duced them to treat those individuals in a spirit of greater charity, and to believe, that they were as unlikely as themselves to do any such thing. The hustings were capable of containing 250 persons. Notwithstanding an application made the day before, only 20 of the gentlemen who had signed the declaration were permitted to go on the hustings. This he did not consider very liberal, especially when the crowded state of the body of the hall was considered. in character and in numbers, were the persons who were called radicals. He could not agree, therefore, that there was any want of loyalty in the country. The loyalty of Englishmen was a rational feeling, and was never in greater jeopardy than when ministers dragged his majesty and the royal family through the mud, as they had lately done; and then pretended to hold them up as objects of respect and admiration. It was no small matter, that ministers had brought his majesty into such a con- Mr. G. Philips declared, that he had dition, that the hon. baronet should never witnessed more disorderly and disthink he wanted a little " cheering up." graceful conduct than on the occasion in He perfectly believed, that the hon. question. The exclusive loyalists and baronet was correct in supposing that lovers of order were shouting, hissing, such was the the case, when he saw, that and adopting every other means of creathis majesty could hardly change posting a tumult. He heard the conversahorses in any town in England, where the conduct of his ministers had not created a feeling which rendered it difficult for him to pass through with decency. As to the question of loyalty, the feelings manifested by all classes of the people on the death of his late majesty, and on the death of the princess Charlotte, proved it to be the basest calumny to say, that the present feelings of the country were produced by any other cause than by the manner in which his majesty and the royal family had been dragged through the dirt by the noble lord and his colleagues. tion of some of those who were near him, and it ran on the impossibility of deliberaation at a public meeting, and on the probability that that would be the last public meeting of the kind in the metropolis," and on similar topics. There was every appearance of a combination to create disorder. The hon. baronet's appearance was a signal for disorder; and he was not heard himself, in consequence of the noise which his friends made. He was surprised to hear the hon. baronet express a doubt whether the resolutions were carried. He was quite satisfied, that they were carried, by a majority of three to two. Ordered to lie on the table to be printed. Mr. Wilson could not exactly agree either with the hon. baronet or with the hon. member for Taunton. He denied the declaration of the former, that the hon. mover of the resolution was distinctly heard, He denied the assertion of the latter, that the tumult was the result of any combination or conspiracy. He did not believe one word of such a charge, and was convinced that it was utterly unfounded. The Declaration had not been put forth as the declaration of the merchants and bankers of the city of London, but only as the undersigned" merchants, &c. He admitted, that in the earlier placards that distinction had by mistake not been made; but the error was unintentional, and was corrected as soon as it was discovered. He wondered, that those honourable gentlemen who had charged the individuals signing the declaration with being influenced by any but the most open and honourable motives, had not, on reading their names, felt a kindness and respect which would have in-resolution was agreed to. VOL. IV. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE-COMPLAINT OF AN ADDRESS PUBLISHED IN THE LONDON GAZETTE.] The debate was resumed on the motion, "That the paper, intituled, the dutiful and loyal address of the Presbytery of Langholme, in the county of Dumfries, which was published in the London Gazette of the 2nd January last, contains passages in manifest breach of the essential privileges of this House of Parliament." The motion was agreed to, nem. con. After which, sir John Newport moved, "That a communication having been officially made' to this House, that the insertion in the London Gazette of the aforementioned address from the Presbytery of Langholme proceeded from inadvertence to the reprehensible and offensive expressions justly complained of, this House does not feel itself called upon to take further notice of the same." The said the motion for going into a committeee of Supply, Mr. Grenfell wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the absence of the Secretary for Ireland, whether he was prepared to give any information as to the conduct of the Bank of Ireland, who, he understood, had refused to receive the coin of the realm as deposits? He was at a loss to comprehend on what grounds the Bank of Ireland did this. In local districts, bankers might do it with a view to discountenance the circulation of any thing but their own notes. Whatever the ground might be, it was necessary for the Government of the country to take some notice of it, as it contravened the intention of the government of the country with respect to the currency. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he was not enabled to give any information on this subject. The hon. member would be aware, that no one could refuse to receive the coin of the realm in payment. He did not know what difference there could be between payments and deposits. He was rather surprised at the statement, as bankers never refused money. Sir J. Newport said, there was all the difference in the world between payment, which was the discharge of a legal obligation, and deposit, which was the intrusting of money voluntarily received, to be accounted for. Of course, the Bank of Ireland could not refuse money in payment, but in deposit they might. Since the union of the Treasuries of the two countries, it was the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not of the Secretary for Ireland, to be prepared with information on these subjects. It was the more important, that this separation should be attended to, as there was nothing more mischievous to the finances of Ireland than the interference of the castle govern ment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, it was no part of his official duty to take cognizance of the internal concerus, either of the Bank of Ireland or that of England. Those bodies were responsible to the laws, not to a minister. He had of course often occasion to correspond with both those banks. Sir H. Parnell said, the Bank of Ireland had not the power to refuse payment in Sovereigns, but they refused to discount for those merchants who paid their bills in sovereigns, and they discountenanced the importers of gold coin. As the Bank of Ireland enjoyed a monopoly, they should be the last to interfere with the intentions of parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to speak of the Bank of Ireland as of a private banking company. But, as it was a bank of deposit for the government, and enjoyed a monopoly by charter, it was impossible to submit to that doctrine, The bank had, during the late general distress, refused to make issues at the suggestion of the Secretary for Ireland, The general opinion in Ireland was, that the conduct of the bank had not been what it should be; and he was so far impressed with it, that he should probably bring the subject before the House. His opinion was, that it would be better for Ireland that the monopoly of the Bank of Ireland should be taken away, as there would be established in its stead numerous chartered banks or banking companies as in Scotland. Mr. Irving said, the report, that the Bank of Ireland had refused the current coin of the realm as deposit had excited his surprise. The present situation of Ireland was, that there was no circulation but that supplied by the Bank of Ireland. He could easily believe, that it might be inconsistent with the private interests of the Bank of Ireland to issue their notes upon deposits of gold; but he thought the bank, when it considered the situation of Ireland, were bound to take a more enlarged view of the question. He certainly disapproved of the conduct which had been pursued by the Bank of Ireland towards those who imported and paid in gold coin. He would take that opportunity of putting a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the issues of Exchequer bills under the late act. If he was rightly informed, the commissioner under that act felt so restrained by the terms of the enactment, that, great as was the pressure in Ireland, the country had been almost entirely shut out from the advantages intended by the legislature. In the drawing up of that bill there had been the most culpable neglect. Mr. Baring contended, that government were bound to watch over the proceedings of the Bank of Ireland. The right hon. gentleman had indeed said, that it was a private corporation, over which the law, not the government, had alone control; but the bank had been | Ireland, to remedy an evil arising out of incorporated for public purposes, and the deficiency of circulation from the if it failed to promote the objects intended, then its incorporation should be reviewed. Private banks might refuse to take deposits, but neither the banks of Ireland nor England could properly decline receiving them, The latter were bound to carry on the public business of the country. The real business of the bank ought to be to receive as much coin as it could, and issue as many notes. If however, the Bank of Ireland took a different course, and meant to set their face against the metallic circulation of the country, then the legislature was bound to interfere, and prevent the intention of parliament from being frustrated. With respect to the return to cash payments, upon which so much stress had been laid, he did not attach so much importance to it as others did. His desire was rather to see the paper currency of the country regulated upon the standard of paying large sums in bullion, according to the plan of his hon. friend (Mr. Ricardo). That course he thought better calculated than any other to relieve a part of the pressure which was so sensibly felt throughout the country. When he gave this opinion, he begged not to be understood as having a wish to thwart the return to payments in coin, although he feared that some of the present evils were attributable to the preliminary arrangements for that purpose. His only reason for not proposing some thing for the consideration of the House with reference to his view of the subject, was, that he awaited the result of the measures now in progress for preventing bank forgeries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he would take an early opportunity to communicate with the Bank of Ireland. It was difficult to conceive on what principle that bank could have refused to accept of gold coin. With a view to preparing for cash payments, nothing could be more acceptable than deposits in gold, for which the bank might issue their paper. The extent of issues by the commissioners under the late act, had certainly fallen short of the intention of the legislature, and did not exceed 100,0001. Mr. Ricardo observed, that paper in Ireland having become at a premium above the price of gold coin, persons had been under the necessity of incurring the expense of conveying gold coin to failures in the south. If the Bank of Ireland had filled the void so occasioned, as it was their duty to have done, the evil would have been avoided. He was still of opinion, that the system established with regard to the Bank of England, two or three years ago, ought to be perpetuated. If the Bank contemplated paying in gold coin in 1825, as they were now by law required, they must purchase a quantity of gold for that purpose; and to this cause was to be attributed the present disproportion between the price of gold and silver. He hoped, that his right hon. friend would be of opinion,that the system now existing ought to be permanent, and that he would take an early opportunity of bringing forward a measure for that purpose. NAVY ESTIMATES.] The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply, Sir George Warrender addressed the committee on the subject of the supplies for the Navy for the present year. He stated, that a considerable diminution in the naval expenditure had taken place, partly in consequence of the reduction of 1,000 seamen, and partly owing to the diminished price of provisions. This diminution, however, was not intended to affect the exertions which were making in the cause of humanity and of science in this branch of the administration of public affairs. The hon. baronet concluded by moving, "That 22,000 men be employed for the Sea Service, for 13 lunar months, from 1st. Jan. 1821, including 8,000 royal marines." Mr. Creevey said, it was his intention to oppose the vote proposed by the hon. baronet, as it was his fixed determination · not to vote for a single farthing of the public money, before the estimates of the service for which it was to be employed, were laid upon the table. Sir. G. Warrender said, that the hon. member, had mistaken the nature of his motion. It was not at all connected with the general estimates of the navy, which were always in the hands of members at least a fortnight before the resolutions founded on them were moved. The votes proposed in the early part of the session always related to the fleet afloat, and had no connection with either the raising or reducing the existing strength of the navy. The votes which he held in his hand related solely to the fleet afloat. It never was the custom to present any estimates of them. They were made in consequence of an order in council, enabling the king to maintain the fleet afloat; and, unless the hon. member meant to depart from all parliamentary usage from time immemorial, he would not object to his motion. Mr. Creevey said, that this having been the practice of the House from time immemorial was the reason of all their distresses. It was time, that they should change their manners. He then moved, that the committee report progress, and ask leave to sit again. In this manner he should treat every resolution proposed in any Committee of Supply in which the estimates of the money were not before the House. Mr. Hume stated, the great objections he entertained to the reduction of the naval force of the country, and the augmentation of the military. The increase of the corps of marines to the amount of 8,000 never could obtain his consent at a time when our military establishment was so great as it was. Still less could he countenance the reduction of our whole naval force down to the number of 14,000 seamen only. What means could they employ to man a fleet of any magnitude in case of emergency, if they went on annually decreasing this valuable body of men? It was most injurious to the interests of the uavy. He would never consent to vote any money for this service, until he saw a disposition to reduce the useless and extravagant civil establishments. Before he voted any money, he must see if it was intended to reduce the number of commissioners of dock-yards and other places where they were equally unneces ling of the public money unless the estimates were placed before him first. It was time, that the attention of the House and the public should be directed to what was going on in committees of supply. It was time that an end should be put to those farces; and in order to expedite that end, he would not consent to a single vote in the dark, if the consequence should be, that the session lasted till October. The country should no longer, with his consent, be pillaged in this manner. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his surprise at the course which hon. gentlemen opposite thought fit to take. There scarcely was an instance in which the course of public business was attempted to be obstructed by such means. Let gentlemen refer to the journals for years back, and they would find, that, from time immemorial, the practice of parliament had been, to grant these preliminary notes without the estimates. Mr. Marryat said, that the question appeared to him to be, whether the naval forces of the country at present in actual employment were to be maintained or not. The supply now asked was for men actually in service. According to all former practice of parliament they were bound to vote for the maintenance of the seamen in actual service. Mr. Bennet explained, that he would willingly consent to a vote for the maintenance of those seamen for a month. But it was demanded, in this vote, for a whole year, and it was to that he objected, before the House possessed the means of judging how far it might be expedient or necessary to keep up this force. Sir G. Clerk could not suppress the surprise which he had felt at the different arguments which had been advanced by those who were adverse to the original motion. The argument of the mover of the amendment had gone principally upon the ground of economy, and the non-production of the navy estimates; but the hon. member for Montrose, so far from proceeding on a similar ground, seemed disposed to complain, that a sufficient number of seamen were not voted and consequently, that a greater expense was not incurred. After the present vote was disposed of, the question would then come before the House as to the sum ne Mr. Bennet would not enter into the merits of the increase of marines. That would be a good question when the esti-cessary for the provisions and the wages mates came before the House. But he of that number of men. It would reawould not consent to vote a single shil- dily occur to them, that from the great diminution in the price of provisions, a considerable reduction of expense would take place in that department. Mr. Hume contended, that no difference existed between his own argument and those of his friends. The hon. gentleman near him had called for the production of the navy estimates; the hon. member for Shrewsbury had done the same, and he (Mr. Hume) had also pursued the same course of argument in wishing to see how far the reduction in the civil establishments corresponded with the one now proposed. When he was told, that the present motion should pass as a matter of course, he would tell the House, that that would be the case, if the supply required was to pay off the expenses of the last year. But the motion was an anticipating measure, and referred to the ensuing year. He contended that our sailors had been neglected. We had ships enough, and marines could easily be procured, but we had not seamen enough even to form the germ of an ar mament. Admiral Harvey expressed his opinion of the great use of a marine force. On that subject he concurred in what had been said by the hon. mover of the resolution, and he believed it to be true, that such was the opinion of most officers in the service, To prepare a proper corps of marines required great care and attention; for it was preposterous to suppose, that a marine could do his duty unless he had previously been accustomed to proper discipline. It would be well for the House to consider, that the navy had now arrived to a great extent, and that a corresponding increase of marine force ought of course to take place. Sir G. Cockburn expressed his regret, that more professional men were not present. Had they been present the House would be satisfied, that the number of marines voted was not larger than required. It ought to be considered, that sailors were provided by the commercial navy of the country. It was true, that a disinclination existed to serve in the navy when a merchant service was open; but still, when merchant vessels could not be obtained, sailors would readily enter into the navy. Now it had been found, that the service of 1,000 men could be dispensed with, and he, in common with his colleagues, had felt it his duty to recommend a measure by which the public expenditure had been lessened. If the House should resolve to keep them in the service merely for the sake of keeping them, they would of course come to that determination; but, as their services were useless in the navy, it was certainly the duty of those, under whose department the business came, to recommend their dismissal. Sir F. Ommaney entirely concurred in the propriety of keeping up an adequate corps of marines. Mr. Tremayne was anxious to take that opportunity, before the estimates were produced, of impressing upon government, the necessity of turning their attention to the civil establishments of the navy, which he thought were capable of great reduction. Sir G. Warrender was happy to be able to state, that a considerable reduction was contemplated in the civil establishment. He could not suffer that occasion to pass without again referring to the misapprehension under which the hon. gentleman opposite laboured. He was well aware, that that gentleman had no intention to misrepresent facts, but he could not avoid complaining of his want of accuracy, because the unavoidable inference which would be drawn by the public would be, that the House neglected the interests of the navy. Every one knew, that our armaments were supplied from our commercial navy, and that at no former period was that source so plentiful. It was that reason to which the economy prevalent in that branch of the service was to be attributed. believed, if any circumstances should occur to require extraordinary exertions, that in a very short time a fleet of 20 sail of the line might be manued chiefly from the source which he had mentioned. The case was different with respect to marines. All the naval officers in the House knew the use of that body of men, and they knew also, that an effective corps was not raised without much difficulty. He Mr. Hurst said, that the House had scarcely ever come to a vote on the subject, without a regret being expressed, that more marines were not raised. He thought them a most useful and necessary body. They had always distinguished themselves in every war; and he highly approved of the augmentation. Mr. Forbes complained of the reductions which had been made of the naval force of the country, and the comparative neglect with which that branch of the |