regretted, that he had not been present yesterday, when an hon. member had moved for a return of the amount of Bank notes and Bank post bills in circulation. He had not the slightest wish to conceal any thing on the subject of the motion of the hon. member; but, after the Bank Restriction act had expired, he was not aware that the House had any right to call upon that establishment for any such returns. It had been provided by the bill of 1797, that certain ac- counts should be laid before parliament, quarterly, and should also be inserted in the Gazette; but, since the circulating medium had been changed to gold, of course those documents were no longer needed. The Directors were perfectly ready to give the hon. gentleman any information he desired, for his private satisfaction; but they were clearly of opinion, that he had no more right to demand the account he had moved for, than he had to call for copies of the books of any private merchant or banking-house. He hoped this practice would not be drawn into precedent; but he had no reluctance in stating that the amount of Bank notes, and Bank post bills now in circulation somewhat exceeded twenty millions.

said, he differed at all points from the hon. gentleman as to the duty of the Bank of England. It seemed to him, that in the present state of the country, it was the imperious duty of the House of Commons, for the sake of the public interest, from time to time to ascertain the amount of Bank notes in circulation. In moving for the paper now alluded to, he had been influenced by no feeling of hostility towards the Bank, but by a strong sense of public duty. It seemed as if the hon. gentleman had totally forgotten the millions of money with which the public entrusted the Bank of England, and for the satisfaction and security of the public, it was absolutely necessary to know how the Bank conducted its business, and whether it was or was not in a state of solvency. If, before 1797, the House had been better informed upon the subject to which the motion referred, the catastrophe which had then happened, would never have occurred. It was very important that this point should be brought to issue, and for this purpose he would move on Tuesday next, for the accounts he had annually applied for, respecting the issue of notes by the Bank of England.

repeated, that, as a matter of courtesy, the directors had no objection to furnish hon. gentlemen with such information as they might need for any parliamentary purpose.

rose for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a bill to make an alteration in the law respecting the Qualification of Jurors. The hon member said, that though the alterations he had to propose were important, he did not apprehend that any strong objection would be urged against them. Various changes in the qualifications of jurors had taken place, from time to time, as the value of money had altered, but they had never been less adapted to the circumstances of the country than at the present moment. The qualification, in the country, now consisted of land, and it might be either freehold or copyhold. In London and in Southwark it was different; for there personal property conferred a right to sit upon juries: in the City the amount was 100l., and in the Borough only 40l., but this was regulated by a special provision. Out of those places, personal property to any amount conferred no qualification; and 10l. value, whether of freehold or copyhold, was often attended with extreme poverty, so as to render it impossible for the party to attend without great loss and inconvenience. The hon. gentleman went on, from documents before him, to detail several instances of parishes in which the number of persons qualified to act as jurors bore no proportion to the amount of property; in one instance the rental of a parish was above four thousand pounds, and only one person residing in it was qualified to serve as a juryman. In the last year the bill he now proposed to introduce had gone through its second reading, and the blanks had been filled up with the qualifications he wished to substitute for those now in operation. He did not see that any great difficulty could arise in ascertaining the amount of the personal property of an individual, in order that it might be decided whether he was or was not liable to be called upon to attend the assizes, or elsewhere, where his services might be useful to his country. If the holding of land to the extent of 80l. a-year were not deemed too much, he thought the amount of personal property might be fairly enough fixed at 400l. inasmuch as a tenant of land of the yearly rent of 80l. per annum, to cultivate it properly must at least possess a personal estate to the extent of 400l. The hon. member then stated the various clauses of his bill, and said, that the measure which he had to propose, besides adapting the responsibility of serving on juries to the property and respectability of the population in a more just ratio, would include a trifling alteration as to the age required by the existing regulations; and he trust- ed that it would have the effect of calling forth an enlightened and extremely eligible class of persons to serve on juries, who were at present excluded, but who were well able to add to the support and strength of those laws which had raised this country to the proud station which we at present held among the nations of the world. The right hon. secretary had informed the house last evening, that the object of the bill which it was his intention to introduce was the consolidation of numerous laws which were now scattered over the Statute-book. But, in fact, although in all times, from the Conquest down to the present moment, the legislature had turned its attention occasionally to this subject, there was very little to complain of as to the vagueness of the law; for there was scarcely any law respecting juries which was not comprised in those two acts passed in the 4th and 5th William and Mary, and the 1st Geo. II. Certainly, as far as principle was concerned, there was nothing to be found outside those two acts. He would not detain the House longer at present, but reserve himself for any discussion which might arise upon the details of the bill, for the bringing in of which he now asked the permission of the House.

seconded the motion of his hon. friend with much cordiality. The principle upon which the qualification of jurors had been fixed might be classed among the antiquated prejudices of the feudal system, and was totally at variance with the present advanced state of civilization; because it went to exclude a large body of men, who were not only well qualified by education, station, and intellect, but were also willing to take their share in the burthensome duties of that service. Another strong recommendation of this measure was, the prospect it would afford of speedily establishing a third assize. This measure would render the duties of juries in the aggregate less onerous with a third assize, than before they had been with only two. It would remove the only obstacle which at present impeded the establishment of a third assize. He did not anticipate any difficulty upon this last point on account of the judges; for, without adding any expense in the way of salary, or a single member to the number of the judges, it was only to make a more economical use of their judicial means—it was only to dispose with more prudence of their judicial forces. They had only to get rid of the unaccountable respect which had prevailed for the number four, as being the best suited for judicial decision. Why it should be so, any more than five, three, or one, he could not discover. As it was an even number, it would seem to be less suited for decision than three, which, in case of differing opinions, must leave a majority. It was clear that four judges were not necessary to sit in each court; and, fortunately for the present question, the custom upon which that number prevailed was by no means invariable. The number had been reduced within the time of legal memory, from six or seven down to four. Why not reduce it to one? But supposing objections to be taken to that reduction, there could be none to the plan of leaving three judges on each of the benches, and by that means there would be three judges whose services would be available for the circuit on the third assize, without producing the least inconvenience to the business of Westminster-hall. Upon the question of the usefulness of a third assise, there could not be a doubt remaining. In the present winter they had seen the advantages of a third assize in the home circuit; for not only had many innocent men been set at liberty, but an atrocious murderer had been brought to punishment who would otherwise have been allowed to have disgraced society for months longer. The motion of his hon. friend was of great importance, and he was anxious for its success, not only on its own account, but as a sure and safe stepping-stone to that most important measure, a third assize.

said, it was necessary for the House to consider what a situation, they might be placed in by the bill which the hon. mover proposed to introduce, and that which the home secretary of state had also given notice of. The right hon. secretary proposed to consolidate all the laws relating to juries while the hon. gentleman was bringing in a bill to amend a particular disposition of those laws. Let them suppose the hon. gentleman's bill to have passed into a law, and the bill of the right hon. secretary introduced. Now, either the bill of the right hon. secretary would contain the provisions of the hon. gentleman's bill, or it would not. If it contained them, there would be two bills with the same enactments: if not, there would be all the laws respecting juries consolidated in one bill, with the exception of one bill.

undertook that no inconvenience, like that which had been anticipated by his hon. friend, should arise from the introduction and progress of his bill.

would not oppose the introduction of the bill: but it was a measure which required great deliberation, and it was important that the House should hear the observations of all the members upon it. The remarks of an hon. member upon the general composition of juries were such, that he could not yield his entire concurrence to them. He could not agree that the old principle of juries was founded in prejudice, or that it was merely an error of the feudal system, which confined the selection of special juries to the class of freeholders. He rather thought that their ancestors had acted from a just and proper sense of the subject. Experience had shown, that the view which had been taken of the subject in ancient times was a sound one, and perhaps the best which could be devised, to protect people from the encroachments of despotism; to secure the rights of subjects against the power and influence of the Crown, and the interests of their property from injustice one among another. The epithet prejudice could only be ascribed fairly to that which had produced evidently bad consequences; whereas that system had proved to be efficient above all others, in opposing the intellect and public virtue of the community to the tyranny of rulers; and it had secured to us the only free constitution, worthy of the name, which existed in the world. He did not feel inclined to oppose the proposition of the hon. gentleman, because it went to place the system of juries in a position more fairly proportioned to the property and intelligence of the people. All he feared was, that the class by which that most invaluable blessing had been maintained hitherto might be too far overlooked. He admitted that they might not equal in expertness and ingenuity some of the enlightened classes which the kingdom contained. Their understanding was of a peculiar kind: there was in it a sort of vis inertiæ, which was not likely to run after the prevailing follies and fancies of the times. The old yeoman was a sturdy character, not easily to be moved even by the threats of power, when power was more dangerous than it was in these days, as many instances in history proved. He wished the house to guard itself against the exclusion of that old and valuable character. In that point of view he dreaded any alteration which would induce a laxity of attendance by the yeomen upon the assize and sessions courts; and it would be seen in the course of the discussion Upon the details, how far they might expect that result, by an alteration which made personal property an equal qualification with real property, in the qualification of jurors. There was another consideration, of vital importance as to this part of the subject; which was, that the attendance of the yeomen on the assize courts, to witness the administration of justice, was of the greatest service in enlightening their minds upon the subject of their just rights, by which means they were enabled to enhance, on returning to their homes, the common stock of common sense, which had supported the prosperity and happiness of the country in times past, and contributed greatly to its present glory and strength.

said, he did not intend to oppose the introduction of the bill of the hon. gentleman; in fact, in many parts of it he concurred; at least he thought the whole subject well worthy of serious consideration. He thought at the same time, with his hon. friend who had just spoken, that no alteration should be made in the system without much consideration; though some of the reasons urged by his hon. friend against an alteration, tended to bring him (Mr. Peel) to a directly contrary conclusion. If his hon. friend contended, and as no one would doubt, that the trial by jury was an important instrument for a diffusion of the knowledge of the law throughout all parts of the community, this was surely a reason for extending the privilege of serving on juries beyond the class to which it was now confined. The hon. mover had proposed to admit, as a qualification for serving on juries, the possession of personal property to a certain extent; and he had observed, that this principle was admitted already in corporate towns. But, he doubted in the first place, whether the hon. gentleman did not propose at first to admit too large a class, and whether the possession of a particular amount of personal property would not be found a very uncertain and embarrassing rule to go by. The hon. gentleman proposed, that the possession of 100l. of personal property should not only be a sufficient qualification, but that the owner should be entitled, or, if he pleased, compelled, to serve on the juries. But, would it not be a very delicate point to leave to the subordinate officers of any parish or borough to ascertain whether or not each man claiming or being compelled to serve was worth 100l.? [Mr. Western said across the table "400l."] It was no matter: he was arguing upon the principle; which implied something too inquisitorial in the functions of the summoning officers. Surety it would be better to adopt some known test by which qualifications were now ascertained—either the book of assessments to the parochial and county rates, or those of parliamentary taxation. Every one rated at 100l. or 200l. house rent, should be eligible. There were other questions of difficult solution which would meet with proper discussion when the House should come to the details of the bill; but into which it would be very inconvenient to go, during the absence of the attorney and solicitor-general. The bill might be introduced and allowed to the committee, and rest there until the arrival of the bill of which he had given notice at the same stage; at which time, to save the inconvenience to which allusion had been made by another hon. member, if the House thought fit, the bill of the hon. member for Essex might be incorporated with the other.

, of Galway, rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to extend to other animals the privilege and protection which the House, under a bill which he had brought in, had afforded to cattle. To this bill he did not apprehend much objection, as it merely would extend the principle of the bill for preventing cruelty to cattle, to dogs and cats, and monkies, and other animals. [A member asked Mr. Martin whether he included rats!] No, he did not mean to include rats. Gentlemen must have read in the public papers many horrible instances of cruelty perpetrated upon animals with impunity; and one in particular, of an unfortunate dog that went into a shop, and was scalded with a kettle of boiling water, and sent out to die in the streets. In other instances, dogs had been rubbed with oil of vitriol, and sent out to perish in excruciating torments. Without pretending to more sen- sibility than other gentlemen, there was no man who heard him, he imagined, who would not wish the same protection to be applied to other animals, as to cattle. Another object he had in view, was to make cruelty to cattle a misdemeanor. It was an offence that might be often tried with advantage before a jury and a bench of magistrates; and though a fine of 5l. or imprisonment for three months, on summary conviction before a magistrate, might be punishment sufficient in ordinary cases, there were some atrocities that would deserve more signal punishment. Only a few weeks ago, a set of ruffians had amused themselves with driving some worn-out horses into a fire; and he himself remembered a case in which a wretch had lighted a fire under a horse, and actually kept it up until the bowels were burned out. The hon. member quoted several instances in which barbarities of a very horrible description had been perpetrated upon animals: and concluded by stating that his object was, to make such conduct misdemeanor.

said, that the second bill which he should move for leave to bring in, would require little detail. He would move for "leave to bring in a bill to prevent Bear-baiting and other cruel practices." There was some hesitation in putting the question, as Mr. Martin had not provided a seconder. Mr. Martin expressed a hope that some gentleman would second it. Some one having seconded it, and the question being put,

said, he was as ready as any one to do justice to the motives of his hon. friend, and he did not object to the first of the bills that had been proposed to amend the law for the protection of cattle from wanton cruelty; but the bill which it was the purpose of the present motion to introduce, was an extension so important, that he was surprised his hon. friend did not think proper to enter into the details by which he might conceive it was called for. The hon. gentleman proposed to prohibit certain cruel sports. Now, if the hon. gentleman laid down the general principle, that no pain should be inflicted on animals, beyond such as was necessary in putting them to death for the support of man, his legislation would be consistent; but he was certainly not fair in selecting partial instances to legislate on, in which the members of the House, the parties legislating, did not happen to be interested [hear!]. It was impossible for him to vindicate the cruelty with which the sports in question were probably accompanied; but at the same time it was impossible for him to forget, that those who would have to pass this bill, for the purpose of putting an end to the sports in which the poor found amusement, were in the habit of pursuing other sports attended with just the same cruelty to animals. The House had last session refused to amend the Game laws, on the express ground, that, by affording a mode of amusement to country gentlemen, they afforded them a motive to residence on their estates. The advantages of this residence he did not mean to undervalue; but, while they thus directly encouraged the wounding of animals in shooting and hunting, they could not with any decency pass a partial law against the same sort of cruelty, when perpetrated by a lower class of people, nor could they make it penal to encourage the antipathies of two animals in Bear-baiting, when they encouraged precisely the same antipathies in fox-hunting. Let them abolish foxhunting and partridge shooting, and they might then abolish Bear-baiting. If, indeed, the hon. member alleged that, for purposes of police, it was necessary to abolish a particular kind of amusement, because it brought together disorderly characters, or led to riots, he should have given the allegation the consideration it might deserve; but on the ground of cruelty, it was manifestly partial and unjust to propose it. Who could say that hawking was less cruel than Bear-baiting or fishing? Nay, fishing added treachery to cruelty; while, in Bear-baiting, the victim was at any rate brought fairly to the stake, and the late Mr. Windham used to assert, had a sort of pleasure in contending against his natural enemies the dogs. Fishing was a cruel fraud practised on innocent and defenceless animals. On what principle, too, did we retain animals in confinement at all? An unfortunate monkey, that was taken and shut up in a cage, and exhibited for gain, was surely ill-treated; and it might be questioned, whether the condition of such a monkey was not as wretched as that of the bear. He should protest against any partial measure on the subject, which would interfere with the amusements of the poor, while it did not interfere with the sports of the rich as, by making such a distinction, they opened the door to great injustice and oppression.

said, he should defend those gentlemen who amused themselves with shooting, hunting, and fishing, against being confounded with the miserable wretches who pursued the brutal sports which he proposed to prohibit. He wished to stop cruelty as far as he was able: he wished to prohibit those cruelties which public opinion would follow him in saying ought to be prohibited. It was the opinion of all well thinking people out of these walls (and he was happy to say, that there were out of the House, millions of well-thinking people in this country), that cruel sports ought to be prohibited. There was not a part of the kingdom that he was not in correspondence with, and he knew that to be the general opinion. There was no inconsistency in not prohibiting field-sports and in putting down the gross and atrocious cruelties which depraved the morals of the people. Bull-baiting was already prevented. He begged to call to the recollection of the right hon. gentleman a law now existing, which prevented every one of these sports, or rather of these deliberate acts of cruelty, in a particular part of the metropolis. He alluded to the Mary-la-bonne act, which made it illegal to bait a bull, or to hold a bear fight, monkey fight, or dog fight in the parish of Marylabonne. He wished to know whether his right hon. friend meant to repeal that act; and, if he did not mean to repeal that clause in the Marylabonne act, which made it illegal for bears, dogs, and monkeys to fight and massacre each other, he saw no reason why those disgraceful sports ought not to be abolished in every other part of the kingdom. Hunting and shooting, in his opinion, were amusements of a totally different character. Many gentlemen who indulged in those recreations had been the foremost to support his bill for preventing cruelty to animals. A gentleman of his acquaintance, remarkable for the strength of his nerves, had, nevertheless, experienced nausea at the stomach, upon seeing a bull which had been baited. The upper lip was torn, and part of the tongue hung in shreds down the wretched animal's cheek. Honourable gentlemen ought really to attend these sports themselves, before they decided that a bill of this kind ought not to be introduced. He was informed by the police-officers, that the greatest vagabonds in the world were in the habit of attending these sports. He felt satisfied, that such sights tended to degrade the character of Englishmen; and he was convinced also, that if the House did not accede to his motion, their decision would not be supported by the general voice of the country. He was persuaded that, if the population of London could be polled on this subject, there would be a thousand to one in favour of his bill.

thought he could relieve the hon. gentleman from the necessity of pressing the House to any decision on the subject. The hon. gentleman had already obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend his act for preventing cruelty to cattle, by extending protection to other animals. Now, as he himself admitted, that bull-baiting was illegal by the operation of his own measure, it was evident that if his amendment were carried, the bears to which the hon. gentleman wished to extend protection, would be included in the words "other animals." It would be wholly unnecessary, therefore, to protect bears by a specific enactment.

acquiesced in the suggestion of the hon. gentleman, and consented to withdraw his motion.

rose to move for several returns, with a view of bringing the subject of the Legacy Duties under the consideration of the House at a future period. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer had, he said, shewn an anxiety to place commercial regulations on a footing of sounder policy than had been hitherto acquiesced in, and he trusted that he would not deem the subject to which he now adverted unworthy of his attention. Legacy taxes had been admitted by all who had written on the subject, to be taxes on the capital of the country, and they ought, therefore, to be repealed at as early a period as possible. The extent to which these taxes were levied, was not perhaps generally known. He had moved last year for returns of the amount of nett revenue derived from probates and administrations of wills, and the House would perhaps be surprised to learn that from the year 1797 to the year 1806, no less a sum than 22,124,000l. had been levied from the public in the legacy duties, which, upon sound principles of political economy, might be considered as so much taken from the capital of the country. The amount of legacy duties for the year 1822 was 1,000,793l., and one of the objects of his present motion was, to obtain the return for the year 1823, in order to ascertain the amount of capital taken annually from the public. There was another circumstance to which he wished to call the attention of the House. Not only was this tax pernicious and impolitic in itself, but, from some neglect on the part of the public officers, the mode of levying it was extremely vexatious to the public. It had recently come to his knowledge, that claims of 12, 14, and 15 years standing had been made upon the public, for duties on the probate and administration of wills. A gentleman told him yesterday of a case in which an individual, who was the fourth in succession to whom the property devolved, had been obliged to pay 80l. legacy duty, the original executor and the two succeeding executors having died without any notice to pay the duties being given, and a period of upwards of twenty years having elapsed. If the government suffered arrears to accrue in this manner from the neglect and carelessness of its own officers, the public ought not to be subjected to those harassing and vexatious claims. If individuals were prevented by the statute of limitations from recovering a debt unless claimed within a given period, the government ought not to possess the right of harassing individuals, after a lapse of seven years, for arrears which had not been claimed, through the neglect of the public officers. Another object of his present motion was, to obtain a return of the number of probates and administrations which had beep taken out in England in the last three years, and of the number of inventories, as they were termed, which had been taken out in Scotland. It ought to be known, that by law, the officer was bound to report the probate from Doctors' Commons within fourteen days from the time of administration, yet, for some reasons for which he could not account, and for which he believed there was no excuse, six weeks generally elapsed before the probate was reported. A case had been mentioned to him, yesterday, of a gentleman who had come up to London, from a considerable distance, to administer to a large property, and who wished to pay the legacy duty before he returned into the country. He was told, however, at the Stamp Office, that he could not do this, until the probate was reported from Doctors' Commons, and he was obliged to wait five or six weeks before he was allowed to pay the tax. This was a grievance which ought undoubtedly to be redressed; since it was the interest of the public that taxes should be paid as speedily as possible, and that no impediment should be thrown in the way of their payment. He was quite satisfied that the chancellor of the exchequer would see the necessity of remedying this inconvenience, and that he would also acquiesce in the expediency of limiting the period at which the public should be liable to claims for arrears of legacy duties. He concluded by moving for "a return of the amount of revenue derived from the stamp duties on legacies, probates, administrations, and testamentary inventories, in the year 1823, for England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland."

had no objection to the motion of the hon. gentleman, and he did not think it necessary, on the present occasion, to trouble the House with any observations on the general question of the policy of legacy duties. The House would naturally see that this was a subject of very considerable importance, affecting, as it did, a revenue of not less than a million per annum. With respect, however, to the particular point to which the hon. member had adverted, namely, the grievance to which individuals were exposed in consequence of being called upon to pay arrears of legacy duty, which had not been claimed for many years, he was ready to admit that some strong cases of hardship had been brought under his notice. These cases had arisen, not from any disposition in the parties to evade the payment of the legacy duties, but from the imperfect provisions of the law at its first enactment, and the imperfect regulations under which the law had been acted upon, so that that notice had not been given which every public body, whose duty it was to collect taxes, was bound to give. In the year 1812, many alterations and improvements in the mode of collecting the legacy duties had been adopted, the result of which was, that every person now received a fair and immediate notice of the amount of duty he had to pay. It was perfectly true that the officers, acting under the new system, had called upon parties to pay arrears of legacy duty, which had not been claimed under the old regulations, and this was no doubt in some instances, a grievance, because the executors, who were in strictness of law liable to pay, might not be liable to find the legatees. The Treasury had, however taken steps, which he trusted would effectually remove all cause of complaint on this subject.

rose, to move for copies of the proceedings before a coroner's jury on an inquest held on the body of one M'Can. It appeared from the information which he had received, that the unfortunate sufferer was an agent employed in the collection of rents, in the barony of Strathbane. He was returning to his home, when he entered a public-house, where he met several of the tenants from whom he was to receive rent. Two police-officers came afterwards into the same house, and caused a riot and affray, in the course of which the agent was killed. The hon. gentleman said his information went on to state, that an inquest had been held on the body, at which two surgeons attended, who swore that the death of the deceased was occasioned by an inflammation of the bowels; and that upon this evidence the jury acquitted the police-officer, notwithstanding the dying declaration of the victim, who said that be had been killed by the police-man. The hon. gentleman did not know whether the police-man was still at large, or whether any proceedings had been taken against him. He was, however, induced to make the present motion, in the hope of calling the attention of the magistrates to the conduct of this description of men, who, in the county where this transaction occurred, were notorious for the commission of violent and illegal acts. They were often taken up, and sometimes removed; but never, that he had been able to learn, discharged. The consequence was, that the public had no confidence in the administration of justice, as regarded them; and it was with a view to remedy the existing abuses, by the adoption of some ulterior measures, that he now moved "for copies of the proceedings on the coroner's inquest held on the body of Michael M'Can, at Vicarstown in the Queen's County."

thought, that without going into the facts of the case, the hon. gentleman would agree that it was not at present adviseable to adopt such measures as he had proposed. He had received no information from Ireland respecting this case; but even supposing the statement of the hon. gentleman to be, as it probably was, quite correct, still he thought that upon general principles, his motion ought not to be acceded to. An individual had come by his death in a public-house, and the coroner's jury had been of opinion that he died in the course of nature. Suppose the police-officer had actually murdered this man; he would ask the hon. gentleman, whether he thought by the publication of the evidence on the inquest he was more likely to obtain justice on the criminal, or whether he would not rather enable him to shape his defence so as to evade it? The hon. gentleman knew very well, that the verdict of the jury did not preclude the trial of the police-officer; and even at this moment he might be indicted by the family of the deceased, or the local government might interfere, if they saw any necessity for doing so. He would ask the hon. gentleman, knowing as he did, the state of the part of Ireland now alluded to, whether he did not think that the publication of the evidence which he now sought, might not be highly injurious by giving the accused an opportunity of getting out of the way, or adopting some of the other expedients which were too frequent in that part of the country for eluding the pursuit of justice? He was as anxious as the hon. gentleman could be to see the police-officers punished whenever they acted improperly, and no less desirous that they should be protected in the faithful discharge of their duty.

was only desirous to excite a proper degree of attention to this subject, and if the right hon. gentleman would promise to take the case under his own care, and adopt such proceedings as might be necessary, he would gladly leave it in his hands, and withdraw his motion.

, would not pledge himself to commence a prosecution in a case of which he knew nothing, but he would make inquiries into it, and what the justice of the affair required should be done.

expressed himself satisfied, and withdrew his motion.