the only excuse were, that the lord advocate was a very warm man, he thought that was a very ample reason why he should not be trusted with those extraordinary powers. In the present instance, he conceiv. cd, that those powers were most grossly abused, and he should, therefore, support Mr. Whitbread's motion.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer would not undertake to justify the whole of the letter; but he would contend, that Morrison's conduct could not be justified at all, either on the ground of humanity, or of common honesty. The lord advocate was a man, who, in a high situation, had served the state with great zeal and ability for a consider able length of time; and if, as he had before said, it should appear to the house, that his conduct, on this occasion, was dictated purely by an ardent zeal for the defence of the country, in a critical period, he trusted he would experience some indulgence from the house.

The house then divided on the attorney-general's motion, for passing to the other orders of the day, and, on a division, Mr. Whitbread's motion was rejected by a majority of

77.

The proceedings respecting the Irish judge, Mr. justice Fox, also occupied some time in the discussions of this day in the house of

commons.

Colonel Cole, presented a petition to the house from the persons composing a petty jury at Enniskillen, complaining of Mr. justice Fox. The petition stated, that the jurors were impannelled to try three persons on a charge of murder. Very

high rewards had been offered for the discovery of the murderers, which might have proved a temptation to false evidence, and the witnesses not having, by any means, identified the prisoners, they found them-" Not guilty :" upon which, Mr. justice Fox was so angry at their verdict, that he had their names posted up in the grand jury room, and ordered, that they should be handed down to every succeeding judge and sheriff, as persons not worthy of belief upon their oaths. The petitioners felt extremely hurt at this treatment; and, therefore, prayed for such satisfaction or reparation, as might be thought meet. The petition was ordered to lic on the table.

On the 31st of May, the marquis of Abercorn presented, to the house of lords, a petition from Mr. Hart, similar to that which had been presented to the house of commons.

On the 21st of June, lord viscount Carlton presented a petition from Mr. justice Fox, praying, that he might have a copy of this petition of Mr. Hart, in order that he might be able to shape his defence. The prayer of this petition was immediately allowed.

On the 27th, the marquis of Abercorn stated, that he did not think that the business could be fairly brought to a decision that session, as many of the petitions sent over to him, were put in language so unparliamentary, that he would find it necessary to send them back again, to be altered. He understood also, that the learned judge was not as yet prepared with his defence.

Lord Moira thought, it was a punishment

punishment so severe to have so heavy a charge hanging over the head of any man, that he thought the noble marquis ought, at least, in the course of the session, to have all the charges concluded in a precise form.

A long desultory conversation then took place, which ended by the interference of the lord chancellor in point of order.

On the 5th of July, the marquis of Abercorn brought up the articles of accusation against Mr. justice Fox, which were under four distinct heads. The 1st was, that he had urged the grand jury of the county of Fermanagh, to address his majesty to remove the lord lieutenant and government of Ireland, with the intent of exciting discontent against his majesty's governmeut. The 2d was, for endeavouring to induce the commanding officer of a corps of yeomanry, to procure an address from his corps to that effect. The 3d related to his misconduct on circuit, the high sheriff of a county complaining of being fined 5001. by him, in an arbitrary manner; and the petty jurors, and Mr. Hart, of being stigmatised by him as perjured persons. The last was for grossly and wantonly insulting the marquis of Abercorn, and publicly stating, that he did so for the purpose of vexing and annoying him. These articles were ordered to lie on the table, and a copy of the same to be furnished to Mr. justice Fox.

During the remainder of the session, the stamp-duty bill and the India budget were the most impor. tant matters that were brought for ward in parliament: as to the question of the slave trade, it was so late in the season before the bill passed the commons, that it was

found too late to introduce it into the house of lords, where it was probable that it would meet a strong opposition, and that its opponents would insist upon the examination of evidence. It was, therefore, postponed to the next year.

The corn trade regulation bill was also, on account of some amend ments, in the lords, to which the commons could not agree, postponed till the next session.

On the 9th of July, the chancellor of the exchequer moved, that the stamp duties bill should be commit ted. This was the tax proposed by the late minister, to cover the interest of the loan of the year.

Mr. Sheridan wished the business to be postponed for some time longer, in order to give the house time to understand the nature of a regulation so extremely complicated.

Mr. Fonblanque complained severely of the bill, as it would operate upon the administration of justice, by increasing enormously the expence of legal proceedings.

Dr. Lawrence instanced a case in the court wherein he practised, in which the stamps upon the pleadings amounted to 701. but if this bill had previously past, they would have amounted to eleven or twelve hundred pounds, at least.

The chancellor of the exchequer (Mr. Pitt) stated, that, in the committee, all those great defects would be remedied. The lawyers were not such a helpless class of people, as not to be able to defend their own interests; and he had such a respect for their profession, that he did not wish in the least to injure them.

The bill was ordered to be committed. When the order of the day was

moved for its committal, Mr. Sheridan strongly objected to that part of it, which must sensibly affect the administration of justice-namely by enhancing the expence at which it was to be procured. On this subject, it had been said, by one of the most acute men in the country, Mr. Horne Tooke, "The courts of justice are open to every man, and so is the London tavern ; but, unless one has plenty of money, it is in vain to look for justice in the one, or to expect a dinner in the other." He considered, that it was contrary to MAGNA CHARTA, which stated nulli vendemus justitiam, to lay such enormous taxes upon law proceedings: he moved, that the committee might have power to divide this bill into two.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, that the gentlemen of the profession generally acquiesced in the regulations of this bill. So far from the stamp duties being a tax upon obtaining justice, it was a penalty on injustice, as the costs finally fell upon the person bringing an unjust suit.

Mr. serjeant Best opposed the tax, on nearly the same principles as Mr. Sheridan, and was replied to by the attorney-general.

Mr. Windham said, that, at present, law proceedings were so expensive, that no liberal or conscientious lawyer would advise a client to come into court for any thing less than 40 or 501. which bore a great proportion to the whole fortunes of many persons in society.— This afforded an extensive range, within which injustice might act with impunity. He must, therefore, object to extending that circle, which was already too wide.

The bill then went through a

committee, in which many objec tions, and some alterations, wer proposed; it was then read a thir time, and passed.

On the 10th of July, lord Cas tlereagh presented the India budge to the house of commons. He calle it to the attention of the house, tha the affairs of the company had been affected both by the European war and by the war against the Mah rattas. He then stated the detail o the accounts of the year, by which it appeared, that the debts of the company had increased, in the las year, by 1,229,8211. that their as. sets had increased 1,959,3961. leav ing the nett improvement for the year 729,5751. When he had before stated the prospect of the company being able to pay the annual 500,000l. to government, it was on the presumption of the continuance of peace, and of the general situation of affairs being very different from what they are at present.

Lord Archibald Hamilton observed, that the house was annually amused with splendid promises of the extinction of the Indian debt, and of India contributing to the expences of the empire. On the contrary, the debt was last year 18 millions, it is this year 19 millions, and there was every prospect of a still farther accumulation.

Mr. Johnstone also insisted, that the affairs of the company were growing every year more and more embarrassed, and considered the accounts fallacious.

Mr. Francis said, that his opinion of the situation of our affairs in India, remained the same as he had expressed last session. He thought the mischief was in a state of progression, and that every year would find our affairs still worse. It was

expressly

expressly stipulated, at the renewal of the company's charter, that the country should receive half a million annually; and yet, after the first year, this sum was never paid. It was strange, that, out of a territorial revenue of 13 millions, and a flourishing home trade, there was not surplus enough to pay a sum so comparatively trifling. The company may say, "We have spent the money, there is no surplus, and therefore you can have no claim." Such an answer ought not, however, to satisfy the country. Par

liament should enquire how they spent their money, before they admitted such a plea. Our Indian prosperity is always in hope, and in future prospects, and the estimates are always made higher than the event justifies. This had been the constant practice for the last 21 years, and appeared the system of those who produce Indian accounts. He hoped, at a future day, that the whole system of the administration of the company's affairs, in India, would undergo that full examination that its great importance deserved. If no other gentleman, more competent, would bring the subject be fore parliament, he should consider it his duty to do so.

Mr. C. Grant (deputy chairman of the East-India company) admitted, it was a national misfortune, that the affairs of India were so little known, or attended to. He asserted, from his own positive knowledge, that the company's affairs were in a much better situation now, than they were in the year

1793.

After a reply from Mr. Francis, and some explanations from lord Castlereagh, the resolutions were agreed to in the committee. 4

On the day appointed for the discussion of the resolutions, lord Castlereagh entered into a very detailed statement, to prove, that neither he nor his predecessor had ever held out any promises which would not have been fulfilled, if it had not been for wars, that could not have been foreseen. He concluded, by moving, that the proper officer should be directed to lay before the house an account of the revenue, and charges of India for the last 10 years, distinguishing each year.

This motion gave rise to a long conversation, in which Mr. Johnstone, Mr. Prinsep, Mr. C. Grant, and lord Castlereagh, were the principal speakers. The motion was at last carried, without a division.

Independently of the subjects of great general importance, which gave rise to the debates which we have already detailed, the Aylesbury and Liskeard elections produced some eager discussions.-Those in the Liskeard case were confined to the house of commons; but in that of Aylesbury, there was a bill of partial disfranchisement, which produced warm debates in both houses of parliament. committee, upon the petition on the Aylesbury election, had reported, that Mr. Bent had been guilty of bribery.

The

dreds. He, therefore, moved for leave to bring in a bill for preventing bribery and corruption, at the elections for the borough of Aylesbury.

The Marquis of Titchfield opposed it. He had no objection to punish. ing the guilty, but he thought it untair to infringe upon the rights of 300 electors, because 50 of them had been guilty of bribery.

Mr. C. Wynne begged to set his noble friend right. Although but 50 names had been mentioned, at least 200 had taken bribes. It was a case of the most open profligacy that he had ever heard.

Mr. Rose stated the fact to be, that above 200 voters had been collected in one room; that at one end of the room there was a bowl of punch, and at the other a bowl of guineas, and that every man was given his douceur.

Sir John Newport confirmed that statement, and thought it was a very favourable moment to throw open the borough; and he thought, that, for the purity of our representation, the house should be glad to avail itself of such opportunities.

Sir George Cornwall then obtained leave to bring in the bill. On its second reading, the marquis of Titchfield renewed his objections, and moved, that the second reading should be postponed till that day

three months.

Sir John Newport, and the secretary at war, opposed the motion, and supported the bill.

Mr. Hurst, Mr. P. Moore, lord Ossulstone, the master of the rolls, and Mr. Fox, opposed the bill, as quite unnecessary, and that the case which had been made out was not stronger than the common cases of bribery and corruption, which were

punished in the ordinary manner.→ The house then divided, and the second reading of the bill was carried by a majority of 19, the noes being

49.

Every step of the bill produced fresh discussions, on nearly the grounds as have already been stated. On the question, that the bill should be engrossed, the ayes were 154, the noes 126, being a majority of 28 in favour of the bill.

When the bill was introduced in the house of lords, the lord chancellor said, the bill appeared to him unfair and unjust. If the measure was right to be adopted, he thought it should be a general measure, extending to the whole of our representation; and he disapproved of picking and choosing particular boroughs, to try experiments on, of a partial reform. The common law of the country afforded a sufficient and severe punishment against bribery at elections, and he thought this case should be left to that remedy.

Lord Grosvenor supported the bill, conceiving the case to be one of such flagrant corruption, that it was necessary to make a striking example.

He con

Lord Grenville strongly supported the justice and necessity of the bill. He thought, the interference of the legislature, at present, would be precisely on the same principles as in the Shoreham case. sidered it one of the greatest excellencies in the constitution, that any striking evil could be remedied, without recurring to wild theories; and thought, that when a case of flagrant corruption was proved, there should be an example and a warning given to the other boroughs of the kingdom.

Lorda