said, he rose to present a Petition from the Brewers and Proprietors of Public-houses in York, in reference to the Sale of Beer Bill. The petitioners stated, that they had no objection to a free trade in Beer, in order to enable the poor man to drink it on equal terms with the rich, who had hitherto paid no duty on that article, when brewed by themselves: what they wanted was, a restriction in order to prevent if being drunk on the premises where it was sold, except in the old licensed houses, under the jurisdiction of the magistrates. If the trade were thrown open without control, tippling-houses he thought would be set up in every quarter, to the great annoyance of every respectable inhabitant in every town and village throughout the country, and which would tend only to form a rendezvous for the most idle and immoral part of the community. In fact, if the bill passed into a law without some restriction, it would convert the whole country into a mere grog-shop, to the great injury of the community at large. He hoped, therefore, that his Majesty's Government would pause, and consider of some clause of restriction to prevent this mischief, and encourage the poor man by every means to drink his beer at his own house. This was a subject which ought to be considered by his Majesty's Government, as well as by every Member of the House. He should be unworthy of a seat in it if he did not state the real facts which had come under his own knowledge, in his magisterial capacity. With respect to the old licensed houses, he considered them as vested rights, and that they ought not in justice to be interfered with, unless a fair recompense was given for the loss which would be occasioned; otherwise, he should be one of the first to reduce, rather than increase houses of that description. He did not oppose the bill on any other account than for the well-being of the lower orders; and it was the duty of his Majesty's Government, as well as of every hon. Member of the House, whenever an opportunity offered, to encourage by every means the poor man to drink his beer in the bosom of his own family, and put a slop, as much as possible, to his having an opportunity of spending his money abroad, to the injury of his family. He begged leave to state to the House what had come within his experience as a magistrate. The houses already existing were by far too many, in his opinion, without being increased; for he had too often witnessed a tradesman on a Saturday evening, enticed by the sign of the Jolly Sailor or the Flowing Cup, enter one of those houses, utterly forget-ing that he had a wife and starving family at home. He was encouraged to remain until he had spent every sixpence of his week's earnings; and on Sunday evening, when all was gone, he was turned out, and might be seen wandering towards his home to his starving family, and frequently the Monday morning brought him out of a prison ashamed and ruined. He trusted, therefore, that the House would give the subject in question that consideration it so justly merited, and that his Majesty's Government would introduce a clause into the bill to remedy this great evil. If they did not introduce such a clause, it would be his duty to oppose the bill inch by inch.

presented a Petition from the Letter-press Printers of Londonderry, against the proposed increase of the Stamp Duties on Irish Newspapers. The gallant Member supported the prayer of the Petition, which he conceived well worthy of the attention of the House.

also supported the prayer of the Petition. The proposed assimilation of Stamp-duties, he conceived, should be effected, not by raising the duties in Ireland, but by lowering them in England. The petitioners stated, that this proposed increase of duties would destroy the Irish press, and he believed they were correct in that statement. They also stated, that any restrictions on the press were very objectionable, but he (Sir J. Brydges) would confess, that he did not agree with them in that opinion, for he thought that at the present moment the press was a little too licentious. The petitioners, however, he was satisfied, were good and loyal subjects, and he trusted their representations would be attended to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

gave his cordial support to the prayer of the Petition. His hon. friend, who had just sat down, had objected to the licentiousness of the press, but in his (Mr. Moore's) opinion, if the press were licentious, the press itself was, generally speaking, the best corrector of the licentiousness of the press. Several petitions were on their way for presentation to the House, similar to the present, and they should all have his most strenuous support.

said, he had a Petition to present this evening, similar to the one just presented, but he would take this opportunity to express his sentiments on the subject. The proposed measure was in every respect most objectionable, and he would tell the English Members in that House, that if they supposed the measure in question would be productive of benefit to the Revenue, they were quite mistaken. So far from an increase, a diminution of revenue would follow the imposition of additional duties upon the Newspaper press of Ireland. Under the existing scale of duties, the revenue arising from the duty upon advertisements in Ireland had diminished latterly from 26,000l. to 14,000l. a year; and if this measure were carried, the press of Ireland would be altogether annihilated. But even if this measure were calculated to add to the Revenue, he should resist it, as he was opposed to all restrictions on the free circulation of opinion. An unanimous opinion prevailed amongst all the Irish Members on the subject; and though the press was the most powerful engine in controlling their actions, they were determined to resist any measure which went to impose any additional shackles upon it.

supported the prayer of the Petition. The measure in question would annihilate the Irish press; and if that were the object which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in view, he would undoubtedly succeed in accomplishing it; but if his object were an increase of the Revenue, the very contrary effect would follow this measure. An additional duty of 1s. on advertisements had already caused a falling-off in that branch of the Revenue, and an additional 1s. would destroy it altogether.

, though he had not the honour to belong to the country from which this Petition had come, felt warmly interested in the question, and he should certainly protest against the imposition of any additional tax upon Ireland. If assimilation was the object in view, there were two ways of accomplishing that—either by raising the duties in Ireland, or by lowering them in England; and he would certainly oppose the former, while he would support the latter mode of attaining that end.

presented a similar petition, and stated that if the duties were decreased instead of being increased, there would be an increase of Revenue, and a large increase in the number of publications. In Ireland the latter was particularly wanted, on account of the distance of the people from their Representatives, which required that they should, by the press, be able to control their conduct. He deprecated in the strongest manner the attempt to impose additional Stamp-duties on Ireland.

said, he was quite confident, whether that were the object in view or not, that the additional duty would ruin the press of Ireland. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should persevere in his plan, which he hoped he would not, he should oppose him to the utmost of his power, which he hoped would be done by every well-wisher to his country.

said, he had a Petition to present, which he thought was entitled to the attention of the House. It was from the inhabitants of the parish of St. Paul, Covent Garden. The petitioners complained of the present very inadequate communication between the northern and southern parts of the Metropolis, which was confined to Chancery-lane, a narrow and crooked street quite unfit for a great thoroughfare; and they suggested that the opportunity which the destruction of the English Opera-house presented, should be taken to open a street opposite Waterloo-bridge, for the purpose of affording the necessary public accommodation. He trusted that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lowther) would attend to the suggestions of the petitioners.

said, that the improvement recommended by the petitioners would be productive of great public advantage, and he trusted it would be carried into effect. He understood that applications had been made to the noble Lord opposite and to Government on the subject, and that no difficulties had been raised by them to the proposition, provided Parliament would give its sanction. There was a very natural objection in the first instance to appropriating the public money to measures of the kind, as such heavy expenses had been already incurred for other improvements; but he was sure, that if Parliament voted a sum for this purpose, the new buildings in the projected street would soon return enough to repay it.

was not disposed to deny that great public ad vantage and convenience would arise from making the proposed street, and the only difficulty seemed to be as to the party who should bear the expense of the projected improvement. The funds placed at the disposal of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were forestalled for several years, so that they could not contribute to the work. He believed that the days of prejudice had gone by, and that there was one general opinion in favour of improvements, such as were now in progress at Charing-cross. But it was to be recollected, that the improvements which had been made in Regent-street, and which were in progress at Charing-cross, were upon Crown property, and that the proposed line of street in this instance would not be upon property belonging to the Crown. The Crown property in Regent-street actually returned at present 2½ per cent. and he was sure the improvements at Charing-cross would be equally profitable to the Crown. The property here, however, did not belong to the Crown; it was not, therefore, for the department over which he presided, more than any other, to interfere with regard to the proposed improvement. There was a small portion of Crown property just contiguous to it, and he believed that some of the houses in the line of the improvement could be exchanged for it, at a cost of about 2,000l. Indeed, he thought that for 20,000l. the intended improvement, could be carried as far as the Duke of Bedford's property. It lay with Parliament to decide as to the suggested mea- sure, and whence the funds for it were to be derived.

had given notice of his intention to present a Petition on this subject to-night; but as it was before the House, he might as well take that opportunity to state the opinion of the proprietors of Waterloo-bridge with respect to it. The House was aware that upwards of 1,000,000l. had been expended on Waterloo-bridge, for which a very trifling return indeed was now made by that property. The money bonds undoubtedly returned five per cent, but the shares did not return 1½ per cent. The original shareholders, besides, had been completely cleaned out,—to speak in the modern phraseology, they had been totally "done." If the noble Lord, therefore, expected that the proprietors of Waterloo-bridge would do any thing towards effecting this improvement, he had a very good chance of being disappointed. It Gentlemen would but enter the door of the theatre, they would see a large space, which had been occupied by buildings, burnt down, as if done by a great operation of nature for the purpose. If he wished to make Gentlemen perceive still more fully the necessity of making this great avenue to the north of London, he would take them to Waterloo-bridge, and make that structure his advocate for that purpose. The building of that Bridge had created a great list: in all the property adjacent to it. It had increased the value of the Crown property, and also that of the Duchy of Lancaster, and had raised that of the See of Canterbury from 500l. to 5,000l. a year. It had also been of great benefit to the Excise; for the stonemasons, who, during its construction, had earned 25s. a week, expended, to his personal knowledge, full half of it in swizzle. He would also give another reason why the House should listen favourably to the prayer of this Petition. On the 29lh of June, 1815, the House resolved to address the Prince Regent, for the erection of a national monument, in honour of the officers and soldiers who had fought at the great victory of Waterloo; and on the 30th of June the Prince Regent replied to that Address, by stating, that he would give such directions as the House required. The only monument of that victory, however, which had been yet erected, was Waterloo-bridge. That circumstance ought, he thought, to weigh with the House, for the Bridge was a national monument, displaying the highest skill; and he was afraid that the victory was not likely to be commemorated by any other equally splendid monument. The public convenience would be much promoted by making the proposed new street, but the company which had erected that Bridge had no funds to execute it, nor had the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, whose funds for sometime were forestalled. The expense would not exceed 120,000l.; and he trusted that the House would see the necessity of facilitating an opening to the north of the Metropolis, which would conduce at once to the ornament of the town, and to the health of its inhabitants.

observed, that as the noble Lord opposite had said the funds belonging to the Woods and Forests were forestalled for some time to conic, he hoped that part of them were set aside for the repayment of the 250,000l. which had been taken from the sum set aside by the French government for the indemnification of British claimants. Seeing the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, he would take that opportunity of asking him whether he was prepared to inform the House if he had formed any plan to appropriate that sum of 250,000l., which had been grossly misapplied, to the claimants upon it who were yet unsatisfied?

said, that he did not expect to have been questioned, upon presenting a petition relating to Waterloo-bridge, about arrangements which had sprung out of the Treaty of Paris. He would at present simply state, that he hoped in a short time to be able to submit a measure to Parliament, for the purpose of carrying into effect some such measure as his hon. friend contemplated.

felt as strongly the necessity of repaying this sum as the hon. Baronet; and, as a proof of it, stated, that within the last few weeks they had paid on account of it a small sum into the Treasury: when circumstances permitted the whole would be paid.

, he said, to present a Petition which was very important and well deserving of the attention of the House, it being a Petition from the Ship-owners of London, very numerously signed, and by men for whose respectability he could vouch. The petitioners complained of the heavy grievance they suffered, from being obliged to enter into competition with the shipping of other countries not so heavily taxed as this country. He could not pretend to do justice to their claims by any language of his own, and he would therefore state their case to the House in their own words. The petitioners say that "They approach your hon. House, to represent that, in the general distress which affects all classes of the Empire, there exists none more intense and unmitigated than that of the Ship-owners, and to pray that the Legislature will grant them that encouragement and protection from foreign competition, the withdrawal of which, by the alteration in the Navigation and Colonial Laws, and entering into the Treaties of Reciprocity, have reduced the capital of your petitioners to nearly one-half its former value, and have reduced freights to so low a rate, as not to leave any remuneration for the capital of your petitioners, even in its diminished value "That their freights were diminished he believed other persons who pretended to know better than the Ship-owners themselves contended was not the case, but that their capital was reduced to half its value was a matter of certainty. The petitioners went on to say "That, when addressing your hon. House, they cannot but regret that the great principle so necessary and so long maintained, of giving a national protection to native industry and capital, in order to the support of the different classes of society, should ever have been surrendered to foreigners—a protection which had received the sanction of ages, as the best bulwark and security of the State, and its widely-extended colonies and commerce; and in its practical effects, had increased the wealth and prosperity of the people—and they cannot, but call to mind, that when the alterations alluded to were pending, the Ship-owners submitted to the Legislature and the Government, in the most constitutional mode, their firm and decided conviction, that if those alterations were persisted in, the consequences would not only prove highly injurious and ruinous to the commercial marine, but eventually destroy the means on which the naval ascendancy of the country rested." This was a statement, he begged to say, of great importance, because it shewed the House that those alterations had been made against the wishes, as they had since turned out to be against the interests, of the petitioners. They had foretold the consequences which had now overtaken them, giving a warrant for the accuracy of their judgment, and throwing censure on those who had repeatedly refused them the inquiry and redress they had demanded. That might satisfy the House of the propriety of attending to the suggestions of practical men. The petitioners further state, "That so much cheaper are foreign shipping navigated, that the Alien duties, even when imposed on cargoes imported in foreign bottoms, were never equal to the higher expenses incurred in navigating British ships, so that foreign ships had always an advantage over the British; but when the miscalled Treaties of Reciprocity were brought into operation, the duties so collected no longer found their way into the Exchequer, as the national check upon foreign competition, but were left in the pockets of foreigners, to act, and is now acting, as a bounty against the British. That your petitioners had conceived, before these alterations were inflicted upon them, that it was morally impossible that illusion and theory could triumph over practical testimony, when borne out by long experience, in the soundness of the laws regulating the foreign trade of the country, and had persuaded themselves that a sense of justice must continue to them a protection, so long as restrictions were imposed to build, equip, victual, and man their ships in England, thereby forcing them to purchase all materials, and employ the native labour of this highly-taxed kingdom; although your petitioners are perfectly satisfied that the restrictions imposed are for the wisest purposes, and that common prudence ought to forbid the abrogation of those restrictions." The House had heard much of sound principles, but he was sure that it was not consistent with justice to compel the British Ship-owner to man and victual his vessel in England, and at the same time allow the foreigner to compete with him. If the House were determined to act on theoretical principles, they ought to be carried throughout, and the Shipowner ought to be allowed to build, repair, victual and man his ship in the cheapest market. That would be extending to him the benefits of that Free Trade of which he now knew nothing but the disadvantages. The petitioners however said, "That while they admitted in principle the propriety of the restrictions compelling them to employ the labour of their own country, they cannot but feel acutely the injustice of exposing them unprotected to a competition at once ruinous in its present results, and hopeless as to future prospects. Your petitioners, therefore, in justice to themselves, claim what all other classes actually enjoy—they claim an equal measure of the protection which is given to all other classes of the community, as it is quite evident no protection is now extended to them, the unmitigated severity of Free Trade having been placed in operation on the Ship-owners alone, and the consequences to your petitioners have been a ruinous sacrifice of their property. And your petitioners will have much reason to complain if they are to continue the single exception to the general rule of a protective system, their claim being equal to others; but, if the time has arrived to break down the system of protection, then let common justice be administered to all classes. Your petitioners are aware that the coasting and the direct colonial trades are still reserved, but from this reserve British shipping derives no support as regards remuneration, as the foreign tonnage, admitted into the freight market, levels all freights to the same standard of depression; and so eager were Ship-owners to escape from the evils of the Reciprocity System in the European trades, that the Indian and all other seas have been crowded with British vessels in search of employment, and the same ruinous consequences have followed to the most distant parts of the globe." He was not surprised at this result, the Ship-owners, when driven out of one employment, sought another, and undertook voyages that turned out to be ruinous. To say that they did not undertake these voyages without making a profit by them would be incorrect; and the House could no more judge of the profit of the Ship-owners by the number of voyages they made than it could tell what were the profits of coach-masters by counting the number of stage-coaches, or the number of passengers. The petitioners further say "That they are prepared to prove, that all the consequences predicted from such a system have been fully realized; that such sacrifices have been made as no set of men ever before either made, or were called upon to submit to—that of competing, unprotected by duties on foreigners, who can navigate at so much less expense. And that this competition has ruined great numbers of Ship-owners, and will eventually involve in ruin all those who are so unfortunately situated as to be compelled to carry on so unequal a competition; and without carrying on that competition their ships must be laid up to rot. That your petitioners are sorry to observe, that whenever they crave a consideration into the very peculiar situation in which they are placed, the amount of the shipping tonnage is held out as a sufficient answer to their claim; but your petitioners submit, that whether the amount of tonnage be great or small, it cannot alter their right to have the common protection of the realm. Your Petitioners know that the repeal of the Combination Laws induced Ship-owners and ship-builders to take apprentices, and that this, with the great excitement held out to those who were credulous enough to believe the miscalled Reciprocity System an improvement, had the effect of keeping up the tonnage against the natural depression caused by foreign competition; but those impressions have now given way, and the Ship-builders have suffered with the Ship-owners; for, notwithstanding the increased population, and the consequent demand for colonial and foreign produce, the amount of tonnage is decreasing, the stimulus of remuneration is taken away, and few or none will be found embarking on so hazardous a profession without that stimulus. That the decrease on tonnage, while the population and consumption are on the increase, is perhaps the strongest proof that can be adduced of the depression of the Shipping Interest, particularly when the interest on money is so low, that if any return was to be had, capital would be employed in keeping up tonnage. Your petitioners therefore earnestly pray, that your honourable House will immediately take into your consideration the depressed stale of British Shipping, and afford them encouragement and protection." There was ample proof, he thought, of the sufferings of the petitioners. They must be supposed to know their own case better than any other class of persons. They shewed that their shipping was not employed, but if it were all employed, it was shown that the quantity had diminished. But he could prove by the returns laid before Parliament, that the employment of British Shipping had decreased, while that of Foreign Shipping had increased. Thus he held in his hand a return of the number of Ships that passed the Sound in 1827, 1828, and 1829, and from that he found that the numbers were as follow:—

	British Ships.	Decrease.	Foreign Ships.	Increase.
1827	5,099		6,901
1828	4,426	673	8,821	1,920
1829	4,790	309	8,676	1,775
	Total Decrease	982	Total Increase.	3,695
Average Decrease of last two years compared with 1827		491	Average Increase of two years	1,847

This return proved then that the decrease of British Ships in two years was 982, while there was an increase in the number of foreign ships of no less than 3,695. He held other returns in his hand relative to the number of vessels built and registered within the last four years, which confirmed the fact of the decay of the British shipping interest. The number of Vessels built and registered in the last four years was,—

	Vessels.	Tons.	Decrease in Ships.	Decrease in Tons.
1826	1,719	207,088
1827	1,440	163,946	279	43,142
1828	1,135	128,752	584	78,336
1829	1,005	110,681	644	96,407
Shewing a Total Decrease in Ships and Tonnage since 1826.			1,507	217,885

Here then was a gradual falling-off through three successive years of the number and tonnage of our ships, and if that were not a proof of decay, he did not know what would be so considered. But other proofs could be brought of the sufferings of the shipping interest. Last year the quantity of Corn imported was 3,500,000 quarters, and it was asserted, that if we took corn and other things from foreigners, they must take our goods in return. Was that however, the fact? He held in his hand an account of the Cotton Goods exported, which would shew that our exportations had not increased in value in proportion to the quantity. The Parliamentary Return of Cotton Goods exported in 1815, and to 1830, was this,—

	Official Value.	Real Value.	Excess.
Jan. 5, 1815.	17,655,378	20,033,132	2,377,754	Real Excess Official Ditto.
Jan. 5, 1830	37,269,395	17,394,584	19,871,811
Total depression in value since 1815, considerably more than cent per cent. £23,252,565
The depression in value in the last year only, was about three millions and a half, or about 17½ per cent.

Much had been said, from the very beginning of the Session, of the increase in our exports; but this shewed, as he had long ago stated, that though the quantity had increased, the value in proportion to the quantity had decreased, and that we were actually working at a cheap rate for foreigners, who were working at a dear rate for us; in fact, we had given away 80,000,000 yards of Cotton, for which we had not received one shilling, and that accounted for the immense quantity made, which had lately been quoted as a proof of our prosperity. He knew that some persons contended that the more we sent out, and the less we got for it, the more prosperous was the country: but those persons were unacquainted with business, and no trade could be profitable which did not bring back at least as much value as it took away. There was a better criterion, however, of the comforts of the people than the exports and imports, and that was the consumption, as shewed by the Revenue. Now notwithstanding the sum of 1,700,000l was received last year for the duty on corn imported, the revenue had fallen off at least 2,000,000l., shewing a decrease in consumption, and a great degree of suffering on the part of the people. Thus, as compared with 1826, the consumption of Candles was less than at that time, by two million pounds; of Beer, 766,000 barrels; of Soap, five millions of pounds; of Starch, one million and a half pounds; of Leather, two millions of pounds; of Paper, five million pounds; and ten million yards of Printed Goods. He would not go further into the items at present, bat would merely state, that the consumption of other things had diminished in the same proportion, and that the Shipowners, who had suffered with the rest of the inhabitants of the country, had besides especial and urgent reasons for complaint. The Navigation-laws, as the petitioners stated, were formerly the bulwark of the kingdom, the great means by which safety was obtained and prosperity secured; and he therefore, though not himself a Shipowner, could have no doubt that the Shipping-interest of the country ought to be upheld beyond every other interest. The Navigation-laws, however, which were in an especial manner the bulwark of that interest, had been materially changed, against the evidence of the parties who had most experience on the subject. The House of Commons appointed a committee, several years ago, to inquire into the Navigation-laws, in consequence of a petition then presented to it by some speculative merchants on which the House legislated, though it had never given any relief to the interests it had injured by so acting. That petition stated, that "Trade if carried on free from restrictions, would be, as it ought, an interchange of commodities between all the nations of the earth, who would supply each other's wants like brethren." That was very line, and it had formed the basis of several fine speeches, but it had plunged the country into distress. The petitioners he had just referred to said, that "the presumption was, that the distress was aggravated by the restrictive system then in force:" that restrictive system had however been done away, and the distress was augmented ten-fold. The Ship-owners protested at the time against their interest being sacrificed to speculation and theory; but they protested in vain, and their interests were sacrificed. What they then predicted had come to pass, and they had a right to claim something at the hands of those who had caused their distress. Even the committee which made a report in 1820 or 1821, in consequence of the petition he had alluded to, said that "that at once to abandon the prohibitory system would be of all things the most visionary and dangerous." That was his opinion also, but notwithstanding the opinion of the committee, the House had acted on a principle directly the reverse. The reasons given by the committee for its opinion were as satisfactory as the conclusion. The committee stated "that the prohibitory system had long subsisted as the law, not only of England, but of every State in Europe; and that therefore a sudden departure from it was forbidden by every principle of prudence, safety and justice." The course thus forbidden, however, was the very course which had been adopted, and it had been followed up by measures, which had struck at the root of our naval prosperity, and our mercantile greatness. The committee positively declared that it had no such object in contemplation, but such had however been the result of the Acts of the Legislature. When facts were stated to shew that the Ship-owners were in distress—when that distress could be traced so clearly up to its cause would any person still be found to attempt to shew, by some official documents, that there was no such thing as distress amongst them, and that they did not know what they were complaining of. Persons once embarked in trade must go on; they were like drowning persons, when that trade was going to decay they caught at straws; one month's sunshine elated the hearts of the manufacturers, they eagerly set to work, they multiplied employment, and then the country heard many times repeated of its great prosperity, and of its cheering prospects. If sending out goods, and bringing none back, was a cheering prospect, certainly we had many such prospects. The difference between the official and the real value of all our ex- ports, during the last year, was not less than 50,000,000l., shewing that all other nations were getting our goods at a cheap rate without giving us an equivalent in return for them. Could the House believe, that the distress was caused by machinery, by the pence, or by any other of the causes usually assigned for it? We had no new machinery of any consequence for the last three years; but still commodities had fallen greatly in value. It was said, indeed, that we should not continue to export if we did not import in return; that might be true, but we were exporting two or three for one that we imported, shewing that all the advantages of our machinery and skill belonged to the foreigner, whom we allowed to come into competition with our highly-faxed people, If we formerly gave fifty bales of goods for 100 hogsheads of wine, and if we were now obliged to give 150 bales, the trade was a losing one to us, and only advantageous to the persons who now received 150 bales of goods for the wine that was formerly worth only fifty. By such an extravagant exchange, capital was annihilated, families were ruined, and our Bankrupt list swelled in a few years, from containing 4,000 to containing 18,000 names in the course of one year. If the wealth of a country consisted in the comforts of its inhabitants, the bulky lists of exports, quoted by hon. Members could only be compared, not to the growth of health and strength, but to the bloated and florid appearance of the body which was a symptom not of health but of disease. A great deal was said also of the increased quantity of the raw material used in our manufactures; but what was the good of working up more, and getting less for our labour? Was the evil lessened by giving a large quantity of the raw material, as well as the labour employed to work it up, for nothing? Some relief, it was said, was to be given by the reduction of taxes, but the greatest amount of relief contemplated, by abolishing the taxes on Beer and Leather, did not amount to more than 3d. a week to each person of the labouring classes. In fact, a reduction of taxation could not remove, though it might slightly relieve distress; but it was a miserable delusion to hold out to the country that the evils it suffered would be remedied by the Beer Bill. In conclusion, the hon. Alderman said, that he felt highly honoured, by having had this Petition intrusted to him, although he was not engaged in any trade connected with the Shipping-interest. Most of the individuals whose names were subscribed to the Petition he knew to be most respectable men; and it was some consolation to him also, to know, however unfavourably the principles he had advocated had been received in that House, that these respectable petitioners, who understood the state of trade, conceived them to be correct, and that he was indebted to the favourable opinion they entertained of his exertions for the honour of having their Petition intrusted to his care. He moved that the Petition be brought up.

supported, the Petition, and bore testimony to the sufferings of the Ship-owners. The Ship-owners, Shipbuilders, and others interested in this important branch of our national industry, had frequently approached the House with petitions for redress, as at present did the Ship-owners of the greatest mercantile port of the world. They were not like other bodies of men, who came forward to complain of the course adopted by the Legislature, without themselves pointing out any different course. The Shipowners had most clearly and distinctly stated what was the course which they thought the Government ought to pursue, and their recommendation was fully deserving of attention. It was almost an insult to talk to British Ship-owners of the benefits of Free Trade. It was impossible that this country could go on under a system of Free Trade, while it was oppressed, with burthens much greater than were felt by any of the nations on the Continent. He did not mean to deny that the amount of British tonnage had increased within the last three years—he admitted that to be fact—for the English merchants had done all that English skill, industry, perseverance, and activity could effect, but. still they were unable to carry on a competition with foreign nations with any hope of success. He should make no apology for trespassing on the patience of the House while he stated a few prominent facts, prefacing them by the observation, that he had not entire confidence in the documents on the Table in the shape of Returns. The hon. member for Worcester, on a former occasion, had stated the depreciation and di- minution in the ship-building interest of this country at thirty per cent; but on a close investigation of the subject he had found, that since the year 1828, there had been a diminution of shipping to the amount of thirty-five percent; and taking various contingent points into consideration, the reduction was not less than fifty per cent, as compared with former years. If he looked to the registered vessels in 1830, as compared with the registered vessels in 1828, he found a great declension, both in the number of vessels registered, and in the amount of their tonnage. This was the case, notwithstanding the increase of population which was going on all the while. If he saw that England was nevertheless maintaining her station among the nations of the world, he might be able to fortify his mind against this condition of her shipping interest. If it were seen that the internal navigation of the country had been augmented to the extent stated, he wished to know why her external navigation had not in some degree participated in the advantage? He knew that there had been an increase of British shipping, since 1828, of 1½ per cent inwards, and of two per cent outwards, in tonnage. But what, he asked, was the increase of tonnage amongst the foreign shipping? In 1828, the tonnage of the foreign vessels entered here amounted to 634,620 tons; in 1830, the amount had advanced to 710,303 tons; being an increase of twenty per cent. Where, then, was the boasted advantage of this same principle, which had increased the foreign shipping arriving in the ports of this kingdom twenty per cent in the course of a single year. He begged to direct attention strongly to this great fact, and this he would add, that the man who treated it with indifference was no true Briton. He looked back to the times when the greatest Minister this or any other country had ever produced, had promoted the general prosperity, by consulting the benefit of particular interests; under him the Shipping-interest had flourished beyond example, and he never dreamt, of repealing the Navigation Act, which was justly considered the Magna Charta of the shipping interest, and which even Adam Smith himself pronounced a stupendous effort of human wisdom. Of late years it had been torn to atoms, with as little respect as he felt for an old ballad. What term was ap- plied to any man who ventured to speak in behalf of the industrious poor—the labouring classes? He was called a declaimer. If this were to be a declaimer, he avowed himself one; but he declaimed not in empty words, but in convincing figures—figures declaimed for him; he showed an increase of only between two and three per cent in the commercial shipping of this country, and an increase of twenty per cent in the foreign shipping arriving in our ports. This statement left no room for declamation, in the ordinary sense of the word. What were called most triumphant answers had been often given when Distress became the subject of debate, and over and over again it had been asserted, that the nation was enjoying the most unexampled prosperity; it was like insulting a man who was suffering under a powerful and consuming disorder by telling him that he had nothing the matter with him. Sometimes it was admitted that partial distress prevailed, but then it was charged upon too great activity and over-production in a particular interest; and latterly it had been urged that the population of the country was too great. For this the remedy was said to be the exportation of the people; it was the favourite principle of the new scheme of political economy, that the population was redundant, and that the redundancy was 'to be corrected by sending the industrious peasantry from their homes to a distant colony. Proofs of the working of the new principle were beginning to accumulate, and its ill effects were visible in every branch of trade. A year ago they were told, for example, of the prosperity and activity that prevailed in the silk-manufacture. But what was the fact? In the year ending the 5th of April, 1828, 4,828,000lb. of raw silk were imported; in the year ending the 5th of April, 1829, 4,133,006lb. were imported; but in the year ending the 5th of April, 1830, the importation had fallen to 2,899,092lb. Let this fact be heard, and let it be treasured up in their minds, as a proof of the little dependence that was to be placed on statements hastily and inconsiderately made. It would be endless were he to go into detail of proofs of distress in particular parts of the kingdom; he would only refer very briefly to the condition of the shipping interest of Whitby. Formerly there were eight large ship-building establishments there, employing 1,000 hands and feeding 4,000 souls. Three of these j ship-building establishments no longer existed: it was found not worth while to carry them on; and he was assured that two others were on the point of declining business. The people there had done all they could, to compete with foreigners, but it was found impossible: the materials they used were too heavily taxed, and they were called on to contribute too largely to the expenses of Government. He did not mean to bring any accusation against Ministers upon this score; but he must say, that high salaries could not be maintained in conjunction with low prices. No demonstration could be clearer than that, if the value of labour were deteriorated, the public establishments could not be kept up at their present scale. Good God! in what a position was this country, at the present moment, placed? Was its mercantile marine, at last, put upon its defence? Was that interest which, in our wholesome days, had been favoured and fostered, now compelled to plead for its existence? It had flourished under the old system, until it had placed in the hands of Great Britain the sceptre of the world. To our mercantile shipping was owing the glory of our military marine. Surely, then, it deserved some little regard—some slight protection—some monopoly he would call it—hateful as the word might be in these days of new light and strange principles. Once desert the commercial marine of Great Britain, and she must for ever lose her rank among nations, and stand degraded to all posterity. If the worthy Alderman would move that the Petition he had brought up be referred to a Select Committee, he (Mr. Sadler) would gladly support him.

remarked, that if Members did not take advantage of the opportunity of speaking when petitions were presented, they would have to wait long before they had an opportunity of expressing their opinions. He should, therefore, state his conviction that extension of trade was the only mode by which relief could now be given to the shipping interest in its present depression. He earnestly hoped that the intercourse with the East Indies would be thrown open. Then means might be adopted of restoring the prosperity of other branches so as to render emigration needless, which only weakened our own country, while it strengthened the United States. He trusted, before this discussion terminated, that Ministers would say something to afford hope, if not consolation, to the ruined shipping interest.

believed that the shipping interest looked entirely for relief to the reduction of taxes, and the removal of East India monopoly. He hoped that, in the next year, Government would be able to give them some relief with respect to the first point.

said, he should have great pleasure in supporting the Petition which had just been presented by the hon. Alderman opposite. He did not feel himself competent to enter so minutely into the subject as he had done, nor indeed would it be necessary for him to do so, as it was impossible to transact business, or hold communication with respectable shipowners, or to look at the state of the shipping now lying in the river Thames, without being convinced that the shipping interests of the country were reduced to the lowest possible ebb, and although the more opulent ship-owners might still for a time be able to struggle on, the poorer class must, he feared, at no very distant period, be reduced to utter ruin, unless some favourable change speedily took place. In corroboration of what was stated by the hon. Member opposite, as to the state of the building establishments at Whitby, he would beg to read a short extract of a letter from that place to a most respectable ship-owner in the city of London, from whom he received it a few days ago. It was written the middle of last month, and was as follows:—"There are four new ships lying here without purchasers; four out of seven of the extensive ship-building establishments are laid down; a vessel has sailed with part of our population for America, and another goes in May." This, he had reason to believe, applied to most of the ship-building establishments in the kingdom. What might be the best remedy for this state of things, he certainly felt diffident in suggesting, but he entertained strong doubts as to the expediency of the reciprocity system now in force; indeed, he doubted much if there could be any fair reciprocity between a country overwhelmed with debt and taxation and other independent states whose burthens were comparatively light and trifling. At all events, it seemed certain, that under the present system, the British ship-owner was unable to enter into suc- cessful competition with the foreigner; nor could he ever do so whilst the cost of building, maiming, and equipping ships in foreign states was not one-half so much as in this country, unless the legislature were so far to retrace its steps, as to import every article for home consumption in ships bearing the British flag, and Jet foreign nations, of course, adopt the same plan with regard to their shipping. He confessed he should be well pleased if a committee were appointed to inquire into the subject matter of this petition, for there could be nothing more important, or more entitled to the consideration of Government, than the shipping interests of the country. At present he believed the ship-owner had only a choice of evils—either to lay up his ship, which necessarily caused great deterioration of the property, or to let her on freight, at a rate which must subject him to considerable loss. Mr. Sykes rose, to confirm the statement as to the depressed condition of the shipping interest. He felt bound, therefore, to support the prayer of the Petition which had been presented by the worthy Alderman. But although he entirely agreed in the worthy Alderman's conclusions, he by no means agreed in the argument by which the worthy Alderman had arrived at them. With respect to the various commercial treaties to which the worthy Alderman had alluded, as several of them had some years to run, this was not the time lo press the consideration of that subject. Without entering into any discussion of the question at the present moment, he would simply say, that he had made up his mind that the reciprocity system was a sound and wholesome system. He was satisfied that, with reference to the commerce of other countries, we must be either in a state of reciprocity or in a state of retaliation; and that if we were in a state of retaliation, the shipping of this country would soon be reduced to our coasting and to our colonial trade. Now, would the worthy Alderman wish it to be so limited? Yet that, he was satisfied, would be the inevitable consequence of our changing our present system of reciprocity for a system of retaliation. The shipping interest, however, was always entitled to the greatest attention, and never more so than in its present condition; and he should be most happy to hear that it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to consent to an inquiry into the subject.

said, that he was glad he had not risen before the hon. member for Hull, because the observations of that hon. Member would relieve him from saying anything on one part of the argument that had been used by the hon. Alderman and the hon. member for Newark. In the situation, however, in which he was placed, he felt that he should not do his duty, and that he should be deficient in proper respect to the hon. Alderman, who, after so many postponements, had gone at such great length into this very important subject, were he entirely to abstain from making any observations upon it. Into the wide field of our general commercial policy he would, however, by no means enter. The hon. member for Newark had frankly allowed that opinions were by no means unanimous on the subject. If the hon. Alderman had been equally diligent in his inquiries, he would have found that the same was the case with respect to his constituents. He (Mr. Herries) had been informed, that many of the hon. Alderman's constituents had declined signing the Petition, because they could not concur in the opinions which it contained. Among the topics lo which the hon. member for Newark adverted, he was very much astonished to hear the article of timber mentioned. The very name called up the recollection of the particular duties levied on that article with a view solely to give employment to our shipping; and yet that was one of the articles on which the hon. member for Newark had rested his argument against Free-trade. He was at a loss to know whether the hon. member for Newark gave credit to the public accounts or not; as he sometimes appeared to doubt them, and sometimes founded his argument upon them. He, however, was quite prepared to vindicate those accounts. He believed them to be honest, faithful, and accurate. The hon. member for Newark had compared two years without reference to any antecedent period. It would have been more fair had he taken a series of years, some before and some after that change in our commercial policy which he supposed to be the cause of great commercial evil. To set this matter right he would go further back, and show the comparative activity of our shipping at different periods. He would go back to the period of three years before the peace; and he would state the average amount of our shipping during periods of three years from that time down to the present. As the simplest mode of doing this, he would state the shipping which had entered inwards; and he would take the amount of tonnage as the only criterion. The average annual amount of tonnage of British shipping entered inwards in the various ports of the United Kingdom for the three years ending in 1814, was 1,290,000 tons; the average amount of the three years ending 1817 was 1,470,000 tons; the average amount of the three years ending 1820 was 1,787,860 tons. To the average of the next three years he begged to call the particular attention of the House, because they preceded the alteration in our commercial policy, to which the hon. Member had alluded. The average annual amount of British shipping entered inwards during the years 1821, 1822, and 1823, was 1,668,100 tons. The next period was that during which the change in our commercial policy was beginning to take place. The average annual amount of British shipping entered inwards during the years 1824, 1825, and 1826, was 1,964,182 tons; being a considerable increase over the last period. But what was the average amount during the last three years, when the new system of commercial policy was in full operation? No less than 2,121,930 tons. As a proof that it was still increasing, the amount in the last year, 1829, was much the largest of the three years. It was the largest ever known. There had never been anything like it in the history of the activity of British shipping, either since the peace or before it. Nothing that had taken place in the course of the war could be compared to it. In order to satisfy the House on this point, he would state what had been the highest average of a period of three years in the course of the late war, and thus show that there had been a constant and regular increase. He repeated that he would not now enter into the wisdom of the policy which we had adopted; but he would show that the inference which the hon. member for Newark had endeavoured to draw from the public accounts on this subject had entirely failed. The highest average of British shipping entered inwards during three years of the war was during the years 1810, 1811, and 1812; and it amounted only to 1,570,498 tons. The average amount during the last three years he had already stated was 2,121, 930 tons, being an increase over the highest average previous to the adoption of the present system, of 551,432 tons, or one-third. Thus it appeared that there had been a constant increase of British tonnage entering our ports subsequently to the adoption of a system which it was now said was the cause of decay and embarrassment to our shipping interests. He was not going to enter at large into the consideration of the new commercial policy, for it was not the time to do so, he was merely answering, upon the authority of public accounts, a few of the objections of those who said that it had failed; and it would be admitted that he had satisfactorily shown, that since the adoption of the present system, British ship-owners had greatly increased in activity. With respect to foreign shipping, the opponents of our commercial policy assumed that it had been favoured to the direct injury of the home interest: the inference was, that its activity and amount must have; been increased. But what was the fact? The average of foreign tonnage entering British ports during the three years of the war when the amount was highest, was 793,000 tons, whereas in the last three years it only reached 698,000 tons. Thus there was a diminution of 100,000 tons in the annual average of foreign shipping, while we had an increase of 550,000 tons in that of British shipping entered inwards in the last three years, as compared with the three years previous to the adoption of the present system, when the amount of tonnage inwards (British and foreign) was highest. To exhibit the progress of foreign shipping in the three years preceding the alteration in our system, during the alteration, and in the three years ensuing, he would state, that in 1821,1822, and 1823, the average of foreign tonnage entered inwards, in our ports, was 482,000 tons: in the next three years there was a great increase, and the average amounted to 803,899 tons; but during the last three years (the new system having come into full operation) the average fell to 698,900 tons. So that while British tonnage had greatly increased, the amount of foreign tonnage had decreased. How were these facts, plainly stated and (he pledged himself) faithfully extracted from official tables, reconcilable with the complaints now made? Our coasting trade exhibited the same activity as our foreign trade; there had been a great increase generally from 1823 up to the present period. In 1823 the amount of tonnage was 7,899,000; in 1824, 8,101,000; in 1825,8,300,000; in 1826, 8,316,000; in 1827,8,611,000; in 1828, 8,700,000; and in 1829, 8,932,000 tons. But in order to show more strikingly the effects of the policy to which so much evil was attributed, the House ought to examine the progress of other nations over whom our treaties of reciprocity were supposed to have the greatest effect. Our trade was divided in the Finance accounts into commerce with the North of Europe, with the South of Europe, with the United States of America, British Colonies, and with foreign Colonies. He would first take commerce with the North of Europe alone, and he would state the amount of that commerce in English and in foreign shipping. It was well known that in the trade with the North of Europe our system of reciprocity had been most tried and most complained of in England. To shew its effects he would take the average of three years' trade with the North of Europe before and after the adoption of the present system, and see the result. The average annual amount during the first period, namely, 1821, 1822, and 1823, of the tonnage of British shipping entered inwards in the ports of the United Kingdom, from the various ports of the North of Europe, was 514,135 tons: the annual average amount, during the same period, of the tonnage of ail foreign shipping entered inwards in the ports of the United Kingdom from the various ports of the north of Europe, was 314,969 tons. The annual average tonnage of English shipping so entered during the years 1824, 1825, and 1826, was 711,959 tons; the annual average of foreign shipping was 615,109 tons. The annual average of English shipping so entered during the years 1827, 1828, and 1829, was 839,541 tons; the annual average of foreign shipping was only 504,249 tons, showing a relative increase in British shipping more than in foreign shipping, and this on the very field of battle in which it was prognosticated that, in consequence of the change in our commercial policy, British commerce would be annihilated! Let the House examine the number of vessels that had passed the Sound in the same periods. The hon. Alderman had already referred to this, but he had for his own view wisely limited his comparison to three years, when the trade was subject to great fluctuations. It ap- peared that in the years 1821, 1822, and 1823, 8,854 vessels passed the Sound, of which 2,907 were British, and 5,947 foreign, of all descriptions; the British proportion being about fifty per cent of the whole. In the years 1824, 1825, and 1826, 11,581 vessels passed the Sound, of which 4,152 were British, and 7,429 foreign; the British proportion being about fifty-six per cent of the whole. In the years 1827, 1828, and 1829, 13,241 vessels passed the Sound, of which 4,722 were British, and 8,519 foreign; the British proportion being rather more than fifty-six per cent of the whole. He would pursue this subject no further, but he would strongly recommend to hon. Members the perusal of Mr. Cambreleng's admirable Report to the American Congress from the Committee on Commerce and Navigation. After describing in the most able and perspicuous manner the advantages which Great Britain had derived from the adoption of a liberal commercial policy, the Report went on to say—"These fundamental changes in her policy have regenerated the British Empire, given a wide range to her commerce, and an active impulse to her power and resources, infinitely more beneficial to that nation than any questionable honour she might have acquired in an attempt to limit the boundaries of an Empire, reaching through half the longitude of the globe, or in any alliance to perpetuate the dominion of an unenlightened and absolute government over the commerce of nations with the rich countries of the Euxine." He apologized to the Members for having thus trespassed upon their attention; but he was apprehensive that his silence might have been construed into an assent to statements the validity of which he utterly denied. He had, therefore, felt it necessary to call upon the House to weigh the proofs which he had adduced of the increasing employment and activity of our shipping with the assertions of its embarrassment and ruin. He was persuaded that the statement which he had made would indispose the House to listen in future to vague assertions hostile to our commercial policy. Whenever the proper occasion should arrive, however, he should be perfectly prepared to argue the question more fully. The hon. member for Newark had been quite erroneous in several of his statements, and in none more than in the inference which he had drawn respecting the silk-trade, from grounds from which most other persons would have drawn an opposite conclusion. The silk-trade he (Mr. Herries) was happy to say, and he spoke from the best authority, was, at the present moment, the least distressed manufacture in the country. There was greater activity in that branch of trade at the present moment than in any other. Whenever the hon. member for Newark chose to bring this question formally before the House, he (Mr. Herries) should be perfectly prepared to meet him.—He was happy, however, to learn that there was a great and rapidly increasing improvement in this important branch of our trade. This he knew from the most recent information; and it was amply confirmed by the returns now found on the Table. He begged, however, to declare, that he felt deeply for those who might be labouring under unavoidable distress in this as well as in other branches of our trade; and if any means could be suggested for their relief—if any hon. Gentleman could point out any plan through which their condition might be altered—if the labours of a committee could devise any possible remedy for the evil of which they complained, he would be one of the first to support it—if he was satisfied that it could be productive of the good which they anticipated.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to answer complaints as to the falling-off in the amount of British tonnage built and registered, by a reference to the amount of British and foreign tonnage entering inwards. This was any thing rather than a satisfactory-answer. The right hon. Gentleman talked of increased activity in the shipping interests,—a fact not denied by those who supported the Petition, but arising, as the ship-owners said, from the necessity of entering more strongly into competition with foreigners. Would the right hon. Gentleman like the same argument to be adduced as a proof of the prosperity of the other interests of the Empire? Would the right hon. Gentleman, for instance, like it to be said that the agriculturists were prosperous, because they were compelled to give two or three crops in order to contend against the effect of the introduction of foreign corn? In the river Tyne, the hon. member for Northumberland well knew, that since the use of steam vessels for the purpose of assisting the navigation of the river, vessels were able to make four voyages a year, where they formerly made only three. But the question did not rest on this, nor had it been' fairly argued. There could be no question that the shipping trade of the country had been most lamentably diminished. In 1826, the number of vessels employed was 24,625—the tonnage of which amounted to 2,635,614 tons. During the last year, the number of registered vessels employed was 23,453, and the tonnage 2,517,000; so that in three years there had been a falling-off of 1,172 vessels, and 118,644 tons. The petitioners complained that freights were so reduced as to deprive them of the means of deriving advantage from their capital. Something should be done to remedy the evil; if we could not depart from the system we had adopted (and perhaps we were pledged to it for some years at least), we might endeavour to reduce the price of the materials used in ship-building to a par with the prices paid for them by foreign builders, and adopt other measures to lessen the inequality that at present existed between British and foreign ship-owners, so as to enable the former to compete successfully with the latter. The right hon. Gentleman had gone into an elaborate statement of figures, but did not say one word of an intention to reduce the duties on the importation of timber. It seemed not to be considered by any one, that protection was afforded to all the other interests of the country, but none to the shipping-trade. The silk-trade was protected; the corn-trade was protected; every other interest was protected, and to none but the shipping-trade was a committee ever denied, when they demanded inquiry, and complained of the grievances under which they laboured. The right hon. Gentleman had cited the opinions expressed in the Report of Mr. Cambreleng to the American Congress; but the government of America had not yet adopted the recommendations of that Report; and when the Americans and other nations had done so, it would be time enough to augur from the consequences of that adoption, in favour of our adherence to such a system.

was proceeding to explain the manner in which the number of British ships and the amount of tonnage was apparently reduced, by the new system of registration adopted in 1825 or 1826, when an Act was passed directing the future omission of ships that had been previously improperly registered, when

rose to order, and deprecated the continuance of such a discussion as this at such an hour, and brought on merely by Petition, when there was so much business appointed for the House.

accordingly gave way to.

, who rose, he said, to confirm the statements of the hon. member for Newark. He did not mean to gather stories from the moon, but to state a few plain facts, which he found in the letter of a gentleman from Hull, who had been fifty years in trade. The hon. Member accordingly read the following Letter:—

"Proceeding to reply to the subject of your letter at once, of so momentous a nature, I feel great delicacy in hazarding or shaping my answer. I shall confine myself lo a brief statement of a few simple facts, that in the course of my experience have come under my own knowledge, and first:—The deplorable condition of British Shipping. I am owner of two British ships and one Foreign ship; the former, since the Reciprocity Act, I have been unable to employ without loss, the latter has invariably left me a remunerating profit. I pay wages 60s. per month to my British sailors, to the others 30s. Beef for the one 6d. per lb., the other is supplied abroad for 2½d. per lb.; sails, cordage, and building materials, in the same striking proportion: and I would here notice the duty on Dantzig oak plank, much used in building and repairing British ships, being no less than 4l. per load of fifty cubic feet, and the selling price to the builder here 9l.. 10s. to 10l. per load; so that when the freight, insurance, and charges are added, it will be seen that the foreigner works his material for building at the rate of 3l. to 3l. 10s. per load, whilst the British ship-builder has to pay 9l. 10s to 10l. per load; and although lessening the duty would create many importers, to my personal prejudice, having been for many years the only regular and constant importer of Dantzig; oak plank to the port of Hull, it cannot be denied how utterly impossible it is for the British ship-builder, under such circumstances, to compete with foreigners. On the other hand I have had the melancholy conviction of witnessing, on my repeated visits to Holstein and Denmark, bow decidedly the reduction of duty from 10l. to 10s. a last for Rape seed, and from 6d. to 1d. per lb. on Wool, has operated to the prejudice of the British farmers and our own revenue. Has the British manufacturer been benefitted by it? No such thing. The Danish and Holstein farmers have alone been enriched by the sacrifice; for formerly we purchased Rape seed from the foreigner at from 10l. to 14l. per last, but immediately on the alteration of the duty they increased their price to 20l. and 24l. per last, and the like proportion on Wool: and here it may not be irrelevant to remark, that I have often had the galling mortification to witness their exulting taunts, and ask if we believed them such fools as to allow the advantage to the English? As respects the relative general state of trade of our port of Hull, a considerable increase of traffic must be admitted, increased population creating the necessity of greater activity and enterprise, and a competition so extended, that I am persuaded a large proportion of our imports have been productive of loss, that capital has generally been diminished, and with it. I fear the high and honourable character of the British merchant; overtrading and over-living producing a lamentable abandonment of truth. Permit me to observe, that I cannot imagine the distress of the country so thoroughly general as the great out-cry would convey. Partial distress must always prevail; and confining myself lo this town and neighbourhood, I do not perceive; any alarming want of employment, but a great hardship exists to various classes in the continuance of the high price of labour. Neither the wages of the cartman, the coal-carrier, the truckman, the staithman, or those of the sailor, have undergone any reduction, nor is any disposition shewn to submit to the least alteration. I have thus, in obedience to your wish, submitted a few observations for your consideration, feeling, however, and deploring, that I must fall so very far short of satisfying the object of your inquiry; but be assured, that as far as I am able, I have cheerfully observed the call."

"P. S. I will just state, in addition to the above, a conversation I happened to have the other day with a merchant of Dantzig. I observed to him the strong probability of some relief to our suffering Ship-owners, by an extensive traffic in grain, of which this country will need a large supply before the next harvest. His answer was, 'I have obtained many orders for wheat, but we charter our own Prussian ships for grain; we only take British ships for loading timber, timber-deals, staves, &c.' Now I have seen the day when British ships not only commanded the preference in all valuable cargoes, but it was a common rule to pay them 6d. to 1s. per quarter more freight than any other flag on the face of the globe could obtain, on account of the superiority of conveyance that was yielded to them. I do verily believe that we should not have lived to see and bear this mortification but for the unwise Reciprocity Act. I have mentioned the great benefit that might result by taking off the present high duty on oak-plank. It may be said the high price of plank would directly rise proportionally higher abroad: unquestionably it would do so, but it will he found to apply differently to the other articles I have enumerated, and in this way the foreign shipbuilder will have to pay the advanced price of plank, and he thus loses one powerful advantage which he now enjoys over the British ship-builder. The increase of foreign tonnage is as decided as it is alarming. Looking at this overwhelming competition, the increased value of the currency, the surrounding difficulties the British Ship-owner is exposed to, when every farthing of saving; becomes a serious consideration, it is perhaps a matter of surprise, that no attempt has been made to obtain a modification of the Sound-dues imposed by Denmark. We are not able to pay the same tax as we did when we stood on different ground, and would it not be fair that that power should suffer along with us?'"

The hon. Member observed, in conclusion, that the writer of the letter was a very respectable man, and that he was quite ready and willing, if required, to come to the Bar and prove the facts he had slated in his letter. He trusted, therefore, that the House would allow its statements their due weight.

expressed his sincere regret that a subject of such immense importance, so deeply affecting one of the greatest interests of this country the Shipping interest, should have been brought on in such a manner, and at such a time as the present. He regretted it, because he was convinced that the question, if it had been allowed a fairer and more ample discussion, would have afforded a triumph to many of those Gentlemen, who had not been, but were now, of the same opinions as himself. He regretted it too because the subject ought, to be more amply discussed than it could be when there was only partial attention given to it; and he regretted it also, because it was neither fair towards the particular interests concerned, nor to the credit of their supporters; and still less was it fair towards the House, to bring such a question before it, at a time when it was not possible fully to discuss it. That the petitioners should come before this House with their petitions he was the last man in the world to complain, but he would ask those hon. Members who conceived that the views of the petitioners were correct, and their statements well founded, whether some time and some manner more fitting than the present, ought not to have been chosen for the discussion of the question. If the hon. Member who presented this Petition, which represented, as he thought, a case of very great hardship, would introduce a motion into this House for a Committee of Inquiry, or state, what is far more important, what such committee is to do, he would be acting more in consonance with the general feeling of the House, than by raising a long discussion on the presentation of a petition. If the worthy Alderman complained of the Reciprocity Bill, or wished to repeal it, or to censure the Government—if he conceived that the Shipping interests were suffering from the effects of the clauses in that bill, and if, in spite: of all the statements that could be made, founded upon official documents, he would persevere in his opinion, that notwithstanding our navigation was greatly augmented, and our tonnage increased, there was still no profit for the Shipowners—let him give the House an opportunity of fully and fairly discussing the question, by making a substantive motion, and taking the sense of the House upon it. He could not, and he regretted it after the statements which had been made, then go into the. question, but he was satisfied that all the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite might have been confirmed, and would have struck the House in an infinitely stronger light, if they had been put forward upon such a motion as that which he wished the worthy Alderman to introduce. But when he heard that the Ship-owners were suffering a sort of tyrannical plunder from the Reciprocity laws, he was astonished, and felt justified in calling for some facts in proof of that assertion. In his opinion, the Shipping interests were suffering from those laws not having been carried far enough. In proof of that assertion he would refer to the treaty with France, by which the interests of the Ship-owners were protected. We would not allow to the ships of France that free and equal reciprocity which the French government wished; we would not permit them, in order to protect our own Shipping interest, to bring to our ports from their colonies the produce of their Transatlantic possessions, lest we should lose the advantages of the long voyages. What, he asked, had been the consequence of that step? Before that measure took effect, we were the carriers of colonial produce for France; her ships came for it to the ports of Bristol and Liverpool, and conveyed it to the Continent; and previously to the passing of that Act there were only three ships at Bordeaux, and three at Havre, engaged in the India trade. But by our anxiety to reserve the long voyages, and our refusing them the reciprocal advantage of bringing the produce of their colonies to this coun- try in their own ships, we had driven them to be carriers for themselves, and last year there were no less than thirty ships, large vessels, at Bordeaux, engaged in the Indian trade, and twenty-five vessels at Havre, employed in the same trade. So that by the step our Government took, and it was a sacrifice made by the right hon. member for Liverpool—most unfortunately made—to the interests he endeavoured to protect—we had lost the whole of that trade, or at least a great part of it, which we previously enjoyed. These were statements which one would like to bring forward at a more favourable opportunity than the present. The hon. member for Worcester referred to the increase of the tonnage of foreign ships, as a proof of the distressed state of our Shipping interests, and said that our ships are now obliged to go four voyages instead of two, to attain the same object. Did he forget then that in these four voyages the profit that the Ship-owner receives is derived from the employment of his ships; they must bring home double the quantity, and of course have double the employment they had before? Did he forget too the return that was made two or three years ago? Did he forget the amount of shipping registered at that period? Did he not know that, there were 100,000 tons of shipping stated in the registry, long after the ships had ceased to exist and had been broken up? These facts could be proved satisfactorily to the House, if the worthy Alderman, or the hon. member for Newark, who had for the first time addressed the House on the state of the Shipping-interest, would introduce a motion on which this great question might be fully and fairly discussed; or if he did not like to pursue that course, let him take some other, but let him bring the matter fully and fairly before the House. There was another subject on which discussion would be most beneficial to the country—he meant the Silk-trade. But when the hon. member for Newark said that the Silk-trade was an unfortunate and depressed trade, he must tell him that he knew nothing about it. He must know, if he had any correct information on the subject, that within the last two or three months it had been in a state of great activity; he must know, notwithstanding the alteration of the law, that the silk manufactories were fully employed, and that silk goods in great quantities were at the present moment exported to France. He knew that 6,000l. worth of silk manufactured goods had been bought within the last week, for the purpose of being sent to that country; that there had been almost a battle in Spital-fields within the last two months to obtain possession of these goods; that every loom was employed, and goods could not be made fast enough to comply with the urgent and frequent demand. He might perhaps be told, that this was a mere temporary demand, and that might be true; but it was a real demand, and was a proof that the trade was not at the moment depressed. At the same time the House must know, that a great quantity of such goods would be required to supply the Spring demand. It might also be said, that a great portion of the goods sold were French; but he could state to the House, that they were sold as English goods, and that they would not have fetched the price they did if they had not been sold as. English goods. He must again repeat his wish that this question should be brought forward in the shape of a motion; and he would conclude by saying, that if that were done, the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman would have a much greater effect upon the House than they had had on the present occasion. He would not any longer stop the business of the Mouse, but would wait until he had the power of entering fully and fairly into the question. Mr. Alderman Waithman said, that it was not his intention to take up any more of the time of the House, but he could not allow some of the observations that had been made, to pass without offering a reply. That this was a question of great importance he knew, and he would venture to say that there had not been a more important subject under the consideration of the House during the present Session, and he should not be deterred by the observations of any hon. Members from going into the question, if he thought it necessary, particularly when he had sat, night after night, to hear unimportant debates, until two or three o'clock in the morning. The hon. Member for Dover who had just addressed the House, had taken upon himself, as he had frequently done before, the office of lecturer, and had, in a dictatorial manner, questioned the propriety of introducing so important a subject to the notice of the House on presenting a petition, and without having given special notice; he had however given notice, but he knew of no regulation of the House which required him to abstain from the one, or to do the other. Of the lecture of the hon. Member he must say, that were he of riper years, and possessed more experience, his admonitions would have more weight, and would be of still more importance had he not been frequently rebuked for indulging in similar dictatorial lectures. The hon. Member had talked a good deal about the silk-trade, but either that hon. Member or himself knew nothing of that trade. He indeed was in daily intercourse with persons connected with that trade, he understood a little of what was going on, and he had some wish to profit, like other people, by his own industry. He did not mean to deny that there was activity in the trade at this moment, but it was to meet the Spring demand, and to comply with a change in fashion, and he could assure the House that prices and wages had been reduced one half, and that, the trade had ceased to be profitable since our manufacturers were brought into competition with foreigners in our home markets. The hon. Member had told the House a great many extraordinary things about our exports, and about 6,000l. worth of silk having been a short time since exported to France. But he could tell the hon. Member that France had not taken 200,000l. worth from this country in the course of the whole year, while we had imported from France to the amount of two millions and a half: what the French took principally from us was our colonial produce, and our East India raw silk. With respect to the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman over the way (Mr. Hume), he did not mean to quarrel with the mode and manner in which they had been brought forward, but he must assert, that nothing which he had said could be construed into the least imputation upon the present Administration; that Administration had acted most fairly, and from the best of motives, and had only followed the errors of their predecessors, but when men fell into errors, and saw that they had so fallen, they ought immediately to retract them. He had told the right hon. Gentleman from the first moment that he was aware of those documents, and knew that he would advert to them; but the right hon. Gen-man had gone thirty years back for his facts, always forgetting that we had an increasing population; how much it had increased since 1810 he was not prepared to say, but a considerable increase had taken place. Notwithstanding these documents, he thought that his hon. friend, the member for Worcester, had satisfactorily answered the right hon. Gentleman; but when he came to the story of the registry, which, by the by, formed a fine subject of declamation for the hon. member for Dover, he entirely failed. With respect to those and other documents he must own that he was against adverting to official documents at all; they had so misled the country, that persons who were obliged to complain, because they had been aggrieved—who came and said, "We are suffering, and we want inquiry"—were always answered by "That cannot be the case, we have official documents to shew that you never were in so flourishing a condition." Now in his opinion petitioners ought not to be required to do more than state that they suffered, and it was the duty of Parliament to inquire into their complaints. It was plain to him, that the Shipping interests were in distress, and notwithstanding the declamation of the hon. member for Dover, neither he nor the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had attempted to deny the existence of distress. That fact was not disputed, and though the hon. Member would have the House think otherwise; he did not say that the Ship-owners were not distressed. Only allow the hon. member for Dover an opportunity, and he would prove that there was great prosperity, and convince the House that it had only to encourage foreign competition to make the Ship-owners happy and flourishing. He thought that he had referred to better documents than the right hon. Gentleman, and he would tell the House why. The right hon. Gentleman had only given accounts of the ships entered inwards; but whether they were full or empty, whether they made profitable or ruinous voyages, he said not. With that, the right hon. Gent. had nothing to do; he gave the House the official documents to shew the number of ships entered inwards, but he passed over all the information which could satisfy the House that numbers and profit were the same thing. The right hon. Gentleman had objected to his statement, because he had taken only one or two years; but he had done so because he found that account in the papers laid before Parliament. It was, in his opinion, a most important fact, that there had been a decrease, in two years, of British ships passing through the Sound, of no less than 900. An increase, however, had taken place within the same period, in ships of foreign build, of more than 3,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us to go on, and we should find that the number of British ships would increase; but in the number of ships built, a decrease, to the extent of 1,500, had also taken place within the last three years, and many ship-builders had been obliged to part with their dock-yards. When a man gave up that sort of business, it was utter destruction to him. He knew one man who spent 15,000l. in erecting a manufactory, and when he wanted to sell it it would not fetch 500l. When manufactories or ship-yards ceased to be used, they were worth little or nothing—like stage-coaches they must go on, whether they had employment or not. Having stated these facts, he would only further allude to the part taken by the hon. member for Kingston-upon-Hull, and another hon. Member; he did not recollect the place he represented, but the constituents of both these Gentlemen must think that they were "miserable comforters"—and will no doubt say to them, "Call you this backing your friends?" They had been the best friends that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had found that night. They had declared themselves friendly to the Reciprocity System, and all the hopes that they held out to their constituents was, a reduction of taxation, which, in his opinion they would not get in sufficient amount to be of any service to them. The House was told to look to some distant benefit; but if South America were to pour her treasures into our lap, we must look to another generation to enjoy them, and the present shipowners must be ruined. To those who followed, it might be beneficial; but whatever might be the result, he would venture to say, that it would be attended with great loss to parties at present engaged in trade. All the petitioners asked for was inquiry, notwithstanding all the statements which had been made. He rejoiced that he had been selected to present the Petition; he knew that this was not the only Petition which would be presented on this subject; others would follow equally, perhaps, but certainly not more respectably signed than the one he had presented. The 200 individuals, of the first con- sequence in trade, on account of their respectability and property, who had signed that Petition, were ready and willing to come to the Bar of the House, and prove the great injuries they were suffering from the present system. Having said thus much, he would no longer detain the House, but conclude by thanking it for the attention it had bestowed on him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that no hon. Member present could doubt that the worthy Alderman and his supporters had had ample opportunity of discussing the subject, and that they had not let the opportunity escape them. He could assure the worthy Alderman that many Gentlemen who entertained views widely different from his on this subject, and who were as deeply impressed with the importance of the subject as he could possibly be, had refrained from offering themselves to the notice of the House on the present occasion, in consequence of an understood arrangement with respect to the business of the evening. He hoped that now they should be allowed to proceed to the question which regarded the Administration of Justice, and which it had been arranged should certainly be brought on this evening.

said, if he refrained from answering the somewhat uncourteous observations of the hon. member for Dover, it was only in obedience to the wishes of the House. He begged, however, to say that what he had remarked about the public documents was, that they were not always to be trusted. With respect to the silk manufacture, the President of the Board of Trade had stated that it was in great activity, and he had proved that by documentary evidence, though it was contradicted by complaints of the manufacturers. Notwithstanding such evidence, he could positively state, that our shipping had decreased fifteen per cent, while that of other countries had increased twenty per cent.

also observed, that he knew from evidence which he valued more than documentary evidence, that the silk trade was not flourishing—the exports having fallen off nearly a million sterling, and the trade being at that time condemned to make a desperate struggle in order to continue in existence.

said, that he had been intrusted with a Petition from Sir Jonah Barrington, praying that he might be heard at the bar. That Petition containing some extraneous matter, he had thought it his fluty to send it back to Sir Jonah, in order that it might be amended. He had since received a communication from Sir Jonah, stating that he was seriously indisposed; and one of Sir Jonah's family was, he believed, in attendance, to certify that fact. He thought it his duty to state these matters to the House before going into a committee on this subject.

said, that he had received a similar communication; but from the importance of the subject and the absence of the certificate of a physician, he thought it incumbent on the House not to delay going into committee. At the same time he should wish to be guided, not by his own view, but by the sense of the House.

said, that in bringing this subject before the Committee, he should first refer them to two documents which had long been in the hands of hon. Members. Those documents contained the facts of the case, and the grounds of the proposition he was about to submit to them,—a proposition respecting the purity of the administration of justice, which, highly to the credit of the country, had hitherto been unassailed. The first of these documents was the Eighteenth Report of the Commission for Judicial Inquiry into the various Courts of Justice in Ireland, which report regarded the Admiralty Court of that country. That report of the commissioners had, upon a motion of his, been referred to a Select Committee of the House, and the report of that Committee was the second document to which he referred. He need hardly say, that the duty he had performed on this occasion was not a pleasant one: nor need he remind the Committee that, fortunately for the character of the country, he had no precedents by which he could frame his proceedings. He would begin by detailing, as briefly as he could, the facts which appeared in these documents respecting the conduct of Sir Jonah Barrington. The noble Lord then entered into a detail of the cases in which the alleged malversation took place (the leading particulars of which will be found in the subjoined Resolutions). Referring to the conduct of Mr. Pineau, the registrar of the court, who had paid the money by the order of Sir Jonah, the noble Lord observed, that though he did not see how he could rescue his character from the imputation of having assented to orders which he must have known were wrong, and which he ought, in the first instance, to have set at defiance, yet it was but justice to him to state that he had since done as much as he could to redeem his error, by making proper disclosures, and by carefully abstaining from all equivocation in giving his evidence. The noble Lord in conclusion observed, that the most unpleasant part of his duty remained—that of stating the course which he thought ought to be taken with respect to the conduct of this individual. He would read to the Committee the resolutions he meant to propose, and if they should be adopted and reported to the House, it would be for the House to take what course it should deem proper. The noble Lord then read the following Resolutions:—

"1. Resolved—That, in consequence of an Address from the House of Commons, his late Majesty was graciously pleased to issue a Commission under the Great Seal, for examining the salaries, duties, and emoluments of the several officers, clerks, and ministers of justice, within that part of the United Kingdom called Ireland, and that the commissioners so appointed have laid before Parliament eighteen several Reports, the eighteenth of which relates to the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland. That, on the faith of such reports, divers acts of the Legislature have been passed, and are now in force.

"2. That the office of Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland is an office of dignity and importance, on the impartial and uncorrupt execution of which the honour of the Crown and the protection of the rights and interests of many, both of his Majesty's subjects and of Foreigners, engaged in maritime pursuits, greatly depend.

"3. That, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of Ireland, bearing date the twenty-third of May, 1797, Doctor Barrington, now Sir Jonah Barrington, was appointed to the said office of Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland, with power to depute and surrogate in his place one or more deputy or deputies, as often as he should think fit.

"4. That it is stated in the aforesaid eighteenth report that statements were made to the commissioners upon oath, and confirmed by documents produced to the said commissioners, by which it appeared that, in two several derelict cases, which were adjudicated in the said High Court of Admiralty, the Judge who then presided, the aforesaid Sir Jonah Barring-ton, had appropriated to his own use certain portions of the proceeds.

"5. That it is stated in the aforesaid eighteenth report that it appeared, from the oral and documentary evidence before the commissioners, in the first of these cases, 'the Nancy derelict,' that Sir Jonah Barrington appropriated to his own use, out of the proceeds, 482l. 8s. 8d. and 200l. making together 682l. 8s. 8d., and never repaid any part of either, and that the Registrar is a loser in that cause to the amount of 546l. 11s. 4d., including poundage.

"6. That it is stated in the aforesaid eighteenth report, that, in the second of those cases, that of the 'Redstrand derelict,' on the 12th of January, 1810, the sum of 200l. was paid by the Marshal into the registry, on account of the proceeds in this cause; and on the same day Sir Jonah Barrington, by an order in his own hand-writing, which was produced to the commissioners, directed the Registrar to lodge that sum to his (the Judge's) credit in the bank of Sir William Gleadow Newcomen, which he (the Registrar) accordingly did. That, subsequently, a Petition having been presented to the Court by Mr. Henry Pyne Masters, one of the salvagers, Sir Jonah wrote an order at the foot of it, bearing date May 29, 1810, directing the Registrar to pay to the petitioner a sum of 40l.; and, at the same time, he wrote a note to Mr. Masters, requesting that he would not present the order for two months, at the close of which period Sir Jonah left Ireland, and never since returned. That Mr. Masters after a considerable time (upwards of four years), finding that he could not get his money, prepared a memorial addressed to the Lord Lieutenant, stating the circumstances, and complaining of the conduct of the Judge; and, going to the Registrar, he demanded payment of his money, otherwise he would immediately present the memorial which he held in his hand. That the Registrar, anxious, as he states, to screen the Judge, on the 8th day of July, 1814, paid Mr. Masters the money out of his own pocket, and produced to the Commissioners his receipt, and a letter of acknowledgment from Mr. Masters for his good conduct in the transaction. That under somewhat similar circumstances, the Registrar paid a further sum of 9l. 12s. 9d. to Mr. John Wycherly, another salvor, who came to Dublin to endeavour to get his money; so that, including his own fees in the cause, amounting to 15l., and his poundage on the nett proceeds, amounting to 7l. 10s.; the Registrar states that there is actually due to him in this cause 72l. 2s. 9d., and, further, that as the sum of 200l. was never repaid by the Judge, the loss of the balance between that sum and the sum of 72l. 2s. 9d. fell upon the unpaid salvagers.

"7. That it is stated, in the aforesaid eighteenth report, that Sir Jonah Barrington having represented his inability to attempt a journey to Ireland, an extract from the minutes of the proceedings of the Commissioners was transmitted to him, containing everything, at that lime deposed to, by which his character might be affected. That, subsequently, sundry communications were received from him, which, with the several letters, addressed to him by the Commissioners in reply, are printed in the appendix to the aforesaid report. That assertions of general denial contained in these and subsequent letters, are the only contradiction or explanation of the foregoing facts, given by Sir Jonah to the Commissioners, which contradiction would have had much weight with the Commissioners had the alleged facts been supported only by the parole testimony of the officer who stated them, but that when the Commissioners found the hand-writing of Sir Jonah Barrington himself supporting the statement of the witness, they could not avoid giving credit to his (the witness's) evidence. That the Commissioners resumed the examination of the Registrar, and that the said Registrar, though aware that the Commissioners had been in communication with Sir Jonah Barrington, who might, if he swore falsely, have suggested means of contradicting him, persisted in his former evidence, and furnished other documents tending to confirm his testi- mony, which he had subsequently found.

"8. That the said eighteenth report of the Commissioners, so founded on evidence taken on oath, and on documents, together with the depositions forwarded to the Commissioners by Sir Jonah Barring-ton, and other papers connected with the conduct of Sir Jonah Barrington, in the discharge of his judicial functions, was, by order of the House, referred to a Select Committee, in the last Session of Parliament.

"9. That the Select Committee so appointed, did take into consideration the matters so referred to them, and that Sir Jonah Harrington, having, in a letter to the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, expressed his wish to come over to this country to be examined, whenever a Committee should be appointed to consider the report of the Commissioners, the Committee did afford him that opportunity of meeting allegations which so seriously affected his character.

"10. That the Committee, after full investigation of the whole subject submitted to their inquiry, and after examination of witnesses, and of documentary evidence, came to a report, which has been laid on the Table of this Mouse; from which report it appears, that on the whole, the Commission were of opinion that Sir Jonah Harrington, as Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland, did, in the years 1805 and 1806, under colour of his official authority, apply to his own use two sums, amounting to 500l. 9s. 2d. out of the proceeds of the derelict ship Nancy, then lodged in the hands of the Registrar of that Court; and that he did in the year 1810, in a similar manner, apply to his own use the sum of 200l. out of the proceeds of the Redstrand derelict.

"That it appears to this Committee that the opinion so expressed in the aforesaid report of the Select Committee, is fully warranted by the evidence, and is entitled to the concurrence of this Committee.

"That it is, therefore, the opinion of this Committee, that Sir Jonah Barring-ton has been guilty of serious malversation in the discharge of his office of Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, and that it is unfit and would be of bad example, that he should continue to hold the said office."

suggested, that as Sir J. Barrington had expressed an inten- tion of presenting a petition to the House, praying to be heard by counsel against those Resolutions, which he had up to this moment been prevented from doing by illness, it might be better to have the resolutions printed, and to postpone the discussion on them for a short time to give him the opportunity he desired.

said, he could not object to the Resolutions being printed.

said, Sir Jonah Barrington had already had one opportunity of explaining his conduct. The only question was if the House would afford him another?

would beg to read a letter dated April 27, which he had written in answer to one from Sir J. Barrington, containing the wish to be examined by counsel or at the bar of the House. His Lordship's letter stated, that he had nothing to add to the announcement he had already made respecting the course he intended to pursue in his motion that stood for Thursday. He suggested, that if Sir Jonah Barrington was anxious to be heard at the bar of the House, the proper course for him to pursue would be to present a petition to that effect. He mentioned this to put the House in possession of the fact.

said, he had been intrusted with a Petition from Sir Jonah Harrington upon this subject, but it contained so much extraneous matter, that he had declined presenting it, and had sent it back to have it abbreviated and revised; but this Sir Jonah was, from illness, incapable of doing. He stated this positively, having seen the certificate of the medical men in attendance. The question accordingly seemed to him to be, whether this should be considered a sufficient reason for delaying the vote upon these Resolutions?

t said, that after the Resolutions had been passed through the Committee, and had been printed, it would be time enough to hear Sir Jonah's defence, which might be upon bringing up the Report.

thought that if a proper opportunity for defence had not been afforded by the Select Committee, Sir Jonah would be entitled to any reasonable indulgence before the Resolutions were passed, but as he had already had ample opportunity, he apprehended the best course would be to let the Resolutions pass now, and when they should have been reported and printed, it would then be time to consider whether he should have any, and what further time for defence allowed.

rose to express his surprise at the easy manner in which the evidence had been suffered to pass off. He was astonished that no indignation had been expressed. He did not wish to press hard upon Sir Jonah Barrington, but he wished to call the attention of the House to the system that prevailed in Ireland, which permitted a Judge to appropriate the public money without immediate detection. Much had been said about the Judge, but he had heard nothing about Pineau, the King's evidence, who was, according to his own confession, guilty of most unjustifiable conduct. Here the hon. Member read a passage from this person's evidence, in which he stated that he had marked on an order, in large letters, 482l. for the service of his Majesty, meaning thereby for the use of the Judge, and that those large letters were used ironically, as it were, since there was nobody in Court who was not aware of their true meaning. He also declared that he was in the habit of keeping money of suitors in the Court, sometimes in his own house, and sometimes at his private banker's, but he never in any case lodged it as official money. Mr. Pineau, now said, this ought not to be done; but the light never broke in upon him until he had quarrelled with his superior, who gave him by no means a good character, as he declared he was a forsworn man, and not to be believed upon his oath.

thought the hon. Member had generalized too much in attacking the whole judicial system of a nation on account of a particular act of delinquency. He considered the House would carry the feeling of the country much more with it by deliberating calmly, and deciding fairly, than by indulging in the exaggerations of the hon. Gentleman. He contended that the proper course to pursue was, to punish the particular offender, and not to deprive themselves of the right of so doing by arraigning the entire system.

complained of the tone assumed by the hon. Member, who seemed to think that nobody but Irish Members had a right to touch upon Irish abuses. If, however, he fancied that British Members of Parliament were to be thus put down when they rose to express their conscientious opinions, he would be much mistaken. He denied that he had been guilty of any exaggeration, having simply referred to the Report. He was sure that he had said nothing that did not deserve the support of the House, and he had trusted that that support would not be denied him.

did not object to British Members interfering with Irish business, indeed he was always glad to have the assistance of Gentlemen in any discussions on Ireland who were not biassed by local prejudices. All he objected to the hon. Member was, that he drew a general conclusion from an individual instance. He did not complain of his observations as unparliamentary, but illogical.

, in reply to those Gentlemen who had complained of the Government not having proceeded earlier and more seriously with the investigation, said, that the delinquencies could not be known till they were discovered, which was at a comparatively late period. The committee which then investigated the business made a report in very just terms, and if the evidence had not been confirmed by Sir Jonah Barrington's own admissions, it would not have been strong enough to proceed on; hence it had been decided to bring the matter before Parliament. Sir Jonah Barrington had been informed of that intention, and he had ample time to have petitioned if he had chosen. He was sure that every Member would be glad if that Judge could disprove the charge. The anxiety was, that he might be acquitted, not condemned; and all the Members would be glad if Sir Jonah, by coming forward, would relieve them from their painful situation.

stated, in reply to the hon. member for Cricklade, who had accused him, as he thought, of not having indulged in declamation, that it was his imperative duty on such an occasion not to do so. If he had discovered these charges—if he had to explain them for the first time to the House, he should have thought himself bound to go more at length into the subject; but in the present case he was not justified in adding asperity to the charge. The Report from which he derived his principle knowledge of the business had been some time printed, and was in the hands of all the Members, who might, therefore, be supposed to have already formed their opinions on the conduct of Sir Jonah Barrington.

Thomson moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Usury Laws.

said a few words, which were not audible in the Gallery, but were understood to imply an assent to the Motion, not pledging himself to support the Bill.

declared, that it was his intention to oppose the Bill at every stage of the proceedings. The former laws, it had been said, were made by the borrowers; this Bill, it was evident, was drawn up by the lenders. Never did he see a measure that, in its enactments, carried more distinct marks of its parentage. He considered it, contrary to what the hon. Member had stated that he meant it to be, as a Bill hostile to the landed interest, and therefore he should oppose it at every stage.

supported the Bill. The old laws, he admitted, had been made by borrowers; but they were necessitous and unjust, as well as injurious borrowers. He did not agree in the opinions of his hon. friend, who had declared it to be his intention to oppose the Bill. He begged to call the attention of his hon. friend to the principles of that legislation from which the country was just emerging; and which was the delight of our ancestors, and of which the Usury Laws were parts. It was once supposed that the Legislature could regulate the price of articles; but it was now well known that prices were beyond its control. In pursuance of that principle, however, the Legislature made laws regulating the prices of many things, such as labour and bread; and the practice of making such laws was continued down to the time of Elizabeth. Then the Usury Laws were held to be sacred, like a part of religion. Then, too, laws were made regulating the price of food and other things, which, notwithstanding the terrors of the country gentlemen, the Legislature had been obliged to abandon. All laws made for such purposes were made by the buyers, and not by the sellers, as they all had for their object to keep down prices. For his own part, he saw no reason why any restriction should be laid on the use of money more than on the use of houses or land. The country gentlemen might, perhaps, object to a man using other things freely. What would they think of a law to prohibit letting land beyond a certain rate, or prohibiting them from selling corn beyond a certain price? Perhaps his hon. friend would bring in a bill for that purpose. Eating and drinking were very simple but necessary acts, and would his hon. friend bring in a bill to regulate the price of provisions? Formerly there was an assize of bread, but this was obliged to be given up. A man having a house that was worth 1,000l. might let it for 70l. a-year; but if he had 1,000l. in money, he must not receive for it more than 50l. He might lend the money, and receive 50l. for it; the borrower might buy a house with it, and receive 70l., even 100l., or any sum he could get for his house. There was neither sense nor justice that he could see, in the distinction. A man might buy furniture to the amount of 500l., and might hire that out at a profit of twenty per cent; but if he lent the same sum of money, he was only to obtain five per cent. He must say that he saw no reason for such a difference. As the law now stood, the borrower was at a great disadvantage, whether he paid in the shape of premium or annuity. If a person wished to borrow money without security, he would now have to pay from five to seven per cent more interest than if the Usury Laws were abolished. When borrowing on annuities was adopted, the borrower was always obliged to pay at the rate of twelve or fifteen per cent, at least, for the use of the money; and he believed that the annuity system had ruined more fortunes, and inflicted more misery on families than could well be conceived. There were certain parties, no doubt, in the event of the Usury Laws being repealed, that still ought to be protected—as, for instance, persons under age—so as to prevent them making away with their property before they came into the fair possession of it. In such cases, however, at present the Court of Chancery actively interfered, and no doubt the same method might still be retained, so as to afford such persons protection, as it was notorious that those who raised money on expectations always had to deal at the greatest possible disadvantage.

also supported the Bill, be- cause, under the present system, it appeared to him that the whole disadvantage was on the side of the borrower—it was he that was made to pay for every thing; and the only consequence of imposing penalties on the usurious lender was to make the burthen fall still more heavily on the needy borrower.

opposed the Motion. The provision proposed by the hon. Member's Bill, by which no higher than a certain rate of interest was to be recoverable in a Court of Law, was most extraordinary. It was neither more nor less than enacting that a good, valid, and legal contract should be no better than waste paper. After having given the question much of his attention in that House, and in his private lucubrations, he had come to the conclusion, that the repeal of the Usury Laws would be attended with much mischief. As the law now stood, if money were lent to the trader, and the lender took more than his legal interest, he was, in the event of a bankruptcy, looked upon in the light of a partner, and became liable to the creditors. But the effect of the proposed alteration in the law would be to do away with this most salutary check. Then, if they looked at the landed interest, the case was no better. He believed that he was not exaggerating the fact when he stated, that half the rental of all England went to pay the mortgages that were existing on that property. What, then, would be the drag upon the landed proprietor whose estate was mortgaged, if, in the first rise in the value of money, the mortgagee was to come upon him for a higher rate of interest? The answer was obvious. He could not do otherwise than consent to any rate that was proposed, and his estate would soon become irretrievably involved. As soon as war, or any other unfortunate concurrence of circumstances, should have tended to raise the value of money in the market, he would be entirely at the mercy of the lender, and could have no alternative but that of acceding to his terms, however extortionate. The great oversight of the Bill was, that it forgot that the borrower was not, like the lender, in a state of free agency; for it was not till the debt was already contracted in some other way that he came into the market to raise money on such security as he might have to offer. But there was another point of view at which they ought to look. Suppose that the law was altered, and that an action was brought to recover on a Bill of Exchange, or on a bond, what interest would the Jury have to give? It was evident that the whole question would be unsettled, and left to chance, instead of, as now, when a legal rate of interest determined in a moment the amount to which the plaintiff was entitled. It had been said that this alteration would do away with annuities. He should be glad if it were so; but he could not see how that was to be effected by the Bill. The reason why a person resorted to borrowing on annuity was, because he was unable to give any better security. How, then, when a law was passed enabling the lender to get what he pleased for his money, would the man with a bad security be able to improve his position? The reverse appeared to him much more likely to be the case. He had read Mr. Bentham's book, and he had read the evidence that had been given before the committee; but that was not enough for him; they were nothing but dicta, and what he wanted was a little argument to support them. It was true that the rate of interest had once been higher in this country; and that it had by degrees been lowered; and it was also true, that that lowering had taken place at the instance of the borrower; but what did all that show? Why, that the borrower found himself in need of protection against the lender; and he saw nothing from preventing his situation now being just the same as it was formerly. The law allowed a legal rate of interest, and affixed a taint of impropriety upon any one who took more. The consequence was, that no conscientious man would take such interest as would subject him to that taint, and in that way the law established a moral standard of propriety. The moral effect, and the difference between a fair and extortionate loan would be destroyed by the abolition of this law. He did not wish to press the question to a vote now, but he gave notice that he should oppose the Bill in every stage.

was happy that this was not a Parliamentum indoctum, and that the future Parliamentary Historian would not have to say, that on that account "no good laws were passed thereat." They had the benefit of the learning and talents of lawyers, but he must say, with all due deference to the hon. and learned Member as one of that body, that his speech was rather inconsistent with common practical good sense. All the learned Gentleman's difficulties arose from his knowledge of law—from his practice of law—and from his love of law; and throughout his speech he seemed to suppose that there was a kind of moral impossibility of repealing the Usury Laws, and thus avoiding entirely the difficulties which the present legal practice created. By the existing system a distressed landholder was injured rather than benefitted; for, as five per cent was the legal standard of interest, and as no conscientious man would take more than that amount, it followed of course that, in a time of distress, the landed proprietor, or the extravagant heir, was thrown upon persons whom no conscientious motive restrained, and who would, as a matter of course, make the most of the advantages they possessed. In trade, too, the amount, whether small or large, was taken from the profits of the business; and whether the man who took it was, as by the present law, a partner, or a mere lender of money on interest, the amount taken from the trader was still the same. The learned Gentleman had, however, raised a moral difficulty as well as a legal difficulty to the removal of the present laws. Surely he must have remembered, that there was one country in which twelve per cent was the legal rate of interest, and it would be not a little difficult to show that the permission to take such a rate of interest made the Hindoos more immoral than other people. In fact, he was neither convinced of the immutability nor of the wisdom of those laws, and should therefore vote for the Bill which his hon. friend had introduced.

disapproved of the Usury Laws as they now stood, and was ready to assist in altering them, but he did not think the laws ought to be entirely done away with. In the first place, he would prevent the existing penalties from attaching in bona fide transactions; in the next, he would diminish the amount of the penalties themselves; and in the third he would make the legal rate of interest higher. He thought that the laws had, to a certain extent, worked beneficially, as he could assert, that though the members of his own profession had, the best knowledge of the opportunities at which they could invest capital at more than the legal interest, there was no honourable man among them who had taken advantage of the knowledge he thus possessed. Men who began to borrow continued the system throughout their lives, and many such persons, though they agreed in their distress to pay fifteen per cent interest, would rather go through all the Courts of Westminster Hall than pay it, if the market-rate was below that sum. He should wish to see the Bill in the committee, to know exactly what was intended to be done.

expressed his intention of supporting the Motion.

said, that if he agreed to the committal of the Bill, he wished to reserve to himself the right of afterwards resisting it.