tions of any one by the line of conduct | he had pursued.

Mr. Martin said, it was utterly impossible for the noble lord, on any occasion, to make a request to him in vain; and since, in the opinion of the noble lord, and he trusted of the House, there was nothing that tended to compromise his veracity, he had no objection to acquiesce in the noble lord's suggestion. He was therefore quite satisfied to let the article lie on the table, and not appoint any specific day for taking it into consideration. Lord Castlereagh said, if the hon. member thought of leaving the article on the table, it must, of course, be entered on the Journals, and to prevent that, the House must proceed to some determination. If the hon. member would consent to withdraw the article, it would relieve the House from the necessity of any further proceedings.

Mr. Martin said, he had no objection to the removal of the article, but he could not be the person to move the withdrawing of his own motion.

The Speaker observed, that he understood from the hon. member he would at least withdraw his motion for the House resolving itself into a committee on this day fortnight, to take the article of charge into consideration.

Mr. Brownlow thought, as the charge was of so very serious a nature, and affected the credit and character of a learned judge, it ought not, having been formally laid on the table, to be withdrawn, until the friends of the learned judge had an opportunity of delivering their sentiments. If his suggestion were favourably received by the House, he was ready to state what had come to his knowledge on the subject-[Cries of "Go on, go on"].

The Speaker said, the proper course was, to name some day when this charge should be taken into consideration. The hon. mover, in obedience to the pleasure of the House, had withdrawn his substantive motion. The charge was now laid on the table of the House, and it must be got rid of somehow or other. It might either be expunged from the Journals, or rejected. If it were otherwise dealt with, it must necessarily appear on the Journals. Sir J. Stewart censured the introduction of such a charge against the learned judge, after a lapse of five years, as a most unkind thing. The only crime imputed to the learned judge was, that he

had refused a most improper application. When the hon. member sought to be heard in his own defence, after he had employed counsel, he requested that which he must have known could not be conceded to him, and which was in direct opposition to the principles on which the courts of law, both in this country and in Ireland, uniformly acted. The judges had examined the statement made by the hon. gentleman, that the witness, on whose account he wished the trial to be postponed, was a material one; and they decided that he was not. When five years were suffered to pass away, before their decision was questioned, the House were bound to believe that the decision was a correct one. The conduct of the learned judge he considered to be quite irreproachable. During the last four years, he had established so high a character in Ireland, that no attack which might be made on it here, could shake the general respect which his integrity, his diligence, and his profound knowledge of the law had created. The hon. baronet then moved, "That the said Article of Charge be rejected."

Mr. Martin said, he had already stated, that he was willing to adopt any course that the noble lord might point out. But when it was expected that he should withdraw a charge which he himself had made, he found that he was incompetent to do it.

Mr. Crawford observed, that he was acquainted with the learned judge, and a more upright man never sat on the bench. But he left his character to the gentlemen of the Irish bar, to those who best knew the dignity and humanity with which he had always conducted himself in his exalted situation. He therefore cheerfully supported the motion for rejecting the charge.

The said Article of Charge was then rejected.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS BILL.] Lord Althorp moved the second reading of this bill.

Mr. Waithman declared, he was sorry to trespass at that late hour on the patience of the House, but the present subject being one to which he had devoted much time and attention, he felt it his duty to submit a few observations respecting it. In the principles upon which the bill now before the House was framed, he entirely concurred, but there were some

parts of the evidence annexed to the report which seemed to him to call for animadversion Although the question was not of a popular or attractive nature, it was of the most general importance, not only as it affected the trading classes, but every branch of the community. Within the last four years persons had been discharged under the Insolvent debtors act, the aggregate amount of whose debts was upwards of 10,000,000l. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer had expressed his astonishment, that the trading classes could have sustained and borne up under losses to this amount. But many of them had not been able to bear up against, but had sunk under them. The amount of dividends upon this 10,000,000l. of debt was but 60,600l. There was another class of insolvents who had come to arrangements with their creditors, and the amount of their debts, independently of the former class, was 5,000,000l. The act had failed of accomplishing any one of the objects for which it was passed. It was but fair on this occasion to vindicate the character of the petitioners, who had been represented as a set of men desirous of immuring the bodies of those who were destitute of the means of paying their debts. The petitioners were actuated by no such feelings; they complained only of the defects of the existing law. The commissioner had, indeed, contended, that the act had this advantage over the bankrupt laws, that it made the property acquired subsequently by an insolvent, liable for his debts, and this had been called the polar star of the act. He would, however, venture to state, that a creditor might as well attempt to reach the polar star, as avail himself of such an advantage under the provisions of this act. There had been a few cases in which money had been received after his discharge, from the debtor, but it was not to be ascribed to the force of the measure he was considering. The salary of the comraissioner, who sat only 74 days in the year, was 2,000/., and to this he added fees which had never been received by kis predecessor. Those fees were established soon after the appointment of the present commissioner, and the amount of what he had himself received, for the years 1817 and 1818, the only period for which any account had been delivered, was upwards of 1,400l. The chief clerk, who had a salary of 400l., had received more than 1,800l., and the receiver of the

court, his own son, more than 1,000%. The whole amount of the money collected by the latter, was 15,2291. 2s. 4d., upon which he enjoyed a per-centage, having at the same time a balance in his hands of 5,753., the interest on which he also received. The result of all the accounts was to show, that the fees and balances in hand were equal to the whole sum paid into the receiver. It was a cruel thing that fees should be extorted from distressed persons going out into the world, after having surrendered their all. The unfortunate debtor was often compelled to surrender his last shilling. Having stated thus much, he should only add, that if these things were not facts, they must bring him into disrepute with the House; and if they were facts, they must convince the House and the public that a system of oppression and exaction had been preying on the industry of the country. He agreed with the principle of this measure, and hoped that such a bill would be produced as would give satisfaction to the debtor, and security to the creditor.

Mr. Calcraft, having been a member of the committee, although he had not been present when the report was drawn up, hoped that the House would indulge him for a few minutes. He certainly had not been prepared for the turn which the debate had taken, as he did not expect that the worthy alderman would have expressed his sentiments on the propriety of the present bill, by launching into violent abuse of the former act. He could not help remarking, that a spirit of crimination seemed to have actuated the whole of the worthy alderman's conduct in the discussion of the subject. The worthy alderman had complained that the petitioners against the bill had been represented as unfeeling and heard-hearted; but he was not aware that any person had quarrelled with the petitioners on account of their opinions. He had certainly dif fered in opinion from those who petitioned against the principle of the act, but he had not quarrelled with them on that account, nor had he accused them of being unfeeling. He was glad to say, however, that many of those who had formerly been hostile to the measure were now satisfied with it, and had declared that if such provisions were introduced into the bill as had been introduced, that was all they wanted. As to the commissioners taking fees, he certainly did not approve of the practice; but at the

Mr. Wilson, on presenting a petition to the same effect, from the merchants, manufacturers, and ship-owners of London, expressed the most decisive objection to the measure referred to by the petitioners. The hon. member read an abstract from the petition, which forcibly stated the reasons upon which, for the sake of our commerce, manufactures, and shipping interest, the proposed bill should not be allowed to pass into a law. This petition was, he said, subscribed by 1,700 of the most respectable individuals connected with the trade of London. The opinions of such men were entitled to, and would, he hoped, experience the particular attention of the House. But as to the professed object of the bill, it seemed surprising that in the nineteenth century, it should be deemed necessary to legislate for the purpose of explaining the principles of neutrality. The Spanish government was known to have made use of the shipping of England for the purpose of conveying her troops, ammunition, &c. to South America, and of bringing home to her ports the wealth of those territories. That government had now a supply of British transports to forward more troops to tha quarter; and after it had received such signal accommodation, not only in shipping, but in men, and all the sinews of war from this country, he could not see upon what ground of fairness or impartiaity a similar accommodation or advantage was to be refused to the South American patriots. Such a refusal could not, in his judgment, be maintained, without a violation of all the principles of just neutrality. But, looking at the proposed measure in a mercantile view, it could not be too decisively deprecated; for the patrists had heretofore notoriously afforded every facility to our trade, while they were among our best purchasers; but if the masure referred to were enacted into a lav, the consequence must be to throw the trade of the patriots into the hands of the United States, who would be ready, fortheir own benefit, to cultivate the connexion by all the means in their power. Under these considerations, with so many petitions from the manufacturing towns upen this subject, with such universal conplaints of the stagnation of trade, and of the distress of the people, it behoved both the parliament and the government to pause, before it gave its sanction to any

market whatever, but especially from such a market as that of South America. Ordered to lie on the table.

CAPTAIN HANCHETT.] Mr. Lushington rose to present a petition from three gallant officers of the navy, complaining of the foul aspersions cast upon their characters in the petition presented some days ago from captain Hanchett. These officers, captain Knight, lieut. Neame, and lieut. Dombrain, felt they had reason to complain that the House should be made the channel of the most scandalous calumny, without any opportunity having been afforded to them for their vindication, and which finding its way into the papers, left an impression on the public mind, which the most absolute denial and complete refutation might not be able afterwards wholly to remove. Mr. Lushington felt also that he had reason to complain of this as matter affecting the privileges of the House. When he read in the papers the morning after the discussion relative to captain Hanchett, the report of what had passed, he found much that had been said omitted, and much that he had stated grossly misrepresented. In "The Times" newspaper particularly, these errors prevailed, and there was even a comment in that paper, so gross and false, that he should have felt justified in moving that the editor should be brought to the bar, for the insertion of a paragraph, which he believed had proceeded from the most corrupt and polluted source. Whenever there was a discussion affecting the characters of persons, either in or out of that House, it was the special duty of those by whose means the public was daily gratified with an account of what passed in the House, to take care that they adhered as strictly as possible to the truth. He hoped this would be a sufficient warning to the reporters in future to be more accurate; and he would now, with the leave of the House, read the petition. Mr. Lushington then read the petition, which was in substance what he had stated. He then desired to ask the hon. member (Mr. Bennet) now that he had had sufficient time to read all the papers, and make himself better master of the facts of the case, what he meant to do?

Mr. Bennet rose, he said, for the purpose of assuring the House that he had given the utmost attention to the papers, and he was desirous of knowing whether