After a short reply from sir J. Montgomery, the motion, as amended, was agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Friday, June 25.

BANK ADVANCES BILL.] Mr. Peel having moved the third reading of this bill,

Mr. Grenfell expressed his satisfaction at its enactments. It was, he conceived, a measure which, allowing to the Bank their fair proportion of profit, would prevent those abuses to which he had so frequently called the attention of the House. It was now four years since he had first called the attention of the House to the nature of the transactions between the Bank and the government-since he had pointed out where it was that a saving might be made without any injustice to the Bank. Perhaps, now that the country was to be let into a portion of the large profits which were made-now that there was to be established those regulations for which he had contended, it became him to say, that he would now take his leave of the Bank subject. There were still, however, some details which remained to be settled, such as the charge for the management of the public debt, which amounted to some 200,000 or 300,000l. annually. Yet he felt satisfied upon this head, as he understood they were to be submitted to the committee of finance, or some other committee in the course of the ensuing session. He could assure the House, that he had no other than a motive of public good in all the motions he had made. He was actuated by no feeling of personal hostility towards the members of that respectable body, the Bank; and if in the course of any observations which he had had occasion to make, he had expressed himself with unbecoming warmth, he was sorry for it.

The bill was then passed.

EXCISE DUTIES BILL.] On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,

Mr. Western said, he felt himself bound to oppose the motion. Much had been said on the subject of taxes affecting the poor, and taxes affecting the rich. The distinction was more apparent than real; for taxes on the poor must inevitably be felt by the rich, and taxes on the rich must diminish the funds for the employ

ment of the poor, and consequently affect them as well as the rich. But certainly the more immediate operation of these taxes would be first felt by those whose means were already so inadequate for their proper support. For this reason, he objected to the tax on malt. He objected to it, as throwing a heavy burthen on the lower orders, and pressing with peculiar severity on an article of the first necessity. The new taxes amounted to three millions, and two millions of them were on an article, the consumption of which was of the utmost importance to agriculture-there being 1,500,000l. on malt, and 500,000l. of additional duty on British spirits. Were the House aware, that at that moment there was no less a sum than nine millions of taxes on malt, beer, and British spirits? The effect of this heavy taxation on malt must be, to diminish the consumption, and consequently the growth of barley. In 25 years, the consumption of malt had been reduced one-fourth. In 1790, and ten succeeding years, the average consumption of malt was 3,390,000 quarters. For the ten years ending 1816, the average consumption was only 2,907,000 quarters; so that, at this last period, there was a reduced consumption of 420,000 quarters. But it appeared from papers on the table, that if, in comparing the consumption of the two periods, an allowance were made for the increase of population in the latter, the consumption of 1816, in order to be equal to that of 1790, ought to have been above 4,200,000 quarters. Did not this clearly show, that when taxation was carried beyond a certain point, it had the effect of diminishing consumption? The House here saw the most useful articles for the consumption of the people positively reduced by the operation of this tax. In the period commencing with 1790, the price of barley was 31s. the quarter, and the duty 10s. a quarter. In the latter period, barley had advanced to 40s., when at the same period the duty had advanced to 24s. Under these circumstances, it was thought necessary to take off the increased duty. By the imposition of taxes at the present moment, the House were taking a dangerous step. Whatever effect might be produced on our finances by having an actual sinking fund as contradistinguished from an imaginary sinking fund, he thought any ad vantage to be derived from this would be bought too dear by adding to the burthens

Mr. Ord said, he should not discharge his duty, if he did not protest in a more formal manner than by a silent vote against the present bill. Nothing could, in his opinion, justify any additional burthens on the people at the present moment.

Mr. Farrand contended, that it would be highly unjust to levy the new duty on the stock in hand. On account of the great fall in the price of barley, by the importation of foreign grain since the beginning of the season, the malster would not be able to realize from his malt the cost price of the raw barley.

Lord Ebrington could not help calling the attention of the House, to one point connected with this question, which he thought of considerable importance. When the proposition for the new taxes was first brought forward by the chancellor of the exchequer, it was accompanied with a resolution on the subject of economy and retrenchment, which could not have been forgotten by the House; and he (lord E.) was much disappointed, that, whilst the House had so readily acquiesced in the imposition of these burthens, no measure whatever had been proposed by ministers, for carrying the above resolution into effect. But how much was that disappointment increased, when, by the paper lately laid on the table, entitled "Încrease and Diminution of Public Salaries," it was shown that the expense of the public offices for the last year, had exceeded the former one by above 100,000l.; that, in the two departments of Customs and Excise, 136 additional officers had been appointed in 1818; and that the increase of expenditure, under different heads, in these two branches alone, amounted to 107,000l. It was true that some reductions had been made in other departments; but setting the one against the other, there still remained a clear increase of no less a sum than 103,000. in the course of the last year. He could not but hope, that those who had been so ready to impose burthens on the people would give some more specific pledge of their disposition to enforce ecoRomical reform than was contained in the

Sir R. Wilson once more entered his dissent to the proposal now before the House. At this moment new rumours of disturbances were afloat in the manufac turing districts; plots probably not planned by desperate leaders, but by insidious instigators. But what materials would these men have for their work, were it not for the burthens under which the people were groaning. The new taxes were, when compared with the whole present amount of taxation, said to be small; but it is the last feather that breaks the horse's back.

The question being put, "That the bill be now read a third time," the House divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 65.

List of the Minority.

Heygate, ald.
Hume, J.

Hutchinson, hn. C. H.
Lamb, hon. G.
Lawson, M.

Lefevre, C. S.

Lemon, sir Wm.

Monck, sir C.
Moore, Peter

Neville, hon. Rich.

Newman, R. W. North, Dudley Newton, Wm. Onslow, A. O'Callaghan, Jas, Palmer, C. F. Pares, Thos.

Barham, J. F.
Barnard, viscount
Barnett, J.
Becher, W. W.
Bernal, R.
Benyon, Ben.
Birch, Jos.
Brand, hon. Thos.
Brougham, H.
Byng, G.
Burdett, sir F.
Buxton, T. F.
Burrell, Walter
Calcraft, J.
Calvert, Nic.
Calvert, C.
Cavendish, lord G.
Coffin, sir I.
Colborne, N. R.
Concannon, L.
Crawley, Sam.
Crespigny, sir W. De Robarts, A.
Davies, T. H.
Denison, W. J.
Duncannon, visc.
Ebrington, visc.
Fane, J.
Ellice, Ed.
Farrand, R.

Parnell, sir H.

Phillipps, C. M.

Powlett, hon. W. Price, R.

Robarts, W. T. Rowley, sir W.

Smith, John

Smith, Wm.

Smith, hon Robt. Wharton, John Wilson, sir R.

Wood, ald.

TELLERS.

Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M. Wodehouse, Ed.
Grant, J. P.
Gordon, Robt.
Griffiths, J. W.
Gooch, T. S.
Harvey, D. W.

Orde, W. Western, C. C.

CASH PAYMENTS BILL.] Mr. Peel, on rising to move, that the House should accede to the amendment introduced by the Lords into the Cash Payments' bill, observed, that in the alteration of their lordships was involved no departure from the principle of the clause upon which it was founded. By that clause, the option

was left to the Bank of resuming the payment of their notes in the current coin of the realm on the 1st of May 1821, and the only change made by the amendment of the Lords was, to defer that option until the 1st of May 1822, this change being deemed necessary to enable the Bank more effectually to prepare for the complete resumption of cash payments. Mr. Ellice said, he thought it ought to be left to the discretion of the Bank to return to payments in specie as soon as it might be deemed expedient; that it should be allowed to proceed as early as convenient, from the price of bullion or other causes, to discharge imperceptibly (if he might use that expression) the one and two pound notes, the bulk of which ought to be taken out of circulation previous to the entire resumption of cash payments. He would agree to the amendment, although it fell short of his views, rather than risk the clause altogether. Another reason for pressing the principle of that amendment was this, that in case the Bank should contract its issues of paper, while bullion should fall in price below the rate at which the Bank was to pay its notes, he could not conceive how the transactions of the country were to be carried on, if the Bank was prohibited from paying in specie, especially as gold in ingots was not a legal tender. Besides, any gold coin paid into the Bank could not again be issued, until the period mentioned in this amendment, and thus the currency of the country would be limited. Another reason for the adoption of the clause referred to was this, that although it was provided by the bill that the Bank should pay certain notes in ingots of gold, there was no provision that those ingots should be again received in payment by the Bank.

Mr. Manning expressed his concurrence in the views of the hon. gentleman, with regard to the expediency of leaving it to the discretion of the Bank to determine at what time, and under what circumstances, it would be proper to commence the payment of its notes in the currrent coin of the realm.

The amendment was agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Monday, June 28. FOREIGN ENLISTMENT BILL.] Earl Bathurst rose to move that the bill be committed. His lordship observed, that (VOL. XL.)

the object of this measure was, to prevent his majesty's subjects from engaging in foreign service, from fitting out, equipping, or arming vessels for warlike operations against countries at peace with his majesty, without licence. By an act passed in the 9th of George 2nd, it was made felony without benefit of clergy, for a British subject to enter into the service of any state, sovereign or potentate, without his majesty's licence; an act was passed in the 29th in the same reign to prevent his majesty's subjects from serv ing as officers under the French king; and in the 9th of his present majesty an act was passed to prevent subjects from serving foreign powers without his licence, and to compel the officers of the Scotch brigade in the service of Holland to take the oaths of allegiance and abjuration. Acts having the same object were also passed in Ireland. It had been found that persons, without receiving enlisting money in this country, went abroad and enlisted. This contrivance was, therefore, guarded against by clauses in the act of the 29th Geo. 2nd, and the enlisting out of the country, or the seducing of his majesty's subjects so to enlist, was made felony without benefit of clergy. It was pretended that these laws had been framed solely to prevent enlistment for the Pretender; but that such was not the fact, their enactments, as well as the manner in which they had been carried into effect, showed. It was certain that the act of the 9th Geo. 2nd had been executed, without any reference to the Pretender, against enlistments for the service of the king of Prussia. Having stated how the law stood at present, he had to explain the circumstances which called for the present measure. Soon after the late peace it was discovered that several British officers had left this country to enter into the service of the Insurgents of South America. While the number who adopted this course was small, the government did not consider it necessary to notice their engagements. When, however, the number increased, and became very considerable, it was thought expedient to take such steps as might mark that such engagements were not made with the consent of his majesty's government. It was accordingly notified to officers on half-pay, that those who enlisted in foreign service, without his majesty's licence, would not be entitled to that half-pay. This step, however, (4T)

had not the desired effect. The disposition to enter into the service of the Insurgents continued, and recruiting for their service was openly practised in the country. Soldiers were raised, regiments formed, uniforms of various descriptions prepared, considerable bodies openly embarked for South America, and it became necessary to think of some more effectual means of prevention. It was found, that the existing laws did not afford sufficient means. According to the law, any British subject enlisting without his majesty's licence, in the service of any foreign prince, state, or potentate, was, on conviction, guilty of felony; but this law did not apply to the South American Insurgents. At least it appeared very doubtful, whether persons enlisting with these Insurgents could come within the provisions of the law; and it was fit that the doubts which existed on that subject should be removed. The situation in which this country stood, with respect to Spain was also to be considered. By the treaty of 1814, Great Britain was bound to give no military assistance to the Insurgents; but at the same time the determination of the government to preserve a strict neutrality was declared. Now, the character of neutrality was, that nothing should be granted to one party which was not allowed to the other. A proclamation founded upon this principle was issued in 1817. By that proclamation his majesty's subjects were warned not to accept any commissions, or give any military aid to either of the belligerents. This principle of neutrality was strictly acted upon by the government, and though some British officers were serving by licence in the Spanish armies, it was understood that they were not to serve against the Insurgents. This understand ing had been fairly acted upon, and two British officers who were about to serve in South America had been prevented. As there were, however, doubts respecting the power of applying the existing laws to persons enlisting for the Insurgents, it was requisite to come to parliament for new authority. By the present bill the acts of his late and present majesty, and the Irish acts, were repealed; and it was provided, that persons enlisting in foreign service should on conviction be guilty, not of felony as under the former law, but of misdemeanor only. There were other provisions framed for the purpose of carrying this object into

effect, but these he did not think it necessary now to describe. The supplying belligerents with warlike stores, and equipping vessels for warlike purposes, were also prohibited. With respect to this part of the bill, he had heard no objection from any quarter. The evils experienced in commerce from vessels roaming over the seas, under unknown and unacknowledged flags, had been too generally felt, to suppose that British merchants would be much dissatisfied with the regulations provided by this part of the bill. The opposition to the measure had, therefore, been chiefly confined to the clauses which are framed for the purpose of preventing the enlistment of British subjects in foreign service. In arguing this question, he should confine himself to considerations of general policy. It was not, because he undervalued the force of the particular engagements existing between this country and Spain under the treaty of 1814, that he restricted himself to this ground; but he should prove the necessity of the proposed measure totally independent of the treaty; as a permanent, not as a temporary measure; and if on general principles the bill ought to pass, their lordships would acknowledge that the existence of the treaty only rendered the obligation to adopt this measure the greater. Looking, then, to the principles and grounds of general policy, he would say, that he should scarcely look for any other definition of a state incapable of maintaining the relations of peace and amity with other powers than this, that its subjects made war at pleasure upon states with whom their government was at peace, and without any interruption from that government to their pursuits. And yet, such had been for some time the actual situation, of this country. Let them put the case of subjects of this country fitting out armaments from British ports for the purpose of giving assistance to the revolted colonies of another country, with which we were at peace; could this be suffered to proceed, in direct defiance of the neutrality of the government? But put a case still stronger, of an armament fitted out from British ports for the purpose, not of assisting the revolted colonies of another country, but of making an attack upon a place in the peaceable possession of that country; and by violence seizing and taking possession of it. This case had actually happened. The

termination of hostilities in Europe left unemployed in this country a very great number of military men, officers and privates, and these stimulated probably by a principle of ambition, or the meaner passion of avarice, were unfortunately ready at the call of any adventurer to engage in war, without any regard to the interests or wishes of the government. A person assuming the title of sir Gregor M'Gregor, had fitted out an expedition from the ports of this country, had embodied a force composed of British troops, and taken Porto Bello, a place in the peaceful possession of a Spanish force. His ships were British, the equipment British, and he arrived off the Spanish settlement under the British flag. If this was done with respect to Porto Bello, might not a British force in the same manner be sent against Spain itself? Was this a state of the law which ought to be permitted to continue? Was it consistent with justice? Was it not, on the contrary, sanctioning the grossest injustice? Great Britain professed neutrality, and yet this powerful assistance could be given to one of the belligerent parties and not to the other, and that party from whom the assistance was withheld was the only one to which this country was bound by treaty. Could such a state of the law be regarded as consistent with common sense, or common honesty? He would appeal to what occurred under similar circumstances between other states. In the year 1792, a treaty was concluded between Great Britain and the United States of America, in which it was stipulated that the subjects of neither power should accept commissions in the service of any prince or state at war with the other. How was this treaty executed? When the war broke out between this country and France, did the United States permit aid to be given to our enemy? No, they passed a law for securing the execution of the treaty; at first, for two years only, at the termination of which the act was made perpetual. By that act any American citizen accepting a commission or enlisting in the armies of a prince or state at war with another power, with which the United States were at peace-concerned in equipping or arming vessels for the aid of such prince or state, was declared guilty of a high misdemeanor, and made subject to fine and imprisonment. The act also provided against any augmentation of the

crews of ships of war belonging to either party, which might be in the waters of the United States, and against any expedition being fitted out in favour of either belligerent; which were declared offences, subject likewise to the penalties of fine and imprisonment. In this way had the United States acted on the breaking out of the war between this country and France: let him now ask, what conduct the same government had pursued with regard to the differences between Spain and her colonies? The United States were at peace with Spain, and wished to preserve a neutrality; but ships, equipped and armed in the waters of the United States, sailed to aid the Insurgents. The government wished to stop them, but it was found that the very same sort of difficulty existed there as here. The existing law only provided against aid being given to any prince, potentate, or state; and was silent with respect to countries in the situation of the Spanish colonies. The American legislature wished to realize the neutrality they professed, and in 1818 passed a bill extending the provisions of the act of 1792 to every description of state or power, whether regularly recognised or not. This was what had been done by the United States, and a measure of similar equality was proposed to be enacted by the present bill. It was our duty to make our neutrality real, and not to allow the one party to receive advantages denied to the other. We must either give assistance to both parties, or refuse it to both; there was no alternative but this. It was, therefore, for their lordships to consider which course they would adopt. For his part, he was prepared to contend, on the principles of general policy, that it was not the interest of this country to allow troops to enlist in the service of belligerents with whom we might happen to be at peace. It could neither be for the interest or the honour of the country thus to allow British subjects to discard their allegiance. In the whole of what he had said, their lordships would perceive that he had put aside the consideration of the existing obligations by which the country was bound to Spain-not that he did not regard those obligations as of great importance, but because he thought it sufficient to rest the whole merits of the question at issue on general policy, and the obvious interests of the country. If their lordships thought it