climbing children. To show the use of the machine in another point of view, he would only add, that during the last month a chimney had been swept at the Tower with a machine in half an hour, which a boy was five hours sweeping some time since, and in which, as he was informed, a boy was once confined eight and twenty hours. To prevent the recurrence of such misery, he begged leave to bring in the present bill, which had been approved of by the last committee. The only alteration which he had made in it since that time was, to allow two years instead of one, before he called for the total abolition of the present practice of sweeping chimnies.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL.] On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,

Mr. Ellice observed, that in a return from the Bank of England, he observed the following note: This account is exclusive of all exchequer bills and Irish treasury bills purchased by the Bank, whether advertised to be paid off or not." He wished to know whether this note referred to exchequer bills held by the Bank, which had been advertised to be paid off, and which that establishment had not sent in? And secondly, whether they had been so detained in consequence of any understanding with government?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that it sometimes happened, that when exchequer bills were advertised for payment, the public received for them either money or other bills. In the same way, the Bank had continued to hold exchequer bills over. The note to which the hon. member had referred was common to all returns relating to the advances made by the Bank to government; the exception was always made.

Mr. Ellice begged to explain his reason for putting the questions. The chancellor of the exchequer, on a former night, had said that government had paid off 5,000,000l. out of 8,000,000l. due to the Bank: if the payment had been made, and the Bank at the same time withheld exchequer bills that in due course would have been paid off, so far it would amount to no payment. Was he to understand that the two transactions did not interfere with each other?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer added, that the two transactions did not inter

fere. When he had spoken of 5,000,000%. due to the Bank having been paid off, he meant to say, that all the advances to government by the Bank had been reduced by that sum.

The bill was then read a second time.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 12.

TRIAL BY BATTLE ABOLITION BILL.] This bill, on the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer, was read a second time.

Mr. Denman observed, that as the proposal to abolish the appeal of murder had called forth some remarks in another place, it might be advisable that the committee should stand over for some time, to see whether any petitions were presented against that measure. The law, too, proposed to abolish the Wager of Battle, not only in writs of right hereafter to be brought, but in any which might be now depending. Though he did not know that there were any such writs now depending, he thought it would be a bad precedent in legislation, to introduce a clause having an effect upon suits depending.

The bill was ordered to be committed on Monday.

CUTLERY TRADE BILL.] This bill was read a third time. On the motion, that it do pass,

Mr. Denman said, he had observed a clause in the bill which he considered highly objectionable: it offered a reward to offenders, on their giving information against those who had employed them. This provision appeared to him to encourage the offence against which it professed to guard, and to ensure frequent falsehoods in informations. If the bill could not be carried into effect without this provision, he would rather lose it altogether. What was its object, but merely to mark with a hammer, wrought-iron, so as to distinguish it from cast-iron ?

Mr. Stuart Wortley said, the objection had occurred to others in preparing the bill; but upon consideration, all agreed that without this provision the bill would be ineffectual.

Mr. Denman was glad that the objection had struck others as well as himself. The bill was then passed.

DROGHEDA ELECTION PETITION.] Sir J. Graham presented a Petition from

Edward Alderson, the agent of the peti- | tioners against the Drogheda election, praying that the petitioners, who had not put in proper recognizances within the fourteen days allowed by law, might have further time allowed to do so.

The Speaker said, that the question here appeared to him to be, not whether the House was disposed to grant the prayer of the petition, but whether they were not precluded by the act from interfering at all. The case was not one in which the recognizances had been entered into before the fourteen days had elapsed, and the report had not been made in time to the House; neither was it a case in which the enlargement of the time was prayed for before the expiration of the fourteen days; but it was a case in which the recognizances had not been entered into before the fourteen days had elapsed after the petition had been presented. The House had already enlarged the time for giving information to that House, but that enlargement had no reference to the case now before them. The act said, that good and sufficient security must be got within fourteen days, and it allowed that period to be enlarged only once, and that for thirty days. But the question really was, whether it was not imperative on the House to have granted that enlargement before the fourteen days elapsed. In the present case, it would not be an enlargement, but a revival of the time. The question then was, whether the House, having prolonged the period once, for receiving information as to recognizances having been entered into, could now revive the period for entering into those recognizances?

Mr. Wynn observed, that the petitioners deserved the favourable consideration of the House, because this being the first general election since the last act was passed, it was doubtful whether they were acquainted with the nature of it. But it seemed from the statement of the case, that it was not in the power of the House, bound down as it was by an act of parliament, to grant the relief which had been prayed. It might be a question whether this was not a case for a special act of legislation, and whether, as in former cases in which petitioners had been prevented from entering into their recognizances, being absent on public service, a special bill might not be brought in to enable the House to grant relief.

Sir J. Graham said, he thought it ad

viseable-as the House could not act in the matter, to withdraw the petition for the present.-The petition was then withdrawn.

NOTTINGHAM ELECTION PETITION.] Mr. Brougham stated the case to the House on which he intended to move, that the consideration of the petition against the election for Nottingham should be postponed. Two petitions had been prcsented against the return for that town: one on the 25th of January, and the other on the 3rd of February. The petitions were in the same words, but signed by different voters. The first petition which had been presented was ordered to be taken into consideration on the 2nd of March; and the second, which was presented before the first was abandoned, was ordered to be taken into consideration on the same day. After this, the first petition was abandoned. If the second petition had been presented after the first had been abandoned, it could not have been taken into consideration till between the 23rd and 30th of February, but by keeping the first petition alive till the second was presented, the petitioners had been forced into a priority over petitions which had been presented earlier. This was shortly, the ground on which he had to apply to the candour and justice of the House, to put the sitting member in the same situation as if the first petition had not been presented. The hardship on the member petitioned against, was, that as the last day on which the petitioners might put in their recognizances was the 17th of February, and as the petition was to be taken into consideration on the 2nd of March, the member had only six clear days to prepare his lists. He therefore moved, that the order for taking the petition into consideration on the 2nd of March be discharged.

Mr. Bathurst said, he was at a loss to know on what grounds the proposal could be made. It had been admitted that both the petitions were in the same words; it could not be said, therefore, that the sitting member was taken by surprise. The circumstances connected with the petitions were these:-the agent of the petitioners had not been aware of the notice required on putting in sureties; when he had come to town, therefore, he had found that the time had elapsed for giving notice. He had therefore sent in another petition, signed by different electors, in

the same words as the former. He therefore could not see that this was a disadvantage to the sitting member, because, if a mistake had not occurred, he would have had to meet the first petition at the time that he would now have to meet the second. It was to be observed also, that the days between the 23rd and 30th of March were full, so that if the petition was not taken into consideration on the day now appointed, it must be put to the end of the list. It deserved consideration, too, whether, it was adviseable to keep such a town as Nottingham in a state of ferment longer than was necessary.

Mr. Brougham, in explanation, said, that his noble friend the member for Nottingham (lord Rancliffe), had been put to this material inconvenience, that whereas if the first petition had been proceeded with, he would have had from the 7th to the 24th of February to prepare his lists; he had now only from the 17th to the 24th. He had, notwithstanding this, been put to expense and inconvenience from the presentation of the first petition. If his motion was rejected, it might, and undoubtedly would happen, that a first petition would be presented without any intention of prosecuting it. After which a second petition would be put forth, the recognizances on which might be entered into only a short time before the ballot. If the House could not fix any day between the 23rd and 30th of March, because there was no vacancy, it was to be recollected, that it was by the negligence of the petitioners that they had incurred this inconvenience. The fair course for them to have pursued, would have been to have acted as the petitioners in the Camelford election had done-to have abandoned the first petition before the second was presented. If the House should object to a long delay, there was the 9th of March which stood open, as the petition from Oxford would not be prosecuted as an election petition.

Mr. Bathurst said, that if the hon. and learned gentleman only wished for a delay of a week, he should not, though it would be inconvenient to the petitioning party, oppose it.

Mr. Brougham said, his application was, that the petition should be taken into consideration on some day between the 23rd and 30th of March.

Mr. Wynn said, he conceived a member was bound to prepare his defence from the first moment of the presentation of a

petition against him. Yet, at the same time, the petitioners, who had neglected to take the proper steps in the first peti. tion, could not complain if they were put in the same situation as if that petition had not been presented.

Lord Castlereagh thought it fair to grant any accommodation to the sitting member that was not inconsistent with the just claims of the petitioners, who were but too likely to be inconvenienced by the extent of the delay which the hon. and learned gentleman proposed. With a view to decide fairly towards both parties, he thought it better to discharge the order, and fix the ballot for the 9th of March.

Mr. Brougham acquiesced in the arrangement proposed by the noble lord, and the ballot was accordingly fixed for the 9th of March.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Monday, February 15.

PETITION FROM LONDON FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF DISORDERLY Houses.] The Sheriffs of London presented a Petition from the Lord Mayor, &c. setting forth,

"That the Petitioners have long and deeply lamented the extent and prevalence of female prostitution, and its unhappy and pernicious effects on society at large, but more especially among the rising generation; and that they are convinced that the number of brothels and disorderly houses which are to be found in various parts of the metropolis, and the methods which are devised and practised by the proprietors of such houses to evade the existing laws, have greatly contributed to the continuance and increase of this alarming evil; that, notwithstanding the utmost vigilance of the magistracy, their efforts have too frequently proved unavailing for the suppression of houses of this infamous description, by reason of the heavy expenses which attend the prosecution of the parties by indictment, and the ease with which they can occasion delay, by the adoption of legal artifices; also, on account of the great and almost insuperable difficulty of procuring evidence of that nature and degree which the existing laws require to convict the owners or Occupiers of such disorderly houses and brothels; that in many instances of conviction and punishment, after much delay and expense, the occupiers are found

frequently to transfer the possession to others of the same description, and who continue to practise the same iniquitous conduct; the petitioners therefore humbly submit to the House the necessity which exists of rendering the laws more adequate and efficient to the remedy of this evil, by such means as in the wisdom of the House shall appear expedient."

Mr. Alderman Wood, on moving that the petition be printed, took the opportunity of reminding the House of the great importance of the subject. The present law was, he said, quite insufficient to repress the existing evil. The disgraceful mode in which those unfortunate women were managed during their confinement, kept without labour, and mixed up with paupers, was also a topic that demanded serious attention. It was not his intention to propose any measure on the subject; but perhaps the law officers of the crown would, at some future period, apply themselves to its legislative

correction.

SLAVE TRADE.] Lord Castlereagh laid on the table papers relating to the Slave Trade, and minutes of the conferences which had taken place on this subject at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle. Mr. Wilberforce said, that the documents were too voluminous to be taken into consideration to-morrow, as the noble lord had proposed.

Lord Castlereagh concurred, that members could not be prepared for a discussion on the subject until the papers had been printed; he therefore would postpone his notice until Friday next.

Mr. Smyth wished to obtain from the noble lord some information on another important point connected with this interesting question. The House were aware that conventions had been signed between this country and Spain and Portugal, for the establishment of commissions for the adjudication of captured slave ships on the coast of Africa, in South America, and in the island of Trinidad. The ratifications of those conventions were to be exchanged within a limited time; and at the expiration of twelve months at the latest, the commissions were to be established. He wished to know whether that desirable object had yet been accomplished, and if not, when it was probable that it would be attained.

Lord Castlereagh observed, that there (VOL. XXXIX. )

had been three conventions concluded of the nature described by the hon. gentleman, one with the government of the Netherlands, which had not been proceeded upon, as it had not yet received the sanction of the legislature. With respect to the conventions with Spain and Portugal, bills had passed which had enabled his majesty's government to act on them. They had followed up all the details of the subject with the utmost anxiety for their completion, and although the necessity of combining their arrangements with the arrangements of foreign powers had retarded the operation, he had the satisfaction to say, that at a very early period the commissions would be in action.

Mr. Wilberforce complained, that a strange delay had occurred in sending out the commissioners. He did not mean to impute it to the noble lord opposite; but the House should know, that every day which was suffered to pass before they went out, signed the death-warrant of hundreds of their fellow-creatures.

TRIAL BY BATTLE ABOLITION BILL.] The Attorney General, in moving the order of the day for the House to resolve itself into a committee on this bill, begged to be allowed to make one or two observations on the subject. He understood that he had been accused of having surreptitiously introduced into the bill the Abolition of Appeals of Murder-his original proposition being merely the Abolition of the Wager of Battle; and that he had also been accused of hurrying the measure through the House. The truth of those charges he utterly and absolutely denied. He might appeal to every hon. gentleman who was a member of the last parliament, whether, in giving notice on the subject in the last session, he did not distinctly state that it was his intention to propose the Abolition of Appeals, and of course the Wager of Battle as comprehended in them. He did not at the time of giving that notice, name a day for making his motion, because he knew that various opinions were entertained on the subject, and he wished hon. gentlemen to turn their minds to it in the interval between the dissolution of the last and the assembling of the present parliament. When, in the present session, he gave notice of his motion, he also distinctly stated that he intended to propose the Abolition of Appeals of Murder, and having brought in the bill (2 F)

on the 1st of February, he was so far from making any attempt to smuggle it through the House, that he delayed the further proceeding on it until the Tuesday se'nnight after. It was his intention, if the House went into the committee on the bill, to propose several amendments, chiefly in the phraseology of the clauses, but one of a material nature. An hon. and learned gentleman had thrown out a doubt if the appeal of treason was yet in existence. Unquestionably, the appeal of treason committed in this country had long ceased; still there might be some doubt with respect to treason committed abroad, although it must be considered as virtually abolished, since there was no court in which an appeal could be brought, unless by especial interference of the king. But, if the abolition of it was not expressly stated in the law books, he could have no hesitation in introducing it in this bill. Holding the official situation which he did, he felt himself bound to justify himself from the charges which had been brought against him; although he was persuaded that no hon. member on either side of the House could believe him capable of such conduct as that of which he had been accused.

Sir F. Burdett perfectly acquitted the hon. and learned gentleman of all intention either surreptitiously to introduce a subject into the bill of which he had given no notice, or of endeavouring to hurry or smuggle the measure through the House. On the contrary, the hon. and learned gentleman had given more than the usual and necessary notice of his proposition. The hon. baronet said, that he wished to save one part of the law of appeal; namely, that which was made in cases of murder; and he intended, when the bill was recommitted, to submit an amendment to that effect. He admitted it would be a hardship to have any man liable to be tried twice for the same offence; but he considered the right of appeal in such cases necessary, as a protection against an undue exercise of the power of the crown in pardoning persons convicted of murder.

Sir James Mackintosh said, he would have offered himself upon this subject on a former occasion, had he anticipated any serious objection to the bill; but he considered it so wise and so much called for a measure, that he did not imagine any individual would have opposed it. He would listen with pleasure to any argu

ments which might be offered in favour of the appeal in cases of murder; but he professed he did not see how any part of the law could be suffered to remain, without leaving a principle equally inconsistent with humanity and justice. The objections to the repeal of that part of it which applied to cases of murder, rested upon no better authority than the observations of Junius upon the case of the Kennedies. The bill was then committed.

CHIMNEY SWEEPERS REGULATION BILL.] On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,

Mr. Ommaney made two objections to it. The first was that the laws as they stood at present gave the climbing boy's sufficient protection; and the second, that the machinery which was proposed to be substituted for them was not found to succeed.

Mr. Bennet said, that if the hon. member had devoted an hour of his time to reading the reports of the committees which had investigated the matter, he would have found a complete and satisfactory answer to his objections. Thé answer to the first might be found in the evidence of the masters themselves, who had all admitted that the laws were not sufficient for the protection of the children. His answer to the second objection would be, that that could not be called a failure in the machinery which succeeded in 990 cases out of 1000.

The bill was then read a second time.

USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.] On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,

Mr. Calcraft said, he did not intend to offer any objection to the bill in its present stage, nor to its going into a committee; but when the report of the committee should be brought up, he should feel it his duty to give the measure every opposition in his power.

Mr. Protheroe also expressed his intention of postponing his opposition to the bill. It appeared to him to be much too bold an experiment at the present time; and he trusted that at a future stage the hon. and learned gentleman would be induced to withdraw the measure.

Mr. Serjeant Onslow said, that as the opposition to his measure was postponed, he would of course also postpone his defence of it. He fervently hoped that it would be fairly considered, his firm