proposed the following Amendment:—"Provided always, that no regulation be made by which husbands shall be separated from wives, children from their parents, and parents from their children; or for shaving the hair off paupers; or compelling such as seek relief in the workhouses to wear badges, or put distinctive dresses on." If the House, he maintained, did not affirm his Motion, it would tacitly approve the principle which was meant to be negatived by it. It might be said, in answer to this observation, that no such thing as his Motion went to provide against would ever be practised, and that, therefore, there was no necessity for it. Why then, he asked, not say such things should not be, if the intention to put them into execution were not the object? It was, however, impossible not to believe that some such object was in view; and also impossible not to believe, that the Commissioners, by first denying relief to the able-bodied, except in workhouses, and then making workhouses irksome to them by every means in their power, intended to destroy the system of relief altogether. That the relief of the poor was not the most expensive item in the burthens of the country he had long believed; a letter which he had this morning from the township and parish of Little Bolton, in Lancashire, confirmed him in that belief. In that letter it was stated, that the annual parochial assessment for the poor was 1,450l., of which 745l. only went to their relief; the remaining 705l. being expended on the payment of overseers for collection,, and on Session fees for various kinds of litigation. It was the general taxation of the country which caused the general distress, and not the pressure of the Poor-law, with all its evils and abuses. The hon. member for Lambeth had propounded, with the gravity of an oracle, that the poor had no specific right to relief. Now, he (Mr. Cobbett) was prepared to prove, on the contrary, that every man in England and Wales standing in need of parochial relief had a clear legal right to it; that that relief, moreover, should be assessed on the real property of the kingdom; and that every woman and child of these two countries, so circumstanced, had as good a right to relief as men. He would, moreover, prove that such was the common law of the land, and the condition on which every holder of real property held his tenure. He insisted further, that to pass any law to abrogate, to nullify, or to lessen this right of the poor was a violation of the contract upon which all the real property of the kingdom was held. He was ready to maintain, that this was the law of the land. But the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, that he did not mean to deny relief to the poor. No, he did not,—he had not the honesty, the sincerity, the manliness, to deny relief directly. But he put the power of denying it into the hands of his three red herrings stuck up in London. In the whole of this Bill he (Mr. Cobbett) saw a design to grind down the people of England, and to take away their right of relief. The people of England had this right before the Reformation. The great and small tithes had always been the first property to be assessed; and when a law was passed to relieve the small tithes from that liability, care was taken that the poor should have compensation. In the Act of Elizabeth, which was a compact between the landowners and the people, there was a clear recognition of the right of the poor to relief. But there was no stipulation that it should be made as irksome as possible; there was no stipulation that the husband should he separated from the wife, and the children from both, and that all communication between them should be cut off; there was no stipulation, that they should have badges put on them in the workhouse; they were not to be relieved at the will of negro drivers from the West Indies, or of fellows brought from the yeomanry, or from Scotland. Now, if that House did not determine that the poor should not wear badges, that their hair should not be cut off, and that they should not be clothed in san benitos, and that they should not be cut off from all communication with their friends, the whole of the landlords of this country would become heritors—ay, they must put up with that Scotch name if this Bill should pass. He sincerely trusted, however, it would not pass; and he had some reason to hope it would not pass. Thank God! the country still possessed a House of Lords; and while that tribunal existed the poor man had no reason to despair of justice. The Government paper of that morning, doubtless with the sanction of its employers, said it was absolutely necessary that the House of Lords should be remodelled; but let that Government take care how they touched that Assembly. The people of England looked to the House of Lords for the correction of those anomalies in legislation which the Reformed Parliament was every day perpetrating, and it would be a dangerous task to deprive them of the consolation its existence afforded. The great mass of the people were looked upon by many as seditious and revolutionary in their demands for Reform; but when the people called for that measure did they ever call for any of those monstrous projects of spoliation and coercion which his Majesty's present Ministers were almost daily announcing? Did they call, for instance, for the demolition and spoliation of the Church? Did they call for an enactment to rob the poor of the only compact ever made in their favour—he meant the Poor-law of Elizabeth? Did they call for a Coercion Bill for Ireland? Did they, in short, call for any one of those monstrous measures which the present Administration had brought forward? No; what the people did ask for from a Reformed Parliament the Ministers would not grant to them, while measures which they abhorred, and deprecated as much as they abhorred, were proposed and enacted. The country, from one end to the other, demanded the abolition of undeserved pensions and sinecures. Had it succeeded in obtaining that object? No.—The people required the reduction of the interest on the National Debt proportioned to the augmented value of money. Was their request acceded to?—No. They asked for the reduction of taxation, more especially for the abolition of the malt, hop, and soap, tax. Did they obtain what they asked for?—No. They required that salaries should be reduced. Was that done?—No. In no instances were the wishes of the people attended to, while Parliament was for months together occupied in legislating upon subjects in which the people had little or no interest. Did they ever pray about Dissenters being admitted to the Universities, or other unprofitable trash of the sort, with which the time of Parliament had been taken up? Did they ask for the Poor Man Robbery Bill then under discussion? God forbid! they had not done so. Did they again, pray for a remodelling of the House of Lords? Again, would he say, God forbid! That project was now promulgated by the Government papers of that morning, and with the Government ought and would rest all the odium of the business. One of three projects was proposed for the purpose. [Here there were loud cries of "Question."] If hon. Members were anxious to see him sit down, they were taking the very worst means to induce him to do so. One of three projects was proposed for the new-modelling of the House of Lords. The first was to turn out all the poor Lords—

rose to order. He contended that even the limits of a Committee of the whole House did not enable the hon. Member to answer a paragraph in a Newspaper, or upon a discussion on a Poor-laws Bill to speak in any way respecting the House of Lords.

would insist upon it that he was perfectly in order. He was showing, that even the portion of the people who were accused of being revolutionary and seditious in their designs when calling for Reform did not go half so far in revolution or sedition as the members of the existing Government. He was showing, that they did not go the length of calling for a Church Spoliation Bill, or for a Coercion Bill; and more particularly that they had not prayed for the project which was that morning promulgated by the Government organ. He meant the remodelling of the House of Lords. The first project recommended for the purpose was to turn out the poor Lords; the second was to abolish the House as a Legislative Assembly altogether. Now God forbid that should ever be the case! The House of Lords, he repeated, was now the poor man's sole hope. Deprive him of that Assembly, and he was without a protector. The third project recommended by the Government for the remodelling of the House of Lords was the addition of some rich money-mongers to its present numbers. Wealth was indeed fast undermining every ancient principle of the Constitution, and so doubtless, unless checked, it would do with the House of Lords. The hon. Member concluded by moving his proviso.

said, that no man knew better than the hon. Member himself, that the House, in rejecting the Amendment, would not be expressing an opinion in favour of the practice which it sought to prohibit. As well indeed might he argue that the House, in rejecting a clause (supposing it to be proposed as part of the Bill under discussion) having for its object to prevent the hon. Member saying the same thing ten times over in the one speech, were desirous of hearing the same argument repeated, as that the House of Commons in negativing his Amendment were favourable to the practices against which it was directed. He had further only to say, that it was not intended as a general rule that a man should be separated from his wife, or children from their mother, or that paupers should have their hair shaved or be compelled to wear badges. The Commissioners, however, were to be vested with power to deviate, in case they found it expedient, in particular instances.

concurred very much in the general opinion entertained by the hon. member for Oldham, in respect to his objections to this Bill; but he deprecated the use of an expression that was calculated to excite the ill-feeling of the lower classes of society. Many of the evils just complained of by the hon. member for Oldham, were the evils of the present system. He believed that the object of the proposers of this Bill was to save the money of the rich, and to make the poor more independent than they now were. He hoped that the discussion on this measure would be conducted with good feeling, and in a spirit of fairness.

wished to know if it was intended to give to the Commissioners a power to separate man and wife?

said, as a general principle the Commissioners would not have the power of separating man and wife, but there might occur cases where it would be necessary to make this separation.

did not think, that the Commissioners should have the power, under any circumstances, of separating man and wife, inasmuch as it was vesting theca with a power to do that which the law declared illegal.

said the hon. member for Oldham might omit those parts of his Amendment which went to deprive the guardians of all power over the paupers.

replied, that if the paupers did wrong there was the law to punish them as well as any other offenders.

recommended an alteration of the clause, excepting from its operation families of six and seven children, and fixing the time at which the Bill should come into operation, with respect to such families at different periods.

meant to propose an Amendment to enable those parishes which could easily abolish the allowance system to do so at once, and to leave it for other parishes in which the system could not be abolished at once, to bring the clause gradually into operation.

considered this the most important, and at the same time, the most delicate, part of the Bill. The allowance system was the worst part of the maladministration of the Poor-laws, and it was at the same time the most difficult to deal with. The single man would, in the natural course of things, receive as much wages as the married man. But the practice of giving parish allowance to the married man, enabled the employer to lower the wages of both married and single men; and made it the interest of the farmer to employ the married, whose children the parish had to support, in preference to the single. If the clause passed in its present state, and no assistance were to be given to a married man with a large family, he would not be employed at all, and especially where there was surplus labour in the parish.

approved of the clause, and especially with the Amendment which the noble Lord meant to propose. The attempt had been made, in various parishes, to get rid of the allowance system, and the greatest difficulty was, to provide for large families, which could not be maintained upon the wages of the father? The way in which he had known that difficulty to be met was this:—The children above ten years of age were considered independent labourers, and employed as such by the parish, in agricultural work of a light nature, at wages of from 2s. to 2s. 6d. a week. But he feared that, if all the children under sixteen years of age, were made to depend altogether on the labour of the father, in many parishes the vestries would be reluctant to give them employment, even where that could easily be done.

admitted, that the present system of allowing wages out of the rates to agricultural labourers, was highly objectionable, but he was bound to look to the effect of the alteration of this part of the present system, by the clause now before the House, and he very much feared that the effect of the alteration would be, to create an increase of pauperism, because, if the poor were not able to get permanent employment, the Commissioners would have no power, should relief be applied for, but to send these labourers to the workhouse. If such were the effect of this clause, could the noble Lord contemplate what would be the number of workhouses that would be necessary to contain all these pauper labourers?

said, that those who opposed this clause, overlooked the supplemental clauses which provided for the suggested difficulties. He did not think, that the evils contemplated by the opposers of the clause, would arise.

knew, from the labourers he himself employed, though he did not give them higher wages than other farmers, that men who were industrious were able to support large families. He believed that if men were paid by the job instead of by the day, they would be able to support large families. With respect to the clause, he thought, that every provision was made by it that could be made, and if they did not carry the clause into effect, it would be useless to try to amend the Poor-laws.

thought that some provision ought to be made to relieve the hand-loom weavers from the operation of this clause, their case being different from that general practice which the clause sought to guard against. In the parish where he resided, there were not less than 200 persons of this description, who received small sums in aid of their wages, and who would starve or go to the workhouse, if that were wholly withdrawn.

hoped, that some provision would be made to exempt the persons employed in the hardware trade, from the operation of the clause. It was customary when that trade was slack, for the employer, instead of giving his men 14s. for a week's labour, to give 7s. for three days' labour; and as partial employment would exclude a man from parish assistance, great destitution and misery would result.

suggested, that it would be expedient to give to the overseers of parishes, where there were no guardians, the discretionary power to relieve applicants on his own responsibility, and subject to the consent of the Commissioners.

said, the power was given to overseers equally with guardians by the proviso at the end of the clause. In the cases supposed, of work being slack, they seldom occurred so rapidly as not to allow of an application to the Commissioners.

laid on the Table a return, showing the quantity of corn imported and ground into flour in the Isle of Man, and in Guernsey and Jersey, and also the quantity of flour imported from those islands into ports of the United Kingdom. In moving, that this return be printed, the right hon. Gentleman observed, that they would show that the alarm which had been excited in some quarters, as to the evasion of the Corn-laws, by the importation of foreign corn into those islands, was unfounded. This return, he had reason to know, was perfectly correct, and would show, that no fraud had been committed by the evasion of the law, at least to any extent. He had taken measures to prevent any such fraud in future, but in the mean time the account which he had now presented, would show the inaccuracy of the reports that had been in circulation as to the extent to which the Corn-laws had been evaded. From what he had heard on the subject, he had reason to believe, that the amount imported in that period was not above the ordinary proportion.

said, that the Government had no doubt acted very properly, in the assurance thus given that the landed interest should have the benefit of the Cornlaws as long as they continued the law of the land. But he should be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, why the Government had not applied the same principle to the laws now in force respecting the timber trade? He was not going to enter into any discussion as to the policy of either of those laws—that was not the question; but he would ask why a fraudulent evasion of the law in regard to the timber-trade should be permitted, more than an evasion of the Corn-laws? It was well known, however, that Baltic timber was carried to the Canadas, and from thence imported into this country, paying only the duty of Canada timber. The hon. member for London, who it was well-known entertained very different views from him on the subject of the timber-duties, moved a few evenings ago for an account of the quantity of Baltic timber brought into this country by way of Canada, and that was done with the view to show the impolicy of the timber-duties as they now existed. He would ask, would the Government have lent themselves to a similar course for the purpose of showing the impolicy of the Corn-laws? He asked the Government—and he hoped he should get a direct answer from the right hon. Gentleman, why should the timber be required to pay duty in the one case, and be exempted from it in the other? He must say, that this was done to create a prejudice in the public mind against the timber-duties. He repeated, that he did not object to give the landed interest the benefit of the Corn-laws as long as they existed; but he would ask that the same principle be applied to the timber-trade.

assured the hon. Member that he would not on this or any other occasion evade a question put to him. The hon. Member wished to place the Corn-laws and the laws relating to timber on the same footing. Now the difference was this—that in the one case the law prohibited the importation of corn, and the Government was bound to see the law enforced; but in the other case the law admitted what the hon. Member complained of, and Government did not feel it its duty to go beyond the law.

wished to ask for some explanation of a fact, that a large quantity of tea had been brought into Liverpool from Dantsic, a direct evasion of the late Act passed as to the importation of that article.

had only that morning heard of the importation of tea to Liverpool to which the hon. Member alluded. It was imported under that clause by which the parties conceived that they had a right to import tea from any place eastward of the Cape of Good Hope. He would not offer any opinion on the Act; but he was not aware that it was liable to the construction thus put on it, and he should be much astonished if any lawyers said it bore that construction.

rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice on the subject of our relations with Russia. The question was one of great importance, and it required a more full discussion than in the present state of the House, and of the business of the Session, it would be likely to obtain. He was not, under these circumstances, disposed to press its full consideration on the House on this occasion. He would, therefore, without troubling the House by his remarks merely move the resolution which he had prepared, for the purpose of having it entered on the journals not intending to take the sense of the House on it. The hon. and gallant Member read the Resolution to this effect. "That, in the opinion of this House, it will be competent to his Majesty's Government, in conformity with good faith and the law of nations, to suspend, or altogether discontinue the annual payments now made by this country to Russia, should just ground appear for apprehending that the considerations distinctly laid down in the Convention of the 16th of November, 1831 (under which alone these payments can be demanded on the one hand, or justified to the British people on the other), are not faithfully, unequivocally, and com- pletely fulfilled by the court of Russia." To him it did appear, though he would not for the reasons he had stated, enter into a full discussion of the subject, that Russia had violated the conditions of the convention of November, 1831, by its dissent from the course pursued by France and England to enforce the surrender of Antwerp. That he looked upon as a violation of the convention, and certainly where a doubt existed on the question, it was hard upon the people of this country to be called upon to pay nearly 100,000l. a-year to that power, while they were at the same time paying 10,000l. a-year to those unfortunate Poles who were the victims of its tyranny. He hoped, under these circumstances, that the noble Lord would not object to this Motion.

did not rise to dispute the proposition contained in the Resolution of the hon. and gallant Member, for he admitted, that it was not only the right but the duty of Great Britain to suspend the payments under the treaty, if it were proved that Russia had not fulfilled her part of the treaty. Beyond that point, however, he could not go with the hon. and gallant Member. He could not concur with him, that any reason had yet been afforded for suspending or refusing payment. On this ground he could not vote for the Resolution, which seemed to imply a suspicion of want of faith, as well as a condemnation of the acts of Russia, and he should meet it by moving the previous question. The hon. and gallant Member appeared to think, that the Convention had a wider scope than really belonged to it. If the House not only attended to the words of it, but would call to mind the manner in which it was framed, and the circumstances that led to it, the House would find, that it did not bear so extended an application. Before he touched upon the history of the Convention, he would state the difference between his understanding of it and that of the hon. and gallant Member. The hon. Member seemed to think, that the condition attached applied to all the affairs of Europe coming within the scope of a Treaty; but, in fact, it applied solely to the Treaty with Belgium and the Treaty of Vienna. There had been a former agreement between Great Britain and Russia—a condition of forfeiture, should there be a separation between Belgium and Holland. A separation did occur, but not in the manner contemplated by the framers of the original Convention, and hence it was thought that Great Britain could not claim of Russia a cessation of the annual payments. The Convention contemplated the separation of Belgium and Holland against the wishes of the British Government, and it contemplated also an invasion of Belgium by the armies of France. The separation took place in consequence of differences between the northern and southern provinces, and it was sanctioned not only by this Government, but by the five Powers. Great Britain concurred cordially in the necessity of separation, and was most anxious that the independence of Belgium should be secured by a Treaty between the great Powers of Europe. A new arrangement was then entered into, by which the southern was separated from the northern portion of what had before constituted one kingdom. To that arrangement, Russia was a consenting party. What pretence was there then for our withholding those payments which we had before stipulated to make? If Russia had endeavoured to prevent the independence of Belgium, or had endeavoured to unite it with France or Prussia, or any other power, then indeed England would be justified in withholding her payments under the former treaty. Had that occurred? It would be going too far to say that, upon a fair construction of the treaty in question, the English Government would be justified in declaring, that in consequence of the policy recently pursued by Russia towards Poland and Turkey, it had forfeited its claim to the payment of this money—it would be going too far to say, because Russia had pursued a policy in other parts of Europe adverse to our interest, and which might be a violation of the treaty of Vienna, therefore that the penalty of forfeiture of this money should attach to the conduct of Russia. One of the grounds which the hon. Member had stated for this Motion was, that Russia did not unite a year and a-half ago in the measures of coercion which were taken against Holland. Now, he thought that, upon no pretence of fairness could such a ground be set up as a valid reason for refusing to fulfil the present stipulation with Russia. Russia then objected to the particular mode adopted for carrying the object of the Allied powers into effect. She did not say, that she would not carry the existing treaty of 1831 into effect; she proposed other measures to carry it into effect which Great Britain and France did not consider effectual; but it did not follow because Russia refused to concur in the measures adopted by them, that, therefore, she had been guilty of bad faith on the occasion. Russia fully concurred with this country and with France as to the principle of carrying that treaty into effect—it only differed from them as to the means of effecting that object. Russia did not differ from France and England simply and individually on that occasion—she differed in conjunction with Prussia and Austria; and they differed from England and France upon fair and legitimate grounds. He was ready to admit, that if the case should arise contemplated in the resolution proposed by the hon. Gentleman, it would then be the duty of his Majesty's Government to suspend the payment of this money. But he would say, that no such case had arisen. Even if any hon. Member thought it was likely that such a case would arise, he was sure that such hon. Member would agree with him in the opinion that it would not be wise or fitting for Parliament to say beforehand that we should suspend those payments, in anticipation of Russia violating her engagements. He entertained no anticipation that Russia would violate her engagements. He was sure that it was the determination as well as the policy of Russia to fulfil its engagements in reference to Belgium. But even supposing, that such an anticipation should prove well founded, he thought that the House should yield to the executive Government the responsibility of considering what course should in that case be pursued. If it appeared that the Government then neglected its duty, and continued the payment of this money, it would be open to the hon. Member, or to any other hon. Member, to call the Ministers before Parliament; and if they did not afford a satisfactory explanation of their conduct, to call on Parliament to pronounce a censure upon them. On the present occasion, as he could not give a negative to the abstract principle laid down in the hon. Member's resolution, he would move the previous question upon it.

said, that concurring in what had fallen from the noble Lord, he would support the Amendment. In his opinion Russia had done nothing to render the stipulations under which this money was now paid forfeited. At the same time he must say, that it had always been his opinion that since the separation of Holland from Belgium, Russia had no legal right to this money. Parliament, however, and the Law Officers of the Crown had decided otherwise. Another objection in his opinion to this Motion was, that it would afford a second Parliamentary sanction to the legality of those payments.

agreed with the hon. Member, that Russia had no legal claim to this money after the separation of Belgium from Holland, though he voted at the time for the Bill under which the payments were made as a matter of policy. Of this he was certain, that Russia had not fulfilled the conditions under which those payments were guaranteed to her. He would ask the noble Lord whether the differences which existed between Belgium and Holland might not long ago have been put an end to, if Holland had not been encouraged to hold out and resist through the secret influence and machinations of Russia? The conviction on his mind was, that the influence of Russia had been chiefly, if not solely exercised, to prevent a settlement of that question. He was aware, that we were not in a position to prove this against Russia, but it was nevertheless a notorious matter, and he was of opinion that under such circumstances this country would be fully justified in withholding the payment of this money, seeing that Russia had not fulfilled the conditions according to which its payment had been stipulated. Though he could not vote for the Resolution proposed by the hon. member for Westminster, he thought it right to state his opinion on the subject.

would not press his Motion to a division. He had not brought it forward to express the slightest disapprobation of the noble Lord's policy; on the contrary—especially as regarded the Peninsula it had his highest approbation.

rose to move, pursuant to his notice, that an humble Address should be presented to his Majesty, praying "that he will be graciously pleased to hold his Court and Parliament occasionally in that part of the kingdom called Ireland." Such a proposition was no party measure; it was, on the contrary, one which might be supported by all sides of the House—by Whigs, Tories, and Radicals, by Protestants and Catholics, by men of every religion, and of every shade in politics, by Repealers and anti-Repealers—in short, by all the Members in that House. He was sure that, if a Repeal of the Union should take place, it would be the ruin of the country. He himself had been in Ireland, and he could speak from personal observation as to the condition of that country. He could say, from what he saw, that it was in a most desperate, in a most deplorable—indeed, he might almost say, in a disgusting state. If this alteration were adopted, it could not of course come into operation sooner than twelve months; and, in the mean time, even then the greatest advantage would be produced by it, as the command that would go forth to get their House in order, and the other preparations that would be made for holding a Parliament in Dublin, would give employment to a great portion of the people of Ireland. If this Motion were granted, that great stumbling-block in the way of the improvement of Ireland, the absentees, would be removed; and, unless they sent back the absentees to Ireland, it never would be quiet. To get them back, the land must be made habitable for them, and the absentees would not go back at present, because they were in danger of having their throats cut every week. It had been stated, on good authority, that nineteen-twentieths of the land of Ireland belonged to absentees; and it was not, therefore, to be wondered at that the country was in such a state. Though he did not complain of the Magistracy of Ireland, yet he thought that, if Ireland had a resident gentry, there might be more satisfaction. Many of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Bench opposite knew nothing of Ireland—several of them had never seen it; the only Irish Gentleman in the Cabinet belonging to the Government was at present out of Parliament. The truth was, that all places abroad were well known to them; but the most that many Irish Gentlemen knew of their own country was the shortest way out of it. In a case of this kind the expense that might be incurred, by the adoption of such a measure, was not comparable to the advantages that would flow from it; and the expense would, in a short time, be reimbursed by those advantages. The consequence of holding a Parliament occasionally in Ireland would be, that absentees would return there, and that capital would settle there, there being no country better adapted than Ireland, if it were peaceable, for the advantageous employment of capital. There was, at this moment, a large quantity of English capital ready to be embarked there; but, until the country was quiet and property secure, no Englishman would venture his property in it. Another effect from having a Par- liament occasionally in Ireland would be, that they might reduce the standing army, as the country would become quiet, and party spirit would be done away with. At the present moment, party spirit ran high in Ireland, and it was but recently that the Lord-lieutenant and his secretary were insulted at some of the party dinners in Dublin, and persons holding official situations were known to join in the insult. If he (Mr. Bish) had the power of the Government, he would soon send such persons to the right about. He thought, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, and his party, did not show good policy in always abusing the Whigs, and saying, that they never did anything. To be sure, there was not much love lost on either side, for the Whigs called him and his party demagogues, agitators, disturbers, and, if not traitors, within seven-eighths or fifteen-sixteenths of traitors. He remembered that the day after the speech of Mr. Stanley on the Coercion Bill, when he (Mr. Bish) went into the city, the question of every one to him was, "Where did you sit?" "Did you hear Stanley's great speech? How brilliant he was! Those fellows must be put down." Others had very kindly said, "It would be a very good thing if Ireland were swallowed up in the ocean." But those things would not do. Now let them adopt his plan of conciliation. It could be effected in a short period of time. Perhaps a twelvemonth might be necessary, in order that the place might be put in order. He had seen both Houses of Parliament before the Union. He had been in Dublin before the Union, and it was a gay and lively city then. But what was it now? It looked just as if the cholera had taken possession of it. It might be said, that there would be great inconvenience produced by having two seats of Government, but he did not think so. He considered, that a good deal of mischief had been done to Ireland by the Lord-lieutenants and the Secretaries. Those Gentlemen generally pulled different ways, and, if they managed to get popular, then their recall arrived. When it was considered what a complete, binding, and real union would then take place between the two countries, by marriages and intermarriages, and that such sociability and such a blending of the two people would be the consequence, he was sure it would be admitted, that no wish would then exist for separation. Ireland would then be like a county in England—like Kent or Gloucester. They need not trouble themselves, then, to be charitable to Ireland; she would not want our charities. Sir Walter Scott had made Scotland known to England. Before he introduced her to the notice of the public by his excellent writings she was an obscure and impoverished country. Now, every one went to Scotland, and her natural beauties were highly relished. Why should not Ireland have the same good fortune? He saw no reason. If the Parliament went over, no doubt new markets would spring up. If the Court were to go there, and the Parliament were to go there, they would find the country in every way adapted for them. No doubt new watering places, such as Brighton, Margate, Hastings, and Tunbridge-wells, would also be built there, and he had no doubt that there was plenty of mineral and other waters in Ireland for their gratification. Such a course of proceeding would add immeasurably to the wealth and security of Ireland. He thought it would be advantageous and agreeable to the King himself thus occasionally to visit his Irish dominions. For his part, he never could understand why the King should be confined, as at present, in a State prison. Before his Majesty came to the throne he could do what he pleased, and go where he pleased, and nobody took any notice of him. Much good might be done by his Majesty's travelling through the country. There was no doubt that it would be an inconvenience to some hon. Members to be obliged to attend a Parliament in Dublin, but, to the great majority of them, it would not, as, when they left their homes, it was of little consequence to them where they went. The inconvenience would, in some degree, be balanced by the convenience that would arise to the Irish Members by Parliament sitting in Dublin. He had himself lately heard the hon. and learned member for the city of Dublin draw a moving picture of the inconvenience to which Irish Members were exposed in being dragged over to attend the Parliament here. He could not state the eloquent terms then used by that hon. and learned Member, but he could mention the substance of them. That hon. and learned Member complained, that they were dragged over here from their homes and their families, that they were transported to a foreign country, obliged to sit in a House of foreigners, to submit to the dictation of foreigners, and, to complete their misery, the hon. and learned member said, that they were compelled to live in cellars and garrets, instead of their own houses. He was aware that he had made a very rambling speech, but he was, nevertheless, much indebted to the House for the attention which had been bestowed upon him. He had not thought proper to ask any hon. Gentleman to second the Motion with which he should conclude, and which he should leave the House itself to dispose of. The hon. Member then moved, "that an humble address be presented to his Majesty that he would be graciously pleased to hold his Court and Parliament occasionally in that part of the United Kingdom called Ireland."

rose, on the spur of the moment to second the Motion of the hon. Member who had just sat down,—a Motion to which he was sure no Irishman could object, but, on the contrary, every Irishman would receive it with delight, inasmuch as, if adopted, it would enable the people to see the monarch who ruled over them more frequently than was at present their good fortune. He regretted, that the proposition should have been received with that mirth which its importance did not merit. He must, however, state, that even if the Motion were carried, the demand of the people of Ireland for repeal would not be put down, for they sought not a partial Parliament, but a permanent Legislature sitting on College-green. He would not trouble the House further than to second the Motion.

felt bound to support the Motion, and he hoped the hon. Member would press it to a division.

had to bring under the notice of the House, a subject which he should not at present have introduced, were it not from the peculiar situation in which the matter stood. He alluded to the propriety of putting the office of Postmaster-general under the management of a Board of Commissioners. This course had been strongly recommended by the reports of no less than three different Commissions of Inquiry, and he was satisfied it would not only be beneficial to the public service, but also a measure of very great economy. By the office being put in Commission, a saving and increase of revenue would be effected, amounting together to not less than 200,000l. or 300,0001. per annum; and he therefore would entreat the Government to make the experiment. Without having regard to the actual outlay, he hesitated not to say, that three efficient Commissioners could be found to discharge the duties for the salary which had hitherto been paid to the Postmaster-general, and thus would be secured the services of three men of business, instead of one Peer of Parliament, whose duties to his country in the other branch of the Legislature must materially interfere with that close attention which was necessary in the head of so important a department as the Post-office establishment. He felt it his duty also to state, that, in the office of Postmaster-general, there was not only a fearful responsibility, but also vested a most unconstitutional power with immense patronage. That officer had the appointment of every person within the range of the Post-office establishment in England, Ireland, Scotland, and the colonies. That patronage had been, and might again be, made use of for political purposes, and thus produce an effect upon the representation of every city, town, and district in the realm. The extent of patronage in England alone was immense, as would appear from the circumstance, that the Postmaster-general had the appointment of not less than 1,500 postmasters, besides all the subordinate servants employed by each. By placing the office in the hands of three Commissioners—the chief with a salary of 1,000l. per annum, and the other two 800l. each, an effectual benefit and advantage would ensue to this branch of the public service, and many of those blots and evils would be removed to which, on an early day, he should feel it his duty in his place more particularly to advert. He could not avoid expressing his gratification at, and bearing his testimony to, the able conduct of the noble Duke who had recently seceded from the office of Postmaster-general, with regard to the communication with France. He must join also in thanking that noble Duke for the free transmission of the literary productions of this country, and for that free intercourse which assisted in the extension of its literary knowledge over the whole of Europe, and especially that most important branch of literature, political knowledge. For these advantages the country was indebted to the exertions and good feeling of the late Postmaster-general, whose conduct, when lately in communication with the Post-office Department in France, he had ascertained to have been of the most conciliatory nature Having found it to be his duty to wait personally on Dr. Bowring, one of the authors of the report just put into circulation, on the commercial relations with France, including Post-office arrangements of course, and who had just returned from that country, that Gentleman had assured him of the Duke of Richmond having been no less liberal and generous in the late great achievement than the individuals representing the French Post-office. The hon. Member concluded by moving, "that an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to place the office of Postmaster-general under the management of a Board of Commissioners, as had been strongly recommended from time to time in the reports made by three Commissions appointed to inquire into and report on the management of the Post-office."

seconded the Motion. His hon. friend had forgotten to state a very important reason why the Postmaster-general should not be a political man, but which had been mentioned by the Commissioners. In consequence of the Postmaster-general being a political agent, he was changed with every Administration, and the result was, that the management of the department was left in the hands of the Secretary. This had been the case for the last thirty-five years. He did not wish to say anything harsh of the individual who held the office of Secretary, and he admitted that, during the time that Sir F. Freeling had held that office, he had assiduously attended to and faithfully discharged his public duties. It was impossible, however, for any one to doubt, who had read the Reports on the Table, that there was no department of Government in which fewer improvements had been made during the last fifteen years than in the Post-office. He did not allude to the last three or four years, in which time there certainly had been made many desirable changes. If, however, the Post-office had been under the management of Commissioners instead of a Postmaster-general, he had no doubt that a very different state of things would exist there from what obtained at present. Had proper attention been paid, the present inequality of postage, which caused so many complaints, would not exist. Why not manage the Post-office as the Excise, Customs, and Stamps, namely, have Commissioners, who should be directed to communicate with one of the Lords of the Treasury in cases of emergency? He perhaps carried his notions on the subject further than most persons, and thought that the Post-office should not be made a source of revenue in a well-regulated country, but merely the means of imparting information. In the United States, a letter could be sent 2,000 miles for very nearly the same sum that was charged for a letter brought from St. Alban's to London. In a country like England, with its excellent roads and other facilities of communication, the charge for postage should be comparatively little. At the present moment his Majesty's Government had the opportunity of making this desirable change which the interests of the country called for. He did not so much regard whether three individuals, or one individual only, was appointed, as that care should be taken, that ample time was devoted to the business of the office, and that no person having control in the department should be mixed up in politics. He was sure, if the change which he had suggested was adopted, that the revenue would be increased, the inequality in the charge for postage would be removed; and, above all, that a great reduction would be made in the charge for postage. He would also recommend, that the laws relative to the Post-office should be consolidated, as they were almost unintelligible at present.

admitted, that one strong reason had been urged for the present Motion, and in which he was sure that the whole country would concur, namely, the extreme difficulty that there would be in finding a person to discharge the duties of the office of Postmaster general so efficiently as they had been performed by the noble Duke who recently filled that office. The candid and manly manner in which that noble Duke treated all those who were called upon to transact business with him, had been a source of general gratification. During the short period of his own public life he never recollected a person with whom he had been called upon to transact business who exhibited more anxiety to perform the duties of his office to the satisfaction of the country, or who had better succeeded in attaining that object. To speak, however, on the question before the House, the hon. Gentleman could not imagine that the House could agree to the present Motion. The hon. Gentleman had stated that, if reference was made to the Reports of the Commissioners of Revenue Inquiry, it would be found that they all concurred in the views he entertained on the subject. He must deny, that the Reports bore such an inference. He would, however, examine the advantages which both the hon. Members said would be derived from a change. In the first place, it had been contended, that the Postmaster-general should not be a political officer. The hon. Member, however, had complained on a former occasion, that the Post-office was not directly represented in Parliament. If this were to be done, it was absolutely necessary that the head of it should be in Parliament. With reference, however, to the appointment of Commissioners, it was unnecessary for him to take up much time. All men who had been engaged in business must know, that authority in certain cases must emanate from an individual; and, if a Board of Commissioners were appointed, either the Chief Commissioner or the Secretary must, in certain cases, have a controlling voice. This was the case in the Excise, Customs, and Stamps,—in all which Boards the Chairman decided on important occasions. This was also the case at the Board of Treasury; at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, in his absence, the Secretary of the Treasury, had the greater influence. It was not only desirable, but absolutely necessary, that such a controlling power should exist. Again, the question of economy could be much better gone into when the document for which the hon. Member had moved was laid on the Table, as it would tend greatly to elucidate the subject. The hon. Gentleman said, that the adoption of the change he proposed would lead to a saving of between 200,000l. and 300,000l. How this was to be effected he had yet to learn; and he was sure that his noble friend (Lord Althorp) would fee] very glad to lay his hands on such a sum. The hon. Gentleman seemed to assume, that it was much better to intrust a Board with patronage than an individual. That was also a mistake; and he was sure the House would concur with him in thinking, that it was much better, that the patronage should be placed under the control of one individual, responsible to Parliament, than under three or four persons, who might easily shuffle the responsibility of their official patronage from one to the other. He was anxious that the discussion as to the advantages of a Board of Commissioners should be postponed to a future occasion, when they would have the advantage of the attend- ance of his right hon. friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, who, he was happy to inform the House, had just been returned for Cambridge. The hon. member for Greenock appeared to entertain very peculiar notions on the subject of patronage: indeed, he (Mr. Smith) believed, that the hon. Member formerly thought that the Members of Parliament should have the patronage of all places in the boroughs they represented. The hon. Gentleman contended, that the head of the Post-office should be a political officer, inasmuch as the duties to be performed by him were, for the most part, of a political nature. The admission, for instance, of foreign newspapers into every part of the country was a political act; and, therefore, he hoped the House would not consent to place that department under the management of a Board, instead of leaving it, as at present, in the hands of a political officer. It was utterly impossible that any Board could regulate the patronage or administer the affairs of the Post-office as efficiently as a single individual, and upon that ground he called upon the House to reject this Motion.

in reply, said he had not, when he brought his Motion forward, the least expectation that it would be successful; and, therefore, it was not his intention to put the House to the trouble of a division. The reforms which he desired to see effected in this establishment must ultimately be carried; and, although he failed now in the object which he had in view, he should not therefore desist from doing all in his power to accomplish it. He thought, that there was no necessity whatever for having the management of the Post-office placed in the hands of a political officer; and it was his opinion, that the affairs of that department would be best administered if the head of it resided on the spot, and had no other duties to attend to. He agreed, however, with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down as to the necessity of having one responsible public person at the head of every Board or department; and, if the office of Postmaster-general could only be filled by a Peer of the realm, then he was bound to say, that he should be very glad indeed to see the noble Duke, who had retired from that office, restored to it.

said, that no one could possibly be more constant or unremitting in his attention to the duties of his office than his noble friend the Duke of Richmond had been; and, if his successor should be fortunate enough to discharge the duties of the office with equal efficiency, not only the hon. Member, but every other Member of that House, must be perfectly satisfied with him. Of course, a great deal of patronage attached to the office of Postmaster-general, but, in the distribution of that patronage, his noble friend had never once lost sight of the principles of justice and economy. His noble friend was the person who had effected such a considerable saving in the retired allowances of Post-office clerks. By appointing these clerks to be postmasters in country towns as vacancies occurred, he not only did the individuals themselves a great service, but saved the public the burthen of their pensions. It was not the fault of his noble friend that arrangements were not made for the free transmission of pamphlets and newspapers through the medium of the Post-office. Such an arrangement had long been under his noble friend's consideration, and the reason why it was not carried into effect was, because the expense it would occasion would be much greater than any advantages which could result from it.

said, that the Motion which he wished to submit to the House had for its object the satisfaction of the claims of certain British subjects for compensation, in return for the loss they sustained in consequence of the confiscation of their property by Spain, arising out of the seizure of six Spanish vessels. The Act of which they complained was considered by many persons at the time as one of very questionable justice, especially by the noble Earl now at the head of his Majesty's Government, who made it the subject of a specific Motion. He had no wish, however, to enter into the merits of the case, he was merely desirous of stating the facts on which he rested his case. Various applications had been made by those persons for remuneration. He himself was one of a deputation in 1818—at which period he represented the county which he had still the honour to represent—which waited on the Government, and he could undertake to say, that the justice of the claim was never disputed, but the remuneration was always thrown upon Spain. On the other hand, a variety of applications were made to the Spanish Government. That government equally admitted the justice of the claim, but stated, that it was to their own Government that these persons must look for redress. The last application made to the British Government on the subject, was when Mr. Canning was at the head of the Foreign Department; and it is somewhat remarkable that his principal reason for not conceding these claims was, that his acquiescence in them would involve the necessity of acceding to the claims of those persons whose property had been sequestered by the Danish government, and that a larger sum would be required for their satisfaction than the country could afford. The House admitted the justice of those claims by its vote on a former night. The sum required on this occasion, however, did not exceed one-fourth of the amount on account of the Danish claims; and that a seizure of Spanish property by Great Britain had been made to the extent of 800,000l. The same measure of justice ought, therefore, to be extended to these claimants. Without trespassing further on the attention of the House, he would beg to move, "That a Select Committee be appointed to examine into the claims of certain British subjects, to be indemnified for the confiscation of their property by the Spanish government, in 1804 and 1805, previous to the declaration of war between Great Britain and Spain."

seconded the Motion, and contended that the cases of the Spanish and Danish claims were identical, and that the course taken with respect to the one furnished a precedent which ought to be followed in the other. The whole amount of the Spanish claims did not exceed 25,000l. or 30,000l., and when the Government had received 800,000l. from the captures that had been made, surely it was not too much for these claimants to say, that they were entitled to have their debts paid.

must protest against the course which his noble friend had adopted. Many Gentlemen who took an interest in the matter had left the House under the impression that the Motion would not come on that night. He must say, that there was no analogy whatever between these claims and the Danish claims. The two cases were distinct from each other; they stood upon totally different grounds, and if they were to entertain this case they would, by and by, be called upon to give satisfaction for every capture that had taken place, and every reprisal that had been made before war had been formally declared. The principle was one, however, which they could not possibly adopt. The Danish claims had not resulted from either capture or reprisals. In that case there was no confiscation of property, but only a sequestration of book debts, and this, he believed, was a case which had never before occurred. At the time, however, he thought the principle sought to be established objectionable, and all he could say was, that if it were adopted in the present instance, there would be no knowing to what inconvenience and expense it might lead. It was on this ground that he objected to his noble friend's Motion.

said, that he felt the utmost difficulty in bringing his mind to any conclusion on the case which his noble friend (Lord Ebrington) had brought under the consideration of the House; but he could not agree with his noble friend (Lord Althorp) that there was so obvious a distinction between the two cases, as that the one should be treated differently from the other. It was contrary to the law of nations to confiscate property not afloat at the commencement of a war, and if the attack which this country had made upon Copenhagen had been justified would not the Danish claims have been rejected? He could see no distinction between the two cases on the ground of lapse of time, and he had yet to be convinced that the capture of the Spanish frigates, which had led to the sequestration of the property of these claimants, was other than a violation of the law of nations—an act of atrocious, cold-blooded cruelty, perpetrated during a time of peace. Such were his feelings with respect to this capture; and did not the massacre of some of the noblest families connected with Spain, who were returning in these frigates from South America to their native country, produce in the minds of the inhabitants of Cadiz a feeling that rendered it very difficult indeed to bring the negotiations for peace in 1808 to a satisfactory conclusion?

said, that as the seizure was made on the high seas, and not in the ports of Spain, and as there was a marked difference on that account between the present claim and the Danish claims, he would oppose the Motion. If claims of such long-standing were entertained, and of such a loose character, where could they stop? If the House chose to make an eleemosynary grant, very well; he would not oppose it. But to call on the House to grant a sum as a liquidation of such a debt, and as an act of justice, was what he could not sanction.

condemned the practice of granting Committees for the purposes of giving individual redress without rigid proof of the just claims of the parties. He should protest, in behalf of his constituents, against a series of proceedings which he thought at once unconstitutional and injurious.

said, that on moral grounds there was no difference between the Spanish and Danish claimants. Both suffered injury in consequence of our attacking other countries without a declaration of war. A member of the Spanish Cortes was at that moment sitting under the gallery. ["Oh, oh."] He would, then, only suppose such a person was there, and what would his feelings be if he found that justice was not meted out to his country, and that the ties of amity and brotherhood were not, as they ought to be, drawn close between nations?

thought the whole proceeding very strange. No Committee was appointed—no petition was presented—but forsooth on a simple proposition of an hon. Member public money was to be voted away without remonstrance or inquiry, a course unheard of in Parliament. He would take the opportunity of observing, that the present Motion made it necessary to institute an inquiry into the appropriation of the droits of Admiralty, and necessary to introduce a very different practice with regard to them. It was high time that the plunder of innocent individuals on the high seas should not be considered as one of the prerogatives of the Crown.

rose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish Imprisonment for Debt, except in cases of fraud, and to amend the Law of Debtor and Creditor. As he, however, did not anticipate any serious objection in that preliminary stage of the proceeding, he should not find it necessary to occupy much time in explaining the outlines of the measure, which, with the permission of the House, he should have the honour of introducing. He was anxious, in the first place, to justify himself from the imputation of any delay in bringing the subject forward. There was nothing nearer his heart than that imprisonment for debt should be abolished, except in cases of fraud; and, on the first day of the Session, he had accordingly given notice of a Motion for leave to bring in a Bill, in order to accomplish that object; but he ceased to be a Member of that House on the very evening for which his notice stood. The very day, however, on which he was restored to that House, he renewed the notice; and he now rose to make the Motion as expeditiously as possible. He would not go into the general merits of the question, whether there should be the power of arresting for debt or not,—that was a subject which had been very copiously discussed; and those who wished to see the arguments stated at length on one side or on the other, would find them in the fourth Report of the Common Law Commissioners; but there was one authority in which he was disposed to place great reliance, and which had not been generally adverted to—he meant the authority of Edmund Burke, a name illustrious in general philosophical jurisprudence as well as in politics, and which he would shortly refer to on the present occasion. In 1780, a Bill had been introduced into that House for the abolition of Imprisonment for Debt on Mesne Process; it received the support of Mr. Burke; and when he went to Bristol, he was reproached for having given it his support. Mr. Burke defended himself; and he begged leave to read to the House an extract from the reply which that great man made upon that occasion. It was not the fate of many busting speeches to live in the history of the country, but that from which he was about to quote, would be read and referred to with pleasure and profit as long as the English language remained. Mr. Burke said—'Lord Beauchamp's Bill was a law of justice and policy, as far as it went; I say, as far as it went, for its fault was, its being, in the remedial part, miserably defective. There are two capital faults in our law with relation to civil debts. One is, that every man is presumed solvent—a presumption, in innumerable cases, directly against truth. Therefore, the debtor is ordered, on a supposition of ability and fraud, to be coerced his liberty until he makes payment. By this means, in all cases of civil insolvency, without a pardon from his creditor, he is to be imprisoned for life; and thus a miserable mistaken invention of artificial science operates to change a civil into a criminal judgment, and to scourge misfortune or indiscretion with a punishment which the law does not inflict on the greatest crimes. The next fault is, that the inflicting of that punishment is not on the opinion of an equal and public judge; but is referred to the arbitrary discretion of a private, nay interested and irritated, individual. He, who formally is, and substantially ought to be, the judge, is in reality no more than ministerial, a mere executive instrument of a private man, who is at once judge and party. Every idea of judicial order is subverted by this procedure. If the insolvency be no crime, why is it punished with arbitrary imprisonment? If it be a crime, why is it delivered into private hands to pardon without discretion, or to punish without mercy and without measure? I know that credit must be preserved, but equity must be preserved too; and it is impossible that anything should be necessary to commerce which is inconsistent with justice.' Upon that authority, and on general reasoning, he submitted, that the time had now arrived when imprisonment for debt, both on mesne process and on execution, should, except in cases of fraud, be abolished. It was monstrous, that in a free country, a man might be deprived of his liberty without the judgment of any competent tribunal, at the instance and merely on the oath of a vindictive party; and that, too, it might be, on fraudulent pretences. The expense of giving bail was a great detriment to the debtor, as also to the creditor; because its effect was to take away from the funds with which the just debts of the individual ought to be satisfied. The only object of imprisonment for debt in this country was, to get at the property of the debtor; he should not, therefore, propose abolishing imprisonment, unless he could offer some equivalent to the creditor, and introduce a general amendment in the Law of Debtor and Creditor. There were several improvements to be now proposed which he thought would operate most beneficially, and to which he would very briefly refer. He proposed, first of all, that there should be a power of instant execution upon all bills of exchange, promissory notes, and bonds. When a man put his hand solemnly to instruments of that sort, it was monstrous to allow him, without any shadow of pretence, to have a trial to put in sham pleas; and thus, perhaps, to cause greater expense to the creditor than the original amount of the debt. There was nothing like this in Scotland, in France, or in any other country of Europe; and why should it be continued in England? Another equivalent proposed to be given to the creditor would be found to consist in the clauses of the Bill to compel the debtor to yield and surrender up his property to his creditors, to be fairly distributed amongst them, reserving to his own use any surplus that might remain after the sale or disposal of such property, whether houses, land, or goods. For want of such a provision in our laws, the debtor destitute of principle set his creditor at defiance—squandered away the little he had in gaol in riot or drunkenness; whilst the unprincipled rich man obtained the rules of the prison, indulged in every luxury, and experienced hardly any of the inconveniences of confinement. It was singular, that by the Act called the Lords' Act, a person detained in custody for debts amounting to 300l., might, at any time, be brought up on an allegation that he continued in prison with property sufficient to pay his debts, and have him subjected to examination in open Court, where, if he refused to give up his property, he did so at the risk of being sent to Botany Bay for his default; but, strange to say, if the amount of his debts exceeded that sum of 300l. he might defy the creditor, continue in the rules, live in a palace if he could find one there, and spend his money before his creditors' face, in every luxurious or extravagant excess. The Bill he now moved for, would contain a provision, that, in case the debtor refused to yield up to the receiver appointed under the Bill his property for the benefit of creditors, whatever it might be, he should be kept in close confinement within the actual walls of the prison, and be treated as a criminal. The operation of the Bill would be similar to that of the Bankrupt Acts, which permitted the debtor, although he owed 100,000l. to go at liberty, and be freed from all his present liabilities, upon a full surrender of his property. Another compensatory clause of the Bill would be, one making all manner of property, whether real or personal property, bonds, bills, or securities, liable as assets for payment of a man's debts, and subject to be taken in execution under this Bill. By our present law the creditor could not touch copyhold property, bills or notes in the possession of the debtor, or money in the Funds. The debtor might have 100,000l. in Consols, and resist the payment of the most trifling demands; that property was inviolable, and he could not be forced to surrender any part of it for the payment of his debts. The creditor now had, in such a case, the power of keeping the debtor in confinement; but would it not be far better to give him the right to compel the debtor to make over and assign his property for the use of his creditors? In this spirit, then, it was intended to make all the debtor's property, whether real or personal, liable to his debts, and, in default of his surrendering up both, he was to be compelled to do so by duress and close imprisonment. A part of the plan of improvement in our law was, to introduce the cessio bonorum conformably to the practice of other countries, without rendering it necessary that the debtor should pass the ordeal of confinement. It was found by experience, that the confinement of the debtor under any circumstances was prejudicial to the moral character of the man, whilst the practice was attended with expense to the creditor. He would ask what object was obtained by the mediation of a Sheriff's officer, the indignity of arrests, or the prolonged incarceration of the debtor? The incentives to industry, and the proper feeling of honourable independence too often were sacrificed to the creditor's security, without even effecting that object. To preserve these valuable attributes of the man where they existed, it was proposed, that when the debtor had made the surrender of his all, and it was so certified by a majority of his creditors, he should be released from all debts and liabilities, and be to all intents and purposes a new man. He felt that many very arbitrary distinctions had been introduced in our laws between the cases of insolvents and bankrupts which ought not to exist. To protect the creditor still further, there was, however, a clause in the Bill, providing, that if the contract had been made, or debt incurred under false pretences, or if the debtor did not fairly disclose his property, he should, upon conviction of such offence, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanour, and be subject to punishment for the offence. He believed the change in our law would be most salutary, and anticipated, that the fraudulent would be hereafter punished, and the innocent and unfortunate protected from the vindictive creditor. It must naturally be expected that in substituting this state of the Law of Debtor and Creditor for the present, some expense must be entailed on the country. A Court consisting of competent Commissioners must be created, and provisional assignees must be appointed, to whom the property of debtors might be handed over in trust for the general body of creditors. But the expense of this system would be, he fondly expected, trivial, compared with the benefits procured. Already the constitution and maintenance of the Insolvent Debtor system cost 300,000l. a-year, a great portion of which ought to go into the fund for the payment of the insolvents' creditors. He felt very confident, that the many beneficial results which must flow from this alteration in the law, would, even to the creditor, more than compensate the injury he sustained, if injury it were, by using his power over the person of his debtor, by arresting him for the debt in the first instance, or finally taking his body in execution. He was encouraged to hope that, under these circumstances, the Motion he was about to make would not be met by any serious objection. The sub- ject of imprisonment for debt was one on which men of great name and influence had, it was true, differed in opinion. It was one which required serious and ample investigation. That the attention would be paid to it by the House which so grave a subject of investigation demanded he had no doubt; but from their assenting to the first reading of the Bill he now proposed, guarded, as it would be found to be, by limitations and securities, amply sufficient to protect the creditor from the effect of fraud, concealment of property, or wilful delay, in making the assignment of the property for the benefit of creditors, he anticipated the most favourable results, not only as to the two classes more immediately concerned, but as to the moral influence which that improvement of our laws would produce on the state of society at large. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by making his Motion. Before he sat down, the hon. and learned Gentleman stated, in reply to questions, that to include Ireland within similar provisions, it would be the better way to bring in a separate Bill, which should have all the aid he could give it. The functions of the present Insolvent Debtors' Commissioners would be at an end, as soon as arrest for debt were abolished; yet, though such a result would follow, he had no doubt their services could be obtained to enable the Government to carry into effect the beneficial provisions of the Bill. It was in contemplation, that there should be a Court of Review, to which, in particular cases, an appeal should lie.

said, there was another point which appeared to have been omitted in the Bill. It was well known, that since the establishment of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, many millions of debts had been proved, and not more than a farthing in the pound had been recovered. Now, though, by the Bill of the Attorney General, execution would issue for the recovery of bills of exchange and bond debts, there was no facility afforded for the recovery of book debts. If some clause were not introduced to provide greater facility for the recovery of book debts, he was afraid the Bill would cause great injury to trade.