varied walks in life possessed a nicer | litary had not more the fate of the country
sense of honour and integrity. The last
he should notice of them, and whom he
might without impropriety mention, was
long a member of that House, and the
very intimate friend of the right. hon.
gent. who made this motion; he meant
the late Mr. Richardson. He must add,
with gratitude, that to his kindness, under
providence, he was indebted for that sea-
sonable resource in misfortune, to which
he had lately adverted. Mr. Stephen
added, that, with a single exception or
two at the most, he did not know who the
gentlemen were that now conducted the
department of the newspapers, in which
he and the friends he had alluded to were
once employed. He could not speak,
therefore, from any private partiality to
them, and was confident that such mem-
bers as took the trouble to observe how his
speeches had in general been reported,
would not think he was much in their
favour; but it was the profession or em-
ployment itself, not the individuals who
now or at any other time filled it, that he
thought it his duty to defend against an
unjust proscription; and it could be hard-
ly thought that there was any thing essen-
tially degrading in the employment itself
after the facts which he had mentioned,
in addition to those which had been al-
luded to by the right hon. mover of this
question. For his part, indeed, he could
not see what there was more disparaging
to a gentleman, or a man in a liberal pro-
fession, in reporting the proceedings and
debates of the legislature, than in reporting
the judgments of a court of law. Mr. Stephen
then proceeded to argue against the regu-
lation in question on grounds of public and
constitutional policy. To fix a stigma on
any class of men, and degrade them be-
low their fellow subjects, by exclusion
from a common privilege, was the surest
way to make them disaffected to the
atate. Such, at least, must be the case,
when the ground of exclusion was an im-
peachment of their moral or honorary
character. But if such oppression was to
be introduced in this land of freedom and
equality, at least we should take care not
to select, as the victims of it, a set of men
who had so much political power in their
hands as the conduction of the periodical
press. The military profession was every
where held honourable, and to degrade it
would be felt by every body to be in the
last degree imprudent and dangerous;
but he would be bold to say, that the mi-

in their hands under despotic govern-
ments, than the conductors of newspapers
had in this kingdom. Against their unit-
ed and systematic hostilities, the constitu
tion could not long stand. To sanction"
an innovation therefore, that would tend
to raise an esprit du corps among them
universally against our public establish-
ments, would be to aggravate greatly the
dangers of the country. As a friend to
the liberty of the press, he deprecated
such a precedent; for the press would
soon become dangerous and obnoxious,
if it was to fall into the hands of degraded
and disaffected characters. It was in this
view chiefly, that he thought the inter-
ference of parliament justifiable, if the
perseverance of the benchers should make
it necessary, notwithstanding the argu-
ments of the Attorney-general. It was
not a private or particular case, to be re-
dressed by appeal to the judges, but a
case of general and public mischief, fit for
the presiding wisdom of parliament, as
the guardian of the public weal, to notice
and correct.
and correct. He regarded such stigmas
on a particular class or cast of men, in
any society, as cruel and mischievous in
another view. If they did not find men
worthy of contempt, they would soon
make them so. Degrade any portion of
society, and you will infallibly reduce its
moral character, till it seems deserving of
the ignominy to which it has been un-
justly subjected. He had lived long in a
part of the world which furnished a strik-
ing proof of this remark; and there was
nothing more odious in a contemptuous
oppression, than its corrupting effect on
the minds of its unfortunate victims. If
this were so when the badge of degrada-
tion was the colour of the skin, or some
other subject of public contempt which
the individuals derived from nature of
some other unavoidable source, how much
more when entering into the degraded
cast, was matter, not of necessity, but
choice. Men would not choose an em-
ployment proscribed as dishonourable,
unless their moral character were already
corrupted. Were we prepared then, at
once to maintain the liberty of the press,
and to say that its conductors should here-
after be men so low in moral and honorary
sentiments, as to choose an ignominious
employment. Mr. Stephen further said,
that to select the popular, open profession
of the bar, as the only subject of this
degrading disfranchisement of a portion of

he should vote for the practical course proposed by the right honourable mover, merely because it had been proposed by him, and was the only remedy at present suggested. Had Mr. Sheridan moved for leave to bring in a bill declaring such disfranchisements of any class of British subjects, by the inns of court, uncon stitutional and void, he would also have supported that measure, or any other that might be more proper to be taken for the same just and necessary end.

the commons of England, was peculiarly | Mr. Stephen concluded by saying, that improper and strange. That profession was in a pre-eminent manner the patrimony of the people at large; and to it indeed they owed, more than to their parliaments, that general equality of rights, and exemption from all aristocratical oppression, which it was their distinguishing happiness to possess. The courts of law, by their liberality, had abolished that distinction of casts, which, in the times of villanage, degraded a great majority of our ancestors, and excluded them from liberal professions. It was a blessing which the people of England owed to their lawyers, and it was singular that a departure from the principle of constitutional equality, should in these days begin in the same profession. He could not help suspecting, in this regulation, a latent principle of aristocratical pride and contempt for poverty as such; for why otherwise should the restriction apply only to those who wrote for emolument? If the act of writing for the newspapers was immoral or dishonourable, he did not see how the doing it gratuitously could redeem the act from reproach. Certainly it was presumable that those who exercised such an employment for gain, were not in affluent circumstances; but if poverty or humility of origin were to become reproachful in the inns of court, many a proud scutcheon which now ornamented their walls, must be taken down. In other professions, as the church, or army, hereditary claims or fortune might facilitate preferment; but at the bar, a profession which was a much more frequent road to rank and fortune, no such extrinsic advantages were of any avail. On the contrary, it was proverbial, that a necessity arising from poverty in the early part of life was almost the only source of splendid success at the bar. It was the most amiable and valuable fruit of our happy constitution, that every path of honourable ambition was open to talents and industry, without distinction of ranks; but in the law, especially, the strongest examples of the happy effects of this equality were to be found. On the whole, therefore, if we were to begin to form proscribed and degraded casts in this country, he thought we should at least, not begin the innovation in the profession of the law, and against those who were in possession of the great organs of public information, the conductors of the periodical press.

Sir John Anstruther, as a bencher of Lincoln's Inn, greatly regretted that the regulation in question had ever been adopted, and professed his entire concur. rence in all the sentiments which the last speaker had so eloquently expressed. The character of the honourable and learned gentleman was as convincing an argument as any that he had used. No man who considered what the profession and the House would have lost, if that gentleman had been excluded from the bar, by a rule of this kind, could hesitate to pronounce it both unjust and unwise, and one that ought not to be suffered to exist. In fact, the regulation had been suddenly adopted by a very small board of benchers, after dinner, on a suggestion from some barristers in the hall. Though it might surprize the House, the barrister whose name was at the head of those who signed the proposition was no other than Mr. Clifford; and the bencher in the chair, about four only being present, was the late lord Chancellor Erskine. Sir J. Anstruther added, that knowing the opinions of several of his fellow benchers on the subject, he had no doubt that when the return of term gave a proper opportunity for the purpose, the regulation would be withdrawn, and he hoped therefore the right hon. gent. would not press his proposition, which he deemed an improper and unnecessary interference with the benchers in the govern ment of the society; especially as an appeal might bring the particular case to the revision of the twelve judges.

The Solicitor General thought himself bound in candour to confess, that he was one of the few benchers who on the suggestion of eight barristers, had hastily adopted this regulation, which he would not undertake to defend. He paid very high compliments to Mr. Stephen, both on the score of his talents and personal character; and said, that like Longinus

he had illustrated, by his own example, | Lord Palmerston moved the order of the his own tenets on this subject. His own day, for the further consideration of the character was the best proof that such a report of the supply, which being resu, rule ought not at least to be indiscrimi- he moved, That the same be re-commitnate. He strongly maintained, in oppo- ted. sition to Mr. Sheridan, that the twelve judges had a jurisdiction, not merely to reuress the individuals aggrieved by the rule in question, but to reverse the rule itself; and, therefore, the interference of parliament would, at least, be premature. The petitioner came per sa tum to the House, before he had pursued the regular course to obtain legal redress. The Solicitor General, however professed his confident expectation, that the benchers of Lincoln's Inn, now that the merits of the question had been discussed, and were better understood, would see cause at least to revise and alter the regulation, if not wholly to revoke it.

Mr. Croker in strong terms condemned the regulation as illiberal, impolitic, and unjust, and thought that the credit of the honourable society demanded its repeal. He also professed the highest respect for the character of Mr. Stephen, and the manly manner in which he had conducted himself on this occasion. To say more would only be to repeat the arguments of that gentleman, in all of which he heartily concurred. But he trusted that the right hon. gent., on seeing that his object was likely to be attained in a more satisfactory way, would withdraw his motion. Should the event be different from what such respectable benchers of the society as had expressed their opinions, expected, he pledged himself to support a future application to parliament to the best of his power.

Mr. Sheridan, in a brief and neat reply, declared he could not hesitate under such expectations as were held out to him, to withdraw his motion. His object was always to attain his end when he could, without disputing needlessly on the means. He could not however regret having brought forward the question, as he doubted whether otherwise the matter would have been brought sufficiently to the attention of the benchers to induce them to revoke their rule; and especially since his motion had been the means of gratifying the House with the very manly and eloquent speech of the hon. and learned gent. whose case furnished so decisive an argument in his support. The motion was accordingly withdrawn.

[ESTIMATES OF STAFF OFFICERS.]

Sir T. Turton objected to the Speaker leaving the chair, as he could not conceive that any suggestions in a committee could ever assimilate the enormous Staff to the army of this country. He also objected to voting more money, till they saw how the vote of the last year was expended. He then commented on the state of the Staff and Army: and said he would not allow that there had been any economy, but only an abatement of the existing profusion.

Lord Palmerston said, the difference of saving would be 13,1717. this year, arising from the discontinuance of five lieut. generals, and one major general. As this reduction, however, would not take place till 25th March, the saving would not be more than he had stated, till next year, when it would amount to 17,000l. He concluded by moving, That the sum of 457,7244. 14s. 4d. should be granted for the Stall of Great Britain.

Sir G. Warrender was of opinion that a very salutary reduction might be made in our cavalry, which were not efficient from the want of horses, and which yet required an establishment of 171 officers.

Mr. Calcraft expressed his utter disappointment at finding the reduction proposed so trifling. He did not however, so much condemn ministers; who, he believed, would have done more, had it been in their power.

Lord Palmerston explained. The difference between the estimates was what he had stated; namely, the difference between 470,8961. 9s. 9d. and 457,7244. 14s. 4d; and the savings next year would consequently be 17,000l.

Mr. Wardle was grieved that the late ministers had not taken the opportunity of doing honour to themselves, and justice to the country, by doing away these enormous expences. When the country saw so little done by one party, or proposed by the other, they would get out of conceit with the House.

General Tarleton spoke against the diminution of the cavalry, which required hore officers than at present commanded it.

Mr. Peter Moore said, it was not his intention, when he entered the House, to have said one word on the subjects under

gone on in the same train under all administrations. Now, he meant to arrest the attention of the Committee and of the hon. member, to a point wherein this doctrine could not apply to the late adininistration. He said, it was no part of his duty to defend the late adminis tration but it was a point of great na

discussion, nor at all to have interfered | tration, as the estimates had regularly in the detail of the estimates before the Committee; but some things had passed in the course of the evening which made it absolutely necessary for him to exonerate his mind from the impression which they had left, by stating it to the Committee. An hon. baronet (Sir T. Turton) had brought forward two very serious and grave allegations before the House, againsttional importance, and he must beg leave his Majesty's ministers, to which they had not condescended to offer one single word in answer; appearing like servants who had been warned of their dismission from place totally regardless of what became of the House and property of which they were in trust. The hon. baronet had alleged, and founded his allegations on the documents and confessions before the House, that the army, which was stated in the printed returns before the House, existed only on paper; that there was no such army as the reports stated; and that the country was called on for supplies, enormous as they were, to pay for an army which did not exist. These, said the hon. member, were grave and serious charges, which, in other times, would have created universal alarm; at which the representatives of the people would have manifested their indignation; but to which in these times, ministers did not deign to offer a single syllable in answer; leaving charges wholly uncontradicted, (as he must conclude from their silence,) because they were founded in truth and fact.

If so, he feared whatever he could say on the subject would meet with no better attention-An hon. member near him (Mr. Wardle) had taken great pains to enter into the detail of the estimates before the House, and thereby rendered it unnecessary for other members to do so likewise; but, from want of proper and full documents, even his industry appeared only to justify what he, (Mr. Moore,) had uniformly observed on all similar discussions, that the result would not even indemnify the public for the value of the paper which was consumed in them. He nevertheless gave the hon. member full credit for his exertions; and the more so, as he himself gave up the pursuit as hopeless and unavailing. But, there was one point of the hon. member's speech, which, Mr. Moore said, he must specially advert to.

The hon. member had said, speaking of these loose, undigested, and extravagant estimates, that he did not attribute the practice exclusive to the present adminis

to crave the attention of the House and of the country to it. The late administration, he said, had often been reproached in that House for suddenly raising the Tax on Property from 6 to 10 per cent. and a temporary triumph had as often been obtained at their expence, with a view to render them unpopular.-But with the fact of raising the tax, let the House have also the principle on which that tax was so raised, and the pledges and conditions which accompany it to the public mind, not merely in speeches in that House, but by an act of the Legislature, which passed both Houses, and had the royal assent.— It was even then found necessary to the safe condition of the State, that the blood and treasure of the country should be nursed and husbanded, in order to bring the pecuniary expenditure to an equality with the income, for the purpose of sustaining a protracted war, if unavoidable, without imposing further burthens on the people. The principle indeed was laid down by the administration preceding, I mean (most highly indeed to his honour) the administration of lord Sidmouth, who in April 1804 assured this House, that he could not consider the immense military expenditure necesssary in the present year, by the extensive preparations for our defence, amounting to £. 4,500,000, as likely to continue to an equal amount: but that even supposing these extraor dinary expences to be succeeded by others to an equal amount, the addition of one million annually to the War Taxes, according to the plan of the present year, would in the course of about three years, if the war should continue so long, raise the amount of the public income to such an extent, as to leave a sum to be provided for by loan not greater than would be furnished by the Sinking Fund, from which period it was evident that the nation might persevere in the prosecution of the war, with a diminishing instead of an increasing debt. When the late administration came into office, they also saw the necessity of rigidly supporting the