The Sun. — London, England, 1822-02-26 00:00:00

complaint made to the House of Lords from. two persona con- 1 tinedin Gloucester Jail, One ot whom was a debtor, and the other confined for a misdemeanor, which complaint was referred ' to the Law Officers of the Crown. His belief was, that the ' word " felons" occurred in the letter by mistake. His Lord ship meant to have written " debtors and fines." He had referred to the opinions of the Law Officers, and there he found the words " debtors and fines." He had also Ilene timed the circumstance to Lord Sidmouth himselt, wed hie Lordship concurred in the supposition that the mistake had either been made by himself- or by the clerk in copying his letter. The case which led to the Report of 1735 was one 'with the Poet-ollice. And in a case where a letter had been put into the Post-office• and then opened, undoubtedly there was a breach of privilege. - But that was no case in point to the question before the Hoose. Before the letter was put in the post, the Magistrates, upon the authority of the law, de manded that certain regulations should be complied with. But ire the case of 1735, the Resolution expressly declared . that a gross breath of privilege had been committed, by opening a . letter addressed to a Member of Parliament at the Post-office.— The Hon. Member had stated, that in defending the prialleges ef the House upon this occasion, he was defending the liberties of the people. He (Ilie Peel) trusted that no Member of that House would ever claim privileges which were not, in fact, the privileges of the people.—(Hear, hear !)—The Right Hon. Gentleman, after again enforcing the position that Members of Therliarnent had no exemption from the regulations in question, intended as they were upon the law of the land, concluded by moving the previous question. Mr. 11. G. BENNET said, that from the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman the House were to infer, that not only had the Magistrates the power of carrying the law as it stood into effect, but to make new laws of equal force—to alter the terms of a man's imprisonment from a shorter to a longer date, and to put him into Solitary confinement.—(Hear:)—Now he . Ole. Bennet) would take leave to say, and it was, he was aware, a bold assertion to controvert what rested upon such law Authorities and Judges Of , the land, but he would say, that Magistrates had no etch power. 'They had the power of mak ing rules for the discipline of ;prisons, for regulating the time ot their working, their going to rest and getting their victuals, and o on ; but they never had the power of changing the sentence Of a prisoner from one to five years' confinement, or to keep hits tbr the whole term of his imprisonment in solitary confine enent ; and yet to this length would the speech of the Right Honourable Gentleman tend. But if magistrates had this power of regulating prison discipline in every respect, for what purpose had the labours of a Committee of that House, which was so long sitting on this 'subject, been required ?—(1 - lear !) 'The complaint in this case came from a fine and not from a felon ; and therefore, even under the construction of the Noble Viscount's letter, sanctioned as it was by the opinion of the then Law Officers of the Crown, the opening of this letter by the gaoler, even though he had an order of the Magistrates, was an illegal opening, since it was the opening of the letter of o fine, and not of a felon. With regard to the breach of privi lege, he must say, that the present was quite a clear case ; for if any Member would take the trouble of reading the Report, to which the House had agreed, upon the first agitation of their 'privilege, to have letters franked which they both sent and re oteived, he would find that the House had determined, so early . asehe reign of Charles the Second, that the opening of any . Member's letter was a gross breach of privilege. Before he osat down, he could not help thanking the Right Hon. Member fez Oxford, for meeting the motion of his Hon. Friend (Mr. James) with the previous question ; it was better than meeting it with a direct negative, for the decision upon it would not say that a breach of. rivileees had not been committed, but merely that the House did not think proper at that moment to enter 'into an examination of it. The ATTORNEY-GEnnERAL said, that though he was *folly prepared to admit that neither the Magistrates nor the '(gaoler had a right to increase the punishment of any indivi dual beyond the degree mentioned in the sentence of the Court, still he was also prepared to argue that they had a right to make such regulations as they thought proper for the internal go vernment of the prison, liable, however, to the subsequent econfirination or rejection of the judges of the Assize. Now a ,set of regulations having been agreed to by the Magistrates of Lancashire, and subsequently approved by the Judges, it became the duty of the gaoler implicitly to obey them.— Indeed, the gaoler would have been guilty of a gross dere 'liction of his duty, if he had obeyed the hint given him in ,the letter of the Honourable Member for Carlisle, and had -refrained from opening the letter sent to the prisoner under ..his custody. Be would ask whether any Member would rise - up in that House and state, that he had a rightto enter into any gaol he might select in the kingdom, in order to hold corn. emunication with those confined in it ? He knew that no M em 'bee would assert that lie had such a right. Now, if Hon. Members had not a right to communicate personally with all 'persons confined in gaol, how could they have a right to corn -enunicate with them in all cases by letter ? Such an ar g ument he conceived to be decisive on the case. As to a breach of pri -vilege, he was quite confident that none had been committed. Mr. BERNAL supported the motion, on the ground that exceptions in certain acts, allowing the letters of members to be opened, decisively proved that in other cases they ought not to be opened. Cases of extreme tyranny and oppression —such, 'for instance, as had been detail to the Commissioners appointed eto inquire into Ilthester gaol—might arise in the different pri sons of the country ; and how were they to be remedied, if those ewho suffered under them were deprived of all means of com moticating them to those who alone were capable of redress ning them ?—(llear !) Sir It. WILSON was glad to hear the Attorney-General econfess that Magistrates and Gaolers had not a right to aggra vate the punishment of the prisoners placed under their con trol. He would, however, ask the Ilonourable and Learned Gettleman whether it was not an aggravation of punishment, ;to intercept a man's correspondence with his private friends ? He trusted that Parliament would not allow its privileges to 'be got rid of by the _regulations of any set of Magistrates, as ;vote attempted in the present case. lie was himself no great stickler for precedent; but he had found one so peculiarly ap , licahle to the matter before the House, that he trusted he should gain by it the vote of a Right Honourable Gentleman ..odr. C. Wynn), who, though he was 'generally the first to speak upon all questions of privilege, had, some how or other, been miraculously silent on the present. In the first year of William and Mary, it was resolved by the House of -Coenmons, that the breaking open a letter sant by, or direct. cd to, one of its Members, was a gross infringement of -the privileges of Parliament. After such a resolution, there -could be no doubt of a breach of privilege having. been corn ,enitted in the present instance.—(Load cries of hear.)—When Honourable Members read the Report of the Commisioners upon the state of Ilchester gaol, they would discover an addi banal reason for not allowing the letters of prisoners to be in. tercepted e t for they would see that there was no longer any great confidence to be placed either in gaolers or in Visiting agistrat es. nit. C. WYNN was of opinion, that neither a breach of the ; privileges of that House, nor df the law of the land, had been -committed in tl.e present instance. The act clearly extended sio farther than the Post-office, and the privileges of Members • went no farther than as regarded the Post-office. When they looked at the precedent of the resolution of 1683, it would be well to look to the causes which led to that resolution. The case was a complaint from the Post-master at Hull against the governor of that place, who was in the practice of sending for the mail-bags and opening what letters he chose. 'He believed that the Acts which had been referred to gave the Magistrates the power which they had exercised. Before those Acts were 'passed, the jailer himself had the power of doing anything which he held necessary to the sate keeping of the jail, and the safe custody of th e prisoners. ' lie could then place prisoners .in solitary confinement for refractory conduct, or for offences against the regulations of the prison. To place that pewee in --the hands of Magistrates better qualified to exercise it was the .object of the Acts, and he had no doubt of their having now -the power of ordering Solitary confinement, where circumstances celled for it. The evils to which a removal of the power of ex , . .amining letters wotild give rise were of the most serious cha racter. It might aid the escape of pt.:goners, or defeat the de tection of offenders connected with others already apprehended. --Even (although it was annextreme case) topoison. might be conveyed to criminals by letter, so as to enable them to avoid euffering the sentences of the - law. He saw no reason whatever why the motion of the lion. Member should receive the sup port of the House. Mr. BROUGHAM said, that his first opinion as to the pre sent case being a clear breach of the privileges of that House was very strong. But he had waited-to hear the opinion of his Right lion. and Learned Friend, (Mr. Wynn) who had long been the jealous defender of the privileges of Parliament on one side of the House, and who he hoped would now continue to be so on the other ; and having heard all that the learning of his Right Hon. and Learned kriend could advance against that opinion, he did feel it very considerable , strengthened. The privileges of that House were not to be rode over by any . regulations which a bench of Magistrates might choose to adopt. If so, where 'would the principle end ? Any act, rhowever gross, however clearly in violation of' the law, if it s'bad but the sanction of those Magistrates and two Judges, the privileges; of Parliament must be set aside and trampled __upon. Another doctrine advanced was, that the privilege of Mem bers only extended -to the Post Office. He contended that theelteport of 1735 was restricted to the Post Office, because it was a case where letters / had been opened at the Post Office which gave rise to it. If any other case had called for their „attention, he was ceneinced that the great men on both sides of the House, Whig and Tory, would have been unanimous M their decision to the sane effect. He should be glad to know what was to make it a breach of privilege for-the Post Office alone to open letters of Members of Parliament. Members en joyed this . privilge is order that their correspondence with their constituents and with the people at large might be free - and unimpeded; and whether that correspondence were inter rupted by. a servant of the GOvernment, or of the public, in a post-office or in a jail, it was equally a breach of theirprivilege. The resolution alluded to . by his lion. 'and Gallant Fiend (the Member for Southwark), was not one which referred to the Post office. The lion. and Learned Member then described the case , alluded to of the Governor of Hull, and contended, that the ge. neral revolution then agreed to was exactly similar to that now proposed by his lion. friends- It was no-argument against this privilege that it was liable to abuse, because the same objec tion might be urged against all other privileges. Privileges should be . judged by their use, not" by their abuse. Many of the privileges of that House had been abused to so shameful an extent that the abuses .would not bear reci tal. A Member of the last Parliament had, by the abuse of his privilege, reduced many parsons to penury by refusing to pay his debts. He made over his property to a relation, and by the assistance of this fraudulent conveyance and his privi lege., he kept his person, and many of his creditors went to the prison which he so well deserved. The Honourable and Learned Member then dwelt strongly upon the necessity of a free intercourse by letter between Members of Parliament and the people ; and upon that ground he contended that a breach of privilege had been committed. He felt an habithal veneration for the high authority by which the regulations of this jail were sanctioned ; but when he saw a novel regulation introduced amongst them, which was likely to be oppressive to the subject, he must hesitate to give his assent, compara tively insignificant as it must be, that the act of ordering it was perfectly legal or consistent with the principles of justice. Mr. WILSON (of Cockermouth) supported the amend ment, and cited • law authorities to show the power of Magis trates in regulating the discipline and management of gaols.— . He pointed out the danger of subornation of perjury being solicited by persons about to undergo trial, if their co:respon dence were not subject to inspection. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY would very shortly explain the reasons-upon which he should give his vote. He . regarded the present motion as raising two questions, one or law, the other of privilege. And it was to be observed, that if any offence known to the laws had been committed, the deci sion of the Honse against 'the motion would not take away the legal remedy, or lessen the punishment fbr that offence. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman would forgive him for doubting that the law was with him (Mr. Brougham) on this occasion; and for doubting also whether there was enough in this case to call for the interference of the House. As far as he (the M arquis) had heard the question discussed, the regula tions of the prison alluded to were perfectly legal, and it there fore would not become the House to over-ride the law. The question was, whether the House should at that moment state its privileges so broadly as to declare that every prisoner had a right to send'letters to every Member of Parliament, and that every Member of Parliament had a right to send letters to every prisoner, and that there should be no right in any one, under any circumstances, to open the letters. If the House was to do this, what jailer would venture to open any letter at all for the future ?—(H ear, hear !)—How was every jailer to know the handwriting of the Members of that House ? lie really could see in the rules complained of, no unnecessary in fringement of the liberties of the subject, and as little could he see any reason for a secret confidence between the Mem bers of that House and the prisoners in the different jails.— (Cheers from the Opposition.)—He begged that he might not be misunderstood.: He wished that House to be open to the hearing of all complaints, of all real bona fide grievances • but he was not prepared to lay down that the M embers of that House, in cases of treason, and felony for instance, had the privilege contended for by the Hon. Mover. He certainly was not pre pared to concede to Members of Parliament a privilege which the law had denied them. He could not consent to make them visiting Magistrates of all the prisons. —(Hear, hear, hear !) ' And he certainly was not aware of the good which would be worked by an epistolary correspondence. He was not saying that in all cases it was justifiable for jailers to open the letters of the Members of that House ; but he would not decide the question raised by this motion too hastily ; and he would there fore vote for the motion of his Right lion. Friend, because the offence complained of, if offence it was, might be-properly carried before the competent tribunal. It would then be seen, whether these rules, which had been signed by two Judges, were legal or not ; but certainly at present he was not disposed to push the right of privilege to the extent sought by the ori ginal motion. Mr. DENMAN said, the Noble Marquis had treated the present, partly as a question of law ; but. that, he (Mr. D.) thought was the question the least proper for the consideration of the House. Ile wished the Noble Marquis had states' how the case could really be brought before a Court of Law. It is a question of privilege altogether. With respect to the doc trine of the Noble Lord as to secret correspondence with Members, and as to real bona tide grievances, it must be evis dent that where the grievance was real, was bona tide, the cor respondence must be secret.—(Hear, hear!)—Without such a correspondence, how could the secrets of that horrible Bastile, the ilchester Jail, have been discovered ? Whenever a covis plaint had been made against the conduct of that Jailer, what reference was made to the regulations signed by the Judges ! —(Cheers.)—and what testimony was borne to the humane conduct of the Jailer !—(Cheers from the Opposition.)—Yet. when inquiry had taken place, it was discovered , that never had rules been more infringed than those very rules, and never had conduct been . worse than that of this very Jailer. In many cases the doctrine of the Noble Marquis would make the person complained of the judge of his own conduct ; for he might, of course, put the letter, complaining of that conduct, into ti.: fire, and thus prevent all inquiry.—(Cheers.)—This was not an argument drawn from the doctrine of the Noble Marquis—it was the doctrine itself. He (Mr. D.) highly re spected the individuals who had signed the regulations in ques tion ; but he was sure they had never contemplated the order ing of any thing which would clash with the privileges of that ,' House. Sir Samuel Romilly was strongly of opinion against the right which had been now assumed. He admitted that the case of attempted subornation of perjury, mentioned by the Honourable Member (Nlr. W.), was a very bad one; but the principle, if allowed, would also deprive a prisoner of thepower of communicating the truth, and of corresponding in confi dence with his legal advisers. If the present question should be decided against the privilege, there would be an end to the power of the House to inquire into the abuses of prisons. Had this principle been adhered to, that infamous Bastile of Ilches • ter would never have been exposed ; nor would those practices of torture and famine whieh, had been carried on there have been abolished. He could not admit the force of the argument, that there would be a difficulty in the Jailer undertaking to distinguish the hand-writing of Members; for the letters would of course go through the Post-Office, and be then au thenticated. He trusted the House would see the necessity, in the present instance, of suoporting its own privileges. Pri vilege was thought to be the happiest thing in the worldnwhen it accorded with the feelings of Ministers—(Cheers from the, Opposition)—wncri it was hurled against their political oppo nents—(Cheers from the Opposition; echoed from the Mini sterial benches)—but when it was to be directed the other way, it was thought to be a curse. He concluded by declaring his intention to vote for the original motion. Mr. WILSON shortly explained. Mr. BATHURST said the Act of Parliament which had been referred to was unqualified in its language ; not a word in the way of exception was contained with respect to the privi lege of Parliament, and he therefore thought it was too much to call upon the House to agree to the present motion. It was not unnatural to suppose that had the reservation of privilege been intended, a clause would have been inserted, as there al ways was for reserving the rights of the Crown. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman would' urely net contend that if a servant of a•Member was to break open a letter directed to his master, he would be guilty of a breach of privilege. The reasoning of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman as to the consequence of the interception would not hold good; for legal assistance was in cases allowed to a prisoner, and his attorney (the Honour able Member observed) was never denied access to him.— It could not be fairly contended, that in those cases wherein personal communication would be denied, a correspondence by letter should be encouraged. The general question of privi lege was not concerned in the present question, for the motion involved only the particular case. Ile was decidedly of opinion • that this was not a case which called for the interference of the , House. • Mr. JAMES shortly replied. His view of the question was not at all altered, and he believed, on the authority of Sir Sa muel Romilly's opinion, that the practice complained of.was illegal. The Right lion. Gentleman (Mr. Wynne) had ar gued that poison might be conveyed to a prisoner in a letter.— This was very true ; so might a prisoner knock his head against the . prison wall if he were determined to kill himself. If the House neglected the present motion, he thought it would be guilty of a violation of the law, and would in effect establish two legislatures ; one consisting of King, Lords, and Com mons, and the other of Judges and Magistrates. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House di vide& when there appeared— For the Original Motion - 60 For the Previous Question 167 Majority —lO7 REDUMON OF THE FIVE PER CENTS. The CEIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER wored the Qrder of the Day that the House du resolve itself into it Committee of the whole House, on the Acts relating to the Five per Cent. Stuck. The House having resolved itself into the Committee. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said. the Resolution to which tie was about to call tbr Atte,ntiou of tin: Flouts was founded, in its principle, on a tran , action which ' had always formed the _subject of panegyrics with the writers on the state of England, as one of the greatest proofs of the • resources of this country, of the extent of its credit, and of • the power which it devised . from the cumbinatien of private opulence and public faith—he allotted to the reduction of the Four per Cent.• Annuities by Mr. Pelham in the year 1749. In introducing the measure which he should now have the honour to propose, it would not he in - decant to bring briefly before the House the circumstances of the transactinu its 1749, to which he should appeal as a precedent. In the year 1737, when Sir Holiest IValpole was Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was proposed by Sir John Barnard to invest his Majesty with power to raise money by loans at a low rate of interest, at which it could alai be procured, to pay off that part of the public debt on which a higher interest was paid. This proposal, then made by Sir John Barnard, was not at that time acceded to by Parliament. In 1749, however, Mr. Pelham, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, adopted the idea, and proposed to Parliament a plans tor reducing that part of the National Debt which consisted of Four per Cent. This description of Stuck amounted then to 57 millions; at that time a very great sum, so great indeed, that considerable doubts were entertained of the practicability of effecting the reduction : Mr. Pelham, Rowe vet, persevered, and brought forward his plan, which was finally carried into successful operation. The plan was t his—a subscription was opened of . the holders of the Four per Cent. Stock, and the persons sub scribing were entitled to receive Three and a Half per Cent. fur the next seven years, and Three.per Cent. aft er that pe riod. The period fixed for the subscription was three months, and at the end of that time more than 39 out of 57 millions - of stock had been subscribed. The more complete success of this first subscription was prevented by is combinations of some of the great Stockholders, who were, it was said, en couraged by the political opposition of the Slay. The Gentles men whom he (Mr. Vansittart) saw opposite to bins, would, be doubted not, form an honourable contrast to the opposi tion in the time of Mr. Pelham, and would give their full con currence to a measure sfsbeneficial to the politic interest, and se', conducive to the immediate relief of the people. Sir J. Bar nard at that time published a pamphlet ou the plan (Considera tions on the proposal fur reducing the National Debt), which produced a great effect, and, in conjunction with the firm ness of Parliament, completed the proposed plan. The time allowed for the first subscription having expired, a further subscription was opened on terms rather less favourable to the holders of the stock (for Mr. Pelham very properly determined that those who in the Gist instance had refused to accede to a plan so beneficial to tine public arid Sii just to I lie holders, should nut be allowed afterwards to avail themselves of the . astearoagt 5 offered.) Under this second subscription, 'about 15,800,0001. was subscribed, and there remained about 3,290,0001. slut k, which was repaid in money to the holders. The total of the debt Was then Only 78 millions, so that .57 mil lions, the suns then reduced, though smaller in absolute 'amount than the•present Five per . Cents. formed a much greater proportion of t he whole debt of the nation I ban that which it was now proposed to reduce. Ile said this because he was unwilling to assume a greater credit than he deserved, in comparison with the measure of 1749. Indeed very great credit was due to Mr. Peltiani for the visour with which he carried t brought his measure, and because he had set a prece dent which afforded great facility to the present operation. • Having thus described the operation of 1749. be should now state the particulars of the measure which he recommended to the consideration of the House. Every Member insist have known how ansionsly they bad looked forward to the seduc tion of the interest of the ltisher denominations ot stock when it could be dune consistently with good faith, how ear nestly it had been recommended by Committees, as well as by various Members of the Douse, and how it had been foreseen .as our of the happiest consequences of the dawning of or, tiunal prosperity.—By the operation which he now proposed, the reduction of the 5 per cent. stock, a sum of 1,130,0001. of annual charge would be reduced, and when the reduction of the Irish 3 per cents. was added, a relief of 1420,0001. or 1,230,0001. would be obtained for the public. The' stocks which now bore 5 per cent. interest were of three descriptions. The first and most considerable was termed Navy 5 per Cent. Stock, which, at the commencement, was formed by the funding of Na;.). and Victualling, Bills to the amount of 25 millions, andayhich had since been increased by the finishing of Exchequer Bills, and the loans raised in it till it now formed a twat of 141 millions. The second description was the Irish 5 per Cent. Stock, Which was raised for the ser vice of Ireland, but on the credit of England, which was payable at the Exchequer of England, and since the union of the Treasuries was chargeable on the ronsoli dated Fund of the United Kingdom. This stock amount ed to 1,400,0001. and as no conditions as to modes of repayment were annexed to it, it would be included in the present payment. Another species of Five per Cent. Stock, however, existed, which was now of small amount, though originally much larger, which had been created for a luau negociated in 1797, and generally known by the name of the' Loyalty Loan, to which peculiar conditions as to redemption were annexed. The holders ot this Stock being• entitled to. :repayment in money within two years after the conclusion of the ensuing peace, thelt eater part of them called for their ' money within that time, after the peace of Amiens, and there remained now about one million of that description of Stuck. That Stock was not included in the present operation , he cause under the terms of their loan, the holders were not liable to be paid off till three years after the paying off of the Navy Five per Cents., and when they were so paid off, they ' were entitled to dernand a transfer into Three per Cents. on certain terms (that is to say, at the rate of 133 per Cent. for every 1001. of their Stock). On these accounts, the Loyalty ' Five per Cents. would not be included in the present trans action. The remainder of the Five per Cents. Stocks was about 14.2 millions. and a half, and the Irish about 13 millions of Five per Cents. It was proposed that a commutation • should be made of the British Fire per Cents. into a Four • per Cent. Stock, the dividends on • which should be payable on the same days on which those in the Five per Cents. were ' now payable, viz. in January and July. The Irish Five per Crusts., however, being now payable in April and October, a quarter's dividend would be paid on the Stock into which they would he commuted in July next, after which the half yearly dividends would be payable. at the sane time as the other parts of the Fund. The holders acceptifig this commu tation, would receive in the Four per Cents. an addition of St. per cent. on their capitals, which would produce them an interest of 45. yearly. By the Resolution be now proposed, a relief of 1,140.0001. would be obtained, exclusive of the Irish Stock. The House would see that all that they had a right ' to enforce on the holders WAS payment in ready money— ' (Hear !)—and not ti commination into any other Stock. Such ' a commutation must be Oriiheir part a voluntary transaction ; but, by offering fair and somewhat favourable terms to the • holder, there was no probability that they would withhold their consent. It was of course essential that the holders should have the fullest opportunity of expressing their opi nion—(Hear! from the Opposition side)—hat this oppor sunlit y would he as fully glyen by allowing them to ex . press their dissent, as by calllog on them to express their assent—(Hear, hear!)—when either int the one way or the other sufficient time were given: The present eircom stancei differed from those ed the time in which Mr. Pelham effected the commutation, though in point of principle, and in an observance of public faith, the plans were the same.— In the time of Mr. Pelham, the parties who wished for the commutation were called sin to subscribe; and three months were allowed fur them to - do so. The east extent of our Colonial possessions, and the Manner•in which Proprietors of British Stuck were scattered over all the • world, would make at present the fixed lime of three months inconvenient. In • some cases it woad b.: not sufficient ; in others it would be more than enough-s-lt was-certainly desirable that while sof ' ficient time was alloived to soul e an option, the time should . not be unnecessarily Prolonged. .To the public.. such a pro- leingatinn would he attended with inconvenience by making • the 'benefits indefinite. While to the persons concerned it was injurious by encouraging that spirit of jobbing and gambling .which often gave a disgraceful character to the transactions of the money market. .His proposition' was to limit in the . • first glace the tune of signifying their intentions fur persons residing within Great Britain to the ltit h • March. 'f u those who live out of Great Britain, and in' Europe, the time allowed, he proposed, should he three mouths; and to those ' who are out of I.:mope, twelve montlis from the present time. With respect to the terms sin which the commutation was proposed to take place ; at the present market.price the pour per Cents. were at' 98. 'The bouus given was 51. per cent. so that there was nearly 31. per cent. bonus i .for 1051. of stock was nearly equal to 1031. of money. But as the dividend on the Four per Cents. was payable a quarter' sooner than the dividend on the Fire per Cents. there was a certain deduction from the benefit ;• but as a set-off, he proposed that a clause should he introduced to provide that the stock should not be redeemable till 1829. Its the way of objection to this plan, it was possible that it might be urged that a pro portionate, though a small addition, was made to the capital of the debt, to the amount of 7,500,0001.—(Hear 1.)—Ile had been induced to adopt this course by the following rea sons. There were but two other means by which this alter native could be avoided—the creation of a 41 percent. stuck. Now this plan, in the first place, would have postponed for a considerable time the advantage to the public from the commutation, for instead of 1,150,000!. a year, only 700,0001. ' could in the first place be gained. . The advantage to the ' public by the reduction of 4 or 500,0001. a . year was so • great, that it seemed to him worth while to incur, for the sake of it, an inconveniencesather technical than real. lit the second place, the stock fixed at that per centage must. have been made irredeemable fur a long period, as otherwise the prospect of another and a speedy reduction would have ' _ Angle hisltieys unwillin; to accept that species of stock. 4pu the; plan was to take a premium in income without stock ; but to this it was objected that trustees conk! not accept an income that would be fleeting,. and to which no capital would be at tached. He now came to the other possible ground of objec tion, via. that he proposed now to take the dissent, instead of the consent, of the holders.—(Hear.)—Now, he said, that assuming, which, from the. hest information he could collect, he was justified in assuming, that the terms he.-utiered were so advantageous to the holders that few wunid dissent, it was evident that he consulted the public convenience by putting it on the minonity. instead of the majority, to signify their will.—(Hear.)—The holders of the 5 per cents, were pecu liarly numerous—they rather exceeded 100,000, and of these, 50,000 persons held sums of less than 16001. stock• Now, he would leave it to the House to judge how great the inconve nience would he to which all these individuals, many of them minors, would be subject, if they were all called on to express their consent in writing to the proposed commutation. The greatest facilities and conveniences bad been afforded to the holders of the stock which it was proposed to reduce. A cir cular letter would in a few days lue addressed from the Bank. to each of these holders, in which letter a blank was to be left for every such holder to fill up according to his own dis cretion, stating whether he dissented from the proposed plats or nut. The proceeding upon such star emeots would have, of course, to be subsequently determined by Parliament ; but Par •liatnent could not fail to manifest a due degree of attention to the wish of those who had lent their money upon the public faith. The faith of Perliament was, indeed, specifically pledged to the holders of this stock in the very same Act, namely, that of the Vali of the late King, which provid• ed fur the liquidation of the National D e la. B u t i n thi s Act it was provided that stuck above par should not be paid off at par on terms prescribed by Parliament. This was the plan upon which Mr. Pelham bad acted in the year 1741. Having stated the reason of the deficiency in the plan of Mr. Pelham, it now remained for hint to urge the comparative advantages of the plan which he had to submit to the consideration of the Committee. By this plan. of teducing the 5 per cents. a profit would accrue tot hecouns try of about 1,200,0001, independently of the ,a per cents. for Ireland. By this operation the ainoura of theSinkitos Putt,' would, however, be increased, while, no doubt, an ;Within would be made to the public debt of uo lessallan 7,500,0001. But the good effect which this measure proposed and assured, it should never be fon gotten, proceeded from the steadiness with which Parliarueut had uniformly maintained the public faith. Ins the maintenance of that. faith, however, Govern ment neither had, nor pretended to have; any ci edit what ever, having only acted as the organ or egent in carrying in-. to execution the firmness or will of Patliament.—By this fitinness the stockholder haul, 110 doubt, materially profit ed lea that was only the reward of great sacrifices.= Was nut this circumstance a strong proud of the confi dence which the public very naturally placed in the good faith of Parliament, which confidence most serve to give ad ditional credit to any vote which Parliament might hereafter pronbutice in favour of the public creditor ? There was an answer which, no doubt s he would be required to make, and which it was his ditty to make, to a question to be ap prehended on this transaction; therefore he would answer that question at once.-11e meant the question which he had beard elsewhere, namely. why the present proposition was net brought forward in 1818, when the Fluids were higher, in stead of postponing it so long? To this question', however, he could matte a pauper reply :—Ors the conclusion of the peace his Majssny's Government were so much occupied that it had no leisure to attend to any other object. For until the question of the currency was settled, it might be considered that anyarrangement with the stock-holder would be attended with undue loss to the stock-holder or to the public. Hence until caah payments were resumed at the Bank—that indeed such an arrangement would be inconsistent with the prin. ciples of equity and policy, as the resumption of cash payments must involve a considerable reduction Of charges upon the several asticles of consumption. The Right Hon. Gentleman, after apologising for haying so long occupied the attention of the House, concluded with !imposing some Resolutions, which were its substance the same as those which were officially pub lished immediately after the communication • between the Earl of Liverpool and the holders of Fier Ver Cent. Stock Fifeshotle. Mr. ELLICE, before he monk any observations on the plan which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had submitted to the House, desired to be informed, whether the condition of the dissent of the holders of the Five per Cents. instead of their assent, was to he insisted upon by Government ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied, that certainly his Majesty's Ministers had perfectly made up their minds on that subject. and that no alteration would take place in the conditions already befrore the public. Mr. ELLICE felt obliged to the Right Hun. Gentleman for the decided answer which he had jest given him, and which rendered it his duty to make such observations as oc curred to him on the whole pleasure before the House. His objectimis to it would have beets considerably diminished, if the Right Hon. Gentleman had felt disposed to alter this very material conditions, which, in his opinion, was a most unjusti fiable attempt to alter the terms on which the publie-creditbr advanced his money—the title by which be held his property. The only defence, as far as it 'went, of this condition was, that it might• be mote convenient and conducive to its ulti mate success, from the gneater number of small holders of Five per Cent. Stock, whose interest or satisfaction appeared to focus no part of the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As he seemed to think that they would not be affected by it, the fair way was to allow them -to decide for themselves—and if the question was proposed to them, whe ther they preferred the mode adopted by Mr. Pelham, or the alteration of the Right Honourable Gentleman, he did not suppose even the Right Hun. Gentleman would consider them such indifferent judges of their own interest as to prefer the latter. The Right Hon. Gentleman haul begun his speech by detailing the plan pursued on the recommendation, of Sir J. Barnard, by Mr. Pelham, in 1749. Would to God the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had the benefit of such able advice in his connexion with the City; or the louse the advantage of such enlightened counsel as that of that dis tiegnished Representative. We might n o t then have wit nessed the production of such a scheme as 7lie present one, diffeting front that of Mr. Pelham, in silt its bearings, hut more particularly by the contrast it presented of every thing that was tricky, crooked and uncandid, to the caudumr, open ness and fair-dealing of the proposal of 1749. Would Sir John Barnard have advised the Right Honourable Gentle man to have recourse to a loan of four millions front the Bank, to job up.ooe s species of public security artificially, that with the assistance of other Stock Exchange acts, he might endeavour, before the state of public credit fairly justified the transaction. to frighten the holders of Five per Ceut. Stock; avowedly the class of public annui tants most entitl e d to the favourable consideration of Parliament, into a forced measure like the present ? The Right Honourable Gentleman sr•as correct in stating th a t the former reductions of the Four per Cents. was, proportionably to the then amount of debt. a more serious operation 01311 the present attempt ; and be (Mr. Ellice) was so far from de siring to throw obstacles ins the way, that this measure would have had his entire approbation and support, if founded 011‘ the sante unexceptionable principles as the former one, which so fully succeeded. The Right Honourable Gentleman bad said, the terms now offered created en additional debt of severs millions. Why riot, as a sacrifice must be porde,. pro pose to the holders of Five per Cents. gradually to reduce the mterest as in the former case, and give theist time fully to weigh their situation by a similar notice of three months, and then require their assent instead of their dissent . ? No per son could have objected. to this ; and, looking to the.situatiun of several of the holders, the gradual alteration,of the inte rest was of some importance to them. It wonlacliave enabled them to prepare for the redoction 'of their expenses with the reductionail their incomes. But it was necessary to suit the fancy of the times and the interest of thejobbers, to have Something in the shape of bonus—and what hats been the're suit ? . The Transfer' Office at - the Bank has bOuniceowded by 1)o/in./file holders of small sums, for the last week, anxious • to uivoid the consequenees of this measure ;—they have sold their all to the ready dealer in the foods, who, at their expense, takes the profit, if profit attends the ttalisac• thin, and these investments have been converted into fo reign securities by the farmer holders of them. French rentes, Russian, Prussian, Danish; Spanish, Austrian. and event South Americans Stocks, have risen since the Noble Lord's speech. at the commencement of the Session, from 5 to 10 per cent. and are still rapidly.advanci ; *ad the premium the Right Hun. Gentleman had held out, nut only by his scheme, but the particular conditions of it, fur the exportation of ca pital, alight in the end endanger the measures of 1819, with respect to the currency. Either the exchanges must fall, or the public securities decline, so as to diminish the temptation for foreign investments, and neither result would have a very beneficial influence on the success of flue present plans. Ano ther difficulty might be, the pressure of stuck, which had been purchased by the sellers front the former holders, on the mar ket. The situatiun - of the speculators for an advance in the funds was not unknown at the commencement of the Session ; they bad largely overtraded their capital, and borrowed im mense sums from the bankers. Since the publication of the finance measures of the year, the rate of interest has--also risen ; and it is yet to be seen what the effect of any unlooVed for political event might, be, under these circumstances, on the money-market. if it should be unfavourable, had the Right Hon. Gentleman the same means Mr. Pelham possessed of remedying the difficulty? Had he a surplus revenue, or Consolidated Fund to assist in paying off dissentient hold . ors, the source from which Mr. Pelham at last coruple .ed his arrangements ? On the contrary, the Consolida ted Fund was•flow its arrear nine millions, two millions hay - jag been added to assist in keeping up the Funds last year, by applying that amount, in addition to the surplus of the re venue, for the redemption of debt. 'When be (Mr. E.) made a remark on this subject, and proposed a question to the Right Hon. Gentleman the other night, it was not from igno rance of the manner its which the difference bad been made up, but with the desire of exposing the devices of the Right Hun. Gentle Man, who bad last year assured him the Un funded Debt should not be increased with this object. On the whole, looking to the circumstances of the country, our foreign relations, and especially to the delicate situation in winch we stood with respect to the measures of 1819, he much doubted whether this was exactly the moment for the present attempt. Still, as the House had determined to undertake it. he would not have withheld his support or assistance,-if more candour and fair dealing bad been displayed by Government in the transaction—if greater time had been given to those, interested for consideration, and particularly if a dissent in stead of an assent had not beers required from the Fund holder. This last condition was open also to all ki of difficulty and abuse. 'Suppose Trustees differed in opinion, or stock was transferred ostensibly to holders in Europe or America, why were persons taking advantages of this evasion, to he in a better situation than former, or less experienced parties ? He should also be glad to know how it was proposed to class the different -dissentients according to the receipt of the letters, the form of Which the Right Hon. Gentleman said would be issued by the Bank ? They would, .of course, bh'. ail written at the latest moment ; and was it further fair to impi,e a species of proscription on property so situated which would render it unsaleable in the 'market ? Such were the difficulties arising out of attempts to deviate .from the straight forward course on an occasion like the present. He would put it to the Right Hun. Gentleman oppoiite (Mr, Peel) whose candour woold on all occasions stand the test of the set ntinizing observation of his political oppouents, whe ther this new mode of affeiling the title of the fund . owner was either consistent with public faith or the character of the cusintry ? The money had been borrowed to be repaid when it. was no longer expedient. to pay the interest, Offer an ex change, or fulfil the other obligation ; but we had no righ t, until we were in a position to guarantee the fixed paymen t; to injure the interest of the stockholder, or alter the ‘itle.by which he held his property. Mr. WILLIAMS doubted whre'ber, consistently with the Art of Parliament, which preser ikiesl the paying off 25-mil lions of debt from the Sinking Fund, before the Five - Ter Cents, were paid off. the present measure could legally be cat Heel into effect. He much doubted the policy of the nira sure' for if there were, as the Right Hon. Gentleman said, so many persons interested in the fond, and those persons consisting of servants, tradesmen, women, and children, he much doubted whether there any measure which could create so nmoh individual distress. The Hors. Nlember then proceeded to argue at some length on the advantage of a low price of the Funds, both it regarded the Government, who had thereby a greater facility of purchasing to diminish the debt ;" and individuals also, who could, in ease-of low price of Stocks, get beiter annuity interest for their money. Mr. MABERLEY wished to know whether those . who should dissent would be circumscribed in consequence in their power of transfer? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, they would still put iess the power of transferring the stock, but , considered as stock to be paid off, and subject to payment in the order in which it stood on t he list. • Mr. MABERLEY then said, that he was most ansions that the plan should be carried into effect ; but he was of opinion that it was impossible all parties interested should hare time sufficient to signify their dissent under the proposed limita tion. Within the period of sixteen days, war might be decla red by Russia against the Porte, in which case a great fall in the 4 per rents. now.at 98, wool(' take place. He thought, if• the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not wish to take an nn-• fair advantage, he would agree to an extension of the period for dissent to the 30th March. If that hurry to press the transaction to a conclusion were shown, be would hare the public against him he was sure, and that was a matter of some importance in an affair of the kind. Mr. RICARDC) asked, whether any provision would be' made for cases wherein the stock of persons on the Continent having been dissented front by their agents here, should after wards be required to be withdrawn within the period allowed. for those on the Continent ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the Hon. Gentleman would find by a subsequent Resolution that he had provided against any fraudulent attempts of that nat urn. Air. RICARDO thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do well to explain explicitly how he intended to pay off the amount of those who dissented. He also wished to know what plan would be adopted to determine the right of prece dence in the event of a number of letters being received on the same day. It was most probable that the great bulk of these letters would arrive on the. last day (the 16th March). Perhaps the Right Hon. Gentleman might object to say how he intended to raise the mouey to pay them off. The Hoa. m e mber made some other obset vations. but in so low a tone of voice that we could nut hear him. Mr. %VU.SON said that, however proper the measure it se lf _ was kr the advantage of country, if it was Co press hear oily un one particular, and that a poor class of persons; sosie measure of mitigation should accompany it. Not only :did it go to reduce their interest, but a rod was held over their heads, that it might again be reduced within seven years.- • He therefore submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that some means should be devised to mitigate the severity of the measure upon the pcior stockholder. Mr. BRIGHT pressed the difficulty in the case of Trus tees of this Stock upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. BANKES stated, that in consequence of the project with regard to the Sinking Fund, which he desired to see established at compound interest, acemding to the original intention in 1786, he had a Resolution on the subject to submit to the House. lie wished therefore to know about what time that project was likely to conic tinder the discus sion of the House, and when it would be most convenient to the House to take. his Resolution into consideration. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQL:ER rose to reply. First, with regard to what had fallen from the Hon. Menabee who had last spoken, be begged his Honourable Friend nut to consider the question of the Sinking Fund as quite 40 . 7.• cided. It certainly was one of the greatest importance, and should not be hastily disposed of. • It was, however, no part of the question then before the House. In re-. ply to the question which had been put to bins relative to trustees, he had to say that they would be empowered, to act as principals,. and would be indemnified by the Bill. He fully appreciated the compassion of those who felt for the hardships which would be suffered by .many. small capitalists, in consequence of this measure ; • be parti-, cipated in the feeling, but he apprehended that the only answer he could give to it was, that this was a contingency, they must always have had in view. —(Hear, hear.)--At the same time, he would tape the liberty to observe, that al though they might suffer in the reduction, yet they.were deriving, in the reduction of twenty-five per cent. in all articles of fconsumption, the full benefit of that state of things which brought about the reduction. of interest With regard to the argument for a 'prolongation of time for dissent, be had to observe, that there was no part of -the Kingdom which the post did not reach in six days,---, which he thought would allow of ample time for delibet ration on such a subject. Three months were allowed figs. -persons un the Continent. and to grant the- same time to - Yorkshire would have a pernicious *Sect. He found it irp- . possible to answer the question of the Honourable Mem..., leer for • Portarlington i (Mr. Ricardo,) as to the means he should employ to pay o ff the amount of the dissentients. AS, .soots as the diy . of option had closed, he would bring for ward that subject, and, as far as possible, state the sup plies required.—(Hear, bear. ) —He thought the obseivati'on • of the Hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice). proceeded more from prejudice than frOm a fair consideration of-tin' case„ He did not think he could succeed in persuading the public, or the House, of the existence of the...material dif ference he spoke of, betwixt the modes of collecting the votes by assent or dissent. On the last day. suppOsing all the let ters to arrive ors that day, they-would be opened by the-Bank, in the order of receipt. and entered, as opened, in the Bank book, numerically. No way, he thought, could be fairer. He. begged leave also to differ Irons the Hon. Member for Coven try, as to his plan being the cause of English stock going to foreign markets. A great rise had taken place, and great sums had gone from the country to all the foreign funds be fore the meeting of Parliament, and also before and after the. intimation made by his Noble Friend-in that House, and the cause was the reverse of that stated by the Hon. Member. It was owing to the false alarms which had gone forth relative to the intention of Parliament to• tamper with the Sinking Fund and the public creditor.—(Hear, bear !)'—Public credit, however, would soon bring English money hack again. Mr. RICARDO asked the Right Hon. Gentleman, whether in case stock was standing in the names of two trustees, one in this country, the other on the Continent, both were to be allowed the longest time to declare their assent ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER intimated, that notice wouldihe given of the time allowed in such a case. Mr. WILLIAMS put the case of two trustees of stock, one giving his assent, the other dissent, and asked how the stock was to stand ? Tile CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they must go to Chancery.—(A laugh.) Mr. BROUGHAM placed the same question in another point of view. Suppose, said the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman, one trustee assents, is another joint trustee who re sists bound by the act of the first? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was not. The Resolution was agreed to. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then prpposed i