that he had imputed to the government in India any wish of ruling by rapine and bloodshed. He had stated that the territories were acquired by those means. With respect to the loan, he was inclined to consider that the company asked the money in advance of claims, and not by way of loan. Mr. R. Thornton was disposed to admit to the noble lord that the public could not look to any prospect of payment until a renewal of the charter was obtained. The company in his opinion had been hardly dealt with, for he must contend that the country had prospered as much through the company as the company had benefited by any assistance received from the country. With respect to the loan, the hon. gent. seemed to think that it could not be obtained any where else, and therefore the company ought not to be grateful for it. In that opinion the hon. gent. was mistaken, for he would tell him where he could obtain it, and even to a greater amount. Buonaparté would be hapey to lend the money, aye, and pay the whole of the company's debts, and give them fifteen or twenty years purchase for their territories. There could not be any intention in what had fallen from the hon. bart. and the other hon. gent. to insinuate that the company's affairs had not prospered under their present management, because the fact was, that they had actually prospered, more so than at any former period. The difficulties under which they laboured were not principally of their own seeking, but arose in consequence of the wars in which they had been engaged; wars which he was justified in denominating the wars of the House of Commons, and therefore the company had the right to claim assistance. The hon. gent. contended that the trade since 1793 had always been prosperous; that it was sufficiently so to enable the company to make a large dividend. He trusted that as the government in India had incurred vast expences in fighting to maintain the British interests, that the House would not be disposed to make them bear all the burthens, because if they did the result must be, that if the war was continued year after year, they must come to parliament for fresh loans. When the report was made, the House would be satisfied that the present loan would not be improperly used. All that the company desired was, that their affairs should be strictly and deeply scrutinized, they were not afraid of the examination. The House then divided on the third reading of the bill: Ayes 52; Noes 10; Majority 42; The bill was then passed. [ADMIRALTY COURTS BILL.] On the motion for bringing up the report of this bill, Mr. H. Martin stated his objections to the bill, which, he contended, purported to be what in reality it was not. Instead of its being called a bill for regulating the office of the courts of admiralty, it ought to be entitled "A bill to prevent reform in those courts." The hon. and learned gent. conceived that the object which it professed to have in view was to reform the abuses, in regard to the enormous fees taken by the registrar and the mar shal of the admiralty; now the very reverse would be its effects. When the measure for the abolition of reversions was in agitation, it was not intended to regard remote interests, nor indeed did parliament when legislating in regard to offices where enormous profits had, he might say, scandalised the country, ever mean to look to remote interests. He wished to know, therefore, why the particular office of Registrar, to which the right hon. gent. (Mr. Perceval) had the reversion, deserved to be exempted from the general regulation. Formerly when the bill was before parliament for suppressing the fees in the office of tellers of the exchequer, no reference was had to a noble lord who then held the situation of Chancellor. place of Registrar was given to the present possessor by a noble lord at the head of the admiralty, and the gift was afterwards confirmed by the King. In the first instance, therefore, the appointment was illegal. His Majesty could not be said to have any interest in the office. The hon. and learned gent. contended that any abuses could not be regulated by act of parliament, but must be done by his Majesty in council. In that opinion he was fortified, by the opinion of the learned judge at the head of the admiralty courts, who in the case of the Rainsbergs, where the marshal claimed such large fees as astonished the judge, that learned person had stated "that it belonged to his Majesty alone in council, to make any alteration in the table of fees in any of the courts of admiralty." Not one word was said about the marshal in the bill. With respect to the money of the suitors, the right hon. gent. in answer to a question put to him the other evening, whether the Registrar retained or made use of the The suitors monies, that right hon. gent, declared that he did not. Now, he (Mr. M.) had in his pocket a letter from the right hon. gent. which stated a different thing. It was an undoubted fact that the noble lord who is the Registrar never did confess that he had retained one farthing of suitors monies as forming a part of the profits of his office upon his examination before the Committee. He saw no reason why the Registrar of the admiralty should not be compelled to deposit in the Bank the suitors monies as in like manner is required from the masters in Chancery. He believed that the real object of this bill was to prevent its being so paid in, and therefore he should object to it altogether. the discretion of either of the suitors, as both must, he understood, concur in the application before the money could be so withdrawn for investment in any public securities. This, therefore, was a defect which he thought ought to be cured by a clause in the bill before the House, in order that the right to invest the money in public securities for the benefit of the successful should be generally known, and that a public officer should not be allowed to enjoy a profit, which of right belonged to others. Mr. Stephen stated that it was competent to the judge of the Admiralty to order, ex-officio, that any money in court belonging to suitors should be vested in public securities for the benefit of the suitors. Mr. Jacob considered this as a substantial measure of reform, so far as it went, and was therefore surprised at the opposition it experienced in the professed advocates of reform upon the opposite side of the House. Mr. W. Smith thought the hon. mem The Chancellor of the Exchequer professed himself always averse to the disturbance of vested rights, in places of this nature, whether those rights were in the parties in possession, or those in reversion; and in this opinion it was known that he concurred with many of the highest authorities, one of whom did not hesitate to say, that a patent right involved as valid a claim asbers surprise should cease if he considered any freehold property. Connectedly then with this opinion, he could not agree to abolish the vested interest in the place under consideration. That his brother derived in a given year the sum of 7,8001. from the interest upon money belonging to suitors of the Admiralty court he was ready to admit. But, it being at the dis cretion of either of the suitors to have such money upon application to the court, vested in public securities, which they declined, probably from an unwillingness to risk the fluctuation of the funds, or from some other cause, the register could not be condemned from availing himself of the immemorial usage of his office, by deriving profit from its use, while the safety of the capital was strictly attended to. He denied that the case of the masters in Chancery had any analogy to that before the House, because those officers stood in a state of delinquency at the time the measure alluded to was brought forward, in consequence of losses having been sustained by the suitors in the court of Chancery. Mr. Bankes could not conceive it justifiable in any public officer having merely the custody of money, to put that money to hazard, or to derive any private profit from it. He believed his right hon. friend was mistaken in supposing that the money could be withdrawn from the register at the true nature of this bill, and that it was opposed because it did not go far enough; because it did not go the right road to reform; because, in fact, it proposed to place the obstacle of an act of parliament in the way of a reform obviously necessary, and that merely for the benefit of particular individuals. He reprobated the doctrine of confounding titles to property, by putting monstrous usurpations on a footing with these titles, which were unquestionable. That the practice of deriving private profit to public officers from the use of money intrusted to their custody was quite an usurpation, was a thing not to be disputed. But there was a particular reason why the officer under consideration should not be allowed to use the money under his care in the way referred to, because in fact this officer did not enter into any securities. This was a circumstance which, with all proper deference for the noble lord (Arden) would restrain him from allowing the money of suitors to be put to any hazard by that noble lord. He had no disposition whatever to question the character or responsibility of the noble lord, but the rank and importance of some recent defaulters strongly urged the propriety of caution in all cases whatever. Here he adverted to the premium afforded to this officer, and to others also holding a high station in the government, to keep the country in a state of war, because it increased their salaries, and condemned the gross impolicy of tolerating such an arrangement, urging the necessity of substituting a fixed salary to each of those oflicers who now among them derived a profit of 20,000l. a year from the continuance of war.-After observing upon the two returns from the Registry office, that there were no emoluments whatever derived from the use of the money in the Registrar's hands, although that money now appeared to produce 7,8001. in one year, the hon. member recommended the omission of those words in the bill, namely," After the falling in of the interest of the persons in possession and reversion of the same." He concluded with observing that, the preamble of the bill, proposed by a side wind to sanction the practice of public officers making use of the public money for their own private profit; and upon this and other grounds, he thought the farther consideration of it ought to be postponed until the next sessions. Mr. Rose expressed his surprise at hearing that the emoluments from the use of suitors money should have amounted in one year to upwards of 7,000l. He had caused inquiries to be made, and he believed, that at present the sum in the hands of the Registrar did not amount to 80,000l. of which 40,000l. belonged to the navy. This sum too, he understood, was likely to be still farther reduced. It depended on the suitors themselves, if any part of their money remained in the hands of the Registrar, as they had only to make the application to the judge, in order to have it invested. As to the resumptions in the reign of Queen Anne, these were only made out of hostility to the foreigners who had come over to this country in the reign of king William, and notwithstanding that hostility, the practice was almost instantly abandoned. would attribute to him any idea of wishing to add to his own emoluments by the present bill; but still, this he suspected would be the effect of the bill. If judicial offices were to be reformed, he thought the proper mode of doing so was, to reduce the fees, and not still to exact what was esteemed exorbitant, for the purpose of turning it into another channel. An office in the public revenue seemed to him to differ materially from a judicial office; and even in the former he doubted much the right of the officer to profit by the use of the public money. As to the latter character, so far as he was intrusted with money, it could only be as trustee for the suitors, and therefore he could not be entitled to any emolument thence arising. He instanced the case of a treasurer to the White-haven harbour, who being called on in Chancery to account for the emoluments derived by him from the use of the funds, although he had accepted of the office with the express view to this advantage, was obliged to account for the whole profits thence derived, even though no demand had been made on him. The Solicitor General vindicated the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and denied that he could have any interest in the provisions of the present bill, as the operations of the act were not to take place till after the two lives were expired. The Report was then agreed to. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, June 15. [PETITION AND REMONSTRANCE FROM SOUTHWARK FOR THE RELEASE OF SIR F. BURDETT, &c.] Mr. Henry Thornton said he held in his hand the Petition and Remonstrance of the electors of the borough of Southwark, legally convened by the high bailiff, on the 13th inst. He apprehended there was nothing in the language of the petition that would prevent it from being received, and therefore presented it to the House. Mr. Johnstone was convinced that the right hon. gent. (Mr. Perceval) could have The petition was then read, setting forth, no intention by the introduction of this "That the petitioners feel deeply interested bill, of deriving advantage to himself, or and alarmed at the extraordinary proceed those connected with him. If the billings of the House, in the imprisonment of were to pass, however, in its present shape, John Gale Jones, and the forcible entry it would begin at once to levy a revenue and seizure of sir Francis Burdett in his on neutrals unjustly brought into our own house, because, in the first place, they ports, a proceeding which was unworthy humbly conceive that contempts which the dignity of a great nation. are punishable by prompt imprisonment can only be construed as arising out of those overt acts which obstruct the pro Sir S. Romilly was satisfied that his right hon. friend could not suppose that he ceedings of the House; that a supposed libel upon the House, without such acts, may be safely referred to a jury of Englishmen consistent with all those privileges of the House, which may form part of the common law of the land, and consistent with the honour, dignity, and independence of the House; they humbly conceive that such conclusions are well warranted by a recent case of libel, in which the monarchy was represented as a goodly tree, from which the branches of the Lords and Commons might be safely lopped off, and that still the constitution would remain, all which was referred by the House to the verdict of a jury; and that, in the latter case, the petitioners were sadly reminded of the arbitrary proceedings of military governments on the continent, when neither police magistrates nor crown officers could find precedents to regulate them in inforcing their authority, the minister was found ready to advise his Majesty's government to employ its army, and however the petitioners were rejoiced to see their countrymen return from disastrous expeditions and the pestilential shores of Walcheren, they conceive the honour of a British soldier was tarnished when his valour was improperly directed against unarmed citizens; and that the petitioners have long been convinced, that the only safe and effectual remedy for our political evils is a substantial reform in parliament by a more equal representation of the people; they are convinced that one of the most radical defects of those ancient governments, which were overturned by power, or subverted by popular fury, arose from ignorance of the uses of representation; that a late statesman, many years at the head of his Majesty's government, declared that representation was the true principle of the British constitution, that to reform it was not to innovate but to recover; and that the petitioners humbly conceive alterations in the representation of the people, by extending the right of voting, are sanctioned by the House, as at Shoreham, Cricklade, and Aylesbury; where bribery is proved against the electors reform is safe, but not where seats are purchased as publicly as at noon-day, at the bare mention of which our ancestors would have started with indignation; and notwithwithstanding the right hon. Spencer Perceval and lord Castlereagh were detected in the traffic, they are still sitting unimpeached as members of the House; and that the petitioners trust they have always manifested a readiness to defend their King and country with their purses and their swords, and that the public liberty, which was acquired and defended by the best blood of our ancestors, may be preserved inviolate, and transmitted to the latest posterity, they trust that the House will restore that confidence to their feelings by the release of John Gale Jones and sir F. Burdett, and by a speedy reform." Sir T. Turton said, that unfortunately he did not attend the meeting, not having been applied to, and consequently not knowing more of the circumstance than any other member in the House. It was the duty of every representative to attend a meeting of his constituents to give them his assistance and advice. He approved of the sentiments contained in the petition, except where it denied the right of the House to imprison for a breach of privi lege; and begged leave to second the motion that it do lie on the table, The Petition was ordered to be laid on the table. [PRIVATE BILLS.] Sir T. Turton, before the session broke up, wished to call the attention of the House to the proceedings on private bills above stairs. Great inconvenience arose from the present system for arranging the bringing in and passing of private bills, as in the course of six weeks the whole of them were under consideration, which caused very great trouble and inconvenience to the members. He was of opinion, that the time for reporting them ought to be enlarged, and that some means ought to be adopted to enforce the attendance of gentlemen on committees, which would greatly tend to facilitate the business. And also he was of opinion, that a short-hand writer should be appointed to attend each committee. The Speaker observed, that the several matters stated by the hon. gent. were worthy of the most grave and serious consideration. It was desirable therefore, that he should follow them up with a specific proposition, or give notice of a motion. The House was too much at the mercy of agents and solicitors of bills, whether they should be conducted quick or slow. There was another subject also worthy of consideration, and that was the petitions of hostile parties being presented in a late stage of a bill, which was attended with delay, and great and unnecessary expence and inconvenience. It might perhaps be for the conveni. Speaker's warrant, and resisted the serjeant at arms sent to take him into custody; barring his doors, and exciting tumult, by rendering his house and his vicinage a rendezvous for the assemblage of disorderly and riotous persons, from all parts of this metropolis, whose turbulence it was impossible for the civil power to suppress, without the assistance of military force. Mr. Jones, on the contrary, instantly obey of gentlemen that he should advert to some of the points in which inconvenience was felt in the progress of private bills. They were, 1st, The great pressure of the business up-stairs in point of quantity at the close of the session. This had been partially remedied already, and deserved further attention. 2d, The attendance of members. This must be left to the consideration and discretion of members themselves. 3d, The facility from short-handed the orders of the House, acknowledged writers. It was the duty of the clerks to his error, and expressed his contrition. give every possible facility in this way. In the motion, therefore, which he was 4th, The appointment of an officer to put now about to submit for his liberation, he into technical legislative language the was aware that the remission of a few ideas of members wishing to draw up bills. days confinement during the short remThis was a point of difficulty, but all nant of the session, might not be considerthese deserved consideration, and gentle-ed as any great boon. Yet, as the power men would do well during the recess to turn their minds to them with a view to some specific proposition. [JOHN GALE JONES.] Sir James Hall rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice for the liberation of John Gale Jones. He expressed his conviction that if the proposition for the commitment of Mr. Jones had been discussed with the same deliberation as other acts of the House, it never would have obtained the prompt and unanimous assent with which it was so suddenly carried. He had heard several members who were not present on the occasion, since declare, that if they had been present, they would have opposed the commitment; and he did not scruple to declare his own regret that he was one of the unanimous few who assented to that commitment. For, upon mature reflection, he thought the decision of the House was in a great degree owing to Mr. Jones's own acknowledgment of the charge against him; and that the acknowledgment he made, the contrition he had expressed, and the very humble and respectful apology he had offered at the bar, should have induced the House not to proceed with severity, but to have liberated him after a proper reprimand. Another ground was, that Mr. Jones was punished with the same degree of severity as sir Francis Burdett, although there was no degree of parity between the nature of their, offences. For the latter not only assumed to censure openly the conduct of the House, of which he was a member, but to publish a libellous pamphlet, arraigning its proceedings, and defying its authority with a degree of outrage and acrimony bordering on frenzy. He had also afterwards disputed the authority of the VOL. XVII., of the House to imprison him would expire with the session, he thought the House, in its justice and discretion, ought to draw a marked line of distinction between the cases of the two parties committed. The liberation of Mr. Jones, he thought would tend completely to allay the popular ferment excited upon this subject; but he was convinced there was not a man of common sense or discretion in this country, who had any respect for the rights or the authority of the House of Commons, who would condole or sympa thize with sir Francis, or think that his punishment had been too severe. Sir James concluded by moving "That John Gale Jones, now under confinement, during "the pleasure of the House, in his Ma"jesty's prison of Newgate, be forthwith "set at liberty without payment of any " fees." Mr. P. Moore seconded the motion. Mr. Secretary Ryder opposed the motion, on the ground that Gale Jones was a voluntary prisoner, as he might be enlarged months ago, if he had thought fit to petition the House. He opposed his libe ration more particularly, because a similar motion was brought forward some time ago, and negatived, and therefore the House would act inconsistently, if it agreed to the present proposition of the hon. member. Sir T. Turton supported the motion, which was then put and negatived without a division. [AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.] Mr. Broug. ham rose, pursuant to notice, to call the the attention of the House to the state of the Slave Trade: a subject, he said, of the first importance; and although it was neither a personal question, nor a party one 2 U |