immediate dismissal, Mr. Lushington still pleaded that he might be allowed to resign, in order to spare him from the bitter feelings of such an exposure, and to save the honourable profession to which he belonged from such a disgrace.

Mr. Bennet said, that he felt it his duty, after the evidence which he had read, and the document now produced under the declaration of the hon. member, that it was the hand-writing of captain Hanchett, to declare his concurrence in the observations of the hon. secretary, and his full conviction that the government had no choice but to dismiss an officer so unworthy to be employed in their service. As far, therefore, as captain Hanchett was concerned, he had nothing to say. In respect to capt. Knight, lieut. Neame, and lieut. Dombrain, he must also add, that their explanations were satisfactory. The remaining points which concerned the hon. secretary's alleged use of his patronage, for the purpose of furthering his local interests at Canterbury, required more explanation than had been given, and he should wish for information upon one or two points.

Mr. Lushington said, he had no difficulty in giving a complete answer upon this point; at least he was sure it would be an answer to the House of Commons, although it might not be quite so satisfactory to his worthy friends at Canterbury. Upon a comparison of the number of persons connected with Canterbury, and recommended by Mr. L. for places in the preventive service, with those which Mr. Lushington had recommended because they were friends of captain Hanchett, and as such proposed by him to his noble friend, he found that he had recommended two of captain Hanchett's, for one Canterbury person. He therefore begged to assure the House, the hon. member, and his worthy friends at Canterbury, that he would take care not to be so duped again. This, however, would be satisfactory evidence to the House, that he had shown no grasping disposition for power or patronage, and that he had nothing for which he desired to be excused, but his lenity and kindness to this unworthy officer.

Ordered to lie on the table.

PETITIONS OF PROTESTANT DISSENTERS AGAINST THE MARRIAGE ACT.] Mr. W. Smith said, he held in his hand a number of petitions, the subject of which,

as it was rather uncommon, he should state to the House as briefly as possible. These petitions were signed by a considerable number of dissenters, chiefly of one persuasion, called Unitarians, and the grievance of which they complained was the Marriage act. The petitioners wished, either that they might be allowed to perform the marriage ceremony themselves, as the Jews and the Quakers were allowed, or else that certain parts of the present ritual should be omitted. They wished, in short, to be restored to the situation in which they were before the passing of the Marriage act in 1754.

Ordered to lie on the table.

RESOLUTIONS RELATIVE TO THE PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.] The House having resolved itself into a Committee on the Public Income and Expenditure, to which the First Report of the Finance Committee, and sundry documents were referred, the Chancellor of the Exchequer read the Resolutions which he had announced it to be his intention to bring forward. They were as follow:

1. "That since the termination of the war, in 1815, the property tax in Great Britain, and other taxes in Great Britain and Ireland, which yielded a revenue of upwards of 18,000,000l. per annum, have expired, or been repealed, or reduced.

2. "That by an act passed in the 56th Geo. 3rd, c. 98, the revenues of Great Britain and Ireland were consolidated from the 5th of January, 1817; and that in the year preceding the said consolidation, the nett separate revenue of Ireland was 4,561,3531., and the charge of the funded and unfunded debt of Ireland was 6,446,825, including therein the sum of 2,438,124/. as the sinking fund, applicable to the reduction of the debt; which charge exceeded the whole nett revenue of Ireland by the sum of 1,885,472., without affording any provision for the civil list, and other permanent charges, or for the proportion of supplies to be defrayed by that part of the united kingdom; and that no provision has been made by parliament to supply this deficiency.

3. "That the supplies to be voted for the present year by parliament, may be stated at 20,500,000l.

4. That the existing revenue, applicable to the supplies, cannot be estimated at more than 7,000,000l.; leaving the sum of 13,500,000l. to be raised by loan, or other extraordinary resource.

کو

5. "That the sinking fund, applicable to the reduction of the national debt, in the present year, may be estimated at about 15,500,000l.; exceeding the above sum necessary to be raised for the service of the year, by about 2,000,000l. only.

6. "That to provide for the exigencies of the public service, to make such progressive reduction of the national debt, as may adequately support public credit, and to afford to the country a prospect of future relief from a part of its present burthens, it is absolutely necessary that there should be a clear surplus of the income of the country, beyond the expenditure, of not less than 5,000,000l.; and that, with a view to the attainment of this important object, it is expedient, now, to increase the income of the country by the imposition of taxes, to the amount of three millions per annum."

19

The Resolutions having been laid on the table,

Mr. Grenfell understood that to-morrow the chancellor of the exchequer was to meet the gentlemen with whom he proposed to contract for the loan. Now, as the resolutions before the House must be connected with the consideration of the loan, he would take it for granted that the right hon. gentleman, at his interview with the contractors, would not commit himself in any way with respect to the sinking fund, so as to anticipate the decision of that House on Monday. He hoped he would be careful to leave it open to the House to provide that the loan to be raised in this or in any other year, should be raised in that way which to them might appear most for the benefit of the country. He was anxious that before Monday nothing should pass between the chancellor of the exchequer and the loan contractors that should fetter that House in any respect, but especially with respect to the application of the sinking fund in diminution of the loan.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, it could not be his object to fetter the judgment of the House. The contractors for the loan, in making their bargain, well knew that all must depend on the decision the House might think it right to come to on the Resolutions which he had brought forward.

The House then resumed, and the chairman reported progress.

Mr. Hume wished to know, whether in the provision for the year, there was any arrangement made to pay the debt due to (VOL. XL.)

the East India Company for advances made at Ceylon and other places ?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that no provision was made for the present year. He did not know the state of the account between the government and the East India Company, but he believed no demand was made.

Mr. Curwen, seeing the noble lord in his place, was desirous to know whether, in consequence of the petition he had presented from the distressed weavers of Carlisle, any steps had been taken by his Majesty's government to afford those persons the relief they sought? The conduct of those unhappy individuals was most orderly under their distresses. If it was the intention of government to facilitate their emigration to Canada, that was the proper time, as the ships of the season were preparing to go out in ballast, in order to bring home their cargoes of

timber.

Lord Castlereagh stated, that the petition was referred to the noble lord at the head of the home department, in order that he might take the pleasure of the Prince Regent upon it. The hon. member must be aware of the difficulties inseparable from such a proposition; but no time would be lost in attending to the application.

PARGA.] Mr. F. Douglas inquired of the noble lord, whether his majesty's government had adopted any proceeding to prevent the surrender of Parga to the Ottoman Porte?

Lord Castlereagh said, the hon. gentleman must see that it would be attended with great inconvenience, if ministers were called on to answer, in the progress of their duty, whether they had, or had not sent out certain instructions. An answer to such a question necessarily involved some notice of the nature of the instructions themselves, and was, in fact, such an interference with the official duties of ministers, as, he conceived, with all deference to the hon. gentleman, could not be considered fair and proper.

Mr. F. Douglas did not mean to ask any question, the answer to which could involve the secrets of government. But, as he thought, from what had fallen on a former night from the noble lord, that government contemplated the step which he had alluded to, he did not conceive that there was any impropriety in the question.

(3 K)

governments; but at what time? When James 2nd was in Ireland, and the French king was his ally. Never, indeed, did this country adopt such a system of policy unless where we were principals in the quarrel, or had accepted the conduct of a general negotiation. But these acts of the 9th and 29th of George 2nd having passed, what was their operation? If they were not still-born-if they received the vital spark by the assent of the legislature they were speedily consigned to the tomb. They had remained during all times a dead letter on the Statute Book. He called upon the learned and hon. attorney general to state an instance where they were carried into operation, or where a punishment was inflicted. He was not contending against the right of the king to punish the offence of engaging in the service of foreign powers. There were instances very lately, in the case of persons who had engaged in the service of France at the Mauritius; but they were prosecuted on the old and constitutional law against treason, and suffered death. From general history, it was clear, that such a principle as the present bill dis. closed was never acted upon, even where Great Britain was herself one of the belligerents. In the war which led to the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, at the battles of Dettingen and Fontenoy, the troops of this country were engaged with the Irish brigades in the service of France. There were instances where some of that gallant corps were taken prisoners. In what manner were they treated?-They were treated with the consideration due to their gallantry, and received as prisoners of war! And all this, too, in contravention of those acts of the 9th and 29th of George 2nd. In those times, the armies of many foreign sovereigns were filled with Irish, Scotch and English officers. At one period, out of 120 companies of Austrian grenadiers, seventy were commanded by Irish officers. In the war of 1756, when again at the battle of Minden, the Irish brigade was opposed to the British troops, the very same course was followed, and these laws were disregarded. At the battle of Culloden, in 1746, there were some Irish officers in the French army, which was then made prisoners; and the very production of their commissions was considered sufficient to entitle them to the treatment of prisoners of war. So late as the year 1794, the proceeding of that period was made the ground of a +

direct interference with the French government. When general O'Hara was taken prisoner in a sortie from Toulon, he was sentenced to death by a decree of the National Convention. His royal highness the duke of York, who then commanded the British army, immediately dispatched a British officer, now a noble lord, to whose name, when mentioned, it was needless to add any eulogium, he meant lord Hutchinson, to the French advanced posts, for the purpose of urging in the strongest manner the precedent of the treatment of the Irish officers in the French army, which surrendered at Culloden. The appeal had its effect, as the decree of the Convention was rescinded. But he would ask, in what manner did we treat these officers of the Irish brigade, who, refusing to remain in the service of the French republic, withdrew to this country at the period of the Revolution? Did we enforce against them the acts of the 9th and 29th of George 2nd? On the contrary, we received them into the British service, embodied five or six regiments under the command of Fitz James, Walsh, Conway, and O'Connell, and their gallant and distinguished exertions were the grateful return which Great Britain received for so wise a determination. But it was not in France and Austria that these Irish corps were then to be found. There were three Irish battalions also in the service of Spain. It was never contended that such engagements on the part of any portion of the subjects of the king compromised the character of the government. We saw general La Fayette engaged in the service of North America, sir Sidney Smith at one time holding a command in the Swedish navy. There were Swedish sailors in the fleets of Rodney and De Grasse at the moment of contest. The Russian navy was at one time full of Scotch officers, yet it was never considered that such occurrences affected the character of the respective governments, whose subjects they were, or that they disturbed any existing relations of neutrality. He did not see any of the lords of the Admiralty in their places; but had they been present, he would have appealed to them to state the number of the Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians that manned our navy during the last war, and contributed so essentially to the glory and security of the country. Was that House prepared to give a new interpretation to the law of nations, which would have the

effect of inducing foreign governments to exercise the restriction, and in the end deprive this country of the assistance the value of which it had previously experienced? Was that the recompence they would return to those brave men of whose services they had availed themselves? The House he trusted would pause before it adopted a measure so cruel to such a number of foreigners, and so prejudicial to our own interests. He would not be guilty of the affectation of entering into a statement of the opinions of Puffendorf and Grotius, but he believed he might say, that it was the decision of the most enlightened jurists, that the law of nations imposed no obligations of neutrality, which went to prevent the subjects of any government from enlisting in the service of any power at amity with their own government, provided such enlistments were permitted without favour or preference to either belligerent. In the war of 1756 we subsidized corps of Russians and Hessians, without considering that we engaged their governments in our quarrel. It had been the practice of the Swiss to hire themselves out to adverse armies. But then it was said America had adopted an opposite principle, and therefore we were bound to follow the example. For America he felt sincere attachment; he cherished her with affection, as the impregnable fortress of human freedom-with her gates ever open to afford a refuge and a resting-place to the persecuted and oppressed. But he was not blinded by his attachment, when he saw an attempt made to separate freedom from justice. But could the House forget, that from the United States the people of South America had received heretofore, the most active assistance? There was built the first vessel on which the flag of independence was hoisted. From thence the South Americans had obtained the two finest frigates in their service. North America had sent commissioners, not to negociate South American independence, but to give a character to their governments; seeing all that had been done, Spain interfered, and purchased the forbearance of America by the cession of Florida. It was dangerous to be a prophet on political events at all times, but more particularly of late, when reason and facts were so opposed. But he would hazard the assertion, that after Florida had been occupied by her population, and her new position was secured to menace in the event of

war, the trade through the Gulph, America would next demand Cuba, and that she would obtain. By intrigue and intimidation, she would ultimately extend her views of aggrandizement to Mexico, push her frontier from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, and in the end laugh at Great Britain as the dupe of her artifice. But what right had Spain to make this demand upon us? She was preparing an expedition against her colonies at the port of Cadiz. the same port from which an expedition had sailed against this country, of which specimens might be seen in the Tower of London. Did this constitute a claim upon our co-operation? Yet we were called upon to pass a law which, at the same time that it would retard our commerce, would place thousands of our fellow subjects, whenever they touched their native land, at the mercy of any mercenary and wicked informer, who could arrest them as criminals, and send them to gaol as malefactors. It surely would be enough to refer those who might be disposed to enlist in the service of the South Americans to the ordinance made by Ferdinand, in Madrid, a few months ago, devoting all who should engage in this service to the most ignominious death. But must it further be enacted by a British parliament, that our fellow subjects who might reach their native shores, should spend their lives in British gaols? He must describe this bill a bill not called for, a bill which policy rejected and humanity condemned, a bill in favour of Ferdinand and inauspicious to liberty [Hear]. If they were to rake up the ashes of the acts of the 9th and 29th of George 2nd, it ought to be in order to consign them for ever to the grave. He would trouble the House with no further observations, but would move, as an amendment, "That the bill be read a second time on this day six months."

The Attorney General said, that the first part of the gallant general's argument went to establish the right of the subjects of one state to enlist in the service of another state, and even if that state should be at war with their state. [General cries of No, no.] The instances to which the gallant general had referred went to establish that principle. [Sir R. Wilson rose to explain; but the cries of "No, no, it is unnecessary," were so general, that he immediately sat down.] He was not disposed to quarrel with the mercy and humanity extended to the Irish brigade who