rose, to move for the production of an account of the application of all sums granted in the last session for the furtherance of education in Ireland. He called the attention of the House to the extraordinary fact, that while taxes were annually imposed on the people to erect new seminaries of education in Ireland, the existing seminaries were suffered to fail into complete decay. He particularly instanced the case of the school at Middleton, in the county of Cork. In 1812 the commission appointed in 1806 made a report upon the schools supported by private endowment. In that report it was stated that the school at Middleton was founded in 1696 by the countess of Orkney, and that it was endowed by her with an estate of 2,000 acres, which, within twenty years after, was leased out for 200l. a-year by the trustees, on a lease of lives renewable for ever. It was further stated, that the estate was then worth 2,000l. a-year, and that the power of the trustees to make such leases, appeared to the commissioners very questionable. The school, to which was attached a house for the master, had formerly been attended by a large number of scholars, but at present it was without a roof, and in total decay; the master had retired to Dublin, where he received his salary, and the House which he ought to have occupied, was occupied by a sergeant of police. He wished to know how this had come to pass, considering that the endowed schools were placed under the care of the commissioners of education, who were authorized to ask for an advance of money out of the consolidated fund for the repair of such schools as wanted it, upon the security of their surplus rents? He was greatly surprised at the decay into which this school had fallen, as Middleton was a healthy village, at a considerable distance from any large town, and admirably well adapted for all the purposes of scholastic education. He trusted that, when the House was again called upon for grants of money for the furtherance of education in Ireland, it would take care that those grants were made after some settled plan, and would not defeat with one hand the bounty which it doled out with the other. He would now move, for "an account of the application of all sums granted during the last session for the furtherance of Education in Ireland."

said, he was not able to state at that moment the ultimate determination of government on the subject of education in Ireland. It must necessarily be influenced by the reports which the commissioners might make, and the plans they might recommend. As far as the Irish government had yet had the plans of the commissioners before it, it had not been backward in carrying them into effect. Orders had been given to suspend all admissions into the chartered schools which had fallen under the reprehension of the commissioners. On this head there was a considerable reduction in the estimates of this year, and he trusted that that reduction would gradually take place in each succeeding year. With regard to the school at Middleton, he could only say, that as it was never under his cognizance, he could not give the House any precise information. At the time the commissioners of education made their report, that school did not receive their approbation; but as it was found to be under the direction of private trustees and special governors, they considered it not to fall within the scope of their jurisdiction. With regard to the decay into which the school had fallen, the sum necessary to repair it was 2,000l. Now the surplus of the revenue of the school was 10l. a year; and how was it possible that an advance of 2,000l. out of the consolidated fund could be made upon the security of such a sum? A legal opinion had been taken as to the right of the trustees to grant the lease which they had granted; but it had not been such as to justify any interference on the part of the governors to upset it. The school was a private foundation; the master was appointed by the governors; the power of visiting it was in the governors; and they alone were responsible for any dereliction of duty committed by the officers whom they appointed.

supported the motion.

assured the House that the reports of the commissioners of education would all be presented by the time appointed, with the exception of the report on the college of Maynooth, which would be postponed for a year. Great, but, he trusted, not insuperable, difficulties opposed themselves to the plans which the commissioners had hitherto recommended. They had not yet abandoned those plans, and he, for one, still entertained hopes that they would be ultimately successful.

said, that the school at Middleton was one on a private foundation merely, and did not come within the jurisdiction of the commission. At one time the school alluded to had been under the immediate inspection of a gen- tleman who had been a distinguished member of the university of Dublin, and then the scholars were numerous, and the funds flourishing; but since that time it certainly had gone to ruin.

said, that if these schools on a private foundation, from the terms of their charter, or from any other cause, did not fall within the operation of the act of 1813, he was prepared to say that means should be immediately devised for subjecting them to an inquiry as rigid as that which might be extended to any school of public foundation, or under the immediate superintendence of the government. It never could have been intended by the legislature, at the time it authorized a commission to inquire into the state of schools of public foundation, that they should totally pass by schools erected by the grants of individuals, when those grants were manifestly intended for the public benefit. Still less could they have intended to pass by private foundations, where the income was stated at 200l. a year, and leave the whole of that sum to the maintenance of a master, without any attention to the school-house and the scholars, if it was true, that the lands from which such incomes were derived, amounted to 2,000 acres, which, if properly let, might bring 2,000l., but, from long leases upon lives, produced only 200l. a year. He thought there was an additional reason why the power of inquiry should be immediately extended to schools of every description, when it was proved that sums had been left for the education of children, and when, from such abuses, no scholars at present could be found. And he saw no objection why the present commissioners should not be empowered to pursue that inquiry in the same manner into private schools, as they were already authorized to do in the case of those of what were called public foundation.

observed, that the person through whose influence these leases had been granted, which cut down properties of 2,000l. a year to less than 200l., was a Mr. Broderick, a member of the Irish house of parliament, and a brother of lord chancellor Middleton. The state of all the schools ought, in his opinion, to be made a matter of report.

rose to move for a return of the number of persons confined in the Fleet and other prisons, for contempt, as it was called, of the Court of Chancery. He had moved, in 1820, for a similar return, including the number of persons who, being in confinement for such contempts, had died during the eight preceding years. It appeared by that return, that twenty persons had died during the period mentioned—some after a confinement of ten months, others after being in prison thirty-two years. Among the persons confined under the orders of the court of Chancery, many were in such a state of poverty, that they were unable to procure copies of the bills, for not answering which they had incurred this charge of contempt. The expense of procuring copies of these bills was enormous! they were to be paid for at the rate of l0d. per folio; and when the voluminous nature of Chancery proceedings was Considered, it would be clear that many of the persons called upon to put in answers were wholly unable to do so. Those bills were filed without any regard to truth. The plaintiffs were at liberty to tell any lies they pleased, and unless the individual against whom they were filed had money in the first place to obtain copies, and in the next to fee lawyers, he had no chance of avoiding the imprisonment to which this court doomed him. It appeared by the return which he held in his hand, that William Dawson was committed to the Fleet prison on the 12th of January 1818, and his wife Elizabeth, on the 1st of May, 1819. From, that time to the present they remained there for an alleged contempt of court, and, as they stated, were wholly unacquainted with the plaintiff, and with the reasons of the bill filed against them. There were many others who had been confined under the vague allegation of having incurred a Contempt of court, and whose only offence was their ignorance of the forms of the court, and their poverty, which disabled them from adopting the expensive measures necessary for putting in an answer. By the return made on the 11th of July 1820, it appeared that there were thirty-one persons then in confinement. He begged the attention of the secretary of state for the home department to this statement, because he thought that among the useful reforms which the right hon. gentleman had introduced into the system of administering the law of the land, none could be more properly or more beneficially introduced than some alteration of the proceedings in the court of Chancery. He (Mr. Hume) had taken the trouble to send a person to the Fleet prison, with the list in his hand, to inquire of the warden what had become of the persons whose names had been returned in it. The warden, for some reason which he could not understand, had refused to satisfy that inquiry; perhaps he was alarmed at the long array of names, and thought that some use was to be made of the information which he might afford. As he was, therefore, unable to state any more, than what the return contained, he should confine himself to that. It seemed that Hannah Barber had been committed on the 30th of January 1789, under a writ of rebellion. He did not know-exactly the nature of that proceeding, but he understood that if a man owed him 10l. it was necessary to state that he had attacked him with swords, staves, and knives, and in rebellion against his majesty. In a suit by the creditors of one Thomas Green against Hannah Barber and others, the defendant was committed for contempt in not obeying an order of the court, for payment of 406l. into the Bank of England. She remained in the Fleet until her death, which happened since the return, and after an imprisonment of between 30 and 40 years. He understood that by a clause in the Insolvent Debtors' act, a person might be discharged from custody for contempt, when the cause of imprisonment was only the non-payment of money, but that the court had no power to release from the costs. Was it not too much to say, that in a country like this, the criminal law was more mild in its effects than the civil? If a man were sentenced under the former to transportation or imprisonment, he knew the limit of his punishment; but having once fallen under the sentence of the court of Chancery, there was no knowing how long his imprisonment might continue. Such a system was better adapted to the arbitrary jurisprudence of Constantinople or Algiers than to this free and enlightened country. Another instance in the return was that of George Pigot, who had been sent to prison under a rule of court, ordering an attachment for want of answer to an amended bill. This man had been in prison for more than twenty years, during which time he had no means of obtaining a copy of the amended bill, nor of procuring a person to draw an answer to it. Anne Bretner was committed under a writ of habeas corpus from the Exchequer, for not appearing to a bill, and she was also dead. He now put it to the right hon. gentleman, whether this was right or not; whether some inquiry ought not to take place before persons were doomed to such imprisonments, as to the nature of their alleged contempts? and whether an end ought not to be put to so persecuting and oppressive a system? He understood that there were two instances in which the present lord chancellor, learning that the parties were unable, through poverty, to put in answers, had sent for them, and paid out of his own pocket the necessary expenses which their detention had occasioned. If his lordship saw the hardship of such cases, it was extraordinary that, being as he was at the head of the law, he had not brought forward some regulation to prevent such monstrous abuses for the future. He would only state one more case. It was that of Samuel Monson, who had been committed in 1813 for want of an answer, and who, although he had put in that answer ten years ago, was still detained for costs. Two other persons were in custody; one for speaking to a young lady, a ward of the court, after being ordered not to do so, and the other for cutting crops on an estate, in disobedience to an injunction of the court. He wished not only that the imprisonment which was the subject of his present complaint were done away, but that imprisonment for debt altogether was put a stop to; for he was convinced, that for one creditor who obtained payment of his debt, there were ten debtors who were made much worse members of society by it. The facility with which credit was given was injurious to society, and he could see no injustice in taking from those who were so ready to give it the power of imprisoning their debtors. Another, and the greatest hardship which attended this system of imprisonment by the court of Chancery was, that even if a man was ready to put in his answer, it would not be received until he was purged of his contempt; that was to say, until he had paid all the costs which had been incurred. The hon. member then moved for "A return of the several persons who have been committed to the Fleet prison and other gaols in England and Wales for contempts under process issuing out of his majesty's courts of Chancery and Ex chequer, since the 11th July 1820, with copies of their respective commitments with respect to such contempts; stating what persons have died, or have, been discharged, and at what time, and how many now remain in custody; also, a return of the number of persons that were confined for contempt on the 11th July 1820, and how many of them have died, been discharged, and at what time, or now remain in custody."

said, that as he understood the return now moved for was a continuation of that formerly made, he could, of course, have no objection to it. Every body was aware of the importance of this subject; but put, as it was, in this general way, he should not feel himself justified if he took up the time of the House by any statement at present. His right hon. friend would soon present to the House the report of the commission appointed to inquire into the practice of the court of Chancery, and it would probably then become his duty to propose certain bills to carry into effect the alterations in the present practice which, that report might suggest. He could assure the House that every attention would be paid to the subject. With respect to the contempt incurred for non-payment of costs, if it were as stated by the hon. gentleman, he was ready to admit that the provision of the Insolvent Debtors' act, which already went to release persons confined for non-payment of money ordered by the court, ought to be extended, so as to relieve them from imprisonment for costs. The other cases were of a very different nature. Some remedy ought to be applied, if any thing like oppression or unfairness could be shown to exist under the present system; but it was impossible to meet all the views of the hon. gentleman on this subject, without going the length of abolishing the court of Chancery altogether. In a bill, for example, filed for the purpose of obtaining discoveries of the utmost importance to the justice of a case; if the defendant obstinately refused to make the discovery sought of him, what was to be done? There was no mode consistent with the law of England by which he could be compelled to do what justice required, except by imprisonment. But, the moment he put in his answer, he was released from confinement. Where was the hardship in this? If there were a hardship, and if it was thought that such a power ought no longer to exist, the court of Chancery must be abolished; because there was no other mode of enforcing its decrees. The hon. member had stated that the ignorance of parties exposed them to offend unintentionally against the law. He had been totally misinformed upon this point. No party was called upon to put in an answer until he had been warned by subpoena, and notices of the time at which he was to do so. It was only because he disregarded these notices, and refused to obey the order of the court, that he was imprisoned. If a party chose to remain in prison rather than do that which the interests of justice demanded of him, was the House to assume that his imprisonment was oppressive, and that there had been no inquiry into the merits of his case? The basis of any investigation which the House would direct into this practice, ought to be, that the order had been properly made, and that it should have been obeyed. He by no means meant to say, that if a person was unable to pay a sum which the court had ordered him to pay, he ought to be kept in prison for life. He agreed that to such a law, if it existed, a remedy ought to be applied; but after the statements which he had heard the hon. gentleman advance in that House he was not disposed to rely implicitly on any fact which he might assert. He would read the clause of the Insolvent Debtors' act alluded to by the hon. gentleman, and the House would see with what safety they could trust to the accuracy of the hon. gentleman. [The Attorney-general then read the clause, which, after providing for the release of prisoners confined for contempt in not paying money ordered by the court of Chancery, goes on to provide the same relief for persons detained in prison for non-payment of costs]. This might be taken as a fair specimen of the hon. gentleman's accuracy. The act of which he had spoken was passed in 1812, and contained the very remedy which the hon. gentleman had so strenuously proposed. It was obvious that the only means the court of Chancery had of enforcing obedience to its decrees, was by the imprisonment of the refractory parties; but if they obtained their liberation on complying with the order of the court, no evil could be said to exist. He stated this as a general proposition, and he would add to it this qualification—that if the cause of detention was merely the nonpayment of money, and the prisoner was unable to pay, then he was entitled to the, benefit of the laws which bad been made for the relief of other debtors who had no-means of discharging their debts. Upon this broad distinction the House ought to act. When the subject came before the House in a different shape, he should feel it his duty to attempt to obviate all that might seem to be difficult, or that might occasion any hardship or unfairness. The system of that court, in general, was one which deserved universal veneration; for its constant tendency was, to protect and secure the property of the people. He was convinced that if the court of Chancery was not supported, it would be impossible to keep up the courts of common law; because, unless they were modified by the court of Chancery, they would become such a means of producing evil and inconvenience, that they could not be allowed to exist. The principles upon which the court of Chancery was established were so sound and so admirable, that he would defy the ingenuity of man, or the collective wisdom of any body of men, to devise a system more beneficial to the community.

thought, that if the process of contempt should be done away, or even weakened, all the usefulness of the court of Chancery would be destroyed. It was the only means the court had of protecting the interests of the suitors, and nobody could complain of it but those whose evil deeds exposed them to the punishment which the laws had a right to inflict upon them. He did not agree at all in the propriety of the act, which enabled persons when they had spent the money of the orphan, or the minor, to clear themselves from the effects of their obstinacy or iniquity. He thought that such a clause took a very great liberty with the property of the suitors of that court, and tended rather to promote injustice than justice in its proceedings. He trusted that a process, which was absolutely necessary to enable the court to perform its functions, would still be maintained.

said, that be would give his support to the measure, not because he thought it the best that might have been proposed for the adoption of parliament, but because it would, imperfect as it was, tend in some degree to amend the defects of the present system of country banking. He considered the introduction of the clause for authorizing the Bank to issue small notes for three years longer, a departure from the principle of the bill. He was surprised that ministers had consented to that measure. If had been stated as an axiom of political economy, that small notes and coin could not circulate together; how, then, could they justify themselves, for permitting the issue of small notes for three years longer?

said, he had intended to move an amendment at the present stage of this bill, but upon reflection he had abandoned that intention, and would content himself with declaring his opposition to the measure, with respect to which he would take the sense of the House, if he saw any members inclined to support him. He could look upon the measure in no other light than as a bill of pains and penalties against country bankers—a class of persons who had been most hardly dealt with. He thought that government, by the extensive issues of their own accommodation paper, had been greater encouragers of speculation than the country bankers; and was of opinion, that it would be impossible to obtain a sufficient quantity of metallic currency to supply the wants of the manufacturing districts. During the course of his parliamentary experience, he had never known a measure more calculated to produce mischief than the one under consideration.

thought, that the country hankers had been shamefully treated by ministers and the parliament. The only measure which would give relief to the country was an immediate and extensive curtailment of the public expenditure.

said, that much unmerited odium had been thrown upon the country bankers. In a paper which purprorted to be a return of the number of bankrupt bankers, the names of several individuals were inserted who had never committed an act of bankruptcy, and of others who had superseded their commissions. In common fairness the hon. member for Aberdeen was bound to move for a return of the names of the country bankers who had superseded their commissions of bankruptcy.

feared the House had overlooked the great difficulties which would accrue to this country from the quantity of gold to be drawn from the continent by the operation of this bill. Throughout the whole continent, he supposed there was about 200 millions of specie. Of this, not less than 50 millions would be required to establish a gold circulation in this country. Now, the effect of withdrawing that amount from the continent would be to raise the value of gold one-half; and to suppose that its value would be raised one-third in this country, was a moderate calculation. Now, could the chancellor of the Exchequer get the taxes paid to their present amount in a currency increased in value one-third 1 Then, again, we were to be called upon to lower our corn to a level with that of the continent; and, putting these two circumstances together, he would leave the House to judge of the consequences. The price of corn now was 60s. a quarter; and when the change of value in the currency came into operation, it would be down at least to 30s. He was of opinion, that the banking system of the country, as at present established, was necessary to its prosperity, as creating a degree of artificial capital, which would not otherwise exist.

spoke of the necessity of country bankers making their notes payable in the place where they were issued. In consequence of this salutary practice, the bankers of Westmoreland and Cumberland had been able to stand against the storm. In Lancaster, a degree of swindling was going on, in the absence of bank-notes, by the circulation of improvident bills of exchange. For the small notes of the Bank of England he entertained a great dislike, from the facility they afforded to forgery. He hoped, if they were to be circulated throughout the country, that means would be resorted to to make them less liable to imitation.

said, that if he were asked whether he would prefer a metallic or paper currency, he should certainly vote for the former. But, having once begun with the paper, we could not stop short. The principal object of this bill was, to circumscribe the issues in paper, and thereby accelerate the return to cash payments. It was on that principle that he had supported it. But he did not understand why all the advantages of the bill should be topsy-turvy in favour of the Bank of England; nor why that Bank should be shown greater favour than the country banks, as to the privilege of issuing notes up to the 10th of October. No notes were so easily forged as those of the Bank of England. He understood, the chancellor of the Exchequer meant to extend this measure to Scotland; but he begged to ask that right hon. gentleman, whether he had well studied the Scotch character before he had made up his mind on the subject? He was quite sure that the people of that country would not receive that measure, unless it was forced upon them by act of parliament.

objected strongly to the power given to the Bank of England of issuing notes to the 10th of October next. He thought it was to be regretted that those words had found their way into the bill; for it gave to the Bank the power of manufacturing as many notes as they pleased. It plainly appeared that ministers had been misinformed as to the danger of contracting the circulation of the country bankers. The effect of the amendment was, to destroy all the small country notes. What was the value of the responsibility of the Bank? As to the responsibility of government, he was at a loss to know what it amounted to. The doctrine maintained in that House (and in which he concurred) was, that the Bank should consult their own interest, and not be subject to the control of government. He supported the bill; but he did it with regret since the introduction of this amendment. In order to put his opinion upon record, he meant to move that instead of the 10th of October, the 5th of February be inserted.

observed, that great stress had been laid on the quantity of paper in circulation. Now, he thought, that although no correct deductions could be made from the amount of paper currency on particular days, yet it was desirable that returns should be made by the coun- try bankers, as well as by the Bank of England, of the amount of their paper in circulation. He would therefore move a clause requiring country bankers to make monthly returns of the amount of their notes in circulation to be published at the discretion of the Treasury.

seconded the motion. In the progress of this measure through the House, two propositions had, he said, been offered, neither of which had been agreed to; one was for securing the issues of country bankers by deposits; the other was for authorizing a summary process of compelling country bankers to pay in coin. His hon. friend had now offered a third, the object of which was, that the country bankers should condescend to give the country some account of the amount of their issues. It had been said, that the House had been legislating against the country bankers; whereas the House had been legislating for the country, and not for any particular interest. We had now no certain knowledge of the issues of the country bankers, and the House could not legislate properly without that knowledge. He thought his hon. friend might have gone further in his motion than he had done; for it was but just that those who dealt in the coin and circulation of the country should be similarly circumstanced with other traders. If the banking system was not put on a solid foundation, the country would soon be in a worse situation than at present. Fair as his hon. friend's proposition was, he supposed that, like the others, it would be rejected. He wished the chancellor of the Exchequer would imitate the conduct of his right hon. colleague. There was not an impartial man in the country who would not say that the president of the Board of Trade had acted on sound and just principles with regard to the silk trade. If the chancellor of the Exchequer had come down to the House and explained himself with the same frankness and firmness as the right hon. gentleman had done, in that admirable speech which he had listened to with the greatest pleasure, he would have done himself much credit. He should not have minded the obstacles cast in his way. He should not have minded the loss of votes in parliament, nor the clamour out of doors; but he should have pursued the straight-forward course, and the country would have supported him.

said, that the appoint- ment of a committee in the earlier stage of the present proceedings would have saved the country from a great deal of unnecessary perplexity and alarm. As for the proposition of security referred to by the hon. member who had last spoken, it appeared to him decidedly objectionable. The instant the stamp upon a Bank note was such as to make that note, in the view of the receiver, perfectly secure, that instant there would be an end to metallic currency altogether. As for the project of compelling country banks to furnish accounts of their circulation, he did not object to its principle; but he objected to introducing it at a moment like the present, when the country bankers had already been most unfairly treated.

said, that he resisted the present motion, not at all in consequence of any representation from the country bankers, but because he thought it was, upon its own merits, open to objection. If any banking companies were established under the bill which was to be read that night a second time, or any chartered companies—any companies to whom peculiar privilege was to be given—he should have no objection to demand some sort of account; but, particularly at the present moment, he was adverse to putting the Treasury in possession of the private concerns of individual bankers; and there were reasons why government would be better kept without such information. The hon. member said that he did not wish to make the publication in the Gazette imperative, but would leave it to the discretion of ministers. Now, he thought that ministers would be better without such discretion. It was also to be in the judgment of ministers, whether to lay the accounts received before the House; but it was possible that the House might call for the accounts against the judgment of ministers. At all events, the clause, as it was proposed, was inoperative; because it provided no penalty in case of neglect to return a true account; and this was the mere material, as cases might be imagined in which the temptation to give an inaccurate statement would be almost irresistible.

opposed the introduction of the clause into this bill, with the objects of which it had no connection; whether advisable, as a matter of future regulation or otherwise.

said, it was a mistaken notion to suppose that there was no control over the Bank in its issues. The fact of the notes being payable in gold was itself a control. Besides, it need not be apprehended that many of these notes would be issued, as sovereigns were generally preferred, of which three millions had been issued since Christmas. The small notes, on the other hand, had been issued in very small quantities; as the Bank put out as few as possible. The Bank knew the difficulty of preventing forgery; for none of the schemes for accomplishing that object had been successful.

thought that the amount of notes in circulation should be laid before the public, and gave it as his opinion, that one-pound notes issued on government security, would be preferable to those of the Bank of England, or of any other bank.

wished to know from the secretary for the Home Department, whether government were at all responsible for any over-issue of notes. He certainly understood the right hon. gentleman to say, on a former occasion, that not only the Bank, but the government were responsible for any exercise of that power beyond due discretion. The fact just mentioned by the hon. director proved, that there would be no danger in agreeing to the clause.

said, that when the small notes were issued in December, it was considered a peculiar measure, and had the sanction of government; consequently, so far as regarded the issue of those notes since that period to this, government should bear the responsibility. But, as a general measure, they were not at all implicated.

observed, that although there was no penalty attached to the violation of the clause, yet such violation might be punished as a misdemeanor.

then proposed a clause to give remedy, by summary process, against country bankers refusing to pay their small notes in gold coin. He wished for security to the holders of the one-pound notes; but if the House did not agree to make cash payments compulsory, there would be no such security. The chancellor of the Exchequer, on bringing in this Bill, had said, that security to the holders of small notes was his object. Could he therefore consent to pass this bill without that security? As the bill now stood, there must be an action, so that it might be one or six months before the value of the note could be recovered; and the action might cost 10l. or 50l. It was clear that such a state of the law gave no security to the poor man. Without this clause there would, in reality, be a suspension of cash payments. The clause which he should move was that which had been negatived by the committee on the bill; it was an exact copy of the summary process clause in the 37 Geo. 3rd, with the alteration of "ten days," instead of "three days."

said, that if the hon. member's clause passed, not a respectable country banker would ever issue another one-pound note; and those which were out already they would get in as fast as possible. The fact was, that a remedy for refusal to pay in gold already existed. A one-pound note might be protested for non-payment just as regularly as a bill of exchange; and the cost of that first step—which the banker would be liable to pay—would be 22s.

remarked, that the chief instances of grievance brought forward by the hon. member for Montrose, had-been from Scotland, where, it appeared, this summary process existed, and whence, it should seem, by the hon. member's own showing, it was utterly useless.

observed, that the remedy was inefficient. The banker might be liable to pay the 22s. for protest, but the labourer must pay it on the spot. And where was he to get it?

rose and said, that it was his intention, in pursuance of the notice which he had given, to propose a specific reduction of the number of troops which his majesty's ministers had thought fit to call on the House to vote as necessary for the military service of the country. The present, he knew, was rather an inauspicious moment for bringing forward a subject of so much importance; but he hoped that gentlemen would listen to him for a few moments, while he stated his reasons for considering the present as the most improper period that could be selected for proposing so large a military establishment as ministers now demanded from the House. The noble Secretary at War had told them that it was easy for gentlemen on the opposition side of the House, to declaim on such topics as the danger of keeping up a standing army, and the necessity which existed for the reduction of taxation. It might be easy or not; but that circumstance depended on the taste and temper of the audience to whom the declamation was addressed. Now, if (as he believed it would be admitted was the case) the noble lord had the audience in his favour, it was much easier for him to indulge in observation on the opposite topics—to argue that such and such reduction were not possible—than for those to whom the noble lord had alluded, to work up, with any profit or effect, those trite and worn-out subjects, which had been so often expatiated on within the walls of parliament, and passed by with total disregard. Now, the noble lord, in the speech which he delivered when he proposed the army estimates, had given the House no reason whatever for continuing the present large military establishment in time of peace; and still less had he assigned any ground for the increase which he had proposed; for, though it was comparatively small, still it was an increase; and in this period of public pressure, it was the bounden duty of ministers, if they asked for a large standing army, in this the eleventh year of peace, to come down with something like cogent arguments in support of such a proposition. An observation had been made by an hon. member on a former evening, that before ministers called on the House for those enormous supplies, the chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have laid: before the country something like a financial statement—that prior to the application for those supplies, the House should have been correctly informed of the situation of the financial resources of the country. Nothing of the kind had been done, and all they had heard, inside and outside of the doors of parliament, was, that there was a great difference between the state of the country in the present and in the last year—that all the happy prospects of wealth and prosperity were unfortunately overclouded, and that distress prevailed in every quarter. Surely, when this was the case, parliament ought not to tolerate an augmented scale of expenditure. He would call to the recollection of gentlemen the vote of the House of Commons in 1822; and if nothing had since occurred in the foreign or domestic relations of the country to justify an increased military force, then be would call on those who held and ought to guard the purse of the nation, to reduce that augmentation which had unfortunately been made to the army subsequently to the year 1822. He did not mean to contend that the country could not pay it; but he would assert that the country, however able, ought not to pay it. Unless ministers could show that these establishments were necessary for the dignity of the Crown, the tranquillity of the country, or for securing to the nation that lofty position in which it ought to stand, they should be steadily refused by parliament. The weight of proof, as to the necessity of such establishments, lay entirely with ministers. In 1825, the amount of taxation was 52,000,000l. And, what was it in 1821? The amount of positive taxation was then very nearly 1,000,000l. less than in 1825; and yet, in 1821, the House deemed it necessary, under the sanction of ministers, and loudly called on by the agricultural interests, and by none more so than by the hon. member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes), to come to an unanimous vote, recommending that every possible reduction that could be made in the different departments, and particularly in the more extended establishments, without detriment to the public service, should be effected immediately. The noble lord (Castlereagh), then at the head of his majesty's government, de- clared that the business of the country could not be carried on if the reduction of a single soldier took place. The hon. member for Aberdeen moved for a reduction of 10,000 men, and his proposition was negatived. Well, however, did he recollect, that very shortly afterwards the noble Secretary at War came down to the House, and stated that ministers had been able to make a reduction of 12,300 men, and that the reduction would have been carried still further, if it had not been for the disturbed state of Ireland. That country was now in a state of tranquillity. So were the colonies. Why, then, in a period of profound peace, should this immense force be continued? Above all, why should it be augmented? When an attempt was made to keep up the military establishment in 1816, lord Grenville, who was not then in his majesty's councils, but who would not do any thing to thwart unnecessarily the measures of government, had said, in a speech delivered by him elsewhere, that it was useless to discuss minor matters, so long as we kept up this enormous military establishment, which cut at the root of the British constitution. In the last session of parliament, the noble lord opposite proposed an increase of 13,000 men. The noble lord disclaimed the state of Ireland as being the cause; but many others who supported the augmentation, and among others the Knight of Kerry, did consider the situation of Ireland to be the true reason for proposing this increase. The noble lord at that period told the House, that the situation of the colonies demanded the augmentation; and, notwithstanding the vote of 1821, and the reduction effected in 1822, the increase was granted, because the noble lord declared that such an increase was absolutely necessary, if they paid a due regard to the comfort of the soldiers on foreign stations. If, however, such relief were necessary for the colonies, it did not follow that so large a force should be kept up at home. The force kept up here was the very worst that could be devised for giving relief to the colonies. Why were there so many household troops, and so large a number of cavalry regiments? They were not only useless, but, in his mind, it was unconstitutional to continue them. He wished to know when they were to come to an end of this system? At what period were they likely to discover that the standing army was extensive enough? He saw no end to the system. It' was not bounded by 87,000 men, by 107,000 men, or by any indefinite number which might be proposed at any future session. The present was a most opportune moment for those who had joined in the resolution of 1821 to say, not only that there should be no further augmentation of the military establishment, but that it should be brought back to what it was reduced to in 1822, when the number then voted was declared by ministers to be quite sufficient for the service of the country. There were now 32,670 soldiers in England, and no less than 15,000 on the recruiting service; while, in 1792, there were only 17,000 military in the whole country. Ministers had no pretext whatever for the increase of the military force between 1822 and 1826; and the object of his amendment would be to reduce the military establishment to the standard of 1822. The hon. gentleman concluded with moving, by way of amendment, "That it appears to this House, that the regular military force of the country, exclusive of the troops employed in India, amounted in the year 1S22 to 69,088 men, and that according to the estimate now presented to the House, the same description of force is stated at 87,240 men, being an increase over and above the number employed in the year 1822 of 18,152 men:—That it appears to this House, that no change has taken place either in the foreign relations, or in the internal condition of the country, since the year 1822, which can justify so large an augmentation of the standing army; and that, in order to return, as early as possible, to the military establishment of that period, it is expedient to reduce the number of regular troops for the service of the United Kingdom and the colonies, exclusive of India, to 77,000 men."

seconded the motion.

said, that although he could not agree in the proposition of the hon. gentleman, yet he was not disposed to object to the general principle which he had laid down; namely, that it was incumbent on the House to apportion, as scrupulously as possible, the amount of the military force to the actual wants of the country. Gentlemen, of course, had a right to make use of these anniversary occasions, for the purpose of making their observations, and of recording the opinions which they entertained on these particular subjects; but though the general principle on which they proceeded was good, the results to which it led them were often erroneous. He had most distinctly declared last year the grounds on which he called for an augmentation of 13,000 men; and with very few exceptions the House concurred in the force and justice of the reasons which he then assigned. At that time he explicitly denied that any part of that increase was rendered necessary by the internal state either of this country or of Ireland. The hon. member had asserted, that some gentlemen had concurred in that augmentation, because the state of Ireland seemed to require it. All he could say was, that he did not call for the increase, either then or now, on account of the situation of Ireland. The plain grounds were, the state of the colonial service. But the hon. member said, "If a smaller force was sufficient in 1822, why have you asked for a larger force since?" The fact was, that in 1822 the government anxious as they ought to be to yield to the general feeling of the House and of the country, consented to a reduction, which, in their sober judgment, they felt would be greater than they could adhere to, with a due regard to the proper performance of their duty to the country. Having tried this reduced system for two or three years and finding that it did not succeed, they felt it necessary to declare, that the experiment had failed, and to ask for an augmentation. He did not mean to go into a detail of all the garrisons that were to be supplied with troops. If it were thought necessary, he was ready to do so; and he was persuaded, that after such a statement, any person who was at all acquainted with the number and extent of our colonial possessions, would acknowledge that the force called for was not greater than the necessity of the case required. Much had been said about the force employed in Canada and the West Indies; but if gentlemen would look to the troops employed in those possessions in 1792 they would find the present increase very trifling indeed, when they compared the extent of territory which we possessed formerly with that which we possess now This was peculiarly the case with Canada where population and cultivation had been greatly extended, so that it was necessary to protect a larger line of frontiers.—He would now state the distribution of the military force of this country, and gentlemen would then be enabled to judge whether it was or was not too great. The infantry of the line consisted of eighty-three regiments. Of these, nine were in Great Britain, twenty-three in Ireland, and fifty-one on foreign stations. Besides the nine regiments of the line in this country, there were dépôts for the fifty-one regiments abroad, where recruits and invalids were received. Taking the nine regiments at home at 740 men each, it gave a total of 6,660 men. Supposing 224 men at each of the fifty one dépôts, the total was 11,424 rank and file. Add to these, six battalions of Foot Guards, 4,400 men; staff corps, 300 men; and the gross total would be 22,784 men. Of these 11,424 were not on actual service. They were in depot, and were ready to go abroad when called for. The object in keeping up this part of the establishment was, that the places of non-effective men might be immediately supplied; and by that means, that the regiments abroad should be continued in a perfectly complete and efficient condition. In speaking, therefore, of the force at home, it would be proper to deduct this body of 11,424 men. There were fifty-one regiments abroad, of which twenty were in the West Indies. Now, supposing those regiments thus employed on foreign service to be absent only for ten years, then it became obvious, that there must be sent out from this country annually, seven regiments to foreign stations, while seven others came home from foreign stations. And as one regiment did not quit a foreign station until it was regularly relieved by another, it followed that there were in the course of the year, fourteen regiments neither employed abroad nor in this country, but occupied either with their passage out or home. Taking one station with another, he might say that the reliefs sent out were equal to five regiments, which ought to be deducted from the general establishment for the whole year. If, then, the five regiments thus constantly withdrawn for relief were deducted from nine, it would leave at home, independent of cavalry and of 4,400 guards, a disposable force of only four regiments of the line. He would ask whether this could be considered a greater disposable force than the country ought to possess? If these strong grounds were not sufficient to show the House that the augmentation of last year was necessary, he was very much deceived.