any a Earl Grosvenor complained, that the table was loaded at the end of the session with a great number of bills, each of which was of infinite importance, but so crowded together, that it was quite impossible for noble lord, if he possessed ten times the faculties belonging to our nature, to attend with care to them. Last night bill of the highest importance passed sub silentio, though it contained clauses most obnoxious to the country, respecting which it legislated; he meant the bill for draining the Bogs of Ireland; a bill which was nothing more nor less than a plan for enriching private individuals at the expence of the public at large. He considered the measure to be the beginning of a similar project intended for this country. But he then gave notice, that if the like should be attempted, he would give it every opposi tion in his power. With respect to the bill immediately under discussion, he thought it highly improper that the sale of the places of the Band of Gentlemen Pensioners, and that of Commissions in the Army, should be continued. His lordship also adverted to the same principle being recognized respecting the sale and purchase of Offices in the Law, which he considered as poisoning the source of justice. The Lord Chancellor accounted for the crowded table, and the number of bills upon it at the close of the session, by the number that the commons had passed at that period. But his lordship observed, that in all times it had been the same case according to the number and proportion of bills before them. As to the transfer and disposal of Law Offices, he believed there was not on record an instance where the patronage bestowed on the Keeper of the Great Seal had been abused, from the Revolution to the present hour, although that patronage was a main link in the chain that fitted each noble person who preceded him in office during that period, to have the personal means of holding rank consistently and suitably with others of their lordships. As to the sale of Commissions in the army, he was of opinion, that instead of injuring, it benefited the army by preventing the admission of improper per sons to hold rank therein. The Earl of Rosslyn defended both the principle and the detail of the bill, and supported it strenuously. Lord Redesdale perfectly coincided in the sentiments of his noble and leamed friend, and contended that the Sale of Commissions under proper regulations, was rather beneficial to the army than prejudicial. It prevented adventurers from engrossing Commissions, and ensured to the army men of rank, respectability and consideration. The bill was then read a third time, and passed. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, June 13. [SCOTCH JUDICATURE BILL.] Lord Binning brought up the report from the Committee on the Scotch Judicature bill. Mr. Horner spoke at considerable length upon a great and oppressive defect exist ing in the mode of proceeding in the court of session in Scotland, and for which this bill afforded no remedy; notwithstanding 1 that the subject had occupied so much of the deliberation of the house of lords, both in a former and the present session. This defect was the necessity under which suitors were placed, when answering the allegations of their opponents, of first taking out copies of all the elaborate pleadings required to be entered by the other side, as records of the court, before they could proceed to any replication by plea or evidence. These pleadings, in some instances that came within his own knowledge, amounted to a volume of 1500 pages, the copy of each of which required the signature of an officer of the court, who must receive a fee upon each: and he had known instances where though the sum in litigation did not exceed 2001. or 300l. the fees of court alone amounted to 500l. or 700/. and one in such case to 15001. Such an arrangement had long prevailed in the practice of the Scotch courts, for no other reason that he could see, than to create a revenue for the Scotch law of ficers; but it was a bar in the pursuit of justice wholly insurmountable to ali suitors in ordinary circumstances; and even where a suiter was successful, and his antagonist chose to appeal to the house of lords, the parties could not proceed thither without taking out complete copies of the proceedings in the courts below, although not of the least use to them, nor competent to furnish any new light to his advocates before the higher tribunal. The hon. and learned member forcibly urged the necessity of easing the people of Scotland from that intolerable tax on the legal justice of their country, on the necessity of assimilating the proceedings there to those in England, and of extending thither the advantage of trial by jury in civil cases; and he thought this bill ought not to pass the house without such an amelioration of the judicature it purported to amend. Mr. R. Dundas said, that a measure such as that recommended by the hon. and learned member could not be adopted, without a most important alteration in the legal practice of Scotland for 300 years, and therefore the house ought not precipitately to adopt any such proceedings, but wait deliberately, to hear the final opinions of the commissioners appointed to discuss the subject, and to examine it in all its bearings; and he knew that there were many of the highest legal authorities in Scotland, who differed in opinion on the subject. Mr. Abercrombie admitted that the house should do nothing precipitately on the sub|ject; but he was at a loss where to cast the blame, for the delay which had taken place in not bringing forward the final report of those commissioners to examine this subject; for whose appointment a bill passed late in the last session, although the commission was not signed by his majesty until last January. He understood that a majority of three commissioners were in favour of the alteration suggested by his hon. and learned friend; and that the only point on which they had not yet been able to make up their minds, was how the officers were to be compensated for the loss of fees that must accrue from the alteration. They had, indeed, suggested the transferring those fees to another quarter, but one equally objectionable with that on which they were now imposed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer supported the opinion of Mr. Dundas as to the deliberate caution with which any alteration should be attempted in legal proceedings so long established. He admitted that it was desirable to extend to Scotland the trial by jury, but this only provided it was agreeable to those most concerned, and who best understood the usage and feeling of the country. The Bill was then passed. [FOREIGN PROPERTY IN THE FUNDS.] Mr. Howorth.—Bir, The subject to which I am requesting your attention was under discussion in the session of 1806. I must observe however, that, although it has been discussed, parliament has not been called upon to pronounce a direct opinion upon it. The motion then made for that purpose, was set aside on a point of form: my object is, to revive the question concerning the exemption granted to foreigners, holding stock in our funds, and not resident in the king's dominions, and to place the property of such foreigners, upon the same footing with that of his majesty's subjects. By an act passed in the 46 Geo. III. duties of ten per cent. were granted upon the dividends payable out of the public funds. In that act a clause was inserted, to exempt the property of foreigners residing abroad, from these duties; by the returns from the tax office it appears, that the average of the annual amount of this exemption, is about 65,000l. exclusive of foreign property in bank stock, of which no returns are made. It will not be argued that a saving of 60, or 70,000l. a year, to a country already in penalty, to guard it from fraud, but the temptation which the facility of evasion af fords, and the difficulty, I may almost say the impossibility, of detection, renders it high debt upwards of 600 millions, and in the en- | ormous annual expenditure of 80 millions, is immaterial. It is only in comparison with our debts and our expences, that this, or any other saving, can be called inconside-ly probable, that under the pretended rable; even they who live on the public income have an interest in improving it, much more so have they, who are forced to pay it, who are harassed by the exaction, and crushed by the amount, of the taxes. The first question which presents itself is the policy of granting this exemption; that is, whether the loss the revenue suffers, and the abuse and inconvenience which attends it, is compensated for by the inducement it offers to foreigners, to invest their property in our funds. In order to weigh this correctly, we must advert to the state of our funds: we shall there find, that the interruption of foreign commerce, and other circumstances connected with it, have diverted a great part of the commercial capital of this country from its usual channel, and that an influx of idle money is forced into the stocks, for want of better employment. This, Sir, with the constant demand created by the sinking fund, has produced such a rise in our stock market, that brokers find a difficulty in executing orders to any large amount, so much greater is the proportion of buyers, to that of sellers. In illustration of this I would bring to the recollection of the house, the terms on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer negociated the last loan, at £4. 12s. 10d. per cent., a rate of interest, as he justly expressed it, at which money has rarely been borrowed by the public. Why then it appears that we derive no advantage from inviting foreigners to invest in our funds: but if we did, is there any probability of our losing it? Is any hon. member prepared to state where foreigners can deposit their property with equal convenience, with equal advantage, or with any thing like equal security? In fact, we are paying a high rate of interest to foreigners, for money which we can make no use of, with this additional injury, of paying that interest, not in exports, which might benefit our manufacturers, but in bullion, draining the country annually of nearly a million sterling in gold and silver. The exportation of bullion is a growing evil, and arrived at a height which calls for the serious attention of government. The next object for consideration, is, the abuse which attends this clause of exemption; it is true the act has provided an oath, and a name of foreign stockholders, considerable exemption having been in fact admitted by parliament, has produced a confidence, which ought not to be disappointed. Sir, I would not betray any confidence, I would not break any faith, I would not take them by surprize, for, considering the Alien stockholder as a mere money lender to suit his own convenience, I would give him timely notice of the terms ou which I would receive his money, leaving it to his option afterwards to consult his own convenience. With this prospective view I move, "That this house should early in the next session of parliament take into consideration the expediency of discontinuing from and after the 5th day of April next 1810, so much of the clause of 46 Geo. III. as provides an exemption for the duties on the annuities, dividends, and shares, &c. &c." Mr. A. Baring contended, that the saving of the comparatively trifling sum of 60,000l. a year should not be put in competition with the character which this country had always maintained for honour and good faith, and which enabled it to draw its resources even from those nations with which it might be at war. Sir T. Turton maintained that the taxing of the funded property of foreigners, was perfectly consistent with justice and policy. The only point upon which there could be a doubt was, whether the funds ought to have been taxed at all; but this having been determined in the affirmative, there was no reason why foreigners should not be placed on a footing with the subjects of this country. Mr. Fuller thought, that as the property of these foreigners was protected, as well as our own, at an immense expence of blood and treasure, it was but fair that they should bear a share of the burden. There were a number of foreigners who got their living in this country; and some who were even said to make their 6,000l. a year by warbling and pleasing people's ears in God's name let them have it, if people chose to give it them; but when we were compared to a ship in distress, and not knowing where to look for new taxes, he thought we should make them pay something for the protection of their property. Mr. Hawkins Browne considered that imposing this tax would be a breach of public faith, and that even taxing those who should hereafter purchase in our funds would be impolitic and unwise. He could only consider foreigners as Jable to personal taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer felt himself bound to oppose the motion. Such a Resolution as was now moved, to undertake a future consideration of the subject, would not be binding on the house, or a sufficient warning to the stockholder, and therefore he could see no necessity for now entertaining it. Whenever this question came to be discussed, it would not be on the point of conveniency to the revenue, but of justice. When the subject was formerly agitated, the difficulty that occurred to him was, what distinction ought to be drawn between the British subject and the foreigner, and he could not see why the latter ought to be exempted from bearing a part of the public burden with the former. The pledge of parlia ment had been misunderstood. It was that the funded property, which was most easily come at, should not be made the prominent object of taxation, and not but when it was taxed in general with every other species of property in the country, he could see no ground for imposing it altogether on British subjects. He would not however enter into the discussion of the subject now. At this late period of the session, when it was said the house ought not to be called on for a decision, he thought it equally inconsistent to call on them for a pledge, which was to bind them next session. It was therefore the impropriety of the time, which called on him to appose the motion. Mr. Tierney said this question had frequently been agitated, and always decided in favour of the foreigner. The foreigner would think, if we made him pay the income tax now, we only spared him formerly, because, when property was only taxed at the rate of five per cent. it was not worth while to make him liable to its operation. But now that it amount. ed to ten per cent. it appeared to us an object of importance, and that circumstance annihilated our pity. He thought such a change in our conduct would operate to our disadvantage, as a similar step did formerly against France. He did not think the foreigner who had placed his fortune in our funds, relying on the good faith of the country, ought to be forced to pay the income tax, or sell out at a great loss; but he had no objection to the duty being imposed on all future purchases. Mr. Dent thought foreigners, in depositing their money in our funds, consulted their own interest only, and therefore ought to be liable to the income tax. Mr. H. Thornton spoke on the same side. Mr. Howorth in reply said: The hon. member on the same bench (Mr. Baring) having admitted (and few are more conversant in business of this nature), that it is not to our advantage to grant these exemptions, and having expressed his belief, that should they be removed, it would not occasion any change of stockholders, has granted the impropriety of continuing them on the score of policy; but the hon. member's opposition to the present motion, and indeed the whole objections made by those members who have spoken on the subject, are grounded on the supposed injustice, and breach of faith to foreigners, in now withdrawing these exemptions. I had hoped that I had met objections of this nature in the terms of the motion, and that by giving timely notice of our intentions, we could not fairly be charged with injustice or illiberality. In truth we have never been bound to foreigners, any more than to British subjects, and if upon a plea of necessity, you have broke through the acts and provisions made in the reign of queen Anne, if you have violated all the acts from that time to the present day, which have uniformly provided for the payment of the dividends at the bank of England, without any deduction whatever, I would ask upon what principle of justice it is, that foreigners should be exempted from the effect of a financial resource, raised for the support of government, and the protection of that property in which they have voluntarily, and for their own convenience, become proprietors; their property is protected, and they are bound in justice to contribute their share of the expence of that protection. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems indisposed to commit himself to any pledge on the subject, at this fate period of the session, and as the subject is important, I am not desirous of pressing it to a decision now. I shall therefore beg leave to withdraw the present motion, in tending again to bring it forward at an early period of the ensuing session. The motion was then withdrawn. [AMERICA.] Lord H. Petty rose, pursuant to notice, to move for certain Papers relating to the attack on the Chesapeake, in addition to those already on the table. The Instructions given to Mr. Erskine on that subject he thought ought to be produced, as well as the communication he must necessarily have made to govern ment, explaining the motives for his recent conduct; for without them, no judg ment could be formed of the degree in which he had violated his Instructions, or, indeed, of the general conduct of the American government. If the right hon. secretary, from information which he might possess, should state to the house, that the Instructions given to that gentleman could not be made public without detriment to the public service, he would not press his motion for the present; but the communi cation from Mr. Erskine, in which he assigned his motives for making those ar rangements with America, which had excited so much attention, he thought of such importance, that it ought to be immediately laid on their table. The noble lord concluded by moving, "That there be laid before the house a copy of the Instructions given to Mr. Erskine on the subject of the Attack on the Chesapeake, as also any communication that his majesty's ministers might be possessed of from Mr. Erskine, explaining his motives for making the late arrangements with America. Mr. Secretary Canning thought the rea sons he should give for not concurring with the motion would be satisfactory to the noble lord. It had been rumoured abroad that Mr. Erskine had not departed from his Instructions: he thought it was proper to prove to this country, to America and to the world, that such a report was not founded in fact. The fact whe ther the arrangements he had made, were or were not in conformity to the Instruc tions he had received, was the point in question. The papers already produced were, he thought, sufficient to substantiate the fact of Mr. Erskine's having gone yond his Instructions. He had, indeed, the admission of the noble lord, that the ar rangement was coucluded without due au thority. This was the main point which vernment, in justification of the measures they were under the necessity of adopting, were anxious to establish. All farther discussion of the subject at this moment, would not only be attended with inconveniences, too obvious to put him under the necessity of repeating them, but might possibly endanger the success of ulterior arrange ments. be go The point necessary to establish was, that the Instructions were not fullowed, and of that the noble lord seemed convinced. With respect to the conduct of Mr. Erskine, nothing was said of it but what the absolute necessity of the case ex |