those of the lower ranks of life, who were too often driven by distress to the commission of improper acts; and than those who, in a state of affluence, had not the checks to control their conduct, that must necessarily regulate the trading part of the community. He said, that if any plan could be devised to meet the benevolent wishes of the framers of the act, and at the same time to give some security for the property of the honest trader, the city of London would willingly concur. The real fact was, that it made individuals rush to take the benefit of the act in the first instance, without making any exertion to retrieve their situation. He could appeal to the hon. commissioner of bankrupts who sat near him, whether he ever knew an instance of an honest debtor being oppressed by his creditors, after he had given a fair statement of his losses and effects. The house surely could not tolerate the principle of a measure which justified a man's wasting his effects until he had not one farthing left, and then cancelling all his engagements by this act. If a man had 10,000l. or 500l. and found his affairs sinking, let him call his creditors together and give among them what remained, but let him not, as this act justified, continue a squandering career until not one farthing remained for any body. Indeed, the consequence of this measure was, that many creditors were actually compelled by the losses they incurred to follow their debtors into gaol, and go on themselves to take the benefit of this act, which shook of debts to the amount of hun dreds of thousands, and did not leave as. sets to the amount of a farthing in the pound for distribution among creditors. He had seen a paper containing a list of persons who had applied to particular sheriffs offi insolvent court more power than had ever been conferred on any individual for centuries past. He possessed a much greater authority with regard to property between debtor and creditor than was in the exercise or the discretion of the lord chancellor, and the twelve judges. Different papers had been presented to the House, showing the number of persons who had taken the benefit of the act, and the amount of their debts; but gentlemen who were not connected with trade, could hardly be supposed willing to take the trouble to look into these papers. It would astonish many members to learn that after the bill had been in operation three years, an account up to March 1815 had been moved for, whereby it appeared that upwards of six millions of property had then been decided on under that act, and that all the dividends on that property amounted only to about one farthing in the pound. At that time they were told that several regulations would be introduced to remedy the evils, and that they proceeded in a great measure from the carelessness of the creditors, in not looking after the property of their debtors. Another account was presented up to the 1st of March 1817. The persons who then had taken the benefit of the act since the former account, amounted to something more than 9,000; and the whole property decided on, amounted to upwards of eight millions. The money recovered amounted to something more than half a farthing in the pound. He had made a great mistake in stating the dividend on the former property at a farthing in the pound-it was only one-fourth of a farthing; so that the improvement had produced an increase of from a quarter of a farthing to half a farthing in the pound. The number of per-cers with the writs in their hands under sons who had taken the benefit of the act which they were to be taken into custody. was nearly fourteen thousand, and the The hon. alderman concluded with moving property they owed was nearly fifteen that the petition do lie on the table; and millions. Here, then, a tax to a most he begged at the same time to give notice, enormous amount was levied-a tax ex-that if it should appear at a future time to ceeding in amount that of the property tax be the intention to renew this act, he -here was fifteen millions of property, would move for a previous inquiry into its all taken from the profits of the most ho-operation. In the mean time he would nest, the most industrious, the most labori-move for a continuance of the line of acous, and the most moral part of his majes-counts formerly presented to the house on ty's subjects [Hear, hear!]. He did not, this subject. when he said this, mean any thing invidiMr. E. J. Littleton said, that he perous to any other class of society; but it fectly concurred with the worthy alderman was not to be denied that their habits as to the effects of the law. The intentions were more chaste, their conduct more re-which had actuated those who originated gular, and their morals more pure, than the law were, he was convinced, most hu mane. It was a laudable attempt to endeavour to distinguish between the unfortunate and the fraudulent debtor. But the effect had not corresponded. Millions of property had been disposed of, of which the creditors had not received a farthing in the pound; and he was convinced, that for every instance in which justice had been done to a debtor, much more injustice had been done to the creditors. This was not a mere question between the debtor and creditor-it was one which concerned the public morals and public interest; first it clearly, appeared before the last committee appointed by parliament, that respectable traders were obliged to shield themselves from the losses entailed by this act, by putting an additional price on their goods. He believed that for one act of justice towards an honest debtor, occasioned by the operation of this act, fifty frauds were committed upon the creditor. Mr. Brougham said, he quite agreed with his hon. friend, the worthy alderman, and with the hon. gentleman who spoke last, that this was an important question, which ought to be maturely considered; he quite agreed with them, that it ought to be duly and carefully weighed, from the immense interests which were at stake on the issue. Its operations on the mercantile, the general and trading interests, and on the administration of justice, were of the highest importance, and alike entitled this act to the most serious and cool consideration. He did not mean on the present occasion to anticipate a discussion which would be more regular at a future period, but he could not allow the statements which had just been made to go forth to the world without protesting against them in one point of view. These statements, or at least the great point or principle upon which they were founded, though guarded with some special qualifications, went generally against the whole measure. He objected to this sweeping way of denouncing the act, and particularly to the manner in which the comparisons seemed to be made. The comparison between the state of this particular law now, and the previous state, should not be made upon an ideal standard of law which never did exist, but upon what was the actual fact, and then, indeed, a fair estimate might be made of the practice in one case and in the other. If hon. gentlemen meant to make a fair comparison, they must refer to the former practice, which was, to pass every year or | two ex post facto laws to clear the gaols from debtors, and compare that with the principle of the present act, which was prospective in its operation. The act as it was might have many imperfections, which it would be well to remedy. It had not emanated from that House. The bill was lord Redesdale's, with a few and not important alterations. This act might be liable to objections, though many of them, he hoped, would be found capable of being removed; but what he protested against was, its being compared with a state of law which never had existence. As an instance how easily a clamour might be raised on this subject, though he acquitted the worthy alderman of any intention of producing an unfair impression, he should refer to the statement of property disposed of under this act. Suppose no insolvent act had passed, would the creditors have had the whole of the fifteen millions? Was it not more probable that they would not have had even the fortieth part of the farthing in the pound, which it was said they had actually received? The petition was ordered to lie on the table. After which, on the motion, of Mr. Alderman Waithman, returns were ordered, "1. Of all persons discharged under the Insolvent acts up to the first of February 1819, the amount of the respective sums to which such discharge extended, and the amount of dividends, that have been received and paid to Creditors. 2. Of all instances in which debtors have been remanded under the operation of the Insolvent debtors acts, with the grounds of such remanding." WESTMINSTER HUSTINGS BILL.] Mr. Bennet brought up the report of the committee on this bill. On the motion that it be agreed to, Mr. Hume said, that but for an accident, he should have had that day a petition to present against this bill, and on that ground he wished the further proceedings on it to be postponed. The act which the present bill was intended to renew, was passed in 1811, professedly only for two years, in which time inquiry was to have been made. It had been continued from that time to the present, and no inquiry had ever taken place. It threw the whole expense of the hustings on the candidates. The petition which he should have the honour to present would show that there were funds $ Mr. Bennet said, that the urgency of present circumstances evidently admitted of no delay. This bill must pass, or the election must take place, without any act existing on the subject. The shortness of its duration would, however, soon afford ample opportunity for inquiry and delibe to defray the charge; that the high bailiff | so heavy a burthen from falling on the bought his office from the dean and shoulders of a candidate. chapter, and that if that body had not sold the office, but had bestowed it as they should have done, the officer would have been able to erect the hustings without charging the candidates. The charge upon one of the candidates alone had been 900l. and odd at the last election. He hoped the house would not compel a candidate for the representation of Westminster, to be fined to that amount; but would previously appoint a committee to inquire into the merits of the case. Mr. Bennet said, that the bill was only to continue for one year what had been law for six years. He was very willing that a committee should be appointed, to inquire whether the candidates or the dean and chapter (neither of whom he did not know to be legally liable) should be charged with the expenses of the hustings. But he believed it would be agreed on all sides, that the high bailiff should not be saddled with the expenses. He therefore could not consent to postpone the bill, at a time when they were on the eve of another election for Westminster; and when an individual might be ready without the slightest hope of success, to raise a disturbance in Westminster, and, from a vindictive spirit towards the high bailiff, compel him to raise hustings and keep open a fourteen days poll, with the expense of which he would attempt to saddle that officer. ration. Sir M. W. Ridley thought the operation of the present bill could not be said to affect the freedom of election. It was surely very hard, if an individual who had in fact caused the expense should refuse to pay the amount which the law justified, and which was absolutely necessary, and that the whole should fall on the high bailiff. He thought it would be equally hard to throw the expense on the inhabitants generally. In his opinion the candidates were the proper persons on whom it should fall. Mr. Wynn said,hecould not agree with the hon. member who spoke last, that, under any circumstances, so large an expense should be thrown upon the candidate. The candidate came forward as much in obedience to the king's writ as the electors did who gave him their votes. To put an extreme case: suppose nobody came forward, and that no return was made, then the city would be punished by fine for not obeying the king's writ. Parliamentary service might be cast on a man with or without his consent, and no man, should be fined for seeking or accepting it. He therefore should propose inquiry. If the dean and chapter had funds (and he was inclined to believe they had none) which could be legally liable to this charge, the expense should be defrayed by them: if not, a rate ought to be levied on Westminster, and a permanent building be erected, or hustings which might be put up when required, and which would not entail any considerable expense on the city. Mr. Curwen thought the better course would be for the citizens of Westminster to erect some permanent place, which would answer for the business of their elections without being obliged, on every occasion to erect a hustings, as was the present practice. He thought that this measure should not be pressed through the house in such a hurry, and that time ought to be given to ascertain whether funds could not elsewhere be found for the purpose. If the office of high bailiff was, as was said, an office of considerable Mr. C. Tennison said, he concurred geemolument, and one for the purchase of nerally in what had fallen from the hon. which a large sum was given, it might be gentleman who spoke last, and thought it necessary to see if this expense could an unconstitutional principle which went with any degree of justice be attached to to fix the expenses on the candidates: esit. He was quite of opinion that no bur- pecially as they were sometimes brought then of this nature ought to be thrown forward without their previous assent; a upon the freedom of election, and the case of this sort had actually occurred in postponement of the report for a day or Westminster. There seemed as little two could not affect the approaching propriety in fixing the expenses on the election, and some permanent arrange-high bailiff or dean and chapter who were ment might be made which would prevent not more materially interested in the repre sentation of the city of Westminster than any other individuals there. The argu. ment of an hon. baronet, who seemed to think the candidates were the proper parties to pay the expenses, was founded in the idea that a seat in that house was a beneficial possession for which something was to be paid. He (Mr. T.) thought it clear that the inhabitants generally or the electors of Westminster, who had the benefit of being represented in parliament, were the parties who should be called upon to pay the expenses incident to the election of their members. The report was received. On the question, that the bill be read a third time to-morrow, Mr. Denman said, that the House was called on to pass a bill of whose object it appeared to him that it was utterly ig. norant. For his own part, he must observe, that it was unknown to him, and that therefore he could not support it. The reasons which had been urged by hon. gentlemen to induce the house to pass this bill in a hurry, inclined him to pause before he gave his sanction to it; and he should therefore willingly second the proposition for time to inquire whether the high bailiff had any funds with which to defray these expenses, and whether there was any place in which the hustings could be permanently held and the expenses incurred in erecting them avoided in future. He scarcely knew what the law on the subject was, and he believed that other gentlemen were in a similar state of ignorance. This was an additional reason for delay. It might be hard on the high bailiff, if he had to pay the expenses incurred in the election out of his own pocket; but he would rather indemnify him for them by an express act of the legislature, than impose them on others by the operation of an ex post facto law like the present. Mr. Bennet said, that the act which the present bill was intended to renew, had passed in 1811, it was repassed in 1813, and had expired a month ago. The bill only continued for a year longer what had been law for eight years. He wished to have the bill passed before the circumstances could arise which would be affected by the bill, which seemed to him to be directly the reverse of an ex post facto law. If the house wished to have the bill postponed, he should bow to its wishes cries of No, no!]; but he had no doubt that he should be able to give a sa tisfactory answer to the petitions, as he had had an interview with one of the principal petitioners. Lord A. Hamilton proposed, as an amendment, that Friday next should be substituted for to-morrow for the third reading. He also thought that some inquiry ought to be made to ascertain the emoluments of the high bailiff. Suppose a member were elected, and did not choose to attend at the hustings lest he should be called upon to pay this large expense, in what a situation would he not be placed! He would be exposed to the penalty of the House for not attending, and to the high bailiff's bill if he took his seat, Mr. Holme Sumner suggested to the hon. mover whether it would not be right to limit the scope of this bill to the 1st of April next. If this suggestion were not adopted, he would vote for postponing the discussion until Friday next. Mr. Bennet said, that the first of April would be rather an awkward day but he had no objection to the first of May. He never meant to propose this as a permanent measure; on the contrary, it was his intention hereafter to move for a committee, to take the whole subject into consideration. Mr. Hume submitted to the house, whether they would allow a bill, not yet printed or known to the members, to be passed in so hasty a manner. The hon. gentleman who had brought this bill forward was, on all former occasions, one of the readiest persons to demand inquiry; but on the present occasion, he was most hostile to it, and said, if not in form, at least in substance," Do the act first, and then inquire into the reasons for doing it." He must consider the whole of the proceedings in this affair as most rash and precipitate, and must in consequence, deprecate them with all the ability in his power. The bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. PETITION FROM LEEDS IN FAVOUR OF THE BANK RESTRICTION ACT CONTINUANCE.] Mr. Stuart Wortley rose to present a petition from the principal merchants and manufacturers of Leeds, praying that the Bank might not be called upon to resume its cash payments at the present crisis. He was advised that there were several other petitions of the same tenor now preparing in that quarter of the country, and which would be shortly laid before parliament. The Petition was then brought up and read. It sat forth, "That the petitioners feel the deepest interest in the deliberation of the house on the resumption of cash payments by the Bank; that while the petitioners admit the importance of the Bank returning to payments in specie as soon as circumstances render it practicable, the petitioners humbly beg to represent, that in their opinion the present period is most unfavourable to that change, and that the attempt, if now made, would, as they conceive, be unsuccessful, and attended with the most injurious consequences; that our commerce and manufactures, extended by the facilities of peace, and by new and important channels having been laid open, require the full resources of the country; and at the present period loans of unprecedented magnitude, in operation throughout Europe, have turned the exchanges greatly against this country, and drained it of its specie; that if the Bank were to return to cash payments, at this juncture, our gold coin, the petitioners submit, would inevitably continue to be exported as fast as issued; and as the petitioners believe so great a diminution of the circulating medium would be caused by the necessary restrictive measures of the Bank of England, and of private bankers, as must occasion stagnation in trade and manufactures, depreciation of property and general distress, throwing a considerable portion of the population out of employment, injuring the revenue, and hazarding the prosperity of the empire; the petitioners therefore, trusting in the wisdom of the House, humbly pray that the change of this system of cash restriction may be postponed to a more favourable period, when the country may have free command of its resources, and may reap the permanent advantages of the measure unattended by any of the evils now contemplated." Mr. Tierney said, it was material to trace the origin of this petition. He begged, therefore, to ask, the hon. member, whether the petition was the result of any public meeting of the bodies in whose names it was drawn out? Was, there, in fact, any public meeting at all? He put this question because he had heard that certain active persons, well known in the metropolis, had prepared petitions here, and sent them down to different parts of the country, to have signatures surreptitiously obtained. Bankers had been the principal agents in procuring them; and every body knew how reluctant a country gentleman indebted to his banker would be to refuse his name to a petition of this nature, when asked to give it by this accommodating banker. One very strange circumstance in this petition was, that the very first name at the foot of it was Beckett, the name of the principal bankers at Leeds. Mr. S. Wortley observed, that the bankers had not signed it. The Messrs. Beckett who had signed it, were not the bankers, but another firm, sons of the bankers of that name. Mr. Tierney observed, that he did not know the bankers had been so artful. He only wished that all the petitions which they were to have, had been presented that day, that they might see whether they all came from the same shop. Meantime he wished to ask, was this petition the result of any meeting. 4 Mr. S. Wortley said, it came to him accompanied by a letter from a respectable merchant, desiring him to present it. He was not informed whether any public meeting had taken place. Mr. Tierney said, he had received a letter from Leeds, complaining that such a petition was to come up, that it had been privately circulated, and that no public meeting had been held. The petition was ordered to be printed. ARREST OF GENERAL GORGAUD.] Mr. F. Douglas said, that as he saw a gentleman belonging to the home department now in his place, he should take the opportunity of putting a ew questions to him. A certain foreigner had been seized under the Alien act, on the 14th of last November, and sent out of the country. One of the provisions of that act was, that any individual arrested under it should be carried, if he wished to appeal against the execution of the sentence, before the privy council. He understood that this foreigner had expressed his determination of making this appeal, but had not been allowed to do so. He wished to know what explanation could be given of these circumstances, and under what authority they had also seized his papers. Mr. H. Clive said, that he had not a minute of the facts, to which he could then refer for the accuracy of his statement, |