not contain a most important mass of information as to the state of the agriculture of the country, especially when connected with that which he believed had been communicated from the Commons, and which, at any rate, all their lordships must have seen. The principal deficiency was, as he had before said, as to the price of foreign corn; but the vast importations which had since taken place had removed all doubts on the subject, and an end was put to all speculations, by the notoriety of those importations. It had been argued by his noble friend as if the measure which had been proposed in the last session was a system of new laws on the importation of grain. On the contrary, it was the same as the regulations which from the time of king William to the beginning of the present reign had prevailed. It was, indeed, but a modification of the present law to the change of times and the increase of taxation. He was obliged to differ from his noble friend as to the conduct of the executive government in taking into their hands the proposed measure. While every other line in which capital could be employed had been regulated by their interference, were they to abstain from taking any part on so important a subject as that in question? He was glad to see that they intended to take up the subject, and he should have been sorry if they had stood by and saw a large class hanging as a dead weight on the community without making any exertion, and although he was not in the habit of supporting them, they should have his hearty concurrence on the present occasion.

Lord Grenville said, that his Majesty's ministers were fortunate in obtaining support so efficient as that of his noble friend in the cause which they had espoused. He had taken the opportunity of stating the opinion he entertained, and which, he feared, was opposite to the general opinion among their lordships, and he hoped that the fear of any man, or of any number of men, would never induce him to conceal his opinion, that the measure which was to be proposed was fraught with mischief to the community. But he had not meant to assert that the members of the executive government were to blame in forming or expressing an opinion on any proposed measure; but he lamented, that in favour of one of which he dreaded the effects, the persons who supported it were willing to add the influence which belonged to their official situations.

The motions were carried.

The Duke of Norfolk moved for the average price of corn in the maritime counties for the last three months. In moving it he observed, that, he believed, by law a power was vested in the privy council, when corn was at a certain price, to impose a duty on importation. He wished to know whether such power existed, and whether it was the intention of the government to exercise it?

The Earl of Liverpool said, there was no such discretionary power in the privy council, and it was the last species of power which his Majesty's government would wish to possess. When corn was under a certain price in the maritime districts, the duty would absolutely attach.

The Earl of Lauderdale observed, that the last six weeks was the period by the average of which the duty was regulated, the duty then remained for three months.

After a short conversation between the duke of Norfolk, the earl of Lauderdale, the earls of Harrowby and Hardwicke, lord Grenville and the Lord Chancellor, the motion was withdrawn for the purpose of being brought forward in a more correct shape.

Earl

TRIAL BY JURY IN SCOTLAND.] Stanhope said, he esteemed himself fortunate in having been in that House on the last day of the last session, for he had then heard the most sensible and able speech from the noble and learned lord on the woolsack which he ever remembered, on the subject of introducing the trial by jury into Scotland. He had then given notice that he should some time this session bring the subject before the House. Before the last adjournment, the learned lord on the woolsack had introduced a Bill, of which he (Earl S.) was glad to learn the learned lord was not the author, it having been sent to him from Scotland. The author of that Bill seemed to be quite ignorant of the mode in which the trial by jury was carried on in England, and there was a great objection to the principle of the Bill, that the trial by jury was made optional, and that the jury were to decide on some matter of fact instead of giving a general verdict; and the judge was ordered to direct the jury as to points of law. The Bill which he (earl S.) had to propose, was of a plain and unambiguous nature. It introduced the trial by jury as it was in this country, with the institution of special verdicts. The gradual adoption of it he

provided for in this manner; that either party might for a certain number of years to come oblige the jury to find a special verdict, in order that any point might be carried up to be argued in the courts above. He saw no reason why a jury selected among the Scotch, the generality of whom were more enlightened than the English, were not well qualified to judge of those points of law which had always been tried by English juries. The noble earl concluded by presenting a Bill for introducing the trial by jury in civil cases in Scotland.

The Earl of Lauderdale observed upon the irregularity of this proceeding, there being already a Bill before the House for introducing trial by jury in civil cases into Scotland, which had neither been withdrawn, nor in any other way got rid of.

Earl Stanhope said, that the Bills were essentially different; the object of his Bill being to introduce the English trial by jury into Scotland, whilst that of the Bill sent up from Scotland, which had been introduced into the House by the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, was merely to introduce trial by jury in issues directed to be so tried.

The Lord Chancellor could wish the noble, and he might say the learned, lord to postpone the introduction of his Bill. It certainly would be necessary to introduce some alterations into the Bill, which he (the lord chancellor) had laid on the table before the recess. He would make those alterations himself, as the Bill by no means pleased him in its present shape. Let the noble earl hear it with those amendments, and then there would probably be less difficulty in attaining one common object, than by having two bills going through the House at the same

time.

Earl Stanhope consented to withdraw his Bill.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Monday, February 13. PETITION FROM LONDON RESPECTING INSOLVENT DEBTORS.] The sheriffs of London presented at the bar, a Petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London in Common Council assembled; setting forth,

"That an Act was passed in the 53rd year of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, An Act for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors in England;' and another (VOL. XXIX. )

Act was passed in the last session of parliament to explain and amend the said Act; and that the petitioners, alarmed at the tendency of the said Acts, did, while the same were under consideration in the House, declare their objections thereto, and request the representatives for this city in parliament to oppose the passing of the same into a law; and that, since the passing of the said Acts, the apprehensions of the petitioners have been fully realized; and they have seen a door thereby opened to the most extensive frauds, highly injurious to national morals, destructive of those habits of industry, and of that good faith and mutual confidence, for which this country has been so long distinguished, and which has been one great cause of its commercial pre-eminence; and that, under the said Acts, however deceptively persons may have contracted debts, however extravagantly or profligately they may have dissipated the property so obtained, they are nevertheless enabled, after three months imprisonment, to gain their liberation upon assigning their effects for the benefit of their creditors, or even should they make it appear the whole is expended; and that, so long as they choose to continue living upon the property of their creditors, their creditors have no means whatever to compel them to make such assignment, and it very seldom occurs that any application is made for that purpose by the debtors while there is any property remaining; and that to give this option to debtors, and no means whatever to creditors to compel them to assign their effects, appears founded on the most manifest injustice, and must be attended with ruinous consequences; and that experience has shown that to oppose the liberation of debtors tends only to further loss and aggravation; for, however glaring their misconduct, very few instances occur where they do not finally succeed; and there is too much reason to apprehend that, in a very considerable number of cases, the grossest fraud and perjury is resorted to in order to deprive creditors of their just claims; and that to found expectations upon property which the debtor may subsequently acquire, appears entirely fallacious, scarcely an instance having occurred where such property has become available, and equally difficult is detection in cases of concealment; and that the fair traders feel themselves deeply aggrieved by the operation of the said (3 A)

Acts, and it is manifest that they have not answered the purposes intended; and praying, that the said Acts may be repealed; but at the same time the petitioners cannot but express their readiness to concur in any measures tending to relieve unfortunate persons who may have fallen under embarrassments, which shall appear expedient to the House to be adopted."

Ordered to lie upon the table.

SIR JAMES DUFF]. Mr. Goulburn moved, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this House, copies of the Correspondence which has taken place between earl Bathurst and sir James Duff, relative to certain Spanish subjects who proceeded from Cadiz to Gibraltar in May 1814."

Mr. Whitbread observed, that the principal charge against sir James Duff, referred to his order to examine an English convoy at Cadiz, with a view to prevent certain Spaniards from availing themselves of that opportunity to escape from persecution.

Mr. Goulburn said, that from what he had heard, he was led to think, that the surrender of the fugitive Spaniards at Gibraltar, was the main object of the hon. gentleman, and therefore he had so framed his motion. But he had reason to believe that the papers to be produced, would comprehend every thing the hon. gentleman desired on the subject.

Mr. Whitbread remarked, that bis observations upon the subject were made in the absence of the hon. gentleman on an important mission, on the conclusion of which he was ready to congratulate him. His animadversions and inquiry, however, on this subject, referred not only to the unjust and inhuman seizure of the Spaniards alluded to at Gibraltar, but to the equally unjust and inhuman endeavours of sir James Doff, at Cadiz, to prevent the escape of other Spaniards from the inquisitorial power of that most detestable government. [Hear! hear.]

The motion was agreed to.

hold during the continuance of his Majesty's indisposition. The hon. gentleman stated, that the object of the Bill was, to provide that the accounts of the civil list should hereafter be made up to the 5th of January instead of as heretofore to the 5th of April; and he was not aware of any opposition to the proposed arrangement.

Mr. Tierney, adverting to the conversation which took place at an early period of the session on this subject, when he took occasion to observe, that it was highly expedient to have these accounts made up to the period mentioned in the Bill, regretted that this arrangement did not apply in any manner to the present year, in which there was notoriously an arrear, but was reserved for the next year, when there might be no arrear at all. For himself, he could not conceive the existence of any difficulty to the production of the civil list accounts, at least, at such an early period as would enable the House to inquire into and discuss the subject in due time. He could not, indeed, see any objection to their prompt production, for he had reason to believe, that they were ready to be laid before the House. In one department he happened to know that they were actually ready. Upon what ground, then, should their production be delayed, when that production would afford so much satisfaction. Perhaps the tight hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was somewhat angry on a former occasion, at what he might consider his (Mr. Tierney's) pertinacity upon this subject, but now he hoped the right hon. gentleman was in better humour, and disposed to yield to his wishes by producing these accounts in due time. It must be obvious, that if they were not laid before the House until April, they were not likely to meet the attention they deserved from that House and the country. There would not be time to consider them or to move for further papers if thought necessary, until a very advanced period of the session, when other and very important subjects were likely to crowd upon the attention of the House. From these considerations, he hoped, that the right hon. gentleman would not ob ject to a proposition for the speedy production of these accounts.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer declared, that he had no objection to the production of the accounts alluded to at the earliest possible period, and that he had no doubt

what he was to infer from the right hon. gentleman's reply? Whether the right hon. gentleman meant to say that no such appointment had been made, or that it did not take place with his knowledge.

they would be ready before April. Indeed, he was led to hope, that he should be enabled to lay them before the House by the close of the present month. But the right hon. gentleman might make a motion on the subject if he thought proper.

Mr. Tierney said, that he should decline to make any motion, on the understanding from the right hon. gentleman, that these accounts would be brought forward with all convenient expedition. His only object was, that they should be laid before the House in due time, to render the sub. ject fully intelligible to parliament and the country before Easter. Being on his legs, he took occasion to ask the right hon. gentleman, when the paper was likely to be laid before the House, with respect to the droits of the Admiralty, for which he had moved before Christmas?

Mr. Whitbread rose to ask a question which he conceived to be connected with the civil list accounts. He wished to know, whether an appointment had not just been made of a secretary of legation to Lisbon, with a salary of 1,2001. a year, in addition to the enormous grant already made to Mr. Canning, for which that right hon. gentleman had yet done nothing but deliver a brilliant speech to a deputation of the British factory? [A laugh.]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that he was not aware of any such appointment as the hon. member had alluded to.

Mr. Whitbread asked, whether the right hon. gentleman was prepared to say that no such appointment or nomination had taken place?

Here the chairman was proceeding to read the motion, but

Mr. Whitbread persisted in repeating his question, which he said he should press for the satisfaction of the House and the country, notwithstanding the hurry of the chairman, and the pertinacious silence of the right hon. gentleman, who seemed resolved to plead ignoramus to every question asked him.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated that he was not aware of any such appointment.

Mr. Whitbread stated, that it was publicly rumoured, and by no means a secret, that a lord of the Admiralty had been appointed a secretary to the embassy to Lisbon, with a salary of 1,200l. a year.

Mr. Ponsonby expressed a wish to know

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the committee was to infer, that he had been asked a question which he was not prepared to answer.

The motion was agreed to, the House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow.

CONGRESS AT VIENNA-TRANSFER OF GENOA, &c.] On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for postponing the committee of supply until Wednesday next,

Mr. Whitbread rose and said, that notwithstanding the declaration which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, that he would answer no questions with respect to our foreign relations or negociations, until the return of lord Castlereagh; yet it appeared to him of essential importance that the House and the public should be put in possession of information respecting the march of the negociation, and the conduct of the British negociator, upon points which were vital to the honour of this country-vital to the interests of Europe. From the information which he had received, he could charge the noble lord with being a party, and making this country a party, in some of the disgraceful proceedings of the Congress at Vienna. He did not allude merely to the question of Saxony, but to transactions passing in other parts of Europe, transactions in which the character of this country and the character of our allies, had been deeply involved, and the future repose of the world most seriously endangered. At the time that Dresden and the other towns in Saxony were given up to the Prussian troops, by prince Repnin, on the part of Russia, ministers said that they did not know that lord Castlereagh was a party to that act, and that they did not believe that a British negociator could be a party to so disgraceful a transaction. He believed that he could now state with authority, from information that could not be contradicted, that lord Castlereagh was a party to that disgraceful act of prince Repnin, by which Saxony was delivered up to Prussian troops. Subsequently, however, lord Castlereagh had sent in a note against that very act to