, he did not wish in the least to detract from the merits of Mr. Ogilvie, either generally as a commissary, or particularly with respect to the transaction now before the House. But he must say, that the general merits of Mr. Ogilvie, as a commissar, had nothing to do with the question they were then called on to consider. If that were the case, the only point to ascertain would be whether Mr. Ogilvie had received adequate remuneration for the services he performed? But in the present instance, the question was, whe- ther, having captured the vessel called the Requin, he was entitled to clam her as his exclusive prize? There were some circumstances, however, which ought to be taken into consideration before the House came to a decision on that claim. Mr. Ogilvie had captured that vessel when engaged in the execution of Ms duty as commissary; namely, in securing possession of several vessels which had fallen into the hands of the English on the taking of Bourdeaux. Now, there were at that time no less than 12,000 troops stationed in Bourdeaux, and in consequence, so far was the escape of the Requin from being possible, that all the ships captured, were actually impounded. It was, indeed, very clear, that this vessel was skulking, although she could hot have escaped, at the time Mr. Ogilvie took her by a coup-de-main: but, how ever willing he was to acknowledge the gallantry of that gentleman, there was nothing extraordinary in the action. That, however, was not the only ground on which he should oppose the motion. Mr. Ogilvie was entitled to his share of prize money, as well as all other persons similarly employed; and his standings in the service would, he believed, place him in that respect on a level with a major in the army. All the booty taken in those campaigns, was, with a view to its distribution, valued, and on a fair estimation of every article, was found to amount to 800,000l., which sum parliament after wards granted, in lieu of all the captures which had been made; and of this 800,000l., Mr. Ogilvie obtained his share. The only question, therefore, to ascertain, in order to decide the present claim, was, whether the value of the Requin was included in the above grant? If the House then would refer to papers, they would find a letter from Mr. Ogilvie and colonel Eckersley to the duke of Wellington, and written on the 10th of June, 1814, in which it was stated, that they had estimated all the property which fell into the possession of the English in the campaigns alluded to, and valued it at 800,000l. Then followed a list of the vessels captured, among which was, fist a ship of war, estimated at 18,000l. and then, the Requin, also estimated at 18,000l. It thus appeared, that those very two vessels, for one of which the present claim was set up, were actually included in the booty. He could not therefore, see on what ground separate claim for the above vessel was now advanced. But the hon. gentleman opposite, and Mr. Ogilvie himself, had laid; some stress on what they considered the practice of the duke of Wellington, with respect to the distribution of booty, and seemed to conceive, that his grace sanctioned the claims of individuals to what they had themselves captured. Now, he was enabled to read a letter from the duke of Wellington to Mr. Ogilvie, written in 1820, in which his grace denied that he had ever acted on such a principle. The public, his grace continued, had already I allowed a sum of money for the booty' taken, and as Mr. Ogilvie had shared that sum, he could not expect any further prize-money for the capture he made. The letter then proceeded to say, that Mr. Ogilvie, and the men who acted with him in taking the Requin, had done no more than their duty, and that so far from his grace having ever given to individuals the booty which they obtained, he always shared it among the troops generally. He had read these passages from his grace's letter, to show, that the principle on which Mr. Ogilvie brought forward his claim, had never been sanctioned by the duke of Wellington. The hon. member opposite had also alluded to the opinion of colonel Ponsonby; for the talents of that distinguished officer, he had the highest respect, and he had no doubt but that he: felt anxious that Mr. Ogilvie, as well as I every other individual connected with the service, should be properly rewarded. Lord Dalhousie had also been alluded to, but in his letter of the 29th of August, 1815, he merely said, that "the army was indebted to Mr. Ogilvie, for the capture he had made:" from which it was manifested that, his lordship considered it a part of the general mass of booty, the value of which was to be distributed among the troops generally. Having thus stated the grounds on which he resisted the present motion, he had no hesitation in adding, that it would be monstrous injustice to sanction Mr. Ogilvie's claim, if the House was not prepared to say, that in all campaigns, by sea and land, each individual was entitled to the booty which he might secure.

observed, that Mr. Ogilvie had stated several instances in which individuals were allowed the exclusive enjoyment of the booty they obtained. He wished to know from the chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he was aware that such cases had occurred, for he should consider Mr. Ogilvie's statements if correct, as better evidence on the present question, than the simple letter of the duke of Wellington. The reasons, however, stated in the duke's letter life considered conclusive, as to what ought to be the general practice of the army; but if his hon. friend showed, that claims similar to Mr. Ogilvie's had been allowed, it was an argument in favour of the present motion.

was not aware of the cases referred to having taken place; but he knew that when booty was obtained by a particular detachment of the army, it was divided among that detachment.

thought that nothing could be more injurious to the discipline of an army, than to allow individuals to possess the booty which they might obtain by marauding.

replied. Mr. Ogilvie, he said, had received but 75l. 14s. as his share of prize money for capturing the Requin; and from the commencement, he had considered himself entitled to the full amount of its value. In proof of this, there was the deposition of Mr. Potts, an attorney, whom Mr. Ogilvie had employed to issue what was called a libel against that vessel, three weeks after she had been taken. He had also paid the prize master of the Requin for a period of four years; and was so universally supposed to be the owner of the ship, that the duke d'Angouleme applied to him for a loan of her, which he obtained. Upon the whole, he should persist in his motion.

said, he felt on every account the propriety of compressing the observations which he had to make on the present occasion into as narrow a compass as possible. He knew how much the House had been fatigued within the last two weeks, and I he might himself say that, individually, he had experienced the full effects of that fatigue. He should, therefore, proceed without further preface to lay his statement before the committee. As, at an early period, of the session, he had explained the situation in which the Finances of the country stood, and the course of measures which his, majesty's government intended to recommend, to parliament for adoption, and as he had since been enabled by the House to carry those measures into effect, he should not at present repeat any of the observations which he then made. At that time he had stated what was the aggregate amount of the revenue, and also the aggregate amount of the expenses of the nation. Now, however, he should take a more limited view of our situation, and confine himself to a recapitulation of the Votes of Supply which had been come to in the course of the session, and the Ways and Means which parliament had provided to meet that supply.—He had stated, at the commencement of the session, that the total amount of the supply would be about 16,600,000l. Gentlemen, however, would now find, from the papers laid before them, that the supply exceeded the above sum by 2 or 300,000l. He should, he trusted, be able to account satisfactorily for that excess. It did not occur in consequence of any increase in the estimates for the Army or Navy or the Ordnance, but the whole had arisen under the head Miscellaneous Expenses, and the items which caused it were such as had not entered into his contemplation when he before addressed the House on the present subject. One of these items was a vote of nearly 60,000l. for the Stationery Office. This vote was in consequence of arrangements which had been lately made for supplying the public departments with stationery, and which, though attended with an extra charge at present, would afterwards conduce to great economy. Formerly, each department provided itself with whatever stationery it thought necessary; but an alteration had been made, by which no stationery was to be furnished but according to particular samples approved of by the Stationery Office, and by that means the total expense (which antecedently was divided among the different public departments) would come under one head. Although, therefore, an increase appeared at present in the expense of the Stationery Office, there would be a corresponding saving in the expenses of all the departments under, the head of contingencies. The full advantages of this alteration would not be felt this year, on account of the navy and military departments having provided themselves with stationery before the new arrangement took place; but next year the public would derive considerable benefit from it. Another item which he had not anticipated at the commencement of the session was, the grant for his majesty's library. There was also 40,000l. for the harbour of Dunleary; and 15,000l. for facilitating emigration from Ireland, which not being contemplated at the commencement of the session, had the effect of increasing the amount of the supply, by the sum already stated. It was, however, satisfactory for him to be able to inform the committee, that although there was such an increase in the supply, there was more than a corresponding increase in the amount of the Ways and Means. The whole of the supply now amounted to 16,976,743l. The way in which these expenses were met, was by three millions of what in the printed papers were, by mistake, termed annual Malt Taxes, but which were, in reality, duties on sugar and other articles. Then there was the lottery 200,000l. and 126,873l. repayment by Exchequer-bill loan commissioners. Next was the amount of naval and military pensions, 4,800,000l., and 90,000l. to be paid by the East India Company, on account of half-pay and pensions. This item he wished shortly to explain, and in doing so he had great pleasure in stating, that the East India Company acquiesced in the arrangement, as one perfectly equitable. It appeared to them perfectly reasonable, that as they had a large portion of the British army employed in protecting their territory, they should become liable to some part of the half-pay and pensions with which the country was chargeable on account of the army. There was some difficulty in fixing the fair proportion which the Company ought to pay, because many of those who were pensioned, or put on half pay, while their regiments were in the East Indies, might have become entitled to those pensions, or to half-pay, before they had gone to that part of the world. He thought, however, he might safely say that the arrangement ultimately concluded was both just as it regarded the public, and liberal as it regarded the East India Company. They had agreed to pay 60,000l. a year, which at present he had taken credit for in the Ways and Means, but whether another disposition of that sum should not hereafter be made as, for instance, whether like the amount received for old stores, it should not be deducted from the expense of the army only—he had not yet decided. The sum which under this head he had now to apply as Ways and Means, was 90,000l. in consequence of the East India Company having consented to commence their payments from May, 1822. The next item was a surplus of Ways and Means of 469,047l. not called for by the expenses of past years. There was also a surplus on the Consolidated Fund of 8,760,000l. It was a long time since a Chancellor of the Exchequer had had it in his power to include a surplus of the Consolidated Fund in his Ways and Means; and certainly it was very agreeable to him that, in the commencement of his official career, that duty had devolved on him, particularly when the surplus amounted to so large a sum. The circumstance to which it was owing that so large a surplus of the Consolidated Fund now existed, was the arrangement lately made with respect to the Sinking Fund, by which the charge on that fund was reduced to its proper amount. In the early part of the session he had stated, that the annual income of the Consolidated Fund might be taken at 46,000,000l., and the expenses at 38,000,000l.—28,000,000l. of the latter sum was for the charge of the Funded Debt, 2,000,000, for the expenses of the Civil list and other charges, 2,800,000l. for the payment of the half-pay and pension annuities, and 5,000,000l. of Sinking Fund, which, with a few small items amounted in the whole to 38,500,000l. A surplus thus remained of about eight millions, and he had the satisfaction to say that, in making this statement, he bad not taken as a criterion the receipts either of last year or of this year, but the probable receipts of next year, after deducting the amount of taxes repealed during the present session. The result of the whole was, that the Ways and Means for this year amounted to 17,385,920l., and by deducting; from that sum the totals amount of the Supply, which was, 16,976,743l., no less a surplus than 409,177l. would remain unappropriated, but 244,150l. of which, it was intended to apply the decrease of the unfounded debt. He thought it a very satisfactory circumstance, that he was enabled to make such to statement to the committee, It appeared to him extremely desirable, that something unappropriated should always remain in hand to meet unforeseen emergencies, and that the revenue should not be paired down exactly to the expenses of the country. He might also observe, that owing to the late alterations in the distillery, he had in the foregoing statement, calculated on a loss of revenue from spirits; he, however, had no doubt but that deficiency would be soon compensated by the operation of the measures alluded to.—He was happy to say, that besides this a surplus existed to meet the passing contingencies of the country. A large sum of assessed taxes had been lost to the revenue. They were now nearly two quarters in arrear, and three quarters would soon be received and added to the sum now stated, which would leave an additional surplus. He said this for the purpose of shewing the House, that there was no reason to fear a defalcation in the amount of the approaching quarter. Perhaps it might not be altogether unsatisfactory for him to allude to the present state of the revenue, in order to shew that he was justified in the comparison he had made of the first half of this with the same portion of last year. The account of the receipts in the first part of the present year, began on the 5th of January, and concluded on the 28th of June, while the account for the first part of the year 1822, began oh the same day and ended on the 5th of July, by which the whole of the half year came into the account, and it was generally known that the last days of the quarter were by no means the least productive. He should satisfy the House that the revenue, instead of falling short, actually exceeded this year the produce of the same period in 1822. In the Customs the account was as follows:—

congratulated the House on the candid statement which they had just heard from the right hon. gentleman. During the whole time that he had been a member of that House, he had never heard such an open, fair, or candid statement; and, indeed, it appeared to him, that the right hon. gentleman had rather under-rated than over-rated the grounds on which he founded his report of the present increasing and flourishing state of the revenue, and of the hopes he entertained of the future diminution of public taxation. He was happy that the right hon. gentleman had been thus candid; for, by such conduct, he would secure the confidence of the country. He was also gratified at the liberal principles which ministers seemed to have adopted, with regard to public trade; for such liberal views would materially contribute to make commerce increase, and render the nation prosperous and happy. As they had begun some reduction in the public burthens, he trusted they would feel it their duty to proceed as expeditiously as possible; and he perhaps, might suggest that a reduction of the Land tax, and of the 4 and 3½ per cents would effect a considerable saving in the public expenditure. There was also the Imperial debt. He believed it was notorious that the right hon. gentleman had entered into some arrangements for a compromise of that debt, and it was said that two and a half or three millions were to be deceived by this government, as a payment of the debt. If this were true, he thought the Austrian government had acted fairly in the transaction. He expressed his concurrence with the right hon. gentleman as to his views of the future state of the revenue. When the capital of the country could fairly be employed, trade would increase, and the revenue would proportionably be benefitted; and if the reduction of public burthens could be extended to Ireland, the population there would be employed, and the great cause of complaint on that account would cease.

merely wished to say, that the loan alluded to was in a course of negotiation which he hoped would prove successful. At present he could say nothing as to the terms of the negotiation, nor as to the probable result, but should confine himself to the statement, that every disposition existed on the part of both the governments to come to an amicable adjustment of the debt.

said, that he was somewhat satisfied with the statement which had been laid before the House. The reduction which had taken place was certainty more than had been thought possible eighteen months since. He wished the right hon. gentleman to bear in mind one thing, and that was, that if he reduced taxation by the amount of one million, he would not lose that million. It would be employed in business, or expended m pleasure, by the people in whose pockets it was suffered to remain, and would produce as much benefit to the revenue at the end of the year as if it had been levied in direct taxation. Let, then, the right hon. gentleman go on with his reductions—let him reduce four millions this year, and four millions the next year, and he would find that in the end he would not lose any thing by the reduction. The hon. member condemned the military and naval pensions, by which we had borrowed the sum of 4,800,000l. at the rate of 73l. in the hundred of the three per cents, while we were now buying at 82l. in the market. By this loan a loss of 6l. per cent had arisen, and it should be remarked, that at the time it was thus disadvantageously contracted for, the cabinet had resolved that this country should not enter into a war. The money lost by the contract would have enabled ministers to effect a total repeal of the Leather tax. Neither could he refrain from mentioning the bad effects produced by the continuation of the Sinking Fund. The House could hot have acted more unwisely than by suffering that fund to exist. By so doing, five millions had been devoted to a purpose productive of no practical benefit, which might have been applied to the reduction of taxation.

said, that whether the proposition he was about to support was or was not agreeable to the House, he alone was responsible for it. He had had no interview with any member on the subject. He had no connexion whatever with the Chief Baron of Ireland, nor with any of the friends of that learned indivi- dual: in fact, he did not know that his opposition to the Speaker's leaving the chair would be supported by any member. He, however, thought it would be grossly unjust to proceed to a measure of condemnation, before they had the fullest evidence on the subject. There were, it was true, two reports of the commissioners of inquiry, and also two reports of committees of that House relative to the conduct of the Chief Baron; but it did not follow, when the whole of the evidence should be heard, that he might not differ from those authorities. Indeed, the opinions entertained in that House with reference to this question were so various, that it would be wrong to proceed with it until the fullest evidence should be obtained; and above all, he conceived that he would be a very daring man who should proceed to judgment without hearing the chief baron himself. Those persons who had not heard that learned judge, and heard him fully, on the matter of accusation, could not be competent to act either as jurors or judges.

said, he did not see how they could avoid proceeding on this occasion. The hon. member had alluded to the inconvenience which must result, if this charge were left pending over the chief baron. Now, in some shape or other, charges more or less modified must be understood as having been preferred against him; and if he were to point out the most favourable and the least culpatory shape in which they could be placed on the Journals, it was by pursuing the course proposed by the hon. member for Limerick. How did the matter stand? The charges came founded on the reports of the commissioners. If the House rested where they now were, the interval between the time of accusation and of trial would not be the less long; and the inconvenience to which the chief baron would be subjected must be aggravated rather than lessened, because he would not have the advantage of knowing exactly on what points, growing out of those reports, he was hereafter to defend himself. On the other hand, if the charge went on, and resolutions of fact were agreed to in the committee (resolutions stating that such and such charges were made in the reports, but neither negativing nor affirming them), that proceeding would not affect the character of the chief baron, and would afford him more ample means for his defence.

defended the course which he had taken in this proceeding. It had been said that they, could not fairly go on unless the chief baron was heard; but the question was, whether he had not been heard? Allusion had been made by the hon. member for Cork, to two reports of the commissioners, and two reports of the committees of that House, but he had totally forgotten to mention two letters written by the chief baron himself, relative to the conduct which had been complained of.

opposed the going into the committee, as an act that would be useless to the public, and unjust towards the individual accused. The learned gentleman then alluded to the case of the earl of Macclesfield, against whom articles of impeachment were carried up to the Lords. In this case, owing to the form of the hon. gentleman's proposition, such a course could not be adopted. He thought it a great injustice to the learned judge that it should be proposed to leave his character, for the space of eight or nine months, under such an imputation as the entry of these resolutions would cast upon it. On the grounds he bad stated, he was compelled to differ from his right hon. friend as to the steps which the House ought now to take; and, anxious as he was to secure the pure and impartial administration of justice; and desirous as he felt, that every offender in the way that the lord chief baron was said to have offended in, should be severely punished, he could not consent to that House clothing itself with a criminal jurisdiction, even in such a case, if that was to interfere with the criminal jurisdiction, exercised by the courts of law of this country.

would consent to the House going into a committee, not for the exercise of a criminal jurisdiction, but in order that it might act as a grand inquest in the matter. Certain charges, however, had been made against the learned individual in question; and he (Mr. W.) would have preferred that those charges should have been exhibited at their bar, and that the House might then have either decided such charges to be proved or have at once repudiated them. He concurred with those who considered that the learned chief baron had, in fact, been heard once already, by the course he had adopted of writing letters containing a defence of his conduct, and especially by writing a letter to the Speaker, expressive of his readiness to meet the inquiry. On the principles he had now stated, he would give his vote for going into the committee, conceiving that the door of parliament ought always to be thrown wide open to such investigations.

said, he had not been apprised of the nature of the resolutions.

observed, that he had always stated, that the preliminary resolutions were resolutions of fact; the final one was one of inference. He would read that and the one by which it was immediately preceded;—"That it is because it has been stated in the reports of the commissioners appointed by this House, and confirmed by a subsequent report, made after a special reference to them by his majesty's government, that the emoluments of the chief baron of Ireland have been increased by the invention of new, and the extension of ancient, fees, on the sole authority of the chief baron himself." A subsequent vote of the House in committee, had confirmed the substance of this resolution. The inferential resolution, which might or might not be agreed to, was to this effect—"That the power of creating and extending fees thus reported by the commissioners of inquiry to have been exercised—if proved to have been exerted in their increase by the lord chief baron, in the manner stated in the reports of these commissioners, at his sole discretion, and he being himself interested therein, is inconsistent with the laws and constitution of this realm."

said, it was quite clear to him that it was impossible to enter on such a matter at that late period of the session. The hon. gentleman then remarked on the peculiar hardship of the chief baron's, case, pending the prosecution of the proposed inquiry. This learned individual was invested with a high judicial office, which there was no power, even in the Crown itself, to prevent him from discharging the duties of, in the interval that must elapse before the investigation could be brought to a close. Was it fit, then, to leave one of the judges of the land under this cloud of suspicion and imputation from the end of one session to the commencement of another? The hon. gentleman then proceeded to show the inexpediency and injustice of entering those resolutions on their Journals at present, though the matter might be taken up at the earliest period of the next session. Nothing should induce him, at all events, to suppose any thing like an impeachment in the present case. He had seen enough of impeachments carried up to the other House, not to support one on this occasion. Whatever might be resolved on, however, he must again warn the House against any attempt to proceed in the affair this session.

observed, that one of the grounds adduced for the propriety of entering these resolutions on their Journals was, some extraordinary delay which was supposed to have taken place in the furnishing the House with the report on the matters under inquiry. The hon. and learned gentleman then shortly stated the proceedings of the commissioners of inquiry, from the date of the 9th report down to their final report. He was very averse to entering into this committee at all; not only in consideration of the late period of the session, but looking also to the character of the several reports made by the commissioners. From those reports, it was clear that no charge was, in fact, established against the chief baron. And if so, was it for a committee of that House to record one against him, arising out of the subject matter of those reports? It had been stated in the House and in the resolutions themselves, that the chief baron, in increasing these fees, had acted contrary to the laws of the realm. This was quite incorrect. When lord Erskine was made chancellor, he, by his own fiat, immediately raised the fees of the subordinate officers of his court. Now, though it might be said, that this case of subordinate officers was not the same thing as increasing the judge's salary by a judge himself, the proposed resolution was still most, erroneous. Gentlemen were bound to look at the language of the commissioners' fifth report. They said "that they would not give an opinion whether judges in Ireland could legally increase their own fees and the foes of their own courts;" but they added that, "such a practice had prevailed in Ireland for a hundred years past, during which period such an increase had taken place in the Court of King's Bench and Common Pleas Courts. Was it not cruel, then, to impute to the chief baron corrupt or improper motives; and, if it was only an error of judgment, would it not be still more cruel to record any such resolutions on their Journals? On these grounds he still opposed the going into the committee." If next session the hon. gentleman chose to persevere, he would, however, give his assistance to the inquiry.

said, that the question was, whether they should now stand still, or go back? He thought they had no option but to go into the committee. The House now proposed to give the chief baron an opportunity of knowing what the charges were against him, to which he would have to answer. He would have the benefit of the interval between this and next session for the preparation of his defence, and all the advantage would be with the chief baron, in short. He did feel, however, that this was a case of the most extreme difficulty, insomuch that, if he could with any fairness or justice to the chief baron, he would have said tonight, "I will proceed no further." But, after what had taken place, he was bound in justice, to the chief baron, to see him through the affair. Should the case be, unfortunately, proved, he (Mr. A.) thought the next proceeding ought to be by address, rather than by impeachment.

, looking to the 5th report, seeing that precedents for what the chief baron had done were to be found within the last century, and adverting to the smallness of the increase which had taken place in those fees, really thought it impossible to impute to the chief baron any corrupt motives of mere personal emolument. In this feeling, he had himself prepared a resolution to that effect, which resolution, the hon. and learned member for, Peterborough had expressed his approbation of, and which, or something equivalent thereto, he (Mr. H.) did conceive that the House was in strict justice called upon to concur in.

supported the motion for going into the committee.

submitted his first resolution. It was declaratory of the fact, that from the reports of the commissioners of courts of justice in Ireland, and from the report of a committee of the House, it appeared, that the chief baron had received fees in certain departments of his court, to which he was not legally entitled. A desultory conversation ensued upon the fact, whether certain exculpatory circumstances, which, were contained either in the.9th report itself or in some subsequent report, should not be inserted in the resolution. The attorney and solici- tor-general, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. R. Smith, Mr. S. Rice, and Mr. Wetherell, took part in this conversation: as also did captain O'Grady, who complained, that the resolution was unfairly worded.

had no objection to this amendment, if the learned solicitor would agree to add to it the words which immediately followed them in the report from which they were taken.

objected to the addition. On the suggestion of Mr. Canning, Mr. S. Rice consented to omit that part of his amendment which alluded to the opinion of the committee above stairs. After considerable discussion, Mr. S. Rice consented to withdraw that part of the amendment which expressed an opinion, and the amendment with that omission was agreed to. The resolution detailing the charges against the chief baron, contained in the ninth report, with the addition of an extract from the eleventh report was then agreed to. After which, the Chairman reported progress.