years ago in Ireland, and quoting them as alter the enactments. He thought these examples for this country. The statute enactments ought not to be agreed of limitations would prevent the recur- to, as they were in every sense obrence of such times, and they should not jectionable, and he wished, by means be mentioned at all. He wondered to of the proposed amendment, to put the hear that right hon. baronet recommend bill into such a shape as that the prethat any damages incurred should be paid amble, as altered, should be carried into out of the public money. Was this eco-execution by a change in the clauses which nomy? It was curious and strange, he followed. must say, to hear such language coming from a person who had filled the place of chancellor of the exchequer for Ireland, and filled it very well too, and with great benefit to his country. He voted for this bill, not as a party man; he did not belong to either side of the House. He supported it as an independent member of parliament. He would not say any more. He did not rise for the love of talking; for he would rather, any day, hear others speak than himself. The amendment was negatived. Sir J. Newport moved an amendment, providing that payment should be made from the public revenue of such damages and costs as should be awarded to any aggrieved person in a court of justice. This principle was, he said, recognized in the case of vessels captured illegally, when costs and damages were awarded against the captors, if it appeared that they had acted with a view to the advancement of the public service. In such case, the costs and damages were allowed out of the droits of admiralty. Why should not the public pay the price of its own safety? Anxious as he always was for public economy, he should never look for it at the expense of a dereliction of duty-he should not attempt to rob individuals, or avoid throwing on the public purse, instead of throwing on individuals, what was necessary for the public safety. The Attorney-General said, that the object of the bill was, to prevent the necessity of laying the evidence on which magistrates or others acted, before a jury; and yet this clause made the public pay damages and costs. Damages could only be given after a discussion of all the facts and circumstances before a jury; because it would not be contended, that any damages which any body could guess at, should be paid out of the public coffers of the state. They could not adopt this clause without making the preamble a complete collection of unintelligible nonsense. Sir John Newport said, that he wished 60 to alter the preamble as that the House should afterwards be obliged to Mr. W. Smith thought that the bill, as proposed, had in view, not the safety of the state, but the security of a few individuals. It acted only for one party, but that party which he maintained was most injured, were by the present bill deprived of all means of redress. It went upon the unconstitutional principle, that all those who were arrested were guilty, whereas, the presumption of law was that they were innocent until it was otherwise proved. This bill shut every door of redress on those who had suffered in their persons or characters. He conceived an opportunity should be afforded to them to prove their innocence, and that the expenses incurred by the parties against whom actions might be brought, should be borne by the public. The amendment was negatived. Sir W. Burroughs said, that the object of the bill was not only to protect the secretary of state, the privy council, and the magistrates, but all persons who were in any way concerned in the late arrests, imprisonments, and searching of houses. This was most objectionable, because the same protection which might be deemed necessary for magistrates and others, ought not to be extended to those persons who, without any warrant or authority, entered the houses of individuals to search for papers. He therefore should move as an amendment to the preamble, that after the words "all proceedings whatsoever against," the words " any person or persons" should be omitted, for the purpose of inserting the following: "his majesty's secretary of state, the members of the privy council, all magistrates, peace officers, and constables." By this means, the persons engaged in the suppression of riots and arrest of persons would be sufficiently protected by the bill, and it would not be extended to those whom the laws ought not to protect. The Attorney General observed, that as far as the searching houses for papers, &c. was concerned, the bill was meant only to protect those who searched the houses of persons who were in custody, or who had been afterwards arrested, or those who had been engaged in riotous assemblies, &c. It did not go to protect those who had entered without authority to search houses under other circumstances. The amendment was therefore unnecessary." The amendment was negatived. Mr. Brougham moved, that after the words "for or on account of any act, matter, or thing, by him or them done or commanded, ordered, directed, or advised to be done since the 26th day of January 1817," there be added the words "which may have been necessary." The Attorney General objected to this amendment as superfluous. By the proper interpretation of the bill, and of every statute similarly worded, the protection afforded was understood only to extend to such acts as were necessary for accomplishing the objects in view. A magistrate was supposed to commit no act of rigour which was not called for in execution of the duty imposed upon him. To adopt the amendment, therefore, would be introducing useless words; but this would not be the only evil. The adoption of the amendment would excite doubts as to the enactment of other statutes where similar words were omitted. All laws regarding the conduct of magistrates supposed them to be liable to damages for excess of rigour in executing their duty: but from the first to the last statute in the statute book, the words "acts which may be necessary," had not been introduced. Mr. Tierney said, that the hon. and learned gentleman, who opposed the amendment on the common principles of law, ought to have remembered that the present bill was a violation of all law, and, therefore, that it ought not to be tried by such a test. He was of opinion, that the language of the bill should be rendered as precise, and as guarded as possible, and he put it to the House, whether he was asking too much when he requested them not to object to the insertion of three or four words, not limiting the indemnity claimed by ministers, but defining the extent to which the law of the country had been set at nought? Mr. Lockhart was against any alteration in the bill. As it now stood it did not preclude any individual from the sort of remedy in a court of justice which he could expect to have, if the words proposed were introduced. Mr. Wynn had no objection to the words being added, as they would not weaken the force of the bill. The House then divided on Mr. Brougham's amendment : Ayes, 39; Noes, 149. On the question, That the bill do pass, Mr. Brougham said, he did not wish to provoke any discussion in the present stage of the measure, but he was anxious to protest on his own part, and on the part of his hon. friends, against its being imagined that they had less objection to the passing of the bill, either in consequence of the arguments which were urged in support of it, or from the circumstance of their attempting to qualify it by amendments. He and they were as desirous at that moment as before to avow their hostility to the detestable principle upon which the whole bill was founded. Mr. Tierney said, it was his intention, on a former evening, to have delivered his opinions on the subject; but he had abandoned that intention from a conviction that it was quite unnecessary after the speeches of his hon. and learned friend who had just quitted his place (sir S. Romilly), and his hon. and learned friend who had just sat down. He should avail himself, however, of the present opportunity to declare, that he believed this to be one of the most detestable measures that ever was introduced into parliament. Mr. Wynn was of opinion that the measure was a necessary one. Mr. Peter Moore entered his protest against a bill so fraught with injustice. The bill was then passed. HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, March 16. The WINDOW TAX IN IRELAND.] Marquis of Downshire presented two petitions, one from the city of Dublin, and the other from the town of Belfast, complaining generally of the excessive burthen of taxes, but especially distinguishing the Window tax as that which, in their opinion, bore most unfairly as well as most heavily upon them. The noble marquis said, that when the windowtax was originally proposed at a period previous to the Union, Mr. Corry, then chancellor of the exchequer in Ireland, had urged it merely as a war tax, to subsist only for a limited time. The tax, however, grievous as it was felt to be in Ireland, was continued from year to year, in spite of various remonstrances urged in the most temperate manner at various meetings in a multitude of instances. It was no party question. The cause had been taken up by all classes and descriptions of men, who, though they had willingly submitted to the privations which they believed to be necessary in an urgent moment, yet trusted, in rational expectation and in the confident reliance on the word of a respectable minister, that the burden would be removed as soon as the cause for imposing it should have ceased. They found themselves mistaken. A tax which had been proposed as expedient for maintaining a necessary and indispensable war, and which had been agreed to on the express condition that it was to cease at the conclusion of the war, still continued, and still excited murmurs and dissatisfaction. The petitioners were actuated by the purest motives, but they could not complacently refrain any longer from appealing to the liberality and equity of parliament, for redress under so oppressive a grievance. They were the more confident of finding their petitions favourably received, as the wisdom and justice of the legislature had prevented the occasion of similar petitions from the people of England, who enjoyed the advantage, in point of taxes, of the change which had taken place from a state of war to that of peace The petitions were ordered to lie on the table. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Castles accordingly carried away and sold. The petition went on to set forth that the petitioner had been detained in prison till the month of June, when he was tried for high treason, and acquitted. The petition concluded by praying the House to impeach his majesty's ministers for their conduct, and also to take his case into consideration, and redress his sufferings.-Ordered to be printed. NAVY ESTIMATES.] The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, to which the Navy Estimates were referred, Sir George Warrender, in rising to move the Navy Estimates, observed, that the observations which it was necessary for him to offer, might be compressed within a very narrow space. The committee were aware that the navy estimates had, of late years, been laid before the House in so simple a shape, that a detailed explanation of them was no longer called for. For the last twenty years they had been printed in such a manner that every item could be taken into consideration; and in the last two years the subject had been so ably treated by the committees of finance, that he did not know that he could do his duty better than by referring the House to their reports, for the fullest and clearest information. The committee must know, that during the war the expense of the civil department of the navy had considerably increased, and much of this must remain a permanent charge, as arrangements had been made for bringing the whole of the work that was formerly PETITION OF THOMAS PRESTON.] done in the merchants' yards, into the Mr. Alderman Wood presented a petition King's yards. This was a measure which from Thomas Preston, late a prisoner in had long been considered to be exceedthe Tower. The petitioner stated himself ingly desirable, not merely as one producto have been taken up on the 4th of De- tive of economy, but as a measure calcucember, 1816, and carried before Mat- lated to furnish better ships than were thew Wood, esq. then lord mayor of Lon- produced in the old way.-Another large don, by whom he was dismissed, on his branch in the expenditure of the navy, proving, to the satisfaction of the said which had been referred to in the eighth M. Wood, esq. that the charges preferred report of the committee of finance, was against him were groundless. He was that connected with the public works afterwards again taken before the same in the naval yards. These would be lord mayor, and was committed to prison, found detailed in the report, together where he remained five days, cut off from with a statement by that able engineer, communication with his friends. While Mr. Rennie, which would render it unnethus confined, Castles, a person of uni-cessary for him to take up the time of the versal notoriety, went to his residence, No. 9, Greystoke-place, where he falsely represented himself to petitioner's daughter to have been authorized by the petitioner to dispose of his furniture, which Monday, March 16. committee on the subject. The committee were aware, from the nature of all works carried on immediately near the sea, that it was most desirable to complete them as soon as possible. Besides, did not afford those opportunities for the materials and labour in a time of peace were so much cheaper, that though a large sum might, in one or two years, have been expended, it would in the end be productive of considerable diminution in the expense. That consideration had contributed to produce the increase in the amount in this branch of the present estimates, to which he had before alluded. Every practicable reduction had been at tended to. The works at Sheerness and Chatham had done away the expenditure to a much larger amount in the establishments on the river. There remained one point on which he wished to offer a few observations. In the course of the present session some observations had escaped gentlemen, which seemed to indicate an opinion, that that important branch of British power, the navy, had been neg lected by the government. Though this had appeared to be the opinion of some honourable members, from what had inci-imperfectly known. The expedition now dentally escaped them when other matters were in debate, he could not believe that such an idea was seriously entertained. The navy was felt by government to be the bulwark of the nation-the great source of its glory-and every thing had been attended to that promised to give it strength and efficiency.- Pensions had been given of late years, not merely to disabled seamen, but to those who might one day be called upon to serve their country again. There were at present no less than 35,000 pensioners belonging to Greenwich Hospital, a great number of whom were able to serve again if there should be found occasion to call upon them. The arrangements which had been made were such, that an expedition could now be fitted out sooner than at any former period. He might be allowed to remind the House how rapidly, in one recent instance, an expedition had been got ready for sea. The expedition with which it was prepared was as unexampled as was its efficiency when complete. To this the distinguished officer who commanded it (lord Exmouth) had borne his testimony, and the brilliant manner in which the service on which it was sent had been accomplished, was well calculated to remove every doubt. Looking at these things-at what was done forand what had so lately been done by the navy, it must be seen that the fear that the navy had not been properly attended to-had not been kept in a proper state of efficiency, was vain. A state of peace about to be dispatched to the arctic regions would attempt to solve a problem most interesting to maritime science. To services of this sort, he trusted British sailors would long be directed; but if circumstances should again plunge us in a war, that powerful arm of defence, our navy, would again be put forth with a degree of strength and rapidity that had never been equalled in the history of the country. Notwithstanding the fears of some gentlemen, it would be seen, that there never was a period when this country, in the event of a war breaking out, could so effectually display, in all parts of the world, the elastic power of its naval arm. The hon. baronet concluded with moving, "That a sum not exceeding 2,480,6807. 17s. 3d. be granted to his majesty, for defraying the ordinary establishment of the navy for the year 1818." Sir M. W. Ridley observed, that if he had any objections generally to the vote proposed, they had been done away by the eighth report of the committee of finance. He did not mean to oppose the vote proposed in any of its items, but that which referred to the puisne lords of the Admiralty, and in that he thought some alteration was absolutely necessary. With this view he should move, as an amendment, that the proposed grant should be reduced in the sum of 2,000l. which was now applied as the salaries of two of the lords of the Admiralty, who could in his firm opinion be dispensed with without any detriment to the public service. He hoped the committee would recollect, that when he, on a former occasion, made a motion for the reduction of two out of the six lords of the Admiralty, it was urged as an objection, that these places were necessary, as they gave an opportunity to ministers to assist their friends, and also, that they were necessary as affording a fit school for the education of young statesmen. This was in effect the defence then set up for the continuance of places which were wholly unnecessary, and if he had not heard such arguments gravely stated in their favour, he should not have felt it his duty to be so strong in his opposition to them. It was said on that occasion, that if these situations were abolished, the Crown would be deprived of a portion of its fair patronage. With respect to that ground, he conceived, that no place which was in itself useless ought to be kept up, merely to strengthen the patronage of the Crown, which was already so great. But with respect to the second ground, that of educating young statesmen, he thought the commit. tee would agree with him, that those young statesman ought to pay for their own education. The sum, it was true, was only 2,000l. but in that small amount, the principle was the great object. What the peculiar course of knowledge was in which the minds of these young statesmen were trained, he was not informed enough correctly to describe. He was willing, however, to admit that the committee had that night witnessed the progress of improvement in the hon. ba onet [a laugh]. Why a nursery should be established at the Admiralty for young statesinen, he was at a loss to guess. He had been favoured with the sight of a work which had been not long ago published by a gentleman connected with the Admiraltyboard (Mr. Croker) which, perhaps, was to form part of the plan of education. It was intituled, "Stories for Young Children;" and he had no doubt was intended for the improvement of some of these sucking statesmen. [Hear! and a laugh.] He could not however but express his disapprobation of the work being put into such inexperienced hands; for in one part of it a great deal was said in favour of Charles Ist, and of his being an excellent man and a good king. He did not think such doctrine was likely to improve the * See Vol. 35, p. 654. (VOL. XXXVII.) constitutional education of the young lords of the Admiralty. But this was not the only literary production which emanated from the Admiralty-board, for there were several, no doubt, very valuable articles which appeared in the Quarterly Review, originating from the same source, and all for the instruction and improvement of the young statesmen. He trusted the committee would go with him in his view of such situations as those he now mentioned. He was inclined to hope for a strong support to his amendment, in consequence of the result of the motion which was made by his noble friend (lord Althorp) a few evenings back, on the subject of the leather tax. He trusted, that the hon. members on the other side of the House, who had voted on that occasion for the motion of his noble friend, would not now leave the chancellor of the exchequer in the lurch, but that as they had voted for the removal of a portion of the taxes, they would not leave the burden of providing for unnecessary places upon him. The hon. baronet concluded by moving, as an amendment, "That a sum not exceeding 2,478,680l. 17s. 3d. be granted for defraying the ordinary establishments of the Navy for the year 1818." Lord Castlereagh did not rise for the purpose of arguing the question which had before been, decided, upon the propriety of keeping up the present number of lords of the Admiralty. On the occasion which had been referred to, the question had been fully looked at in every point of view. The board was now as it had existed for more than a century past, and fewer commissioners, when it was considered that some were wanted at the outports, it did not appear to him would be sufficient. All the, suggestions of the committee of finance had been attended to. The hon. baronet had very pleasantly stated so much of the argument that had been used in the former debate on the Admiralty lords, as served his purpose. He had done it with so much fancy, that feeling he could not follow in the same vein, he would abstain altogether from the attempt. Mr. Bankes said, he could so far confirm the statement of his noble friend as to state that the committee of finance had great reason to be satisfied with the economy introduced into various departments, and with the attention paid to all the suggestions they had thought it their (4 B) |