ham. Leave was accordingly granted, and the two bills were brought in and read the first time.

Mr. Herbert then moved, "That á committee be appointed to inquire into the late riots in the county of Nottingham and the neighbouring counties, and what further legal provisions, if any, are necessary for the suppression thereof, and also the steps which have been taken for the discovery of the offenders."

Mr. Secretary Ryder argued against the appointment of a committee as wholly unnecessary; and on a division, the motion was negatived by 40 against 15.

On Feb. 17, Mr. Ryder having moved for the second reading of the bill for the more exemplary punishment of frame-breaking, &c. Mr. Abercromby rose to declare his objections to the bill, chiefly on the ground of its being ineffedtual for its purpose. He was followed by several speakers on both sides, whose arguments differed little from those advanced on the former reading. Sir Samuel Romilly, whose attention had already been particularly directed to capital punishments, took a leading part in opposition to the bill. He said, it was folly to talk of the terror that would arise from converting the punishment of transportation for fourteen years into that of death: the one would always have almost an equal influence upon the human mind with the other, and he would answer for it, that this terror would not tend to diminish the evil. If the existence of this evil were to be attributed to a conspiracy for suppressing evidence, the terror of a greater punishment would tend the more to keep wit

nesses from coming forward. The bill was totally directed against individual depredation, and not against the conspiracy which had given birth to the disturbances. He complained of the want of examination and inquiry; and said, that in after-times it would astonish an English House of Commons to find, on inspection of the journals, that in a case of life and death their predecessors had upon only a few minutes examination adopted a measure of so much im◄ portance.

Sir Arthur Piggot, on the same side, observed, that if ever a legislature took a wrong step, it was when there existed a degree of indignation against persons who had committed violent aggressions against private property and the public peace. Before any one asked him to extend the punishment and make it capital, he ought to prove that the law had been enforced and found ineffectual; but as it did not appear that there had been any prosecution upon the 28th of the King, there was no autho rity for saying that the law was not adequate to its purpose, except that there was a necessity of extending it to the breaking of lace-frames.

On the other side, the peculiar danger and extent of the outrages which had been committed, was dwelt upon as a call upon the legislature to enact some more severe punishment than had hitherto been applied to the case. The house at length divided on the second reading which was carried by 94 against 17. Mr. Ryder then moving that the bill be committed for to-morrow, Sir S. Romilly moved as an amendment to substi

tute

tute Wednesday, which was negatived by 80 against 15.

It is not necessary to trace the further passage of this bill through the House of Commons, since the additional debates were productive of no new arguments. After a third reading on February 20, it passed without any other division.

On Feb. 27, the bill was ordered for a second reading in the House of Lords, when the Earl of Liverpool stated its nature and necessity.

Lord Byron then rose, and in the first speech he had made before that assembly, described in very strong terms the distresses which had driven the poor manufacturers to acts of outrage, and expressed his detestation of the sanguinary spirit of a measure which, he contended, had only been resorted to in consequence of the neglect of government to apply timely remedies for the evil.

Other lords in opposition spoke against the bill, with even greater severity than had been used in the House of Commons.

At the close of the debate, the house divided on the motion of Lord Lauderdale to adjourn the discussion till Monday, when there appeared, contents, 17; non-contents, 32; majority, 15: after which the bill was read. His lordship's motion, that the judges be ordered to attend on Monday, was negatived.

Upon the order of the day for the committal of the bill, March 2, Earl Grosvenor rose to move the discharge of the order. The debate was thereupon renewed with the same arguments which had been before used, and the question being put upon the motion, it was

negatived. Two proposed amend ments were agreed to; one, that the attempt to destroy frames should be made only a misdemeanour; the other, that it should not be imperative upon the person injured to proceed immediately to prosecute, provided he could shew a reasonable cause for his delay. The bill was then committed, two peers, Lords Lauderdale and Rosslyn, entering a protest against it.

1 he debate was briefly resumed, on March 5, on the motion for the third reading, but it passed without a division.

The fellow-bill, for the preservation of the peace in the town and county of Nottingham, was brought to a committee on Feb. 18, when, on the suggestion of some members for extending its provisions to the neighbouring counties, Mr. Secretary Ryder moved, that it be an instruction to the committee, that they be empowered to extend the provisions. of the bill to any other county in Great Britain, which was agreed to.

When the report of the committee was brought up on February 26, Mr. Ryder said, that since the bill had been before the house, he had received several communications, which had made it advisable to extend its provisions to the whole kingdom. The bill had been, in consequence, new modelled in many parts, and in this state was submitted for discussion to the committee. The clauses then went through the committee.

No further discussion is recorded respecting this bill, which, with the former, passed into a law. The operation of both of them was limited to March 1, 1814.

CHAPTER

PRIVATE matter, which was discussed in the House of Commons at the early part of the session, is entitled to notice, on account of its involving a principle of parliamentary law, though otherwise it might have been passed over in the public history of the year. Mr. Benjamin Walsh, a member of parliament, had been guilty of a very gross breach of trust in his business of a stockbroker, for which he had been tried at the Old Bailey, and convicted of felony. He had afterwards obtained the royal pardon for his crime, on the ground that it did not properly amount to felony; but his remaining a member of the house could not but be regarded as derogatory to the dignity of that assembly. On Feb. 25, on the motion of Mr. Bankes, copies of the papers relative to his trial and conviction were laid before the house, and an order was made for his attendance on the 27th. On that day nothing more was done than taking some preliminary steps to further proceedings. Repeated orders having been made for Mr. Walsh's appearance, with which he did not comply, but stated by letter his desire that the proceedings of the house should not be delayed on that account, Mr. Bankes, on March 5, rose, and after a

A PRIVATE at the House

speech setting forth the enormity of the offence of which the member in question had been convicted, and the practice of the house of expelling for notorious crimes, particularly for pecuniary frauds and breaches of trust, he moved, "That Benjamin Walsh, esq. a member of this house, having been tried at the Old Bailey, in January last, for felony, and convicted thereof, and having received a free pardon, by reason of his offence not amounting to felony in the opinion of the judges; but gross fraud and notorious breach of trust having been proved against him on the said trial, is unworthy and unfit to continue a member in this house."

Sir Arthur Piggott, in opposition to the motion, adduced various arguments to prove the incompleteness of the evidence before the house of Walsh's guilt, and to shew, that although he had disgraced himself in the eyes of society, his action was not of a nature of which the house could take cognizance.

Mr. Bathurst replied to his ob jections, by shewing that there was sufficient proof of moral turpitude for which no circumstances of mitigation had been adduced; that the house was not bound by technical rules; and that every one must feel the gross indecorum of

such

such a person sitting in that place.

Mr. Abercromby stated, that there were three great classes of cases upon which that house had frequently been called upon to exercise its right of expulsion: 1. cases of contempt of the house itself: 2. breaches of public trust: in both these the house exercised its jurisdiction upon sound and solid principles: 3. when persons had been found guilty and punished for gross offences. In these last cases, the house paid that respect to the sentence of the laws, and to the laws themselves, as to deem such persons unfit to sit in that house. He then endeavoured to shew, that the present case was widely different: that the record of conviction was incomplete, and that if a special verdict had been taken, there would have been no conviction. As to the mere immorality of the act, he thought that principle might be carried to a dangerous extent, and that it would be very difficult to draw the line and determine what sort of breach of trust should render a member liable to expulsion, and what not.

The Attorney-General confessed that the subject was attended with a good deal of difficulty. Of the cases of expulsion which had been quoted by different members, that of the directors of the Charitable Corporation came the nearest; and if the house had proceeded upon it, not as a misapplication of the public money, but as an act of gross dishonesty, the act cominitted by Mr. Walsh was at least equally disho

nest.

Several other member, spoke on the different sides of the question, which was discussed with much tem

per and impartiality. The general sense of the house was however clearly for the expulsion of one who had proved himself so unworthy a member, as was manifested by the division, on which Mr. Bankes's motion was carried by 101 against 16, though some very respectable names appeared in the minority.

The gold coin and bank note bill, which had excited so much discussion in the last session of parliament, was again introduced to the notice of the House of Commons, on March 17th, by a motion from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for its continuation, with certain amendments. After a few preliminary observations, on the course which he meant to adopt, which was that of proposing that the bill should be read twice before the holidays and printed, and a day be appointed after the recess in order that gentlemen from Ireland might be present at the discussion of the various provisions, he moved "That leave be granted to bring in a bill to continue and amend an act of the last session of parliament, for making more effetual provision for preventing the current gold coin of the realm from being paid or accepted for a greater value than the current value of such coin; for preventing any note or bill of the governor and company of the Bank of England from being received for any smaller sum than the sum therein specified; and for staying proceeding upon a distress by tender of such notes; and to extend the same to Ireland."

Lord Folkstone rose in this early stage of the business to observe upon the confident manner in which the right hon. gentleman

had

had introduced a motion, the object of which was neither more nor less than that of making bank notes a legal tender; and he made some observations on the extension of the bill to Ireland, though Lord Castlereagh had last year particularly objected to it, because bargains in the north of that country being made for payments in gold, it would have the effect of defrauding the creditors...

Lord Castlereagh having made some explanation relative to his opinion as referred to by the noble lord. Mr. Tierney spoke with considerable warmth against the proposed measure, against which, as as likely to bring on a most dangerous crisis for the country, he solemnly protested.

The House divided upon the motion, which was carried by 73 against 26, and leave was accordingly given to bring in the bill.

On the motion for the second reading of this bill, March 26, a debate arose, in which several members on both sides partook. The arguments against the measure were chiefly recapitulations of those before employed to show the danger of making, in effect, bank notes a legal tender, and multiplying paper credit beyond all stint and limit. With these were joined the injustice of extending the law to Ireland, in some parts of which leases and contracts of long standing existed for the payment of gold, and the depreciation of paper was advanced to 25 per cent. On the other hand it was contended that greater evils would arise from leaving tenants at the mercy of rapacious landlords. On the whole, it was evident. from the views

given of the subject, that difficul ties pressed upon it on all sides, and that nothing remained but a choice of evils. The ministers, however, were supported by a large majority, the division on the motion giving ayes 61; noes 16; majority 45.

On April 10th, the question being put that the House do resolve itself into a committee on this bill, Mr. Parnell rose to move as an amendment, that further proceedings be postponed to this day fortnight, for the purpose of appointing a select committee to inquire into the state of the currency in Ireland. He then made a statement of the situation in which this currency was placed; from which he concluded that the only effect of the bill in Ireland would be to take the money out of the pockets of the landlords and other creditors, to put it into that of tenants and debtors. His demand for further inquiry was supported by Sir J. Newport and Mr. Ponsonby, and replied to by Lord Castlereagh and Mr. W. Pole, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The House then dividing on the question for going into a committee, it was carried by 87 against 27.

The motion for bringing up the report, April 17th, was opposed by one for adjournment, which was negatived by 101 to 35; after which the reception of the report was postponed to the 20th. On that day the debate was renewed, and another division took place, in which the bringing up of the rereport was carried by ayes 138 against noes 29. Lord A. Hamilton then proposed a clause to confine the dividend of profits to the pro

prietors