in rising to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Usury Laws, said that, in laying his proposition before the House, he did not intend to go fully into the general question; but, as there were many hon. gentlemen now in the House who were not members when the subject was last discussed, he felt it his duty to make a few general observations. He much regretted that the task of bringing the question before the House had not fallen to the lot of an individual more competent than himself; but when he considered the crimes and evils which those laws produced, he was anxious that some course should be adopted to mitigate their severity. Honourable members were aware that, in the year 1818, when Mr. Serjeant Onslow brought forward a similar bill, a committee was appointed for the purpose of examining into these laws; and to the evidence taken before that committee he should have occasion to refer. He much wished that his majesty's ministers had redeemed their pledge of bringing forward some measure for amending the state of these laws; but, as they had not thought proper to do so, he trusted that he should be backed with their support and authority, in carrying the bill he had now to propose through the House. When he looked at the evidence taken before the committee of 1818, composed, as that committee was, of individuals of all parties and all ways of thinking, he did hope that a different result would now be arrived at. It would be seen that, on that occasion, twenty-one witnesses were examined; of these eighteen were of opinion that the laws as they stood were inoperative, and required alteration; and of the remaining three, two were melancholy instances, how far old prejudices could pervert and enchain men's minds. The third Mr. Gurney, had, with a candour becoming his honourable mind, allowed him to name him as one whose opinion had since suffered a change. That gentleman had acknowledged that if called to their bar, he would, after what had occurred in a period of such difficulty as that of 1825, give a very different opinion as to the propriety of repealing the Usury-laws. It was fortunate for his motion, that at this moment several circumstances conspired to vender the experiment safe. Amongst others, the rate of interest on money was lower considerably than the legal rate of interest. In 1826, lord Liverpool said, in the House of Lords, that he was, notwithstanding all that had recently occurred, aware that there were many obstacles in the way of abrogating these laws, as they were connected with a particular interest in the community. The question was not one of any difficulty whatever on principle, and it was obvious to all, that the present state of the law could be defended on no solid basis." The truth was, that the enactments against usury had originated, not so much out of a regard to commerce, as to religious and pious scruples. It was adjudged, by the tenets of the Romish Church, to be impious to take a higher rate of usury than that sanctioned by law. In process of time the legislature consolidated the laws on the subject. This act, passed in the time of queen Anne, was intended to keep down the rate of interest; the preamble of it stating, that as the present rate of interest in England was known to be higher than it was abroad in maritime countries, it had induced persons to withdraw themselves from foreign trade and commerce. The argument so often referred to in similar cases, as to the antiquity of the law, was one to which he could not, in these enlightened times, give much weight. No one would, in these days, contend that, because a law had been in force for three or four hundred years, during a state of society which might, as respected trade and commerce, be considered almost a primitive state of society, it should be continued, on the ground of its being an ancient law of the realm. At that time there were religious scruples afloat on the subject, more particularly as the lending of money, or usury, was confined to a despised and outcast people—the Jews or Lombards. In our improved state of commercial intercourse, money had changed hands. It was then known, that there were no persons so reckless of consequences as the prodigal, and the laws were framed to save that class from the rapacity of the Israelites in that day. In order to show the pernicious operation of the Usury-laws, the hon. member referred to the case of Howard and Gibbs. That firm, now bankrupt, had made 20,000l. or 25,000l. a-year by lending money to prodigals. No less than two hundred causes had been brought into court as connected with their transactions, and fifty or sixty respectable individuals wholly ruined by lending them money at rates of interest which they were not aware was illegal. But the unjust operation of the Usury-laws would appear more distinctly, by putting a case. Suppose a man were to die, leaving three sons, and to each of those sons 10,000l.; the first in land, the second in houses, and the third in cash: the consequence would be, that the two first might make as much interest as they could of their property, while the last would be thrown into jail and ruined, if he took a single farthing over the rate allowed by law. It was in vain to think of keeping down the rate of interest by legal enactments, as every day's experience proved. At one period, the legal interest in Livonia was six per cent, and the market interest was six per cent also, till the government reduced the legal rate to five per cent, and then the market rate rose at once to seven. Besides, as necessitous men must obtain money upon almost any terms at which it could be got, if there were laws to be evaded they must pay for that evasion. A man who wanted to borrow 8,000l., applied to another, who sold out to lend it to him, the debt being secured by an an- nuity of 766l. There occurred between the gale and the conclusion of the transaction, a difference of 1,202l. in the value of the stock, which he had to make good, besides a sum of 504l. for legal expenses. In Hamburgh and Mecklenburgh, where the landed interest were still more in the habit of mortgaging their estates than here, there was no legal rate of interest fixed, and the consequence was, that it was in general more steady than in other countries, though sometimes, in cases of extraordinary commercial difficulty, it rose as high as ten per cent. He was aware it might be said, that this was a dangerous state of things, for the lender might take advantage of the time when the rate was highest to demand his money. No such occurrence, however, had ever come within his knowledge, though he had made every inquiry on the subject, during a residence of ten years in that country. The fact was, that though, in cases of extraordinary commercial necessity, money might be worth that interest to commercial men, no legal investments were ever made, at such a moment, or upon such terms. This brought him to consider how the Usury-laws operated to aggravate distress at periods of extraordinary pressure. Upon this part of the subject he should refer to the language of the deputation from Manchester in 1826. They declared to lord Liverpool, that they were all substantial men; that they wanted no assistance, if the government would repeal the Usury-laws; and it was only on the refusal of the government to comply with this request that they applied for an issue of exchequer bills. It. was well known also, that during the panic in 1825, as much as fifty and sixty per cent was given for money secured on the public funds. He knew that in the city, though good bills were now done at two and a half per cent, small tradesmen were charged at the rate of twenty or thirty; and he knew of one house alone which made 5,000l. or 6,000l. a year by such transactions. During the panic in 1825, the rate of interest rose in Hamburgh to ten per cent, but as there was no impediment from the Usury-laws, the market soon found its level, and in the course of a few weeks the interest fell to four and a half per cent.—There was another case which he should mention, in reference to the effect of these laws upon partnerships. A banker of his acquaintance had a son whom he wished to suc- ceed him in the firm, from which he was himself retiring. He wished at the same time to leave about 50,000l. in the bank at the legal interest, the better to secure the succession of his son. The whole arrangement was almost concluded, when a solicitor interposed, and cautioned the parties, that it was an usurious transaction, the father having derived from it, besides the legal interest, the additional advantage of providing for his son.—But in addition to these objections was the severity of the penalties upon those who infringed the law. He was himself aware of a case in which a house was committed in the penalties for an usurious error in the sum of 32,000l.; the penalty amounted to 96,000l. In fact, the penalty was not only double the sum on which the usurious transaction arose, it included all other sums which could in any way be connected with that transaction.—In point of fact, so severe were these laws, that it was with great difficulty they were carried into execution. Judges might charge juries to convict under them, but these latter were generally found slow to comply. In a case which came before lord Ellenborough, the guilt of the defendant, upon a charge of usury, was beyond doubt. The jury however, found the man not guilty. Lord Ellenborough, in surprise, told the jury, that it was a case of undoubted usury, and that he could not understand their verdict. The foreman, who was brother-in-law to an hon. member of this House, replied, "We know not what your lordship may call usury, but what is charged upon this defendant is no more than every merchant in the city of London does every day."—For the repeal of laws so injurious and so unwise he hoped he should have the support of his majesty's government. He did not propose to repeal the Usury-laws altogether, but to modify them. Under these circumstances, the plan which he should propose was, to do away with that part of the law which voids the engagements entered into upon any rate of interest above that which the law admits, and to change the present penalties, allowing persons only to sue for the legal interest of five per cent. The immediate effect of this would be, to afford great relief to persons whose necessities might require immediate advances. The next advantage would he, that individuals, being no longer liable to pay the enormous penalties given by the present laws, but only the additional rate of interest above the legal rate of interest, would be ready to advance money, on higher terms than the fixed rate, to those individuals of whose moral character they were secure, and whom they believed to be too honourable to take advantage of the law over them. The next, and perhaps the greatest, advantage of all was, that it would put the transactions of commerce on a footing of security, and would give them a stability which it was impossible they could acquire under the present law. Besides this, no one, under the amended law, would be able to turn the misfortunes of individuals to his own profit, and to procure from them grinding engagements for a long term of years; because individuals thus called upon to pay money might at any time bring their cases into court, and get the usurious interest avoided. A prodigal, too, who was anxious to raise money, would not render himself a beggar for life by borrowing money at an extravagant rate of interest, which was to continue for years. He would no longer be obliged to resort to Jews and money-lenders, who did their dirty work in corners; but, by the open competition in the market, would be able to get rid of his necessities without allowing any body to take advantage of them. He was aware of the value of precedent in all legislative measures, and therefore he would say, that he found precedents for the course which he was going to pursue, not only in this country, but almost in every nation of Europe. In the court of Chancery a plaintiff was often told, "You shall be entitled to no usurious interest, but to your capital with the legal interest calculated from the day on which the debt was originally contracted." In all foreign countries the Usury-laws, if not formally, were at least virtually repealed. In France, Holland, and Russia, there was a fixed legal rate of interest; but he believed that in all of them the discount of bills was permitted at a much higher rate of interest; indeed, in the government Bank of Russia the discount was whatever they could get; which, however, was regulated by the market value of money at the time. If such a system had been advantageous in other countries, he hoped it would also prove advantageous in this. He trusted that the observations he had urged would be sufficient to induce the House to give him the leave for which he was then moving. He had endeavoured to anticipate all the arguments which might be urged against his measure; and he believed he had now left none of them unrefuted, except that which stated, that this was not the proper time for bringing it forward. Not the proper time! Why, if ever there could be a proper time, it was the present. The market-rate of interest on mortgages was only four per cent, and on good bills only two or two and a half per cent. It was so much below the legal rate of interest, that he did not conceive that any change in the law could create a detrimental rise in it. He therefore submitted his bill to the House in the hope that it would be found worthy of its support. It was either a good bill or a bad one: if it were a good bill no time ought to be lost in carrying it into effect; if it were a bad one, the sooner the House got rid of it, the better. The hon. member, after recapitulating the advantages which he anticipated from his bill, and after drawing a pathetic picture of the misery, poverty, and ruin, which the existing law had inflicted on many opulent and respectable persons in the year of the panic, concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill "to amend the Usury Laws."

said, that having intimated to the hon. gentleman, that it was not his intention to oppose the introduction of the bill, he should not have said a word on the present occasion, had he not been informed that it was the determination of some gentlemen, who were opposed to any change in the Usury-laws, to enter that evening into a discussion of their general policy. Now, with all respect to those gentlemen, he would advise them to postpone the discussion until they had the measure in a distinct and substantive shape before them. He thought that it was impossible for any man who had attended to the speech of the hon. member, to shut his eyes against the great inconveniences which resulted from the Usury-laws. It was impossible to hear of commercial men being innocently subjected to the payment of enormous penalties, without feeling that the hon. member had made out a case, which rendered it imperative on the House to consider whether it could not devise some amendment for so defective a state of law. For these reasons, he should offer no opposition to the motion. In making that declaration, he reserved to himself the right to discuss at some future period the amendments which the hon. member proposed to make in the existing laws, with a view of seeing how far they were calculated to meet the object which he had in view, and to avoid the evils which others anticipated from the total repeal of them. With these observations he should have ended, but as the hon. gentleman had thrown out a censure upon government for not introducing some measure upon this subject, he would make one or two remarks. The hon. member would do him the justice to admit, that when he had first asked him whether it was the intention of government to come forward with any measure to effect that object, he had not given the hon. gentleman a decided refusal, but had told him that, as he had been recently placed in his present situation, he had too many engagements to fulfil, to give the measure the consideration which it deserved; but that, if the hon. member would postpone the agitation of it till next session, he would, in the interval, consider it deliberately, and be prepared to point out the means by which the evils of the Usury-laws might be avoided, or the laws themselves repealed. He consented to the introduction of the bill, stating at the same time, that it would be satisfactory to him if those who favoured the Usury-laws would defer the discussion of their policy to another opportunity.

said, he was ready to agree to the mitigation of the Usury-laws, provided that mitigation did not amount to an actual repeal of the laws themselves. It appeared to him to be quite impossible to pass a bill like the present, without affecting the landed interest most materially. Mortgages must be affected by the change which would take place in the value of money on the repeal of those laws. The impression made on his mind by a perusal of the evidence taken before the committee in 1818, was unfavourable to the repeal of the Usury-laws, and was principally created by the evidence of Mr. Preston; no mean authority on such a subject. If there had been no Usury-laws, he believed that, during the panic of 1825, some individuals might have escaped from the ruin in which it involved them; but he likewise believed that more persons would have been ingulfed in it, who, owing to the existence of the Usury-laws, were saved from it by the benevolence of their friends. Those kind-hearted persons knew that, under the existing laws, money could not be raised by those for whom they felt interested, and therefore they came forward liberally; but had they known that their friends could raise the money at forty or fifty per cent., they would never have raised a finger to help them. In Holland, where there were no Usury-laws, men of opulence, on retiring from business, became, as it was termed, insurers: they left their capital at immense interest in the firm from which they retired, and thus realized a great profit without incurring any risk. The same would be the case in England, were the Usury-laws repealed. The public would then lose the security of the great merchants in whom they confided at present, and would get in their stead an inferior set, in whose hands the commerce of the country would fall to decay, as it had done in Holland since the repeal of the Usury-laws.

condemned the Usury-laws. They took money out of the pocket of the borrower, without putting it into that of the lender; the only person who was benefitted by them was the inferior description of attornies and agents. He wished the government would deal fairly between the landed and commercial interests on this question. The landowner was unrestricted as to price in every article which he produced. If the poor were starving, and corn selling at a guinea a bushel, the government would not pass a law to prevent the agriculturist from selling corn at that price. He did not see how they could continue the present Usury-laws, if they acted consistently, without imposing a maximum on the price of corn, as well as upon the price of money.

said, he had regularly opposed the bill of a learned serjeant on this subject, because it went to the total repeal of these laws, which he conceived would create a perfect revolution in pecuniary matters. But he was inclined to support the present bill; because, without going so far as the learned Serjeant's, it was calculated to correct most of the evils of the present system.

was convinced, that of all classes of the community the landed interest was that which suffered most from the present Usury-laws. A landholder, if he wanted money, could not procure it when the funds paid an interest above five per cent. He was, therefore, obliged to borrow it at a higher rate than the legal interest, from some individual who was willing, from the increased profit, to run the risk of the penalties, or to borrow it on annuity, which he knew had been the ruin of many country gentlemen. Why money was not to be dealt with like any other commodity, he could not conceive. Every man was allowed to get as much as he could for his corn, or for the use of his house, or for the rent of his farm; why should he not be permitted to do the same for his money? He would support the motion, because he conceived those laws to be injurious to all classes of the community, but more particularly to the landed interest.

said, that all the former bills which had been introduced upon this subject went to the total repeal of all restrictions upon the interest of money. They were founded on the theoretical principle, that, as all other articles of trade found their own level, so too would money; and thence it was inferred, that it was unwise and impolitic to fix any certain standard of interest. He had studied this subject with great attention, and was deeply impressed with the conviction, that great oppression and injustice would arise from the repeal of the Usury-laws, and that a right to take interest upon money ad libitum ought to be opposed. Now, the principle of the present bill was, not to take away a fixed rate of interest, but to mitigate the penalties for taking interest above that fixed rate. He was ever open to conviction from the statement of able persons; and the hon. member for Dover had that night established his claim to the title of an able person on this subject, and he would therefore give the hon. member's bill the best consideration in his power. He would confine his observations to the other part of the hon. member's bill. Suppose that you preserve a fixed rate of interest, beyond which your laws permit no one to go, it may be worth your while to consider how you are to enforce your law. At present you can only do it in two methods; the first by suing for the penalties, and the second by rendering void the instrument which secures the illegal interest. He admitted that many cases of grievance had arisen under the existing law, and he should wish to see them remedied. It was one thing, however, totally to repeal the Usury-laws, and another to mitigate their oppressive penalties in particular instances. If he could preserve the principle of the Usury-laws, and prevent their abuse, he would support such a measure of improvement. He could not, however, agree to take away the plan of a fixed legal interest, unless he saw his way clearer than he at present did, to a measure equally beneficial to the public.

thought that, if the bill only went as far as the Attorney-general was disposed to give it his sanction, it might as well not go on at all. An hon. baronet had alluded to a case in which, at a period when the difficulty of raising money was extreme, the friends of the individuals in distress had come forward to their relief, to prevent them from being compelled to accede to the terms of the usurer. But he would ask the hon. baronet, did he not consider that there was still in this case a loss and risk? There was a loss and risk to the friends of the parties.

begged to state that he never did say any such thing. What he did say was simply, that at a particular period of great commercial distress, the friends of the sufferers had come forward to save them from the misfortunes consequent upon that period of distress, but that if the Usury-laws had been repealed, those persons would have been left to their own resources.

contended, that, even with his explanation, the hon. baronet had only shifted the burthen; for it was perfectly evident that there was both loss and risk in the transaction. He could not see that the slightest degree of injury would result from the modification or repeal of these laws. It was beyond dispute, that the man in extreme distress must get money at whatever rate he could.

said, he was anxious for the repeal or modification of the Usury-laws. The former he should prefer, and he hoped his hon. friend would not get into greater difficulties than those he wished to avoid, by consenting to take a qualified course. From a twenty years knowledge of extensive commercial transactions, he could speak to the injurious tendency of these laws. They operated most injuriously both upon the commercial and landed interests. Why not leave money, which was the very essence of trade, like any other commodity, to be regulated by the necessities of the borrower and lender respectively? Each, could bargain accord- ing to his sense of the value of the money to him at the moment; and what would there be unfair in the principle of such a regulation? In arguing this question, it would be wrong to throw out of view the great difference between the scale of the money transactions of the present day and that which influenced these laws in the reign of queen Elizabeth. If he understood the hon. gentleman's proposal, it was that nobody should be compelled to pay more than the legal interest in a court of law, but that there should be no penalty upon demanding more; and that in the event of an agreement at a higher rate, there should be only an honourable obligation to pay this higher rate of interest upon the part of the borrower. This, he feared, would prove a temptation to a fraudulent party to such a transaction, to bring the matter into a court of law, and so get off the obligation.

said, that if he had not, on a recent occasion, declared his intention to oppose the repeal of the Usury-laws, he would not—finding that the proposal of the hon. gentleman was so different from what he had expected—have thought it necessary to say anything. He would give the hon. gentleman's proposal a fair and deliberate consideration, and as it did not touch upon that part of the subject which he had feared it would, he should support it if he could. At the same time, he considered himself perfectly free. The subject was surrounded with difficulties. He was decidedly opposed to the repeal of that part of the laws which applied to loans of money upon mortgages. The cases stated by the hon. member were extreme, and should be regarded as exceptions, rather than examples; but still, if that part of the laws to which he had alluded was preserved, he saw no objection to the proposal of the hon. mover.

said, he had always voted for a repeal of these laws, and would support this measure, though it did not go to the full extent of former motions for a similar purpose. He hoped the middle course taken would conciliate the opponents of this measure, and therefore effect some practicable good. Indeed, he thought the proposed alteration preferable to the previous application for a repeal. If he understood his hon. friend right, he meant to retain the legal standard of five per cent interest, but to repeal the obnoxious and severe penalties, of leaving it open to individuals to make what bargains they pleased, with the knowledge, however, that courts of law would still recognize the maximum of five per cent, but without the infliction of penalties. It was strange that, while bargains at any rate of price could be managed in the market, this absurd exception should prevail regarding money, which was the medium of payment for every thing. He hoped that the sort of compromise held out would ensure the concurrence of all parties, and thereby operate as a wholesome reform in the old law.

considered the proposition of the hon. mover worse than an open avowal that his design was a repeal of the Usury-laws. What was that proposition? To leave five per cent still the legal standard of interest, but to abolish all the securities and penalties against those who violated the law. His opinion was, simply, that the law should either be repealed or enforced; but the hon. mover would not compel a dishonest man, who agreed to pay twelve per cent for the use of money, to perform his contract; he would allow this fraudulent party to go into a court of law, and cut down the creditor's demand to the legal standard. This was worse than the total repeal of all regulations on the subject. He wished the hon. gentleman would leave this question in the hands of government, who would digest a plan which might be produced next session, and would probably call forth the approbation of all parties. He would not consent to the repeal of the Usury-laws; as he was afraid it would be productive of great mischief both to the commercial and to the landed interest.

could not see how the real difficulties would be met by the proposed arrangement of the hon. member; he was friendly to the motion, but would reserve his opinion until the bill was introduced.

hoped, that the people of Scotland, which was more a debtor country than England, would have ample opportunity of knowing the nature of the intended change.

said, he should have preferred an entire repeal of the Usury-laws to the measure now proposed; he nevertheless thought it would be a great improvement upon the old law. He could not agree with the learned gentleman, that it would favour dishonest at the expense of honest men, but the reverse.

rose to call the attention of the House to the subject "of Pensions Payable out of the Civil List." He knew it was considered by common consent in that House, that the civil list when once settled, was not to be meddled with, until they were called upon, at the conclusion of one reign, to consider a new arrangement for another. But he had never concurred in that principle; because he found, that there never was any hesitation on the part of ministers to ask for the payment of the debts of the civil list, when they had accrued to a great amount. The House, he thought, had an equal right to ask, what was passing in the civil list. But though the House had, he thought, a right to interfere, he intended only to ask for an account of the pensions payable out of the civil list, in order that they might see whether the acts of parliament for the regulation of that list had been complied with, and whether there were not the means of providing for cases such as that which had lately occurred; as he thought that this was the source from which any allowance of this kind should proceed, instead of calling on the House for additional grants, in the present over-burthened state of the finances. In the act of 1782, called Mr. Burke's act, there was an express provision, in the 17th clause, that the pension list, which was then very large, should be put under the regulation that only. 1,200l. per annum should be added, until the aggregate amount should be reduced to 90,000l. yearly, and that it should not be competent for his majesty to grant pensions for the future to an unlimited amount. In Mr. Burke's celebrated speech on the Pension bill, he had well observed, that the power of giving pensions was granted to the king, in order that he might reward merit and talent, and not for purposes of corruption; and Mr. Fox, at a subsequent period, had maintained, that that House had a right to call for an account of the civil list, in order that parliament might be aware of the manner in which pensions were granted. Acting on that, principle, he had, in 1820, moved "for a Return of the Pensions granted;" and in looking over that return he certainly thought that the king had exercised a sound discretion in putting some meritorious individuals on it; but he was bound to state that out of the sum of 92,000l., which was granted in the shape of pensions, he could find but very few who had the smallest claims on the country, and that therefore they were to be generally taken as acts of grace and favour granted by the Crown to particular individuals. Now, amongst other names on the list, he found that of William Huskisson, with an allowance of 1,000l. a-year, to be suspended as long as that gentleman was in the receipt of 2,000l. a-year from any public office; and in this case he must admit that he knew of no other ground for the grant, but the great public services which that gentleman had rendered to the country. This, however, was a rare case. He therefore contended, that the pension list ought to be made up from the year 1820 to the present time, in order that the House might see in what manner the public money was disposed of, perhaps it might turn out that on these lists there might be some vacancy, which might be filled up with the proposed grant to Mr. Canning's family of 3,000l. a-year, and certainly; when the country was pressed on every side by financial difficulties, it was worth while to see whether such a grant as this could not fairly be put on the ordinary pension list, without making it an extra grant. The Irish list, in the year 1820, had amounted to 71,000l. a-year; and therefore the proposed pension to Mr. Canning's family could not be placed on that, as, by act of parliament, no pension of more than 1,200l. a-year could be granted to any individual, until the general amount should be reduced to 50,000l. a-year; and besides, he did not see how they could reasonably grant any thing further in the way of pensions, till they knew what had already been done, in order that they might guard against profusion. How there could be any opposition to this measure he could not conceive, unless government was afraid to let them know the names of those who were on the list; and on this point Mr. Burke had well observed, that the moment there was an attempt to conceal names, men naturally came to a conclusion that there was something wrong in the transaction. From such a list as he had been able to draw up, it appeared that one family had had, within four years, no fewer than seven grants made them, altogether amounting to 1,200l. a-year; and he must say, that when such grants as these were made, no one could say that suspicion did not attach as to the motive for which they were made [hear, hear!] By an act passed in 1810, no pension out of the Scotch pension list could be granted above 800l. a-year, until the list was reduced to 25,000l. a-year; but, in 1820, that list amounted to 38,000l.; and it was his opinion, if the House were to grant ministers 3,000,000l. a-year, instead of 200,000l. a-year, every shilling of it would be anticipated by them. If, however, it should appear, to the credit of government, that the lists were reduced within the scale he had mentioned, no doubt, in the course of a year or so, such a vacancy would occur as would admit of the proposed 3,000l. a-year. He also objected to the manner in which the civil list was voted: he wanted the particulars to be stated, and not upwards of a 1,000,000l. at once to be voted, out of which the lord Chancellor, the Judges, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and several others were to be paid. Another objection that he had to the vote was, that the amount had been settled at a period when the price of provisions and every thing else was at a very high rate; but as, since that-period, the prices had fallen, he did not see why the same amount should be granted. Taking the general aggregate of pensions, including the military and civil pensions, no less a sum than 6,088,910l. was paid last year by the country; of course, that sum included the half-pay of the army. These being the circumstances of the case, he thought he had shewn sufficient parliamentary grounds, for moving, "That there be laid before the House a Return of all the Pensions granted out of his Majesty's Civil List of England from the 1st January, 1828; stating the names of the persons to whom they were granted, the amount of each grant, and the date at which the grant had been made; and also whether the grant was for life, or during pleasure. And that the same Returns should be made with respect to the Civil Lists of Ireland and of Scotland."

said, it would not be necessary for him to enter into an explanation of that part of the hon. gentleman's speech in which he had stated that the pension list amounted to upwards of 6,000,000l. annually; because he himself had stated that he included, in that calculation, the whole of the half-pay; and the House would likewise understand, that it embraced the whole of the allowances made to those who had been wounded in the service of their country. He was quite willing to admit that it was a large amount, but he was sure the House would not be sorry that it was so large, when they remembered who were the meritorious persons to whom it was granted. Neither would it be necessary for him to say any thing upon what had fallen from the hon. gentleman concerning the amount of the civil list, as connected with the present cheapness of provisions, compared with what the price was, when that list was granted: it would be enough for him to remind the House, that the very basis of that grant was, that it should be unalterable, after the commencement of each reign, in order to prevent constant discussion on the subject. So that the question really was, not whether the civil list was adequate to any particular year; but that, having once been made, it should be continued as permanent, being neither open to the revision of parliament, nor subject to perpetual examination and alteration. Having said so much upon what might be called the ornamental part of the honourable gentleman's address, he would now proceed to apply himself to the graver portion of the subject. The hon. member commenced by observing, that he could not conceive what opposition could be offered to a motion of this description. The hon. member must, however, have a very short memory; for it was in the recollection of almost every gentleman, that, on a motion for a return of the allowances granted under the civil list, Mr. Canning gave that motion his decided resistance, upon the very grounds which authorised him in now resisting the hon. member's proposition. The hon. gentleman stated, that he called for the production of the pension list, in order to see, whether he could not make an alteration in it, so as to supersede the measure which had been introduced for a provision for Mr. Canning's family. The hon. gentleman was of opinion, that, if he could place Mr. Canning's representative on the present pension list, the public would be put to no additional expense; but that, if the course which government proposed were followed, the effect would be different. The hon. gentleman was altogether wrong in his proposition. The expense to the public would, be precisely the same, whe- ther the provision for Mr. Canning: was made out of the pension list or out of the other fund allotted by parliament. The two funds were equally at the disposal of his majesty, for the purposes specifically mentioned in the acts of parliament. The pensions under the civil list were confined to 95,000l., to be paid in pensions not exceeding 1,200l. a-year. But his majesty had also a right, with the concurrence of that House, to provide for meritorious public services out of the consolidated fund. This power was given to the Crown in consequence of the large quantity of patronage which had, some years ago, been withdrawn from it. Nothing, however, prevented his majesty, where the necessities of individuals who had served the State were represented to him, from granting to them an adequate provision. The provision to Sir. Canning's family would not add to the public expense; for the plan proposed by the hon. gentleman would, perhaps, only have the effect of superseding some person who had rendered efficient service to the State, and who must still be provided for. If, therefore, the hon. gentleman wished to raise any question, with a view to the granting to the family of Mr. Canning a provision to the amount of 1,200l. on the pension list, or whether the provision was continued in the course which government recommended, it would be equally granted by his majesty out of funds which were at his disposal, and no new charge would be incurred.—He had stated the necessity of not interfering with any arrangements of the civil list, and he thought that interference ought not to take place, until some necessity arose for an application, upon the part of the Crown, to enlarge the amount of that list. He might, indeed, say, that the House did not possess any right to inquire into the expenditure of the civil list, until that application might be made, or until the powers of granting pensions under that civil list were so much abused, as to justify their interference. Until some case of that kind arose, it was not right for honourable members to demand, or for the House to grant, any means of inquiry into the expenditure of the civil list. The hon. member had stated, that in 1820 the pension list was submitted to the House; but the hon. member ought to have recollected, that it was in 1820 that that arrangement was made upon which they were now proceeding; and as the production of the list was necessary to show the reasons for that arrangement, therefore it was given without resistance. No case of that kind, however, existed now; and, as he had not been able to point out any instance of abuse, there was no ground for the motion. Neither could he conceive that it was necessary for that House to go into all the details of the civil list, because some hon. members might entertain peculiar opinions respecting the propriety of some of the grants. The hon. gentleman had referred to Mr. Burke's act as an argument for the production of the pension list; but the slightest reference to that act must satisfy any man, that it was not the intention to have the pension list laid upon the table of the House. In 1782, the amount of pensions greatly exceeded the sum originally proposed, and it was provided by Mr. Burke's art, that no more pensions were to be given, until the amount had been reduced to a certain limited sum. It was undoubtedly true that the act required the pension list to be laid upon the table of the House, but it was at the same time obvious, that the list was to be so laid on the table, in order to show that the sum was brought to that amount which the act required; and the very fact of its being required at that time proved that it never was in the contemplation of Mr. Burke, or the House, to require the pension list to be produced, except in the case of some great abuse. On these grounds he felt it his duty to resist the motion for the production of the pension list of England. To the production of the pension lists of Ireland and Scotland, standing as they did upon the act of Mr. Burke, and not having been yet lowered to the maximum specified by the act, he could not object. He could not acquiesce in this motion, to its full extent, without giving up the principle of keeping the arrangement with the Crown inviolate, and of not entering lightly into an examination of all the details of the civil list expenditure. For these reasons he opposed the motion.

said, he had listened in vain for any thing like a reason against the motion of his hon. friend. All that his hon. friend desired was, to know to whom pensions had been granted. The right hon. gentleman said, it was not desirable to bring the Crown into unnecessary con- tact with the House of Commons, upon the subject of the civil list. His hon. friend desired no such thing; he merely felt it his duty to ascertain whether certain sums had not been improvidently disposed of. The right hon. gentleman's arguments would go to the resistance of the production of the whole pension list; but he admitted that the Irish and Scotch lists could not be withheld. If, however, there was nothing discreditable in the expenditure, why should it be resisted? The responsiblity of misapplying this fund must rest somewhere; but, if the right hon. gentleman's arguments held good, how was that responsibility to be ascertained? The right hon. gentleman maintained, that the list could not be produced, unless some case of gross abuse was pointed out. If, however, the list was not to be subjected to examination, how could members ascertain the abuse which was to warrant the call for a production of the list? Although these pensions were placed at the disposal of the Crown, they must be given under the responsibility, and by the advice, of ministers; and, therefore, the House had a right to demand such information as would enable them to ascertain whether the advice given was strictly followed.

said, that if he could accede to the proposition, that parliament had it in its power to control the expenditure of the pension list in the way it thought fit, he might be disposed to agree to the motion. Parliament had, however, taken the matter out of its own hands; and, by declaring that 95,000l. was the extent of the sum which his majesty was to have at his disposal, at a time when a much greater amount was applied to the same purpose, and the power of granting pensions carried to excess, they had left it within the discretion of the Crown to apply that sum in the manner it thought best fitted for the purposes of the original grant. So much for the improvidence which had been charged against the Crown on this subject. Parliament had, however, at the same time, fixed the maximum of the amount which was to be expended in the distribution of pensions. The hon. gentleman had told the House, that there were only one or two of all these pensions which were not improperly granted. Did he mean to contend, that the House of Commons was to sit in judgment on every act of grace, or justice, or munificence, which the Crown might be pleased, in its wisdom, or in its liberality, to exercise towards the subject? If this list were to be called for, like any other account, when a pension happened to be granted, a considerable portion of their time would be employed every session in discussing the right of the Crown. The Crown did not act in this case without the assistance of responsible advisers; and, unless gentlemen could adduce an instance in which an improper application was made of this fund, it was the practice of parliament to presume that the Crown had been properly advised. For, though the claims might be those of benevolence, of grace—of favour, if they would—of liberality, of misfortune, would it not be quite unworthy of parliament to have the situation of individuals, whose cases had been introduced to the notice of the Crown by his majesty's responsible advisers, brought afterwards before parliament? He therefore would say, that, looking to the sense and spirit of the act of parliament, the pension list having been granted, they were not called upon to examine the manner of its appropriation. When he looked to the whole of that act, he found the doctrine now laid down fully confirmed. By Mr. Burke's act, it was provided, that when the list exceeded the annual limited amount, an account should be laid before the House of what pensions were granted. It was to be laid before parliament, not to examine whether any pension was a proper or an improper one, but to show that the check imposed by parliament was in force. It was quite clear the legislature meant, that the account should not be called for, while the list was kept within the limits prescribed by parliament, as was now the case. But the hon. member for Montrose went greatly beyond this. He said, that, since 1816, provisions had fallen in price, and money had risen in value; therefore, he would have the civil list revised. Why, he might as well go to the fourth class of the civil list, to the department of the lord chamberlain, and the master of the horse, and inquire how many quarters of oats were purchased, what the price was in 1816, what it was now, and what it was likely to be six months hence. If they proceeded on such a principle, they would, every session, be dealing with this list, which they were bound to keep inviolate. The civil list was granted for the life of the sovereign; and only in the unfortunate event which would call for a new arrangement of that list, could the hon. member bring forward with propriety the arguments which he had this evening used. They had, he contended, no right to touch this subject, unless where the Crown called for a new civil list, or where it was placed in the unfortunate situation of coming to parliament for relief. The hon. member proceeded on a wrong principle, when he wished to confine the civil list entirely to the king's personal service. He differed from the hon. member, and regretted that so many of the civil expenses of the state had been removed from the civil list. Would the hon. member wish that the payment of those who immediately represented the Crown at foreign courts should be taken from the sovereign and given to parliament? He would tell the hon. member, if he entertained such a wish, that this was a monarchy; and he should regret if any individual were authorized to state in a foreign country, that he was not the ambassador of the king of England, but the representative of the House of Commons. He wished those who represented the Crown, to look directly to the Crown, for the reward of their peculiar connexion with the Crown. In the same way, he liked to see the dignity of the Crown identified with the provision for the judges, and thus connected with the administration of justice, which then appeared to flow from the Crown itself. If they acceded to the doctrines of the hon. gentleman, they would bring the Crown into a dangerous personal competition with the House, and destroy the dignity, the splendour, the very existence, of sovereignty in the country. If the hon. member thought proper to rest his case upon the act of 1782, he ought to be bound by it; and if he was so bound, it was clear that the act was decidedly against the position he had endeavoured to maintain. In the case of the pension list of England, his assertions were completely disproved by the act; but with respect to the pension list of Scotland and Ireland, it was right that it should be laid before the House, until its amount was lowered to that maximum which parliament had prescribed. If the Crown, whenever a member pleased, was to be called upon to produce the accounts of the disposal of the pension fund, they would take away all the restraint which prevailed at present in the disposal of those funds. Let the motion be once granted, and they would have inquiries into the expenditure of the civil list, as extended and as frequent as into any of the details of the Excise board or the Customs. For these reasons, and because he could not consent to allow the hon. member for Montrose to sit in judgment upon every special act of munificence or of favour which the Crown might think proper to bestow, he felt bound to resist the motion.

said, the argument of the right hon. gentleman, if good for any thing, went to this—that the moment the civil list was settled, so it should remain, unless the monarch was obliged to come to parliament for relief. It was not, it seemed, to be inquired into, though the situation of the country rendered such an inquiry indispensable. Now, if the civil list had been fixed at 95,000l., when the late king ascended the throne, what would have been the consequence, if the doctrine of the right hon. gentleman had been carried into effect? Why, for sixty years, during which the late king reigned, he would have had the command annually of 95,000l., without the possibility of inquiry. The right hon. gentleman told them that, in this, as in every thing else, the Crown had responsible advisers. It was, however, a responsibility which, it appeared, was never called into action. Had a settlement taken place, with respect to the civil list, in 1761, it could not, according to the right hon. gentleman's doctrine, have been interfered with until 1821. Now, he never understood that it was consistent with the constitution, or that Mr. Burke had ever tolerated such a principle, as that the monarch might have, for a long series of years, the uncontrolled power over a very large sum of money, perfectly independent of parliament. If this fund were properly distributed, he could see no reason for withholding the account from parliament; and, when they found a system of concealment practised, it was but fair to conclude that the fund was not justly dealt with.

said, with respect to the argument of the chancellor of the Exchequer, that the House should not interfere with the civil list, he would reply, that parliament did interfere several times during the last reign. In the first year of George 3rd the civil list was settled at 800,000l.; in the seventeenth year, 100,000l. were added; in the forty-fourth year the civil list received an augmentation of 70,000l.; and in the fifty-sixth year it was altogether new modelled. It could not be, therefore, said, with these precedents before us, that parliament ought not to interfere with the civil list. The right hon. Secretary had said, that we should not interfere with ambassadors, because the government of this country was a monarchy. But, were their expenses not paid in the same way, and were they not equally under the superintendences of parliament as the military and other establishments of this country? It was said that the sum appropriated to this purpose was limited; but what means had the House of knowing that the limit was not exceeded, unless they were informed in what manner it was applied? The principle of Mr. Burke's bill of economical reform was, that parliament should be put in possession of the means of ascertaining whether or not a sum appropriated to any purpose had been exceeded. Without the information for which he now moved, it was impossible to know whether it was or not.

regretted that he felt it his duty to vote for the motion. He regretted it, because he had every wish to support the present government, who were placed in a situation of difficulty, both with respect to foreign and to domestic affairs, to which few administrations had ever been exposed. But he could see no reason why the civil list of this country, as well as the civil lists of Ireland and Scotland should not be laid before the House. He was sure it would disclose nothing discreditable to his majesty or his advisers; and therefore there could be no reason for withholding it. The sum was given to his majesty for the purpose of rewarding meritorious servants; and the public should be satisfied that such services had been rewarded.

said, he should resist the motion. This sum of 95,000l. had been voted at the beginning of the reign, for the life of the monarch; and if they were justified in moving for this, they would be justified in moving for every other item. Thus, all that had been done to avoid that scrutiny, which it was clear would promote any thing but good feeling between the king and his people, would be destroyed. Unless a case of abuse was shewn, or the king asked for an addition to the civil list, they ought, not to call for these items. He could cite many constitutional authorities in support of his opinion.

said, he never heard a move extraordinary speech than that which had been made by the last hon. member. He said, that it was unconstitutional to inquire into the civil lists, and yet he had admitted, that the king might come down to that House, and ask for an increase of those lists. He would contend, that it was highly constitutional for them to see that this sum was properly disposed of. Responsibility was a complete joke if this information were refused. The hon. member told them, that they might apply for this information if they could show a case of abuse. What! show a case of abuse without the information, by means of which alone they could ascertain whether abuse existed? He had been told, on a former occasion, that he had displayed constitutional ignorance in saying that they ought to ascertain the amount of their income before they settled what their expenditure should be: but he still held the same doctrine; and the expenditure of five only of these 95,000l. was not necessary, for it was an improvident expenditure. In order to ascertain this point, he should vote for the motion.

rose amidst much confusion. He entreated the patient hearing of the House for a few minutes. He begged to remind them, that if they were sincere in their desire for legal reform, they could not prove their sincerity better than by devoting a portion of their attention to those who were willing, while they pointed out abuses, to furnish a remedy for them. When the present laws were first framed, and for some time afterwards, the system worked well; but new wants had arisen, and what the country now required was, that they should apply to the laws, the machinery of latter times, and take all the benefit of that machinery without its inconveniences. These were objects which he was very ready to promote to the utmost of his ability. One of the chief wants was a cheap and summary conveyance of property, which, in many cases, was extremely tedious and expensive. He would not enter into all the cases, but content himself with mentioning a few which ought to be provided for. If a man sold an estate and died before he made the conveyance, the court of chancery had not the power of calling on the heir of the deceased to convey. Lord Eldon suggested, that this should be amended; and it might be done very beneficially. Then again, in the cases of charity estates, it constantly happened that when they were vested in trustees, who must die in course of time, the replacing those trustees was attended with great expense both of property and time. He knew of a charity estate, the rent-charge of which was only 7l. a year. The commissioners directed that new trustees should be appointed; it became necessary to discover the heirs of the last trustees, which was attended with so much difficulty, that the expenses amounted to 600l. and no one was to blame. This sounded very like an abuse, but it was not one. If the property had been worth millions the expense would have been no more. This was one of the incidents to which property was liable. What he would propose was, that in the case of charity estates, a common petition should be presented for the appointment of new trustees; that a reference should be made to the master, who should be required to insert an advertisement in the London Gazette, and another in the paper of the county where the heirs of the late trustees were supposed to reside; and that if those heirs did not come forward within a month, or prove their pedigree within another month, then the court should have the power of appointing two new trustees. By this simple mode considerable benefit would be produced.—It had often been said, and always in ignorance, that the court of Chancery had immured within the fleet prison many persons who ought never to have been sent there. The fact was, that the rules of the court were the law of the court, and the chancellor had not the power of refusing to commit a man who had been guilty of a contempt. It was absurd, therefore, to blame the court for a practice which parliament alone had the power of altering. Many cases had occurred, in which men had been called upon to execute deeds; but, ignorantly believing that if they continued in prison they should not lose their estate, and that the court had no further power beyond committing them, they remained there for years. There was a recent case of a man, who, under this erroneous idea, had remained in prison thirty years, but being told by a gentleman of the bar how the matter really stood, he executed the deed immediately. What he would propose in such cases would be, to give to the court the power of performing at once what it had the power of compelling a man to do at last. If an order were made for the execution of a deed, and the man refused to obey that order, then let some officer of the court execute it. Of course the sanction of parliament would be necessary for this purpose. He believed that these alterations would go a great way towards remedying the evils which had been so long complained of. He would move for leave to bring in a bill, "for repealing the act of 6 Geo. 4. c. 74. relating to property in infants and lunatics, and amending the provisions thereof."

supported the motion, but trusted that the amendments projected by his learned friend went further than the mere measure before the House.

by no means intended that what he was doing at present should preclude him from going further: but he was anxious not to embark in too wide a field at once: for he was sure that whatever was done in haste would be done imperfectly.

was grateful even for the little good promised by this bill; but it would be necessary to go a great deal further. Upon the subject of the contempts of court, no complaint could fairly be made by persons who were only in custody because they refused to execute deeds which the court required that they should execute. But these matters were trifling points in a great system, which required thorough reform. Unless increased facilities were given generally to the suitors in chancery, the constitution of that court would remain perfectly unsuited to the wants of the public: and unless he received an assurance that it was intended to take some decided stop to that effect, he should shortly feel it his duty to address the House specifically upon the subject.

said that every argument that had been urged in favour of the bill was applicable in opposition to the hon. gentleman's amendment. The proposition would, if adopted, expose the public to a danger which it was not desirable they should incur. Although friendly to the principles of free trade, he felt that government would have shown an incorrect sense of their duty, if they had ventured, under the present circumstances, to propose so low a reduction of the duties. The question was not, whether the proposed system was the best possible system of Corn-laws for the country, under any circumstances in which it might be placed; but the hon. member must be aware, that the great transitions which had occurred in the price of corn for some years would render it dangerous to venture on so great a change as that which he had recommended. At a future period, it might be expedient to lower the duties. On that point he would give no opinion; but he was satisfied that they could not be safely lowered at the present time. Let it be recollected that last year (besides four hundred thousand quarters from Ireland) no less a quantity than five hundred thousand quarters of foreign wheat had been imported into this country. Now it appeared that, from the year 1697 to 1821, including two periods of frightful scarcity, there were only twelve years in which a larger quantity of foreign wheat than five hundred thousand quarters had been imported. This, among other considerations, satisfied his mind that to adopt the change in the duties recommended by the hon. member, would expose the public to great hazard.

proceeded to propose the amendment of which he had given notice. He was anxious to impress on the minds of the committee the necessity of making a change in the list of places, where the average prices of British corn were to be taken. He strongly objected to the introduction of London into the list, because he was satisfied that it was not a place where the average prices of British corn could be fairly taken. The regulations respecting corn were formerly for the benefit of the consumer; they were now for the protection of the grower. But London was the worst place for the purpose of taking a fair average, because the large quantities of foreign corn which were sold here, and other circumstances, all had a tendency to produce an artificial state of things, as well as a great and unnatural fluctuation of prices. The influence of this was also felt, directly, or indirectly, in all the neighbouring counties. In his opinion, a change ought to be made in the mode of taking the averages. He moved, therefore, "That the word 'London' be struck out of the list of places where the average prices of British corn were to be taken."

said, it would be impossible to make so important an alteration, without changing the character of the measure. The hon. gentleman had, however, introduced some novelty into his argument; for they were now, it seemed, to look to the protection of the grower and to leave the consumer to himself. The legislature were bound to pay an equal attention to the interest of both; and he did not like to hear the distinction between them so broadly stated. To leave London out of the list of places, where the average prices of British corn were to be taken would be attended with much disadvantage. In the case of bad harvests for instance, and of a consequent scarcity and rise of price, the effect on the averages would be delayed by the omission of London as one of the places where they were to be taken, and the remedy which the legislature had provided for the evil would not be so prompt as it would otherwise be. It was also well known, that to appoint a multitude of places, at which the averages were to be taken, was the only security that could be adopted against fraud. The duty ought to be regulated by the immediate wants of the people; and London was the place which gave the most immediate indication of those wants. Foreign grain was not included in the averages, though grain from Ireland was, but this lowered the average only by 1s. London made a difference of only about 4d. in the averages.

maintained that the averages did not give the true price of grain in bona fide sales. They led the public to believe that the sellers obtained greater prices than they really procured. He wished to know if corn from the Isle of Man could be imported duty free, and if mixed corn were included in the averages.

supported the amendment, and contended that the farmer never got the prices mentioned in the Gazette. He knew instances where corn was bought at 40s., and, after being kiln-dried and undergoing a process by the aid of brimstone, was re-sold at 56s., and the latter price was included in the averages. This was most unjust to the farmers.

contended, that it was necessary to omit London in the averages, in consequence of the tricks constantly practised there, by which it appeared that the farmer got a much larger price than he really ever obtained. If the protecting duty was considered too high, it would be much better to reduce it than to retain this fallacious mode of settling the averages.

said, that neither corn from the Isle of Man nor mixed corn' were to be included in the averages.

said, he felt himself placed in a most difficult and disagreeable situation, by something that had occurred since the last time of his discharging his duty in the House. He referred to "an Account of certain Proceedings stated to have taken place on the bringing-up of the Report of the Committee on the Bill now under consideration." That account had taken a more authentic form than usual, and imputed to those who voted in the minority, on the grant to the family of the late Mr. Canning motives of a very improper nature. It was remarkable that the Report did not appear on the day after the proceedings, but on a subsequent one. In the account alluded to, the hon. member for Limerick was represented to have imputed to the opponents of the grants motives of a very singular nature, and to allege, that they must be influenced either by a foolish idea of saving money, or by the personal feelings of the worst kind towards the memory of Mr. Canning. He knew not to which of these two classes he might be thought to belong by the hon. member, but contented himself with saying, that as an humble individual he had given his vote on that occasion with a clear conscience, and from upright motives—motives which he considered as honourable and defensible, as any that had ever influenced a vote in that House. God forbid he should follow the example that had been set, or attribute improper motives to any man for the observations alluded to; but if he could stoop to retaliation, perhaps those motives might be questioned. He trusted he might say deliberately then, that in reference to the character of that great and distinguished man (Mr. Canning), he should be the last person who would speak with any slight or disrespect whatever. When an attack had been made, and imputations thrown out relative to the motives by which he had been influenced in giving the vote which he did upon the subject in question—when he, in common with others, was taunted for the course taken by them on that occasion—he was justified in repelling the accusation; but he did not see that he was now called on to say one word in explanation of his reasons for giving that vote. In vindication of his conduct, he should merely say, that he gave the vote conscientiously, honestly, and uprightly; and he could not but complain of a transaction which took place in the absence of, perhaps, every member of the minority whose conduct was questioned; at least when few or none of them were present. The proceedings took place on the Wednesday and were not made public till the following Friday. An attack appeared to have been made on an hon. member by his noble friend, who he was sure made it in an honest feeling; but he had no doubt that attack was the worst judged in the world, even with reference to the character of Mr. Canning himself. He was sorry that any thing had been said, calculated to bring in question for a moment the character of Mr. Canning, for whose talents he had the greatest respect; at the same time, he could conscientiously say he was influenced in his vote by the purest motives.

said, he had hesitated offering himself to the House for a few moments, because he understood that there was another charge to be brought against him, which he should show arose from misapprehension, and which he regretted. He therefore wished to reserve himself until he had heard what that other charge was.

said, he was, he believed, the member to whom the hon. gentleman alluded. In the few observations he should make to the House, it was unnecessary for him to state that he discharged every personal feeling, and meant no disrespect to the hon. member for Limerick. His complaint was, that in the character of a member of parliament lie had been subjected to imputations which he denied. In the independent discharge of his duty in that House, he had never assigned, undue motives to others, nor acted from improper motives himself. If there was any imputed impropriety in his vote of Wednesday, he was ready to vindicate it; but he preferred that it should pass in silence. He had never given a vote which he was afraid to vindicate; and if necessary, no motives of delicacy towards any man should prevent him from speaking. He should preface what he had to say by declaring unequivocally an admiration of the talents of Mr. Canning, and a decided acknowledgment of his amiable qualities. A long acquaintance with Mr. Canning had satisfied him, that he possessed very amiable qualities. But if it was allowed to public men to criticise the measures of public men, highly as he esteemed the merits of Mr. Canning, he must avow, that during the latter period of his life, he had not been able to bestow upon him the same degree of admiration as he formerly entertained. But in avowing this, he must express his astonishment that any member should assign to others motives which, if proved, would not only show that they had forgotten their duty in that House, but that they deserved to be excluded the society of gentlemen. He did not know whether he could show the exact nature of his complaint, unless he read the terms in which the subject of his complaint had been stated. The gallant member opposite had referred to the circumstances under which this debate had come before the public. It did not appear on Thursday, but on Friday; and he never saw the ground of his complaint until Saturday. The only part of the report of that debate which seemed to refer to him, was the following:—The hon. member opposite (Mr. S. Rice), after observing that an opportunity would not return again, went on to say, that "the opposition to this bill would have astonished him any where; but in the House of Commons, the theatre of Mr. Canning's exertions, the field in which his genius displayed itself, and where, during the present session, men of all parties here felt the miserable blank made by his loss—that in this House an objection should have been made to a grant like this, was to him a matter of astonishment, to use no stronger word. But he wished to distinguish the two classes of whom the opponents of this measure consisted. The economists of money might perhaps think themselves warranted in refusing any grant, however deserved, if they considered that the finances of the country would not afford such expenditure. In this he could not concur; for he could not admit that England was in a position in which the reward of eminent services must be refused. Let it not be said that military glory, and death in action, were the only events that, could call forth and justify national gratitude. Civil worth, if eminent, belonged to as high a class of exertions; and men might die, as Mr. Canning did, for their country, without falling by the sword. But there were economists of another school, who objected to this vote—economists of good feeling—persons who wished to apply retrenchment to sympathy and gratitude, and who were desirous of reducing all generous and honourable impulse; with them he would hold no connexion, and by them was the minority chiefly composed [hear, hear]; discontented agriculturists, who revenged themselves for the Corn-bill by their vote [hear], and who marked their disapproval of Mr. Canning's liberal policy, by denying this pittance to his children." Now, he quite agreed, that even in the present state of our finances, we were in a condition to reward the services of any man who should fall in the service of the country, and he was quite sure that the country would require it to be done; if the hon. member knew any individual who would object, from the motive? assigned, let him point him out. He was not that individual, nor did he know who was. The only satisfaction he had, arose from a communication on this subject which he had had with a person who had communicated with the hon. member for Limerick; and he had received an assurance, as he felt himself aggrieved, that there was nothing intended to be generally offensive. The terms were general; but it was gratifying to him to find, that no individual, or number of individuals, were intended to be included in that sweeping remark. He would leave it to the hon. member for Limerick to explain. During the many years he had sat in that House, he had shewn a reluctance to address it. A painful sense of duty obliged him to say, that not unfrequently there had been a tone of intimidation employed towards members, and which was but too prevalent in the report which he had read, which would tend to prevent members delivering their sentiments. This was a subject which required consideration on the part of the House. He would now say a few words on the reasons of Iris vote on that occasion. He gave his vote because he did not conceive that, on the part of Mr. Canning, there was a full and complete claim to the grant; and he regretted it. It was not on the ground of pitiful economy, nor from the base motive which had been imputed, that he so voted; but on the ground of the state of the country, in reference to the merits of the individual. He never wished to conceal the grounds of his vote; and however painful it might be to declare them, he could not remain under the imputation of acting from unworthy motives.

thanked the hon. member for the manner in which he had made his statement, and should, he hoped, satisfactorily reply to his observations. And first, he must express his regret, that any thing he might have said should have been mixed up with a question of this delicacy and personal interest. He wished that any hon. gentleman, having any objection to make to him, had made it to himself alone, without mixing it up with the discussion of such a question as this. If there had been any blame in the affair, it should rest exclusively and entirely on him, and not attach to the question before the House. There might be some irregularity in the proceedings which had taken place on this subject; but he rejoiced, that the hon. gentleman had read the passage of which he complained, because he therein knew the full amount of the charge against him. He thought he should be borne out by the testimony of members on both sides of the House, when he said, that he had endeavoured, upon all occasions, even though engaged in questions which called forth asperity, to avoid any step which could hurt any individual, much more any class of individuals in that House. The House would allow him to recall to it the circumstances of this case. It so happened, that on that night a noble lord had stated, that his objection to the vote did not arise in any degree from economical principles, but specifically from his dislike to the principles of Mr. Canning. He (Mr. S. Rice) then separated the opposition into two classes, and stated, that an objection might be made to the vote on the ground of economy; or it might be objected to upon constitutional grounds. Many might object to the precedent, without objecting to the end of the grant or to the policy of Mr. Canning. These reasons he considered to form a specific ground of objection, distinct from others. This was not imputing motives, but distinguishing the classes of opposition; that of the noble lord being connected with the personal character of Mr. Canning. There had not been a single word read by the hon. member, with reference to the deep disappointment he had felt at what had occurred on that occasion, which he was not ready to re-state in as strong a manner. With respect to the second class, could the hon. member think that he threw out, or intended to throw out, a reflection upon the agricultural interest? That was what he understood was implied. Why, it was the very class to which he belonged, which he respected, and could have no possible motive whatever to disparage; and if he had, there never was a time in which that class more nobly conducted themselves than on that occasion. He appealed to the example of the hon. member for Somerset (sir T. Lethbridge) who said, that although he objected to Mr. Canning's policy, he felt it due to his genius and his talents to give his entire concurrence in the vote, which was an act of gratitude for the brilliant services of that great man. Was it to be believed, that he in the face of that declaration, should select that moment to cause irritation by an attack on the agricultural body? He never made any such attack, and he was truly sorry that such a misapprehension should have arisen. But it might be said, "If you did not mean that, what did you mean?" The hon. member had referred to past debates, and if he did so too, the fault was not his; he was thrown upon his defence, and must avail himself of every legitimate means of resistance. He had not heard the speech to which he now alluded when it took place, which enabled him to discuss it with more composure. He had not the honour of being a friend or connexion of Mr. Canning; he had never had any intercourse with him, except at social meetings; but even in his slight intercourse he had witnessed the benevolent feelings which he manifested towards all those who were near him. He could not but feel a grateful recollection of him: and when he found, that, in the face of England and of that House, that great man was so treated—when he found that an opportunity was taken to go over his whole life, not with the minute skill of an anatomist and dissector of a dead subject, but of a living subject, for his family was living, —and the fame and character of Mr. Canning made less in the public view,—when what he had done, and what he had not done, was made the subject of a charge against him, he owned his blood had boiled, although he was no friend or con- nexion of Mr. Canning. He acted under the influence of such feelings, and perhaps —[Here the hon. member passed rapidly to another subject.] But all the censure which had been passed upon his memory was not for acts which Mr. Canning had done, but which the House had sanctioned. Yet obloquy was heaped upon him. He therefore felt, as a man and as a member of parliament, indignant that such a course of proceeding should be pursued, not against the living but the dead, and which, if the individual had been living, the House would have heard little of. If Mr. Canning was the individual who had produced all that lavish expenditure which had embarrassed the country, why were the persons who made the charge backward in bringing it forward? If it was true now, it ought to have been urged when he was alive. If Mr. Canning sent an army into Portugal, he was not alone to blame. It was not sufficient to charge Mr. Canning as principal; the House were his accessories, and the nation his supporters. It was under the influence of that speech, that he (Mr. Spring Rice) had made the observations which fell from him. He had no intention to impute to any class of men improper motives. It might be, that some gentlemen voted against the grant, on the ground that Mr. Canning had not extended sufficient protection to the agricultural interest; but that was no reason why they should quarrel with him (Mr. Rice). If he had, on a former night, stated his sentiments stronger than circumstances bore him out in doing, he could only say that he spoke under the influence of excited feelings, the same feelings which at present moved him. Those feelings he would never retract. He might here observe, that other matters which had occurred in that House with closed doors, after the gallery was cleared for a division, had found their way before the public. The speeches of the hon. member for Essex, and of the gallant commander-in-chief for Ireland, after the gallery was cleared, were laid before the public. His gallant friend was in error if he supposed that he was concerned in the publication of the proceedings alluded to, to the extent to which his observations would apply. On all occasions he had looked to the influence of Mr. Canning in the state, to his commanding powers and extraordinary abilities, as the glory of England; and he would not shrink from de- claring his opinion on that point, under any possible circumstances. He had no opportunity of stating these sentiments while Mr. Canning was living and invested with power. He had never declared them, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of acquiring power himself. What he had said was intended as a tribute to the memory of Mr. Canning, and to discharge the feelings of his heart. His gallant friend had made use of a word which he wished had been spared, or if not, that it had been employed in a more explicit manner. He had said, that when he (Mr. Rice) spoke of personal motives, something might be done in the way of retaliation. He desired that the House should be set right upon this point. It could not be from motives of personal interest that he had defended the memory of the deceased statesman. What interest could he conciliate by doing so? He had acted only under the impulse of feelings. If those feelings were right, he cared not for the manner in which they had been expressed: at the same time, if he had said any thing which offended the feelings of any one he was sorry for it; but he would go no further than that.

said, he merely stated, as a general proposition, that when personal motives were attributed to an opponent, it would provoke retaliation.

said, that the observations of the hon. member for Limerick might excuse, if they did not call for, a few observations from him. He had given one vote on the question of the proposed grant. That vote was one of the most painful he had ever given in that House. For his part, he not only fully recognized the proposition that the dead ought to be treated with respect and reverence, but he would extend it even to the absent. He must, however, say, that the hon. member for Limerick had lost sight of that generous principle when he indulged in remarks on two absent members, which could not fail to be most painful to them if reported to their ears. With respect to the noble marquis (Chandos) who had been alluded to, he could state, that he was engaged on public business in the county to which he belonged. Had that circumstance been known to the hon. member for Limerick, he probably would have postponed some of the observations he had made. After all the explanations which the hon. member had offered, he could not think that he was justified in using the language complained of. When the hon. member talked of the member for Dorsetshire, dragging forward the conduct of Mr. Canning, did he think that he put the case in a fair point of view? Was the member for Dorsetshire, or was any other member, who, in the discharge of his duty opposed the grant, to be considered as having dragged forward the conduct of Mr. Canning? The proposition called for a review of the public character of the individual to whom it referred. The public conduct of Mr. Canning was the very groundwork of the proposition. [An expression of dissent]. He was aware that the friends of the deceased minister asked for the vote, not as a charitable grant, but as an act of justice; but he could not help deprecating the assertion, that hon. members had dragged Mr. Canning's conduct forward with a view of exposing it to public odium. With respect to the hon. member's explanation, he had better not have alluded to the charges brought against him at all, or have made his defence more complete than he had done. The hon. member had not answered the question of the gallant general; namely, whether he was not directly cognizant of the mode in which particular circumstances which had taken place within the walls of that House, had been transmitted to publication. He thought it was greatly to be lamented that the statement of what had occurred in that House should have been made public, not only on account of the sentiments which it attributed to the hon. member, but of those attributed to a noble lord (Palmerston), which were calculated to wound the feelings of those who had taken part in the former discussion on the vote.

expressed a hope that as the party interested in the discussion on a former evening had now been heard, the irregular conversation would be permitted to drop. Further discussion would only engender feelings ill suited to the consideration of a question of that nature. For his own part, he would repeat, that he cordially concurred in the vote.

lamented, that any personal feelings should be mingled with this question. It had been his fate to have opposed Mr. Canning on a variety of questions, and particularly on that of parliamentary reform, but nevertheless he thought this small tribute was due to the memory of that lamented statesman; nor did he think that this vote would operate as a precedent; for though he had ever been an advocate for economy, he considered that the making a provision for the family of a deceased public servant, operated as a stimulus to public men to use their best endeavours in the service of their country.

thought that this vote did not pledge the House to approve of any part of Mr. Canning's political life. It was merely intended as a remuneration to his family for the injury done to his and to their private fortune during a long course of public service. He had opposed Mr. Canning during the last years of his life, and he should probably be in opposition to him were he now alive; but he had never allowed private feelings to enter into his opposition [hear, hear]. He opposed Mr. Canning as a politician, and not as a father or a husband, and he would as soon refuse to give him credit for his private virtues, as he would oppose this vote on account of any errors committed by him in his political life.

said, he had been opposed to Mr. Canning on many occasions, but he considered that his public conduct during the two last years of his life was a legitimate ground for supporting the vote, even on the part of those who had previously opposed his measures. It was degrading to the character of the House to suffer personal feelings to interfere with an act of public justice. He agreed with his noble friend that it would tend greatly to raise the character of public men, and induce them to apply their energies to the service of their country, if they knew that their families would be provided for by the public generosity.

expressed his cordial assent to the measure.

rose amidst cries of "Oh !" and declared that he would take the sense of the House on the next stage of the bill.