of a different kind. It had been said, that this motion was not for an equalization; but he was decidedly of opinion, that this measure if successful, must inevitably be followed up by a proposition from his right hon. friend the chancellor of the exchequer, to make up for the deficiency thus occasioned in the revenue, by imposing a fresh duty upon coals throughout the kingdom (cries of No, no). Other gentlemen might think otherwise; but this was his sincere conviction, which had been greatly strengthened by the candid avowal of an hon. and learned gentleman behind the treasury bench (Mr. Courte nay), who supported the removal of the existing duty, on the ground that it must inevitably lead to an equalization. The hon. mover had stated, that he had an excellent substitute to propose; but he (Mr. S.) was of opinion, that, in the present state of the country, any unexceptionable tax that could be suggested, should not be adopted in lieu of, but in addition to, the existing imposts. As to taking off this duty, without providing a substitute, such a course was quite impracticable. He had voted, during the present session, against the abolition, or even reduction, of any existing tax, and should continue, however reluctantly, to pursue the same course; because he thought that, in the midst of our actual embarrassments, it would be unfair towards his majesty's ministers, and unjust towards the public creditor, to increase the difficulties of the one, and impair the security of the other, by cutting off, at such a crisis, from the national treasury, any productive source of revenue. He considered the present question to be, whether we should leave the coal duties to be paid by those, who, from time immemorial, had been liable to them, or impose a fresh burthen (by equalizing the tax) upon many industrious and public-spirited manufacturers, who, after struggling for years under the pressure of unexampled difficulties and privations, were only beginning to emerge from this state of suffering and distress, and would naturally consider an additional duty to be an unjust and grievous hardship. They were a class well intitled to the protection of the House, because they contributed very largely, not only to the revenue, but to the maintenance of the poor, in the districts to which they belonged; and he should therefore show the interest he took in their welfare, by opposing the present motion.

Lord Mount Charles said, that after the personal allusion made to him by the hon. member who had just sat down, he must require an apology from that hon, member to the House.

Mr. Sinclair was about to reply, when a loud cry of Chair, Chair! called up the Speaker, who said he was sure the hon. member must be aware, on a little consideration, that if he thought any hon. member interfered with his right of expressing his opinion, it was his duty to address the House on the subject, and not that hon. member. He was persuaded, therefore, that under the circum, stances of the case, the hon. member would see that he had been wrong.

Mr. Sinclair disclaimed any offensive personal allusion; but as there was a loud clamour the moment that he rose to address the House, it was natural that he should feel annoyed by it. He certainly was ready to make every proper apology for his warmth [Hear, hear!].

Mr. Alderman Waithman rose to vindicate the city of London from the aspersion cast on its conduct by an hon. member. The hon. member should not forget that on every emergency the city of London had always been foremost to manifest its loyalty, and to advance its extensive and liberal aid to the government. The cele brated income tax, the discontinuance of which was so much lamented now by his majesty's ministers, he believed originated with the city of London, and he had the satisfaction to add, that it was the spirit and persevering firmness of the city of London which gave the mortal blow to that odious and inquisitorial tax. The hon. member should also recollect that although the city of London petitioned against this tax as a heavy grievance, the population of the city was not as one to ten of those in its vicinity who felt its pressure, and who were much less able to bear it; and more especially the manufacturing orders and labouring poor in its suburbs and surrounding vicinage, who were most grievously affected by this tax.

On

Sir J. Sebright, in the present exigency, was not for reducing the revenue. the contrary, if the finances of the country were placed on a sound footing, and a rigid system of public economy adopted, no man would be more ready to pay himself, and to vote for the payment by the nation at large, of such taxes as the good of the state might require. But the duty under consideration was most unfair and,

partial, and he must enter his protest against it.

Sir M. W. Ridley said, that with repect to the apprehension expressed by some gentlemen, that if the tax were repealed in London, instead of lowering the price here, it would only transfer it to the owners of coal mines, who would directly charge a much higher price on coals at the pit's mouth, he could speak from his own knowledge, that for the last 18 or 20 years, not a shilling had been raised on the price of coals at the pit's mouth; on the contrary, it had diminished one shilling per chaldron for three years past. The coal owners charged at the pit but 16s. the chaldron, and this at a time when the poor of London were paying 7s. the bushel. He should sup. port the motion.

Mr. Ellice supported the motion, because he thought an equalization of the duty preferable to the present tax, which he considered partial and oppressive.

Mr. Bennet said, he should vote against the tax, because he thought it extremely oppressive in the metropolis and the surrounding country, and he should vote against an equalization, because he thought it would be ruinous to the manufacturing districts.

Mr. Protheroe defended the conduct of the city of Bristol in petitioning against the equalization tax, because they thought it would immediately occasion a considerable rise on coals at the pit's mouth. But with respect to any tax on coals, there was but one opinion in all Bristol, and that was, that the tax should be repealed altogether. He trusted the time was not far distant when all the taxes of the country would call for revision, and when the relinquishment of this oppressive tax would be forced upon his majesty's ministers.

Mr. Maxwell said, that in rising to oppose the motion, he was directing his hostility to the equalization of duty; for he was convinced, that if the present duties were repealed, new ones of such a nature would be immediately resorted to. Any alteration to which his conception led him would be unjust and grievous to his constituents. The county which he had the honour to represent, and the district in which he lived, was filled with coal mines and studded with manufactories; to it any duty would, in consequence, be highly injurious and unjust; for they had built large edifices for their manufactures,

upon the faith of cheap fuel, and the coal proprietor had embarked his capital in mines on the faith of their continuance. But what would be the situation of the poor in many parts without wood and without coals, and to whom coals must be carried more than twenty miles on almost impassable roads, and under a latitude of nine months winter? No man agreed more fully in what fell from the hon. member for Durham on the subject of taxation. He would oppose every tax which tended to support corruption or military despotism; but when he could see that the tax was just, and it was, in his judgment, necessary for the conduct of the state, he would as readily vote for its continuation. London had such advantages as no other part of the kingdom could boast.-A court, a parliament, a judicature, and all the attendant wealth belonging to them expended in it-a national bank-an East India monopolycharities-donations-schools asylums without end-high prices for labour, and every comfort and convenience, when the power of working ceased, gave it privileges and advantages no other place could attain. He opposed this bill, then, in its first stage, and should continue to oppose to the best of his ability.

Mr. Byng observed, that as the existing duty was most oppressive and unequal, and bore peculiarly hard on those whom he had the honour to represent, he felt it his duty to support the motion.

Mr. Sumner replied. After which, the House divided: Ayes 49; Noes 151. Majority against the motion 102. List of the Minority,

INSOLVENT DEBTORS RELIEF BILL.] Lord Althorp, in calling the attention of the House to his intended measure for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors in England, observed, that the unanimity with which the committee appointed to investigate the subject, had agreed to the principles of the bill which it was his intention to propose, relieved his mind, in a great measure, from the embarrassment he should otherwise feel, in bringing forward so important a question. He was bound to apologize, however, for introducing the bill before the report of the committee was printed. His motive in doing so was, the necessity impressed upon his mind of originating the bill without farther delay, at so late a period of the session, in order that it might be printed as soon as possible, with a view to a full discussion of it in the future stages after the report had made its appearance. For this reason he should now enter more into detail than would be proper under other circumstances in so early a stage. It was unnecessary for him to explain to the House, that the old law of debtor and creditor gave to the creditor a power of inflicting unlimited imprisonment on an insolvent. The principle on which it went was this-that the debtor was able to pay, and therefore ought to be confined until he had paid. But, beside the falsehood of the principle itself, the consequences proved most injurious both to the debtor and the creditor in many instances. On the one hand, unfortunate persons who had not the means of paying were kept in confinement, while, on the other, many persons who could pay remained in prison, and set their creditors at defiance. The first measure of relief to the severity of such a system was that entitled the Lords' acts. The principle of this measure was, to entitle the debtor to his discharge on surrendering his property, except it was objected to by any one of his creditors and in order to secure him against malicious detention, the objecting creditor was obliged to pay him what was called his groats, a sum which was afterwards increased to sixpence. Notwithstanding this regulation great inconvenience was experienced. The gaols be

came so crowded, that recourse was had to temporary insolvent acts, which were also objectionable in many respects. They were objectionable as ex post facto laws; they were also objectionable, from the inequality of their operation. The debtor, who was confined but a few months, was liberated under their provisions, as well as the debtor who was confined for as many years. The consequence was, that whenever an insolvent act was expected, the gaols became crowded with debtors who were anxious to take advantage of it, in many instances, to defraud their creditors. Under these circumstances, it was found necessary to enact a permanent law, which was first brought forward in 1813. The principle of this law was, that not the body, but the property of the debtor should be considered as the satisfaction to which the creditor was intitled. Such a principal was obviously the best for both parties, and in order to carry it into effect a new court was established. Every one approved of the principle, but the bill contained defects in its particular enactments, which led to great abuses. Two attempts were made to remove those defects, but the whole of the four acts that were passed upon the subject had proved inadequate. Among the principal defects, was that of conducting the examination of accounts in open court. It was clear that they could not be examined in such a place with that accuracy which was desirable, and many instances occurred, in which property was kept back instead of being given up to the creditors. Another defect was, that the debtor could choose his own time, after the lapse of three months, to demand his discharge, from whence it often happened, that the prisoner lived in the rules of the Fleet or King's-bench until he had spent all his property, and then applied for his release. He was aware that there were provisions in the present act to remedy these imperfections, but they were found to be insufficient. The third defect was, that the creditors had no power to compel the debtor to apply for his release before his property was entirely expended. These were the main objections to the law as it stood, but there were minor ones, into which he would not enter at present, as they must lead him more into detail than he was willing to enter until the bill came regularly before the House. To remedy these disadvantages, he should propose, in the first place, that an examination of

the accounts should take place before they were examined in court, as was done under the bankrupt laws. For this purpose, it would be necessary to appoint three commissioners in the Insolvent debtors court, instead of one, and as the court was one from which there could be no appeal, such an addition to the number of the judges was the more reason able. One of the commissioners should preside at the meeting of the creditors, and no creditor who did not prove his debt at that meeting, should have any claim upon the property. This, he thought, would lead to a bona fide division of the debtor's effects. To correct the second evil, he would propose that the debtor should be obliged to make his option whether he would take the benefit of the act within fourteen days after his arrest. If he did not do so within that time, he should be considered to have forfeited his claim to be released under it; but the creditor should still be enabled to apply to the court for the purpose of obliging the debtor to apply for his release, in order to come at his property. This provision was not intended to apply to persons confined on mesne process, as it was possible they might not have been arrested for just debts. There were other parts of the system which required improvement. Fees were established now in the Insolvent court, which the bill in contemplation was intended to abolish. He was aware that some objections might be made to such an arrangement, with a view to particular instances; but the best mode of proceeding he thought would be, to adopt the principle of abolition; and if there were any instances in which it might be proper to retain the practice of allowing fees, to make those instances exceptions to the general rule. What he had now said applied to the case of debtors confined in London; but in order to apply the bill to those confined in the country also, he would propose that the magistrates of the quarter sessions should appoint examiners to investigate the accounts, who should report to them in the same manner as the commissioners should report to the court in London. He certainly did not expect that any great objections could be made to the principle of the bill; it was possible that some might disapprove of the additional expense to which the appointment of three commis sioners instead of one must lead; but when they considered that the object was

to relieve unfortunate debtors from oppression, and also to benefit creditors themselves, he trusted that the expense would not prove an insurmountable difficulty. As great abuses had taken place in consequence of the removal of debtors in the country, from the place at which their creditors resided, to a distance where they could not attend to oppose them, the bill contained a provision, enabling the court in London to select that part of the country for the examination of their accounts where most of the creditors resided. The power of removal should, for the reason already stated, be made not to depend on the debtor him. self. Having so far detailed the nature of the measure, he should now move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors in England."

Mr. Alderman Waithman agreed with the noble lord, that the present was not the time to enter into any discussion, but as much misconception had gone abroad with respect to the views of the petitioners, he wished to state, that no indisposition was shown, either by the petitioners, or by any of the witnesses, to the adoption of some measure for the relief of unfortunate debtors. He concurred with the noble lord in general as to the remedy with which he proposed to meet the evils of the present system, but wished to reserve to himself the right of discussing some of the points when the bill came properly before the House.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that this question was of so much importance to the interests of the country, and to the cause of justice and humanity, that he should be the last man to oppose the measure because a little more expense might be incurred by it. He should think it his duty, when the bill was introduced to consider what would be the most economical arrangement. He could safely assert, that with the exception of the question regarding the poor-laws, his mind had been more embarrassed upon this subject than on any other. The bill originally brought forward in the other House, by lord Redesdale, had almost totally failed; it had been productive of the most lavish waste of property on the part of the debtor, and of great hardship towards the creditor. After complimenting the zeal with which the noble lord had entered into the subject, and the success with which he appeared to have encountered its difficulties, he pledged himself to afford

every assistance in his power to render the bill as perfect as possible.

Mr. Hurst also complimented the noble lord on his exertions, and expressed his entire approbation of every part of the bill. The object being one which had frequently occupied his mind, and the disadvantages of the present system having frequently come under his observation, he was the more anxious to afford every assistance in his power towards the completion of a measure so beneficial to the public.

Mr. D. W. Harvey thought that a favourable opportunity now presented itself to his majesty's ministers, to correct the general administration of the law with respect to bankruptcy and insolvency. A great expense might also be avoided. There were at present fourteen lists of bankrupt commissioners, costing the country 35,000l. a-year. Now if, instead of these, three judges of insolvency were appointed, with a salary of 3,000l. a-year each, a great saving would be effected, and the property of bankrupts and insolvents would be divided with greater promptitude and advantage.

Mr. W. Courtenay could not agree with the hon. member, that such an alteration as he proposed would be attended with any advantage. On the contrary, he thought it would create a complicated and expensive system, which would be intolerable. He did not think that the increase of commissioners, as suggested by the noble lord who proposed the bill, would be attended with advantageous_results. He would admit that the introduction of some auxiliaries to the present commissioner might prove advantageous. Sir John Newport hoped that the bill proposed to be introduced would be extended to Ireland. The evils of the present system had been deeply felt in that island.

Mr. Leslie Foster had no doubt but that the laws of Ireland could be assimilated with those of England in this respect, and that the provisions of this measure could be extended. He entirely agreed in the defects of the bill which at present existed, and the melancholy effect it had upon Ireland.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

BANK AFFAIRS-ARTICLE IN "THE COURIER" NEWSPAPER.] Mr. Callaghan wished to put a question to the chancellor of the exchequer on the subject of an

article in the Courier newspaper of this day, which appeared to be, and would be considered by the country, to be official. The article in question was as follows:"As a parliamentary measure calculated to facilitate bullion payments, it is proposed to make provision for the gradual repayment of the sum of ten millions due to the Bank. Such repayment to take place before the commencement of bul. lion payments, that is, before the 1st February, 1820."-Now, as this was a subject of the greatest importance to the country, he wished to know from the right hon. gentleman, whether any intention was really entertained by government of paying to the Bank this sum of ten millions before the 1st February 1820? The article in question expressly stated this to be the principal feature of the resolutions to be moved in both Houses. When the public were filled with apprehensions respecting the diminution of the circulation, such a paragraph, bearing to be official, could not fail to fill them with the greatest alarm. A statement however from the chancellor of the exchequer, of its being an unauthorized paragraph, would relieve them from their anxiety.

Sir John Newport rose to object to articles in newspapers which any member might choose to consider official, being made the foundation of questions like this. The House were bound to interfere to prevent any question being put to a minister on the subject of an article in a newspaper bearing no signature. In such a case, ministers must either remain silent, or commit the public interest by a premature declaration of their intentions. He rose to protest against a practice which had never yet been suffered, and never would be suffered by the House.

Mr. Grenfell was surprised that any member should consider any article in a newspaper official. In the resolutions to be moved, there was indeed an allusion to the payment of 10 millions to the Bank, but not a syllable about the time when it was to be paid. He hoped that no answer would be given to a question so irrelevant.

Mr. Callaghan said, the article in question carried on the face of it the stamp and character of official.

The Speaker trusted the hon. member would, on a little reflection, be convinced that this was the first time that a question was put to any minister on an article in a newspaper, on a subject of such conse

§