That in the administration of assets by courts of equity, under and by virtue of this Act, all creditors by specialty, in which the heirs are bound, shall be paid the full amount of the debts due to them, before any of the creditors by simple contract or by specialty, in which the heirs are not bound, shall be paid any part of their demands." HOUSE OF LORDS. Wednesday, February 15. CORN LAWS.] The Duke of Norfolk said, that as there had been presented petitions on the subject of the Corn Laws, and as there were more to be presented on the same subject, he should move for some information which would be necessary before the House proceeded to legislate. His grace then moved for the returns of the average price of grain in the maritime districts, from the first return in the month of November to the last in the present month, both inclusive. The Earl of Lauderdale said, he could not object to the motion, but he wished to have it understood that the returns could not give a fair idea of the actual average. In the first place, these returns were made out from the returns of prices from 139 different towns in the maritime districts. From some of these towns the returns of prices excluded the price of grain imported from France, from Ireland, and Scotland. In some instances, grain imported from France only was excluded; in others, that from Ireland was excluded, whilst that from Scotland was admitted. The inspector general also proceeded in an unusual manner in making up the average: suppose a hundred quarters had been sold at 80s., two hundred at 70s., three hundred at 60s., and four hundred at 50s., the usual method to make up an average would be to divide the sum for which the whole had been sold by the number of quarters, and take the product. But the inspectorgeneral's method would be to divide the sum of the four different prices by four, and take the product as the average price. But as it most frequently happened that the greatest quantity was sold at the lowest price, the method pursued by the inspector-general gave a high average. He hoped, therefore, that in any legislative measure that might be adopted, the method of making up the returns, and the towns from which they were made, should be regulated. The motion was agreed to. PROPERTY TAX.] The Duke of Norfolk presented a Petition from the ward of Billingsgate against the renewal of the Property-tax. The Petition was read. In moving that it do lie on the table, the noble duke observed, that though he hoped the tax would expire at the time fixed by law, there were some things in the petition with which he could not concur. It was there stated that the tax had been oppressively carried into execution. Whatever might have been the case in some instances, in all those which he had witnessed the conduct of the commissioners had been lenient in the extreme. As to the merits of the tax, he thought that if any additional taxes were necessary, a tax on the income of property, judiciously modified, would be the best tax that could be adopted, and would be much preferable to an increase of the assessed taxes, or any other. Even the continuance of the present income tax, loaded as it was with the opprobrium which had been cast on it, would be in his opinion a much better measure than to strike at the root of that great security of public credit and firmest pillar of public prosperity, the sinking fund, as established in 1784. The Petition was ordered to lie on the table. TRANSFER OF GENOA.] The Marquis of Buckingham said, that before the order for summoning their lordships was read, he wished to put a question to the noble eart opposite, as to a transaction vitally affecting the credit and character of the country. It regarded no negociation-it bore reference to no negociation then pending, nor to any thing the disclosure of which might be detrimental. It referred to an act done, an affair terminated: and he wished to know whether the measure so taken had been with the knowledge and by the authority of his Majesty's government? The question was as to the manner in which his Majesty's government had conducted itself with respect to Genoa. In April, 1814, lord William Bentinck entered Genoa at the head of a British army, on the banners of which was inscribed " Italian independence." On the 14th of March, lord William had issued a proclamation, exhorting the Italians to arm in that contest in which we were engaged, and assuring them that the independence of Italy, and the ancient constitution, should be respected. In the proclamation issued in April, he insured to the Genoese their ancient constitution he had asked could not be satisfactorily answered, it would be manifest that the system pursued by ministers was hostile to true policy and common honesty, and that line of conduct which had been pursued by the greatest statesmen in the most brilliant eras of our history. The Earl of Liverpool said, that he should not then enter into an explanation of the transactions alluded to by the noble marquis; but he hoped that the House and the country would do him the justice to believe, that both as to Genoa and other transactions which had lately taken place, he should be prepared, at the proper time, to give as full an explanation as the noble marquis, the House, or the country, could demand. But he should not act consistently with his duty if he suffered himself to be led into an explanation on a transaction branching out so widely as that which had been alluded to, before all the circumstances necessary to enable their lordships to form a correct judgment could be laid before them. But on that point he should pledge himself to prove, that the British government had committed no breach of faith, that no expectations which the Genoese were warranted in entertaining had been disappointed, and that the charge brought against his Majesty's government, of violated promises, was destitute of foundation. His sense of duty would not allow him to proceed further at that time, but when the proper period arrived he should not withhold the fullest explanation. and independence. This proclamation was issued by the commander in chief of the British forces-by a person bearing also a diplomatic commission from his Majesty. What was the event? The Genoese trusted to British faith, pledged by our commander in chief, and quietly submitted to the temporary occupation of their territory. In the treaty of Paris it was stipulated that the Austrian territories in Italy should be restored to Austria, but that the other states should be restored to their independence. The 5th of January was the day when the ancient constitutions were to be restored, and it was not till the 26th of December preceding that another proclamation was issued by the British officer commanding in Genoa, by which the territory and government of Genoathe lives and property of the Genoese were delivered over-not to the domination of their ancient constitution, but to subjection to a sovereign to whom they had never before submitted-to the king of Sardinia, a power to whom they had never owed allegiance. Such was the fulfilment of Jord William Bentinck's promise! Thus was British faith maintained! The question which he wished to put was, whether the proclamation of lord William Bentinck had been authorized by his Majesty's ministers? And if not, whether it had been disavowed? Also, whether the proclamation by which the Genoese had been turned over to the king of Sardinia, had been authorized by his Majesty's ministers? If the noble earl in the blue rib bon, the prime minister of the country, The Earl of Lauderdale said, he concould disavow these proclamations, the ceived farther explanation was even then disgrace would be taken away; but if not, necessary. It had not been explained a more disgraceful and flagitious act of why an answer to the questions could not injustice was never committed in the worst then be given. If any pending negocíaperiods of the French revolution. We tion had been stated on which a disclosure had all Europe with us in our attempt to might have a bad effect, the answer would overthrow the acts by which the French be sufficient. But no such thing had been had unjustly appropriated or transferred stated. Was any second transfer of this independent states; but if these procla- unfortunate state of Genoa agitated ? mations were not disavowed, we had closed Could it be said that the transfer was not the war by an act as detestable as any of complete? What was the period when those which had armed the civilized world the explanation was to be given? It had against the French. The voice of the been acknowledged that the transfer was British parliament, and the British nation, complete. [No! from lord Liverpool.] should be heard. They should withhold The noble earl had not given the least their support from the injustice of minis-hint that there was to be a farther change. ters; and he hoped the Italian people, in the discreet use of their own power, would recover that independence of which we had held the word of promise to their ear," but which we had bartered to despotic sovereigns. If the questions which It had not been stated when it was that explanation might be requested with some prospect of success. If the time was left thus indefinite, it was equivalent to a denial of explanation. The period might never come, unless some ground was stated why explanation was at present withheld. He wished to be informed what was the time when explanation was to be given? The Marquis of Buckingham said, that as no answer had been given, he should move for the production of the documents to which he had referred.-The noble marquis afterwards gave notice, that he should on Monday move for the proclamations of lord William Bentinck and general Dalrymple. MILITIA EMBODied in time of PEACE.] The order for summoning their lordships having been read, Earl Füzwilliam rose to call the attention of the House to a subject which he had hoped his Majesty's ministers would have rendered it unnecessary for him to have taken up, as he had directed their particular attention to it by a motion at an early period of the present session. The subject was the continuance of the militia embodied at a time when neither of the four circumstances existed which justified the calling out that force or the continuing it embodied, If any of the ministers could assert that rebellion, or insurrection, or invasion, or imminent danger of invasion, existed, he would consent that the militia might with propriety be continued on foot. But as neither of these cases could be asserted to exist, he should say, that the keeping the militia embodied was pregnant with fatal mischief to the constitution of the country. For if that act could be justified, it would be completely established that a standing army might be permanently kept up. If such was the result of the deliberations of persons learned in the law, it was certainly a new gloss on our constitutional laws; for by the Bill of Rights a standing army was declared abhorrent to the freedom of the country. The ministry had attempted to justify this most extraordinary measure by the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor General, which had been drawn up and sent in a circular from the Secretary of State's office to the different militia regiments which had been kept on foot. In this opinion it had been stated, that it was the unquestionable right of his Majesty to continue the militia embodied, notwithstanding the termination of the war with France. Now, in what act was the war with France * See p. 567. or any other war stated as a ground for continuing the militia embodied? He remembered a great and important war carried on for many years without the militia having been called out. In the American war, from 1775 to 1778, though armies were sent out and great battles fought, not a regiment was called out. On the breaking out of the French war, there being a danger of invasion, the militia was embodied-not on account of the war, but on account of that danger of invasion. There was not now danger from any enemy, within or without. Even with the distant nation with whom we were lately at war, we were at peace; at least the definitive treaty having been signed, there was not the slightest probability that it would not be ratified by that na tion. We should then be at peace with all the world. What, then, was the ground on which the crown lawyers had justified the continuance of the militia ? it was the ground of expediency. Had the 42d of the king any reference to expediency? The expediency of his Majesty's government might refer to Bengal, or the distant limits of our North Ameri can possessions; but would a war in these settlements be stated as a ground for calling out the militia? He had received a paper from a body of persons, who had suffered severely by the continuance of the militia in a state of military array. They felt that they were under the iron rod of military discipline, and though sensible of the illegality of the measure, by which they had been continued embodied, they dared not complain. He hoped that the House would render remonstrance on their part unnecessary, and would not suffer, by any perversion of the law, a standing army to be established in the country not under the control of parliament. It had been stated to these unfortunate persons, that they were bound to serve as long as his Majesty's government should think necessary-his Majesty's government acting upon the knowledge of facts." What, then, were these facts? Why did not ministers come to parliament to state them? He hoped their lordships would never suffer such conduct to be drawn into a precedent, and he should therefore move," That an humble Address be presented to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, representing that the militia of Great Britain, embodied under the Act 42 Geo. 3, chap. 90 and 91, and the Irish militia, by the Act Geo. 3, chap. 101, were directed to be called out in the event of invasion or danger of invasion, insurrection or rebellion, and only in those cases-that in the present happy situation of affairs, no one of these cases existedthat they, with great humility, represented, that the keeping the militia embodied in these circumstances, was a direct violation of the Militia Acts, and contrary to law that this grievance called for immediate redress, and that they hoped that his Royal Highness would be graciously pleased to direct that the militia be disembodied without further delay." | sion, and mentioned the case of the seven years war, the year 1759, when the mili tia were called out and kept on foot' in 1760 and 1761, notwithstanding all danger of invasion had then ceased. In 1792, when a noble lord opposite was in administration, the militia was wisely called out, by perhaps what might be deemed a strained construction of the law, but which was a highly judicious measure. In 1805 the militia were kept embodied, when the situation of affairs that had required their being called out no longer existed; to come still nearer, when the French army was totally ruined on the Beresina, what danger of invasion any longer existed? How, then, did the reasoning of the noble earl apply? The cause for calling out the militia had, in many of these instances, altogether ceased, but yet parliament had by its votes sanctioned their being embodied, thus shewing their sense of its neces sity, under the circumstances of each case. Thus in the last war, subsequently to the peace of Paris, the House of Commons had voted the pay and clothing of the militia till Christmas last, and the vote had been introduced into the Appropriation Act, thus proving the construction which parliament gave to the militia laws, as to the militia remaining embodied when circumstances required it, although the causes of their being originally called out had altogether ceased. It was only, indeed, in consequence of the militia remaining embodied at that period, and being thus applicable to the domestic military service, that the army at Bour Viscount Sidmouth remarked upon the time which had elapsed since this subject was first mentioned by the noble earl, and that it was now brought forward at a moment when the disembodying of the remaining regiments of militia was actually in progress. He thought it extraordinary that the noble earl, with his view of the importance of the subject, should have thus delayed bringing it forward. Since the period when the noble earl first mentioned this subject the crown lawyers had delivered their opinion, that it was perfectly competent to the crown to keep the militia embodied, notwithstanding the termination of the war, so long as circumstances rendered it necessary, the ministers acting in such case upon their responsibility. That such was the law with regard to the militia he had no doubt. The noble earl had shewn, by quoting the acts of parliament, that to keep the militia, or any part of them, embodied, notwithstanding the termination of the war, was not contrary to the letter of the law, and he (lord Sid-deaux could be allowed to embark to supmouth) was decidedly of opinion, that neither was such a measure at all at variance with the spirit of the law. In all the acts regarding the militia, were to be found, consistently with a due constitutional jealousy of the crown, the circumstances strictly defined under which alone the militia should be called out; but, in none of them was it stated under what circumstances the militia should be disembodied. It certainly never had been in the contemplation of parliament, that the services of the militia should cease with the cessation of those causes, which had, under the authority of the law, led to their being called out; and there were numerous instances in which the militia had been kept embodied long after the reasons for calling them out had ceased to exist. His lordship referred to some of the instances he had quoted on a former occa port the cause of the country in another hemisphere. Against this measure no one had attempted to raise his voice, and he was confident that any one who had done so would have been overwhelmed with public indignation. Thus, therefore, parliament had recognised, in repeated instances, the expediency of keeping the militia embodied, after all the causes for calling them out had wholly ceased; and it evidently had never been the intention of the legislature to prescribe a period when the disembodying should take place. In the Local Militia Acts, it was expressly stated at what period that force, when embodied, should be disembodied; but although the regular militia establishment had been repeatedly before parliament, no provision whatever had been made as to the period of its being disembodied when once called out. He was, there fore, justified in cóncluding, that parlia- | embodied in time of peace, or so long as ment had not thought it fit to legislate upon this point, leaving it to the discretion of the government to keep the militia embodied so long as circumstances rendered it necessary; parliament itself having the control over the conduct of the government, by holding the purse of the nation, and by the annual Mutiny Bill. He admitted that it was burthensome to that part of the militia kept embodied, and he should be doing great injustice to that force if he did not acknowledge, in the highest terms, their zeal and loyalty; but it would have been little flattering to them to have been dismissed when the country so essentially required their services for domestic military purposes, in order to enable the regular troops to support the cause of the Country against its enemies. He was, therefore, perfectly satisfied as to the legality of keeping the militia embodied, and fully convinced of its expediency, under the circumstances which had existed. If, however, the House thought with the noble earl, that such practice was contrary to law, they would, of course, decide in favour of the motion, whatever might be the consequences. If, on the contrary, they thought that it was perfectly legal, and that expediency required, under the circumstances stated, its adoption, they would with him give the motion a decided negative. Lord Grenville said, he had no hesitation to accept the alternative offered by the noble viscount, and to state that he felt it his duty to give the motion of his noble friend his decided support, convinced as he was that keeping the militia embodied, as stated by his noble friend, was wholly contrary to law. They had been told by the noble viscount of the opinion of the crown lawyers; but was it to be endured that the law which was to bind the subjects of the country was to be taken from the ipse dixit of a crown lawyer, and this too upon a partial statement of the case referred to him? It was formerly the practice of the crown to take extra-judicial opinions of judges as to what was to be considered as the construction of law; and thus it was that it was promulgated to the country in the case of ship-money, that the crown might levy money upon the subject without the consent of parliament. Now we were to be told, not from the extra-judicial opinion of judges, but from the extra-judicial opinions of the crown lawyers, that the militia might be kept He the welfare of the government and of his |