May 10.

Alderman Wood moved the appointment of a Secret Committee to inquire into the conduct of Edwards and his associates for the last two years.

The motion gave rise to an animated debate, and was supported by Mr. Hobhouse, Mr. Denman, and Sir Robert Wilson; and opposed by Mr. Bankes, Mr. Wynn, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Canning. In the course of the debate some warm expressions fell from the latter gentleman and Sir F. Burdett, who supported the motion; but at the instance of Sir R. Wilson, the House called upon them to come to an explanation previous to parting, which they did in a manner satisfactory to the House. The motion was negatived without a division.

May 11.

Mr. Maberly, in moving for an account of the amount of Exchequer Bills, censured the recent large issues of this species of paper money. The expectations held out by Mr. Vansittart of attaining an efficient sinking fund of 500,000/ from his new taxes had completely failed. Our income last year was only 53,388,2481. whilst the expenditure exceeded 63,000,0007. leaving a sinking fund of not more than 395,0007. Though 10,400,000. had been voted towards the reduction of the unfunded debt, no reduction had yet taken place. The effect of the last Corn Act had been to impose on the country a tax of 15,000,000l. a year, in favour of the landed proprietors. On real property, therefore, should chiefly rest the burdens that might be requisite to extricate the country from its present difficulties. He would not meddle with monies arising from trade or professions, but he thought a tax of ten per cent. on real property a most eligible measure. It would produce 10,000,000l. and admit of a total repeal of the assessed taxes, which amounted to 6,000,0002.

Mr. Vansittart said, the accounts on the table proved that the taxes of last year had not failed. In three quarters, in England alone, they had produced 2,190,000l. which, on an average of the whole year, was only 100,000l. short of the sum expected. The deficiency actually experienced took place only in the Customs: but, even in that department, he now entertained a confident hope that the improvement would be as progressive as it was in the Excise.

After some observations from Mr. J. Smith, Mr. Baring, and others, the motion was agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 12. Lord Holland presented a petition from

a clergyman named Jones, who complained, that the Bishop of Exeter, his Diocesan, had refused to countersign his testimonials, by which he was deprived of two livings, to which he had been presented in the Dioceses of Lincoln and Peterborough. The cause of this refusal he alleged to be, that be had said, at a meeting at Exeter, to petition against Catholic Emancipation, that nine-tenths of the clergymen of the Church of England did not believe in the Athanasian Creed.

The Bishop of Exeter defended himself on the score of his possessing a discretionary power of withholding his countersign from any testimonial that he could not conscientiously grant.

The motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations contained in the petition was lost, on a division of 18 to 35.

In the Commons, the same day, Mr. Hobhouse presented a Petition from certain inhabitants of Oldham. The Petitioners complained of a series of military outrages which had taken place at Oldham. Unfortunately, such was the state of society at Oldham, and the neighbourhood, that the persons injured rather chose to apply to the Commanding Officer than to the Magistracy sitting at the Old Bailey in Manchester, and they had done so, and by the Commanding Officer the troops were checked in their outrageous conduct, and ordered back to their quarters. The Petitioners now prayed the House to take the case into its consideration. It was signed by upwards of 3,000 persons, and he trusted would be attended to by the House. He concluded by moving that the Petition should be received. At first the House appeared inclined to reject it; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer having declared himself favourable to the inquiry, it effected an immediate change of sentiment, and the Petition was ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. Dugdale rose to present a Petition from the manufacturers and traders of the town of Birmingham, stating the distress which prevailed in that town in consequence of the stagnation of trade.

Mr. Brougham said, he could not entirely concur with the prayer of the Petition, convinced as he was that a parliamentary inquiry was not the one most likely to prove beneficial, either as regarded trade or agriculture. The only inquiry which could be useful must be one originating with Ministers, into which the Government would bring all its information and influence. The present Ministers did not, however, appear disposed to go into such inquiry; nor were they, as he believed, equal to it. Indeed, not any party

in the House possessed sufficient talent to form an Administration equal to those great objects (Hear, hear!)

Mr. Spooner strongly urged the House to immediate inquiry; and in the course of his speech read a letter, stating that the nail-makers in the neighbourhood were already in a state of insubordination, driven to it by distress; and that the colliers and iron-workers had threatened to join them. He also stated, that in the first four months of 1818, 5147 head of cattle were slaughtered in Birmingham; whereas in the first four months of 1820 only 2783 were slaughtered. In the same town 11,479 sheep were killed in the first four months of 1818, and only 8268 in the first four months of 1820.

May 15.

Lord A. Hamilton addressed the House on the appointment of a fourth Puisne Baron in the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, in direct opposition to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry respecting the Courts of Justice. Not a single suggestion of that Commission had yet been acted on, and in this case, their recommendation for reducing the number of Barons, on a vacancy, to four, including the Chief Baron, had been treated with complete contempt. His Lordship contrasted the duties of the Scotch Court of Exchequer with that of England, and shewed that a Baron in the former, compared with one in the latter, enjoyed the next thing to a sinecure. Altogether it

sat only 60 days in the year; the average number of causes did not exceed 100 per year; and all its Treasury business was done by the Remembrancer. The late Lord Chief Baron (Dundas) had not sat in the Court for three years preceding his death, and no inconvenience had been sustained by the public, or his colleagues, from his absence; and when Sir S. Shepherd was appointed his successor, it was considered, both by himself and his friends, that the situation was all but nominally a sinecure. The Lord High Commissioner of the Jury Court had been appointed a Baron, in order to add 2000l. a year to his emoluments, with scarcely any addition to his labours. The paper produced by the Lord Advocate, containing the opinions of the heads of the Scotch Courts, with the exception of one, in favour of continuing five Barons, was undeserving of any consideration. If the fear of an equal division, without a casting vote, was to determine the question, then the English Courts, instead of four Judges, should be reduced to three, or increased to five. There were other reforms to be executed in the Scotch Court of Exchequer, but after the example that had been just given, he despaired of seeing

them effected. He earnestly entreated the House to consider what would be the effect of confirming the appointment of which he complained. He concluded by moving that the House concur with the Commissioners, that five Barons of the Exchequer in Scotland were unnecessary, and that four were sufficient for all the business of that Court.

The Lord Advocate justified the proceedings. The business in the Jury Court had so increased as to require the whole attention of the Lord Commissioner, more particularly as the Lords of the Session could give very little aid to him. There could not have been a better selection made than that of Sir P. Murray, who had been Remembrancer since 1799. It ought also to be observed, that, on his appointment as Baron, the office of Remembrancer ceased, pursuant to an act some time since passed, by which half the salary of a Baron was saved to the public. There had been five Barons at and since the Union, and he saw no reason why they should be reduced to four, merely because there were only four in the English Court of Exchequer. The Scotch Court, in addition to its other business, had to pass gifts and tutories, and to grant charters of property holding of the Crown. The Commission, in recommending the suppression of one of the judgeships, had exceeded their powers, which extended only to perquisites, fees, and emoluments. The late Lord Chief Baron had never been absent at one time more than a year. He chiefly resided at Bath, but he generally went to Edinburgh to attend his duty during term.

In the sequel of the discussion, the motion was supported by Sir J. Newport and Mr. Tierney, and opposed by Lord Castlereagh, who moved the previous question, and by Mr. W. Dundas.

After some further discussion, the House divided on Lord A. Hamilton's motion, when it was negatived by only 12-the numbers being: for the motion, 177; against it, 189.

Subsequently, Lord A. Hamilton proposed the following motion, and on which Lord Castlereagh moved the previous question-namely, "That it is the opinion of this House, that the vacancy occasioned in the Scotch Exchequer Court by the resignation of Mr. Baron Adams should not have been filled up until the report of the Commissioners had been laid before the House and examined." The previous question was carried without a division, and, of course, Lord A. Hamilton's motion was lost.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 16.

Earl Stanhope, in an able and lengthened speech, called their Lordships' attention to the distress of the working classes. Much

Much had been said of late (his lordship remarked) on the necessity of removing the matter of sedition: the matter of sedition, at present, was public distress; and it seemed admitted on all bands that the machinations of late employed in various districts to promote disaffection, could never have been successful, but for the existence and co-operation of that distress. His Lordship then took a review of the various causes of this distress, attributing it, among others, to excessive taxation, and the too great use of machinery, and concluded by moving the appointment of a Select Committee to en quire into the best means of giving employment to the poor, especially in the manufacturing districts.

The Earl of Liverpool declared he would not enter into the discussion of the topics introduced by the noble Lord, because another opportunity would shortly present itself, when it could be carried on with greater practical advantage than at the present moment. There was not a single position, in the speech of the noble Lord, to which he was not prepared to give his most direct and unqualified disapprobation. After some further conversation, the motion was negatived without a division.

In the Commons, the same day, Col. Davies, after bespeaking the indulgence of the House for the motion with which he should conclude, alluded to the appointment to the government of Gibraltar. In the whole list of sinecures there was not one more decidedly useless than the governorship of that place. It stood almost alone amongst sinecures; so much so, that a Committee of that House some years since recommended that it should be abolished as soon as ever it fell in. Yet, scarcely was the illustrious person who recently held that office deceased, when, with most extraordinary haste, the vacancy was filled up. the situation given?

And to whom was The same messenger who carried to the country the account of the decease of the late governor (the late Duke of Kent) took with him the appointment of the Earl of Chatham, whose military glories might be summed up in the single fact, that he was commander of the memorable expedition to Walcheren (Hear, hear!) This was of itself a sufficient reason to induce the House to agree to an inquiry. His object was to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to examine into the whole military estab. lishment of the country.

Lord Palmerston and Mr. C. Long replied. Mr. Calcraft, Sir H. Parnell, Col. Grant, and Mr. Ellice made a few remarks. The motion was ultimately negatived by 125 to 45. Majority, 80.

May 17.

Lord Althorpe brought in a Bill for altering and amending the Insolvent Debtors' Act. It was read a first time.

The House, in a Committee of Supply, voted 500,000. on account of the navy.

Lord Castlereagh moved the order of the day for going into a Committee on the Civil List Bill; and after some opposition from Mr. Bennet, the Speaker left the chair. The blank for the English Civil list was filled up with the sum of 850,000l. without any opposition.

When the question was put, that the blank left for the amount of the Irish Civil list should be filled up with 207,000. Sir J. Newport objected to the new mode of dividing the establishment into 13 classes, several of which comprised very incongruous departments. He further objected to the continuance of the additional 10,000l. a year to the Lord Lieutenants, beyond the expiration of the present Lord Lieutenant's period of office; thinking the old allowance of 20,000l. a year fully sufficient.

This was denied by Lord Castlereagh, who said the late Duke of Richmond had crippled his fortune considerably whilst Lord Lieutenant; and even with the increase since that period, the salary did not meet the charges.

After some observations from Mr. C. Grant, Mr. Tierney, Sir W. Parnell, Mr. Baring, and others, the motion was agreed

to.

May 18.

Lord Castlereagh, in reply to a question from Mr. Western, said, it was in contemplation of his Majesty's Government to introduce a measure for altering the present mode of gaol delivery, and to introduce a delivery between the Spring and Autumn Assizes, by which the long period of eight intervening months, during which there was at present no gaol delivery, would be broken. It was the intention of the Attorney General to bring in a Bill immediately after the holidays to effect this object.

On the question for reading the Report of the Civil List Bill, Mr. Curwen said, at the present moment, the greatest ornament of the Crown would have been economy and retrenchment. The people had looked for a considerable diminution of the Civil List.

Mr. Monk thought the salaries to our ambassadors were enormous, being double that of the French ambassadors.

Lord Castlereagh was of a contrary opinion. The salaries had been raised, in order to do away with the large demands formerly made under the head of extraordinaries.

Mr. W. D. Harvey and Mr. Phillips concurred in the opinion of Mr. Monk.

in the House possessed sufficient talent to form an Administration equal to those great objects (Hear, hear!)

Mr. Spooner strongly urged the House to immediate inquiry; and in the course of his speech read a letter, stating that the nail-makers in the neighbourhood were already in a state of insubordination, driven to it by distress; and that the colliers and iron-workers had threatened to join them. He also stated, that in the first four months of 1818, 5147 head of cattle were slaughtered in Birmingham; whereas in the first four months of 1820 only 2783 were slaughtered. In the same town 11,479 sheep were killed in the first four months of 1818, and only 8268 in the first four months of 1820.

May 15.

Lord A. Hamilton addressed the House on the appointment of a fourth Puisne Baron in the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, in direct opposition to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry respecting the Courts of Justice. Not a single suggestion of that Commission had yet been acted on, and in this case, their recommendation for reducing the number of Barons, on a vacancy, to four, including the Chief Baron, had been treated with complete contempt. His Lordship contrasted the duties of the Scotch Court of Exchequer with that of England, and shewed that a Baron in the former, compared with one in the latter, enjoyed the next thing to a sinecure. Altogether it sat only 60 days in the year; the average number of causes did not exceed 100 per year; and all its Treasury business was done by the Remembrancer. The late Lord Chief Baron (Dundas) had not sat in the Court for three years preceding his death, and no inconvenience had been sustained by the public, or his colleagues, from his absence; and when Sir S. Shepherd was appointed his successor, it was considered, both by himself and his friends, that the situation was all but nominally a sinecure. The Lord High Commissioner of the Jury Court had been appointed a Baron, in order to add 2000l. a year to his emoluments, with scarcely any addition to his labours. The paper produced by the Lord Advocate, containing the opinions of the heads of the Scotch Courts, with the exception of one, in favour of continuing five Barons, was undeserving of any consideration. If the fear of an equal division, without a casting vote, was to determine the question, then the English Courts, instead of four Judges, should be reduced to three, or increased to five. There were other reforms to be executed in the Scotch Court of Exchequer, but after the example that had been just given, he despaired of seeing

them effected. He earnestly entreated the House to consider what would be the effect of confirming the appointment of which he complained. He concluded by moving that the House concur with the Commissioners, that five Barons of the Exchequer in Scotland were unnecessary, and that four were sufficient for all the business of that Court.

The Lord Advocate justified the proceedings. The business in the Jury Court had so increased as to require the whole attention of the Lord Commissioner, more particularly as the Lords of the Session could give very little aid to him. There could not have been a better selection made than that of Sir P. Murray, who had been Remembrancer since 1799. It ought also to be observed, that, on his appointment as Baron, the office of Remembrancer ceased, pursuant to an act some time since passed, by which half the salary of a Baron was saved to the public. There had been five Barons at and since the Union, and he saw no reason why they should be reduced to four, merely because there were only four in the English Court of Exchequer. The Scotch Court, in addition to its other business, had to pass gifts and tutories, and to grant charters of property holding of the Crown. The Commission, in recommending the suppression of one of the judgeships, had exceeded their powers, which extended only to perquisites, fees, and emoluments. The fate Lord Chief Baron had never been absent at one time more than a year. He chiedy resided at Bath, but he generally went to Edinburgh to attend his duty during term.

In the sequel of the discussion, the motion was supported by Sir J. Newport and Mr. Tierney, and opposed by Lord Castlereagh, who moved the previous question, and by Mr. W. Dundas.

After some further discussion, the House divided on Lord A. Hamilton's motion, when it was negatived by only 12-the numbers being: for the motion, 177; against it, 189.

Subsequently, Lord A. Hamilton proposed the following motion, and on which Lord Castlereagh moved the previous question-namely, "That it is the opinion of this House, that the vacancy occasioned in the Scotch Exchequer Court by the resignation of Mr. Baron Adams should not have been filled up until the report of the Commissioners had been laid before the House and examined." The previous question was carried without a division, and, of course, Lord A. Hamilton's motion was lost.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 16.

Earl Stanhope, in an able and lengthened speech, called their Lordships' attention to the distress of the working classes. Much