said, he felt it to be his duty to enter his protest against this unwarrantable and uncalled-for measure. Its chief effect would be, to increase the number of retail dealers in corn, to the evident injury of those who had already embarked in that trade. That, however, was not the principal ground on which he founded his opposition. His great objection to the bill was, that it would interfere with the private rights of individuals—with the rights of those who were the possessors of the present Corn Exchange—without adequately remunerating them. The individuals who had formed this project might build a corn exchange where they pleased, but they had no right to throw down buildings which belonged to the occupiers of the existing Exchange. Who were the parties with whom this plan originated? They were, in fact, a joint-stock association, and they set this scheme on foot, as likely to be a speculation of a profitable nature. They asserted that a new exchange was greatly wanted. Now, he was disposed to doubt the correctness of that statement, as he believed the sale of corn had not increased within the last twenty or thirty years. He should therefore move "That the report be received this day six months."

seconded the motion. The present measure was, he said, one of those instances of interference with private property that ought to be resisted by the House. He had not attended the committee, but having seen their proceedings since they had closed their labours, he was sure, from what had transpired in the course of the inquiry, that the House would not tolerate this invasion of private property. The bill went to take from the present proprietors their property in the Corn Exchange, without any guarantee that another would be built. This was granting to the projectors a right which no persons ought to possess. If the present Corn Exchange was not large enough, he had no objection to allow a new one to be built by any body of individuals; but as no complaint had been made of the old Corn Exchange, he wished that to be suffered to remain also.

supported the measure on the score of public utility. It was said, that the present Exchange was private property; but if it were, it differed essentially from other private property, because it was devoted to public purposes. He hoped that the report would be received now.

said, it had been asserted by the supporters of this measure, that corn would sell better in a large market than in a small one. If this were so, and if the present corn market were not sufficiently spacious, let the parties enlarge it, or build another elsewhere. The existing corn market was built by private parties for their use and convenience, and the business had been carried on there very prosperously for a great many years. This measure, he thought, interfered with private rights as much as any measure could possibly do. He believed that the sale of corn by commission had decreased, instead of having increased, of late years; and, that therefore, there could be no necessity for a new market. The effect of this bill would be, to turn out those who were in possession of the old market, and to allow the projectors to replace them by any persons they pleased. At present, the rent of a stand was 10l. a year; but if this measure succeeded, no doubt 20l. or 30l. a year would be charged; which would be an excellent speculation for those who formed the plan.

expressed himself friendly to the bill. A new corn exchange was very much wanted. The present corn market was a joint-stock company concern, seventy-five years ago, when the consumption of corn could not have been near so great as it was at present. He believed the increased growth and importation of that article considerably exceeded the increase of the population, and required this new market. The present market was quite inadequate for the sale of corn; and the place opposite to it was equally so. In consequence of the want of necessary accommodation, the street in which the market stood was frequently rendered impassable. It was said, that this was an uncalled-for invasion of private property. He did not view it in that light; but even if it were considered as private property, this interference was rendered necessary for a public object. They were told that the new proprietors would, under this bill, go and turn out the old proprietors. It was no such thing. They said, "We will build a market by the side of yours; and we will, for the purpose of making a communication between the two markets, take down as much of your wall as admits of four stands, at the annual rent of 40l. a year, for which we will make full reparation." It was also stipulated, that the new proprietors should, at the option of the old, take the whole of the market, if the latter desired it. He was decidedly of opinion that the House ought to give its assent to this measure.

thought there was great necessity for a new market; and therefore he should support the bill.

said, that a most respectable corn dealer had, in his evidence, pointed out the impossibility of carrying on business in the present state of the market, and it had come out in the course of the inquiry, that a bye-law had been framed by the society, or joint-stock company, who held the Exchange, by which they excluded from participating in this corn trade, every person except corn factors. The corn factors had thus elected themselves into a body, who were to mete out to the public whatever quantity of corn they thought fit, under their own regulations, and at their own price. That this was a monopoly, and a very profitable one, was apparent from this fact—that though the premises were not worth more than 10,000l. the good-will was estimated at 60,000l.; and the proprietors actually called for that indemnity, if the market were affected by this measure. Those who required this bill, were anxious that the present proprietors should throw open the market to the corn dealer generally, and give sufficient accommodation for transacting business. They did not wish to keep possession of the whole, but to have a place allotted to them where they might have the same advantages as were enjoyed by the corn factors. That was refused. Then they said to the old proprietors, "If you will not do that, let the city, or the government of the country, take the matter up. We are not anxious to pay our money. Let the government of the country advance the money on the usual terms, and let a new market be erected." This proposal appeared to be as disagreeable to the old proprietors as the other. The new proprietors then said, "Let us have access to the old market by a passage. All we ask is ingress and egress to those premises which we are about to build, through your market." This was also refused, although a full indemnification for any loss was offered. The new proprietors then asked for a facade. "Let the portico," said they, "run round the market, and we will raise a building contiguous to it; so that the doors of the two buildings will be under the same portico." This was likewise refused. In short, he never before heard of such a series of refusals connected with a matter of public utility. What did the persons who called for this bill say? They said, "We want another market; and if you, the old proprietors, refuse to grant what we require, and we are compelled, under this bill, to take your market, let the value of the premises be assessed by a jury, and we will pay you even 60,000l., if they are estimated at that sum, and that, too, before a single stone of the building is touched." This was perfectly fair. The bill, too, it should be recollected, was only for a limited period; and if the new building were not built in the course of twelve months, and the money for indemnity, whether 10,000l. or 60,000l., paid, its provisions would be null and void. Those who were hostile to this measure were not opposing the projectors of the bill, but the general benefit of the public at large.

said, that the object of this bill was, to take by force the property of individuals; and, in order to put a face upon the matter, those individuals were calumniated as monopolists. That was the charge against them. Now, he suspected that the other parties were the monopolists; because, if they intended fair competition, they would leave the old Corn Exchange to compete with the new one. If this were done, he could understand what his gallant friend meant when he spoke of benefitting the public. The old proprietors only said, "Leave us as we are, and we will compete with you; but pray do not take away our property." What would the Bank of England say, if, at the end of their charter, a body of individuals declared, "We want to set up a bank to upset your monopoly; but we will not only do that, but insist on having your premises?" The Bank would make answer, "Leave us as we are. You may set up a bank in the most commodious place for the benefit of the public, and we will compete with you; let there be two banks, but leave our premises alone." This was his view of the case. He could not agree to this infraction of private right, to serve any set of speculators.

defended the character of those with whom this measure originated. It was admitted on all hands, that the present market was most inconvenient; and those individuals had taken the only method of remedying the inconvenience. But it was said, "cannot you build elsewhere?" It would, indeed, be speculating with a vengeance if they came to the west end of the town to erect a corn-market. These individuals had fixed upon the only place where the corn business could be efficiently carried on. If this bill was defeated, the building would still go on; but there would be no communication between the two markets, and the greatest possible inconvenience would be the consequence.

said, there could be no doubt that it would be very inconvenient to the promoters of this new market if the bill should not pass, as they had already purchased the ground for it close to the old one; but that was no valid reason why those who held private property should be compelled to surrender their rights. He, however, wished to see the matter amicably arranged; as he was of opinion, that there ought to be an enlarged market; but, he trusted parliament would not encourage an invasion of private property, especially as there was no charge brought against the individuals who would be affected by it.

supported the prayer of the petition, and said, that it was impossible for our manufactures to compete with the commodities of other countries while food was at more than double their price. It was high time for parlialiament to turn its attention to the subject, and to take notice of the great falling-off in the supplies of grain. The difference in the quantities brought into the market in the corresponding quarters of 1825 and 1826 was as follows:—In wheat there was a difference of 57,677 quarters, being that much less in the last quarter than in the same quarter of 1825. In barley there were 79,937 quarters less; oats 20,000 quarters less; pollard, 36,000. It was quite plain that corn would by this time have reached a famine price, had it not been for the late alterations in the currency.

said, he had been misunderstood as to his intention of bringing on the question of the Corn laws. On fixing another motion of his, which stood for the 23rd of May, he had, by mistake, been represented as having put off his motion of to-morrow on the Corn laws. He wished it to be clearly understood, that it was his fixed determination to bring on the subject to-morrow.

concurred with the enlightened citizens of London, that it would be vain to attempt to establish principles of free trade, unless they were extended, in an equal degree, to the trade in grain. Some thought, that they ought to have begun with the corn-trade; but, for his part, he was anxious first to divest the agriculturist of the argument which existed in favour of monopoly, in the restrictions and prohibitions on foreign manufactures. Those prohibitions and restrictions were now almost wholly done away, and all articles were admitted, on payment of reasonable duties. The same principle ought to be applied to imports of grain. They were told, when the bill was passed in 1817, that the effect of the bill would be, to produce plenty at cheap rates and fixed prices. At present, trade was every where stagnant, or nearly so, and the general poverty and distress were aggravated by the danger of scarcity, and the high price of food. Nothing could be more fluctuating in price and quantity than corn had been ever since.

presented a petition from the Ship-owners of Sunderland, setting forth,

supported the petition, and wished that the president and vice-president of the Board of Trade were in their places, as this was a subject deserving the gravest consideration of govern- ment. It was not a little extraordinary to observe, that between 1821 and 1825 the tonnage of British and foreign shipping engaged in our trade having been doubled, the foreign shipping had increased in equal proportion with the British. Another circumstance worthy of remark was, that there was uniformly an increase in the shipping of those countries with which we had entered into commercial treaties, while there was no increase of the shipping of those countries with which we were not bound by any such treaties. He did not say that the increase of foreign shipping was hurtful to the trade of the country; but it was clearly calculated to injure our carrying trade, and to counteract, in that degree, the great nursery of our seamen.

said, that the facts proved by the returns on the table ought to be sufficient at once to induce ministers to take up the consideration of this very important subject. The following would show, in one view, the slow progress which British shipping had made within this year:—

expressed his concurrence in the sentiments of the hon. member who had preceded him.

observed upon the absence of ministers from the House at that period of the evening; then near six o'clock. Here were petitions before the House involving questions of the highest interest to the country, and there was not one minister of the Crown in his place to give any opinion or information respecting them. The House of Commons, he must say, was not accustomed to be treated with such disrespect. With reference to the Reciprocity system, he was one who had concurred in the experiment being tried; but only as an experiment. He must admit that, as far as it had gone, it had failed. He should like, however, to hear what the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade had to say upon the subject. He wished to know what had been the cause of the present appearances, and what was expected to be the future results of the experiment. He was inclined to think the experiment had not yet been sufficiently tried. The worst result undoubtedly was, that those powers with whom the Reciprocity treaties had been made, showed an increase in the employment of their own shipping; but it was, at the same time, to be borne, in mind, that this increase had taken place without any diminution upon the total of ours. The whole question was one of the highest importance; and it would be useless for him to add, that it was a question not only of national wealth, but of national power.

thought that the hon. gentlemen opposite, who had urged ministers to these experiments, saw now sufficient reason for retracing their steps. While the taxes of the country were so heavy, it was impossible we could compete with the foreigner.

was also sorry that ministers were not present, when a subject of so much importance was before the House. If they had been in their seats, he would have recalled to their memory, the speech delivered by the late Mr. Ricardo, when the Reciprocity Duties bill was under debate. He had stated distinctly, on that occasion, that if this country acted upon the system of reciprocity, without repealing the heavy duties by which the shipping interest were pressed down, the consequence would be, beyond all doubt, that we should lose that branch of our trade; and he had voted for the bill only on the understanding, that in the ensuing session all those duties would be removed. He entirely concurred in Mr. Ricardo's opinion. If the taxes on our navigation were repealed, he believed that, under the freest competition, British shipping would keep their ground against all rivals, from every part of the world; but for that purpose it was essential that the whole of the taxes should be abolished on hemp, timber, iron, tallow, and all other commodities consumed by the shipping interest.

said, it was a fact much to be deplored, but undoubtedly true, that the employment of British shipping was now confined to the colonial trade; and he regretted to observe, that there was a set of persons seeking, night after night, to destroy that interest. Almost the whole of the navigation of the countries, that had adopted the reciprocity system, was carried on by foreigners.

rose to present a petition signed by about three hundred individuals, setting forth "That the petitioners, taking into consideration the high dishonour reflected on the Christian religion, and the absolute surrender of the great principle of the Protestant Reformation, which is the right of private judgment, in the late prosecutions for blasphemy, most humbly beseech the House to pass an act for the immediate and unconditional liberation of all persons now under confinement for blasphemy, impiety, or heretical pravity of any kind or degree whatever; and that it might be made the law of England that from henceforth no person or persons shall ever be subject to annoyance or prosecution for the holding, maintaining, or propagating, by printing or preaching, any religious principles whatever, provided they conduct themselves as virtuous members of the community, and loyal subjects of our sovereign lord the King." He concurred in the opinion of the petitioners, that no man ought to be imprisoned for holding a religious opinion which happened to be different from his neighbours; and it was certainly a reflection on the present enlightened age, that people should be cast into prison for three, four, and five years, for no other crime than that of thinking as they pleased upon speculative subjects. He was glad to find that the present Secretary of State for the home department did not, like some of his predecessors, encourage these prosecutions; still it was singular, that when, on a late occasion, he had ordered the liberation of Mr. Carlile, he had not also set at liberty a number of other persons who were incarcerated for offences of the same nature. If these matters were left to their own operation, without the notoriety of state trials, they would soon become things of utter indifference.

said, that there was a great distinction between Carlile's case and that of the others to whom the hon. member alluded, and who were confined for certain definite periods. The additional confinement which had been endured by the former individual was by way of commutation for his fine and sureties.

denied that these prosecutions interfered with the right of private judgment, unless, indeed, that could be called such which struck at the root of all morality and religion. It was an abuse of terms to designate blasphemy and impiety as connected with the just right of free opinion in a well-regulated state.

rose to present a petition from Mr. George Farquharson, of the Strand, which stated, that the petitioner had been employed for upwards of twenty years by the suitors and solicitors of the court of Chancery, in taking notes of the proceedings of that court, and that he was now in the employment of a morning newspaper. That on Friday, the 14th instant, the day on which the New Court of Chancery in Westminster-hall was opened for business, he, the petitioner, following his customary avocations, applied for admission to that court, but was told, to his surprise, by the officers of the court, that he could not be admitted, and that the reporters were in future to be excluded; and the petitioner, after stating the loss which such a measure would be to the public, and the hardship of his being deprived of his employment, if such exclusion were persisted in, concluded by submitting his case to the House, in order that the liberty which he had enjoyed for so long a period might still be continued. In presenting this petition, the learned member said, he thought there must have been some misconception between the petitioner and the persons by whom he had been excluded. If otherwise, he certainly thought it extremely hard, that the court of Chancery should be exclusive in adopting a measure which had not been acted upon by the other courts, where reporters were not denied the right of being admitted. It was not necessary at present to state the benefits which resulted to the public from the practice of giving publicity to judicial proceed- ings, as its good effects were sufficiently apparent; but it might be requisite to state, that the suitors of the court of Chancery in particular were extremely anxious to obtain accurate reports of the cases in which they were interested, and it would be hard if, by any new measure, that accommodation should be denied them.

said, that if any person connected with the public press had been excluded from the court of Chancery, he was confident that such exclusion did not originate with, and was not sanctioned by, the head of that court. There was no accommodation, however, in the new court for reporters to sit.

said, that a more contemptible court of justice than the New Court of Chancery there was not in the kingdom. There was no adequate accommodation for the gentlemen of the bar, and in every point it was a most inconvenient court. There were no means of accommodation for the public, not to speak of reporters. With respect to the court of King's-bench, all he could say about it was, that every defect of the old court seemed to have been scrupulously copied, for the purpose of transferring it to the new court; and, as to the court of Exchequer, although from its size it was certainly the most commodious of the new courts, its internal arrangements were by no means improved. Indeed, as he had just remarked with respect to the King's-bench, every defect of the old court was scrupulously continued. The bench was awkwardly situated, and the seats for counsel being on one side only, occasioned much inconvenience. Then, as to the gallery behind the bench, which had been copied from the old court, he never yet could see the use of it. The only improvement which had taken place in this court was, that in point of space it had been considerably enlarged. He would not allude to the useless passages which surrounded the courts, or the senseless ornaments by which the walls were decorated; but he would venture to say, that a greater waste of money had seldom taken place than in the making of these new courts. He was sorry to say that the suggestion he had made last year, to appoint a committee to manage the improvements, had not been carried into practice. The passages that ran parallel from Westminster-hall were of no use whatever; and he wondered at the wild- ness which could have induced men to adopt such fantastical plans as those which had been put into execution in the new courts at Westminster. He was sorry to say, that the public had been put to very great expense, and that the accommodation which they were to receive in return was by no means adequate.

said, that after the strong language used by the hon. and learned gentleman who just sat down, he felt called upon to say a few words, as well for the satisfaction of the House, as for the sake of rescuing the reputation of the professional gentleman by whom the new courts were built, from the unmerited censure with which he had been assailed. Five or six years ago, when the building of those courts was contemplated, it was understood to be indispensably necessary that they should all open into Westminster-hall. The site of them being therefore particularly prescribed, and the space within which they were to be erected exceedingly limited, the wonder was, how so much could be accomplished within so circumscribed an area: hence the professional character of the architect was placed under the influence of circumstances of peculiar difficulty. In executing a work of that nature it was not to be expected that he could succeed in giving universal satisfaction. It was impossible for Mr. Soane to consult all those gentlemen in the legal profession who had formed themselves into a sort of committee to arrange the building; but he had frequent communications with the judges. He had consulted them over and over again, and all their suggestions he had carried into execution; and all the alterations they recommended he effected. With respect to the hon. and learned gentleman opposite, he had the honour to attend him over the works; he had directed Mr. Soane to call upon him and explain all the plans, and had flattered himself that the learned gentleman was quite satisfied that every alteration suggested had been carried into execution, that was not incompatible with the wishes and opinions of the judges of the courts. With respect to the passages alluded to, he thought, that so far from their being objectionable, they were indispensable as a means of communication. It was, therefore, very hard to throw such blame on the architect. Mr. Soane's hands were tied up; so inadequate to the purpose was the space allotted. He did not believe that any other man in England could, out of such space, have afforded so much accommodation; and it was a little too much that the reputation of a distinguished architect should be destroyed by severe animadversions in that House.

disclaimed any idea of casting aspersions on the character of Mr. Soane.

expressed his disapprobation of the mode in which public works were carried on. When a public building was about to be erected, plans and models ought to be submitted from the various artists generally. The thing should be thrown open to the public; for, according to the existing state of things, it was impossible for any architect to be employed, unless he was connected in some manner with the Board of Works, as it was called. There should be a fair competition thrown open to the talents of the various artists. Let them only look round the town, and see the abilities which the various public buildings, churches, &c, had called forth. For example, there was the new church at Chelsea. Had it not been for that opportunity, the talents of the distinguished artist who erected that beautiful church might have passed unnoticed. He did not mean, in the slightest degree, to dispute the talents of Mr. Soane, or to detract in the least from the acknowledged merits of that individual; but he thought it would be a considerable improvement if public works, like those of a private nature, were open to a fair competition.

said, that with respect to plans and models, none but young artists could present them, for the more experienced and distinguished were occupied so constantly, that they could not have leisure for such a course.

considered the new courts to be very inconvenient. They might with more propriety have been erected on the other side of the Abbey; but he did not consider Mr. Soane at all to blame, as he had acted under the direction of others. It was certain that the courts were inadequate, and that they were by no means suited to the public convenience. He considered, however, that they might be rendered commodious, and he regretted that the report of the committee, who had taken the trouble to suggest considerable improvements, had not been attended to. Amongst other suggestions, in consequence of several complaints having been made, it was proposed to add twelve committee-rooms to those already provided. Two committee-rooms, however, were only added, and the consequence was, that considerable inconvenience existed from the want of those rooms. He intended to move that the committee of improvement should be revived.

was rejoiced to find that his impression that no order had been given for excluding reporters from the court of Chancery was correct. The presenting of Mr. Farquharson's petition would, in all probability, have the effect of preventing the authority of a judge from being abused by those who said, they acted under his directions.

rose to move the order of the day, that the House do resolve itself into a committee of ways and means.

observed, that his motion for the second reading of the Usury Laws' Repeal bill was entitled to precedence; however, he was willing to concede priority on the understanding that his motion should come on immediately after the committee of ways and means.

said, he considered the best course to pursue would be to abstain from the second reading of the bill this session. Owing to the present state of the country, and the inquiries which were going on in the committee on the Scotch and Irish currency, he thought that some future occasion would be much better than the present for discussing the subject. He would not pledge himself to support the bill, but should be guided in the course he should pursue by the evidence which might be given in the committee, and by the information which he should endeavour to acquire on the subject before next session.

objected to this delay. He considered that a question of such importance ought not to be put off session after session.

said, he did not complain so much of the personal inconvenience to which the frequent postponement of this measure had exposed him, as that it precluded him from having the question fairly brought forward. He had first introduced the measure to the notice of the House in the year 1816, and he had laboured ever since to forward it. With regard to a further postponement he should abide the pleasure of the House. This was a bill which should have emanated in the first instance from government, and not from an individual. It had been its fate to meet with much opposition, although many gentlemen who at first opposed it were now its warmest supporters. The measure had made many converts, and he could not help regretting that it had not been long since carried. If ministers had given it their support, he could not but feel that much of the misery which the country was doomed to witness last November and December, would have been spared. If they would themselves bring forward the measure, he would at once decline pressing the present bill, and would support theirs.

said, that his learned friend was entitled to the highest praise for his perseverance. It was not on account of the lateness of the session, that his right hon. friend wished for the postponement of the question; but because there were at present under the consideration of parliament, so many important subjects, as to render the period extremely inconvenient. There was an inquiry on foot as to promissory notes, which was closely connected with the subject; and it would be obviously inconvenient to make any alteration in the law relating to interest, at a moment when the whole question of the currency of England, Ireland, and Scotland, was under consideration. As the learned serjeant had been patient for ten years, perhaps he would consent to defer the subject a little longer. In the recess, the attention of the government would be directed to it, and they would, of course have no objection to relieve the learned serjeant from the labour of the question, if, upon due consideration, it appeared a subject which they would be justified in bringing forward.

said, that after what had fallen from his right hon. friend, it would be doing great injustice to the question to persevere in his motion. He should therefore beg leave to withdraw the bill.

said, that he rose to propose certain resolutions respecting the funding of Exchequer-bills, a measure which had been adopted by his majesty's ministers for the purpose of relieving the Bank from a portion of the advances which had been made to government, and of diminishing the amount of Exchequer-bills already in the market. In pursuance of that plan, government had, in the course of last week, sent a proposal to the Bank, stating the nature of the measure, and explaining that it was intended to fund Exchequer bills, by creating a new stock, which should yield four per cent., fixing the amount of stock at 107l. for each subscription of 100l. in Exchequer-bills, or 100l. 10s.cash; and it was further proposed, in order to make the proposition more acceptable to the parties who might purchase, that the four per cents should not be redeemable in a less period than seven years. In consequence of this measure, books were opened at the Bank on Wednesday last, and it was fixed that the interest should commence on the 5th of April current, and that the first payment should be made on the 10th of October next. The result would yield a bonus of two per cent. The total amount proposed to be subcribed for was 8,000,000l. He was happy to state that the measure had been most successful: 8,000,000l., or near 9,000,000l., had been purchased, and he had no doubt, that if the transaction had not been closed, a still greater amount would have been subscribed for. All that remained now was, to state the charges which would be created by this funding of Exchequer-bills. The addition thus made to the funded debt would be 8,560,000l., the interest on which would amount to the annual sum of 342,400l. The addition of the sinking fund would be 5,600l., not upon the stock created, as the only sinking fund necessary would be one per cent upon the funding and capital created, making a total of 350,368l., including 2,568l. for the expense of management. The difference in the charge on the operation would be 77,000l. This deficiency he meant to supply by no new tax, but to charge on the consolidated fund; so that it would make no increase to the public burthens. It was not necessary for him to go further into explanation, as it was not probable that the House would be disinclined to confirm a bargain which was so fair for the parties and the country. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving the several resolutions.

asked, whether any arrangement had been made for including in the payments to be made to the Bank the sums they had disbursed in the purchase of Exchequer bills in the early part of the year?

replied, that undoubtedly the Bank would be paid off at the most convenient time, and the present arrangement would enable the government to do so; but the payments would be made at such times and under such circumstances as the state of the currency and the demands of the Bank would render it most desirable to the government and useful to the country.

begged to ask, how the; right hon. gentleman proposed to pay off the new debt, and what was the amount of the new sinking fund which he proposed to create?

replied, that, by an act of parliament, the sinking fund was to go on increasing at compound interest until it amounted to one per cent, on the whole amount of the debt. The whole debt, funded and unfunded, was already provided for by the regular sinking fund; so that the sinking fund to be raised was only upon the sum which formed the difference between the original amount of Exchequer bills as it stood under the name of unfunded debt, and the new stock now about to be created, forming a sum of about 560,000l.

asked, if there was any precise time in which the right hon. gentleman proposed to himself the payment of the Exchequer bills?

replied, that it was undoubtedly his object to have the means of paying them off as soon as possible; but, as he had already stated he was not under an obligation to pay them off at any particular time, but was at liberty to watch the market, so as to take advantage of such opportunities as occurred most beneficial to the public interests; as it was impossible, therefore, to mention any precise time—all he could say was, that it would be done as soon as convenient, although he thought it would be very imprudent to take any sudden measures which would affect the circulation.

asked, what was to become of the surplus which would thus remain in the hands of government, provided it were not found necessary to make the repayment of the greater part to the Bank?

replied, that the effect of that would be, to render a smaller issue of Exchequer-bills by the government necessary, than might otherwise be required.

wished to know, whether a preference in the subscription for the new stock was not given to those who offered money rather than to those who went with Exchequer-bills?

was not aware that he had said any thing about a preference being given to any party. The conditions on which the new stock was to be issued were known to the public on Wednesday last. But he had no objection to lay before the House an account of the nature of the subscriptions for the stock, distinguishing the amount in Exchequer-bills from that in cash.

observed, that this bill, which purported to have no less an object than the improvement of the Criminal Justice of England, seemed to him to be of such great importance, that he conceived the best method he could adopt in its consideration would be, to have it read clause by clause to the House. In that way he could, he thought, introduce most satisfactorily the very few amendments and alterations which it was necessary to propose. The first, and by far the most important, related to the powers of magistrates in the taking of bail—powers which had remained without any alteration since the time of Edward 1st. His object was, in this bill, to procure such a legislative provision, as would make it distinctly understood—what the powers of magistrates actually were with regard to bail, upon which there had been, for a long period, very considerable obscurity; and next, to extend the class of offences for which bail could be received, by giving some precise and definite description of the kind of offenders from whom bail could be taken, pointing out clearly who might be admitted to bail, and who must be committed to safe custody. He proposed, that where any person should be taken on a charge of felony, or suspicion of felony, before any justice of the peace, and the charge should be supported by positive evidence of the fact, or by such evidence as, if not explained or contradicted, should, in the opinion of the justice, raise a strong presumption of the guilt of the person charged, such person should not be admitted to bail by any justice or justices of the peace, either in or out of sessions; but should be committed to prison by the justice before whom he or she should be so charged, in the manner hereinafter mentioned. But (and this was one of the amendments he proposed to introduce at present), if there was only one justice present, and the person should be charged before him with felony, or the suspicion of felony, and the charge was not sufficient to justify an immediate commitment; but yet, if there was, in the opinion of the justice, such a strong presumption of guilt as would render it necessary to have further inquiry made, before he could either safely commit or discharge—the justice should not, in that case, take bail, but order the prisoner to be detained until he could be taken before two justices; and if the further evidence produced against the person suspected was not such in the opinion of two justices, as to raise a strong presumption of his guilt, or such evidence should be adduced on behalf of the person charged, as should, in their opinion, weaken the presumption of his or her guilt, but there should, notwithstanding, appear to them to be sufficient ground for judicial inquiry into his or her guilt, in such case, the person charged should and might be, admitted to bail by such two justices in the manner mentioned. This provision, with this amendment, would have the important effect of lessening the number of those who were sent, sometimes most unnecessarily, as it turned out afterwards, but yet, in strict compliance with the law, to an imprisonment injurious at once to health and to morals; for, looking at the number of commitments for felonies—and the number ultimately prosecuted and found guilty, there appeared a disparity which excited a strong suspicion of the policy, whatever might be said of the justice, of the course at present adopted. Now, if the committee looked to the effect of imprisoning for a long period in a common gaol an innocent man on a charge of felony, and considered that, in almost all cases, such a person came out a much worse man, in point of moral character, than he was when he went in; they would not, he was sure, object to the grant of a power to magistrates, which would pre- vent, in many cases, the chance of an innocent man being exposed to such a contamination. He inserted the word "credible," and that was a most important alteration, because at present, where a man was charged with felony, the magistrate, even though he might not think it a case strongly presumptive of guilt, had not the power to admit to bail, but must commit or discharge the prisoner. In cases where two magistrates were present at the first hearing of the charge—and that, he thought, would generally happen in all cities and large towns—they would have the power of admitting to bail, if the circumstances should appear to them to be such as he had before mentioned. But where only one magistrate was at the first hearing, he would be bound to remand, if he had the doubts to which he had before alluded, until two magistrates could hear the case.

said, that, in point of fact, magistrates already exercised the power about to be granted them by this act.

thought that great difficulties would arise from placing too precise and exact limits to the conduct of magistrates. Too technical a laying down of their duties would have the effect of embarrassing them. He considered that there was a strong objection to the use of the word "credible," which was generally considered as synonymous with "competent;" and that, unless a person was convicted of some disqualifying crime, he must be considered competent. He should like the clause better, if magistrates were authorized, when the evidence appeared insufficient, to discharge the prisoner rather than remand him. He saw great reason for pausing before the clause proposed was agreed to. At all events, he hoped that nothing which passed that night would be considered as final, but that every clause would be printed and placed in the hands of members.

said, that the clause already proposed was the most material one. The others were not of such consequence at present. If the evidence against the prisoner was positive, the magistrate was bound to commit; and therefore it was that he added the word "credible" to "positive." "Credible" was not to be taken in its technical sense. It meant to guard against the evidence of persons of suspected or doubtful character, as, for instance, common prostitutes.

agreed with his right hon. friend, that the word "credible" was to be taken in its popular acceptation. Indeed, it was used as contra-distinguished from "incompetent." It meant persons who were credible from their character and conduct. The clause was agreed to. On the clause, "That before any person shall be bailed, or committed, the justices shall take down the examinations, and bind all persons to appear as witnesses on the trial; and that all examinations, informations, and recognizances be returned to the Court,"

said, that great inconvenience arose from not having the deposition of witnesses returned before the trial. In the absence of these documents, it was impossible to determine whether the evidence of the witnesses, as given before the magistrates, agreed with that given on the trial of the prisoner. He should therefore suggest, that in no case the trial should be proceeded on, unless the written examinations taken before the magistrates were in Court.

was strongly of opinion that, if the suggestion of the hon. and learned gentleman were adopted, it might tend, in many instances, to defeat the ends of justice. Measures, for instance, might be taken by the friends of a prisoner to intercept the messenger who was conveying the depositions to the assizes, and thus prevent the trial from coming on, Besides, it would have the effect of taking the discretion of postponing the trial quite out of the hands of the judge.

replied, that, unless the judge had seen the depositions, he could know nothing of the merits of the particular case, and therefore could use no discretion.

said, that perhaps it was not necessary that the judge should be in possession of the merits. He thought it would be wrong to legislate on the subject.

observed, that if the suggestion proposed by his learned friend was adopted, a prisoner, through the neglect of the magistrates' clerk, might have his trial put off to the ensuing assizes. He admitted that it would be desirable to have the depositions in court during the trial; but if it was necessary to have them returned before the assizes, it might so happen that no officer would be in attendance to receive them.

on the clause being moved, that all informations and examinations on which any person should be imprisoned or admitted to bail, should be committed to writing, and returned into court at its opening, said that, at present, magistrates, upon charges of misdemeanour, were apt not to reduce the examinations to writing; but although it might give some little more trouble, he conceived it right that this should be done in all cases. This clause was agreed to; as was also the clauses for giving similar powers to coroners, in this respect, as to justices, and imposing a fine on both of them in case of their failing to observe the above regulations. Upon the clause being moved, that all felonies, without benefit of clergy, should be ousted of that benefit under all circumstances consequent on the indictment,

said, that the right hon. gentleman, whilst he was improving the criminal law, would be conferring a great benefit if he were to do away with the distinction as to the benefit of clergy altogether. Indeed, the meaning of this term was far from being generally understood.

said, that he, for the most part, concurred in the opinion of the hon. gentleman; but the simple repeal of all these distinctions now would be premature. He hoped at no distant period, so early, indeed, as in the next session, to bring forward bills for the consolidation of the whole of the criminal statutes [hear, hear!]. These he would propose to take in the following order:—first, the laws relating to the injury of persons: second, those relating to coining and forgery. When these had undergone revision and alteration, most of the criminal law would have been revised and condensed. As soon as they had made that progress, it would be right, perhaps, to make one uniform provision upon the subject: but at present, those offences that were clergyable, and those that were not, were so interwoven in the statutes, that it was inconvenient to separate them, or to come to any specific provision upon the subject. Besides, the simple repeal now, by abolishing the words "without benefit of clergy," would have the effect of making some offences capital that were not so by law.

next proposed the clause enacting, that "if any person indicted for any felony for which the offender is entitled to the benefit of clergy, and he shall on arraignment confess the felony, or stand mute of malice, or shall be outlawed under such indictment, &c. in every such case the person shall be deemed and taken to be guilty of such felony, and the court shall award such judgment as if such person had been convicted by a verdict."

was desirous that every person arraigned should have the benefit of a trial, whatever plea he might put forward, or under whatever circumstances a charge was preferred against him.

observed, that the judges had uniformly evinced the greatest unwillingness to admit a party to plead guilty. Even where a prisoner was obstinate in refusing to plead at all, the judge had a plea of "not guilty" entered for him, and the trial gone through.

said, he only proposed to enact what he already found in several statutes. The clause only proposed, in a compressed manner, to enact that which was already in force.

objected to the clause which subjected "accessaries before the fact" to the same punishment as principals, in all cases of felony. There were some cases in which an exception was made to the general provision. As a general rule, he admitted that accessaries were liable to the same punishment; but before they altered the law as relating to excepted cases, he thought the committee ought to have before them the statutes, by which, for certain offences, the accessary was visited with a less punishment, the principal with a greater. The effect of the present clause might be, to increase the number of capital punishments, in some cases where the principal was indictable for a capital felony, and the accessary only made liable to one that was not capital.

replied, that he had adhered to the principle on which the law proceeded in the punishment provided for offences. It was, that the accessary should be liable to the same punishment as the principal. Indeed, in some instances, the accessary, in his opinion, was more criminal; as in the case of persons instigating boys to steal in dwelling-houses, to commit robbery, or some other offence, with the expectation that, on account of their youth, they might escape the capital punishment due to the crime. There, in his opinion, the accessary was far more criminal. The principle was such as he had stated, and would be found to pervade all the statutes relating to murder, burglary, stealing in dwelling-houses, forgery, and arson. And, as this was the general principle, he attributed the omission of observing this principle to negligent legislation in those cases where exceptions were made. He would ask, why accessaries in one class of aggravated offences should be subject to heavy punishment, and those of another class be exempted? Why, for instance, should a man, who was an accessary in piracy, be liable to the punishment of death, and the accessary in an unnatural offence not be liable? Wherever, therefore, he saw these exceptions to the general principle, he considered it owing to negligence in drawing up the statute.

was desirous of having the cases in which the accessary ought not to be punished equally with the principal brought distinctly under the consideration of the House. He therefore wished the right hon. gentleman to postpone the consideration of this clause until an opportunity should be given to draw up an enumeration of the cases in which the accessary before the fact and the principal ought to share the same punishment.

was anxious to have the clause passed now, in order that the printing of the bill might not be postponed. After it was printed it would be re-committed, and the learned gentleman would then have the opportunity of creating the discussion which he desired.

concurred in the opinion, of his learned friend, that before any alteration was adopted, the particular statutes in which these distinctions between the principal and accessary were made, should be laid before the committee, and the grounds of them examined. The clause was agreed to. On the moving of the clause empowering offences committed within five-hundred yards of the boundary-line of two counties to be tried in either county,

expressed a wish, that in all cases a prisoner should be tried either in the county where the offence was committed, or in that in which he was apprehended.

thought, that it would be much better to have the prisoner always tried in the county where the offence was committed, as it would enable both prosecutors and prisoners to conduct their cases with the least possible expense. If the prisoner was to be tried in the county where he was apprehended, how would the hon. gentleman act, supposing the prisoner was apprehended on the boundary-line, or in a boat on a river dividing two counties? He certainly could not consent to the hon. gentleman's proposition.

asked, whether it would not be expedient, in order to give effect to this clause, to empower the magistrates to commit to the gaol of either county?

observed, that if there were any doubt as to the boundary of a county, there would be also some doubt as to the distance of five-hundred yards from that boundary. It appeared necessary to make the law more explicit upon this point.

observed, that this clause only re-enacted the present law. The clause contained the words "any felony may be inquired of in either county." These words, he conceived, met the case mentioned by the learned member for Nottingham. If they did not, he should be happy to insert a clause in the bill, which would give the magistrates the power which the learned member thought they ought to have.

said, he had to propose several important alterations. He therefore wished the House merely to go into the committee pro forma, that the bill might be reprinted, and stand over for consideration. He had originally proposed to consolidate, and he trusted he had succeeded in consolidating, the whole of the statute law of England relating to all offences against property, connected with theft; but he had found, in attempting to legislate with respect to theft, that all that part which related to the mischievous destruction of property was so intimately connected with theft, that it was difficult to draw a distinction. It was probable, however, that, should the committee agree to his alterations, he might think it expedient not to pass the bill through the House this session, but suffer it to lay over for consideration, in its amended state, till the next session.

approved of the course pursued by the right hon. gentleman. He was aware of the importance of the bill, and was anxious that it should be passed as speedily as possible; but it was expedient that so novel a measure should be rendered quite perfect.

said, he would shortly state to the House two or three of the alterations which he desired to make. In the first place, as it was expedient to limit, as far as possible, the list of offences which were subject to the punishment of death, he intended to repeal that law which made the stealing in a church (no matter under what circumstances, or to what amount) a capital crime. As the statute stood, a man who stole his neighbour's prayer-book, as they sat in the same pew at chapel together, would be liable to suffer death for it; the act being in itself no more than a simple larceny. He saw no reason why any other law should be applicable to a place of worship than to the common case of a dwelling-house. In either case the breaking and entering would be capital, but not the simple act of stealing. In the same way, the statute which made it death to steal from a booth or tent at a fair, was one which he thought deserved to be revised. People who kept such open booths ought to guard their property sufficiently themselves, and not look for laws of unreasonable severity to protect it. The stealing to the amount of 40s. in a dwelling-house, independent of burglary, was now capital: he proposed to increase the 40s. to 5l. The sum of 40s. had been fixed, as necessary to constitute the capital offence, in the reign of queen Anne. Considering the different circumstances of the country, the amount which he now proposed was not materially greater. There were two other statutes on which he would detain the House a moment—those applicable to stealing fish, and to stealing deer. The punishment for stealing fish out of any pond was seven years' transportation; and there was no difference between an angling and a stealing by nets or other engines. Now, he thought it rather hard to send an angler, although he did fish in other people's waters, to Botany-bay for seven years; and he therefore proposed a mitigation in favour of such characters. The law, as he would have it, should oblige every angler, who caught fish improperly, to give his name and address on demand, subject to a penalty of 20l. for giving a false one; and is punishment should be, to pay three times the value of the fish taken, with an additional fine to the king, to be levied by order of the magistrate. With respect to deer-stealing, hon. gentlemen were perhaps aware, that by the present law, any person who was sworn to have had the head, hide, or any part of the flesh of a deer in his house, within one month from the date of the oath, was liable to be called on, without any proof given that he really had possessed such venison, to show that he had not possessed it illegally. This statute was too severe; indeed perfectly unreasonable; and he proposed to leave the law as to venison on the same footing with that which applied to other meats. There were one or two other alterations which he proposed, and among the rest some change in the law referable to obtaining goods on false pretences; but with these, at so late an hour, he would not intrude upon the House.