up, for a time specified, an army in France. As long, therefore, as we were bound by treaty to keep up that force, it was impossible to consider it as applicable to the home service, or to make under that head an allowance for it in the estimates. An hon. gentleman had expressed something like dissatisfaction that the reduction for Ireland was not greater, and that the force considered necessary for internal tranquillity should still amount to 20,000 men. After the unanimity that had marked the greater estimate two years ago, when the force admitted to be necessary was taken at 25,000 men, he confessed that he did expect the reduction and its causes would have been received with unmixed satisfaction. It was impossible for any man to demonstrate with mathematical accuracy the amount of force which the internal tranquillity of a country, situated as Ireland was, would require. It was a matter of grave opinion, and should be taken on the responsibility of those whose paramount duty it was to preserve the internal peace. The hon. gentleman considered that half the force, viz. 10,000 men, would be sufficient. Now as far back as 1767; under lord Townshend's administration, it was resolved that the force for Ireland should be 15,000, 12,000 to be always detained in the country, and 3,000 for general service. But when it became a duty to estimate the necessary amount for Ireland, it would be idle to revert to distant periods. The true standard by which a judgment should be formed of the present estimates, was the number of men that within recent periods had been employed. He admitted that it was a period of war. But since the peace of Amiens there had been no apprehension of invasion-no vulnerable point on the Irish frontier. The force maintained during those years, large as it was, was in support of the civil power. He had, therefore, to congratulate the House on the improved state of the internal circumstances of that country. In consequence of that improvement, government were enabled to make a reduction both in the regular and yeomanry force of Ireland; and measures were in operation to reduce still farther the latter description of force -The hon. member had truly observed, that during the last winter great tranquillity had prevailed in Ireland. The hon. gentleman was perfectly correct in the statement, and it was with great jus tice and peculiar gratification he himself must say, that under the pressure of privations, perhaps unexampled, no people had ever displayed more endurance, resignation, and magnanimity, than the people of that country. A sum of 37,000l. had been advanced by the government to local subscriptions of charity. No money could be more wisely dispensed, nor could be received with greater gratitude. But whilst he spoke thus of the tranquillity of Ireland, it was nevertheless true, that some outrages had occurred. They were, perhaps, inseparable from the peculiar state of society there. Government had been applied to by the magistracy in some instances to put the insurrection act in operation. The application was refused, and the refusal was owing to the power it possessed of supporting the civil power by a military force stationed through the country. Much benefit was also to be attributed to the extension of the civil authorities in that country. Sir W. Burroughs denied that it was the usage to keep up in Ireland a large military establishment. In the American war the people of that country had to complain of the total inadequacy of the force to meet the dangers then arising from the apprehension of an invasion. There were not 5,000 soldiers in Ireland when the volunteers were embodied. He was proud of the account the House had received that night from authority, as to the fortitude and magnanimity of its people under unequalled sufferings. It ought to afford an instructive lesson to the government. At afflictions uncontrollable by man the Irish people never murmured, but oppressions springing from ill-treatment and mis-rule, they ever did, and he hoped ever would, resist. With regard to the present estimates, he could not avoid expressing his surprise at their amount. In the third year of peace, to hear of a force of 90,600 men must be a source of astonishment. How was the country to support such an expenditure? Where was it to end? The revenue of the last year amounted to 51,000,000l. The expenditure was 65,000,000l. leaving a deficit of 14,000,000l. And yet, with such financial difficulties staring them in the face, the noble lord held out no hope or suggestion of future reductions beyond the reduction of 4,200 men. The expense of such an establishment as now proposed was 6,000,000l. How was it to be met? Were we to have a qualified | property tax amongst all our other public burthens?-or must the faith with the public creditor be broken, by an appropriation of the sinking fund to the expenses of our establishments? Much credit had been taken for the reduction of the yeomanry in Ireland. What did that reduction amount to? Out of a yeomanry force of 44,000 inen, in time of peace 3,000 were reduced. In England, out of 30,000 men, the mighty reduction of 279 men had taken place, while, when we were at peace with all the world, an addition of near 3,000 had been made to the yeomanry; he supposed to preserve the internal tranquillity of this country. Mr. Babington expressed a hope that the soldiers receiving pensions might be freed from certain inconveniences to which he understood they were at present exposed. member to communicate those cases to him in private, and if he found that any pension had been withdrawn which ought to be continued, or that any pension was continued which ought to have been withdrawn, he would endeavour to rectify the error. Sir F. Flood expressed his high satisfaction at what had fallen from the noble viscount and the right hon. gentleman, with respect to the loyalty and good disposition of Ireland, and the patience with which the people of that country had endured the various hardships and privations to which they had been subjected. There was not a more sincere friend of Ireland than himself; indeed, whoever was not a friend to both countries, could not be a friend to either. He was as independent a man as any in that House, being bound to adhere to neither side of it. He never had received any thing, and he looked for nothing from any party. He would, therefore, be the last man to agree to any act of that House which he considered unjust or op. Mr. C. Long declared his readiness to concur in any suggestions that might be proposed by the hon. member for effecting so desirable an object; but he had flat-pressive towards his native country. But tered himself that his own exertions in respect to that point, had not been altogether unavailing. Mr. Forbes complained that a list of the officers who received pensions for wounds had not been laid on the table; and regretted that in respect to pensions, the officers of the navy were not placed on an equal footing with the officers of the army. He feared there were many cases of abuse in the granting of pensions to the latter. Lord Palmerston said, it was not usual to lay on the table such a list as that alluded to by the hon. gentleman, but if the hon. gentleman thought proper to move for it, he would make no objection to its production: it would, however, take a long time to make out. He denied that there was any partiality shown to the army with respect to pensions. Pensions. were granted to the officers of each service by departments wholly unconnected with one another; so that any thing like partiality was out of the question. As to any abuses in the granting of pensions to the officers of the army, he had in consequence of what had been said in that House last session, investigated the subject minutely, and he had not been able to discover a single instance of such abuse. Mr. Forbes observed, that he had heard of several cases of gross abuse. Lord Palmerston requested the hon. he was bound to say, that he did not think the vote of 20,000 men for Ireland extravegant. They were dispersed over the country, and their weight was not felt. The whole people of Ireland, without any reference to religion, were loyal. Of this fact, the late war afforded abun dant proof. Half our marine in the late war was composed of Irish Catholics, and a great part of our army of Irish Catholics and Protestants; and he knew of no single instance among them of desertion and disloyalty. The attachment of that country should be fostered. Ireland (exclaimed the hon. baronet) is the right arm of the empire. If you lose Ireland, what will become of you? You ought to embrace her with both arms to the end of time, as your nearest, dearest, and best of friends. The several resolutions founded upon the Army Estimates were then put and agreed to. BANK TOKENS.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in pursuance of notice, moved for leave to bring in a bill to suspend the penalties for receiving bank tokens in certain cases, after the 25th of March instant. The object of this bill was to afford means after the general circulation of these tokens was stopped, for their being still received for various purposes. If gentlemen going down to the Mr. J. Smith, though not aware that the price of silver was so high as had been represented, thought that under circumstances it might rise higher. The loans at Paris might materially affect it; but he derived consolation from another point. He had for many years observed the conduct of the Bank of England, and he thought that corporation had the means and used them, or influencing the state of the currency. He thought they possessed those means now, and could protect the public by affording a check to the exportation of bullion. He conceived the present bill might be of considerable service. quarter sessions, would but take a bag of | tion. He never heard that any had been silver with him to enable them to take in forged. exchange bank tokens from the poor labourers in their neighbourhood, much might be done for the public. He supposed, from the extraordinary facility given last year in the issuing of the new silver coinage to the taking the old silver, the public expected this year some similar arrangement. They did not reflect on the difference between the two cases. As government did not issue these tokens, it could not be expected to enter into a complicated and expensive arrangement for receiving these tokens in exchange for silver coin. In this bill he proposed that provision should be made for allowing any person to pay or receive bank tokens twelve months after the 25th of March for taxes. Provision in like manner would be made for allowing them to be taken for rent. In these cases, and all others, where the tokens were not passed in general circulation, but paid to individuals for the purpose of being ultimately remitted to London, he proposed the penalties should be suspended. The House would see how far this measure answered the purpose he had in view, of withdrawing the bank tokens from circulation, with as little inconvenience as possible to the public. Mr. F. Lewis stated, that the current price of silver that day was 5s. 6d. an ounce, and from the state of our paper currency the price must rise still higher. If it should reach 5s. 8d. or 5s. 9d. an ounce, the silver currency would gradually disappear. Fortunately for the country a considerable part of the bank tokens were still in circulation. If these tokens, however, should be withdrawn from circulation, and in consequence of the rise of silver, the other currency should go to the melting pot, they might still probably be again obliged to have resource to the Bank to issue a coinage of their own. He thought that in these matters a great want of foresight prevailed-they did not even grope their way-they took no measures to avoid the danger, but allowed themselves to run blindly on it. It was probable we should soon lose our silver coinage, and the expense to which that coinage had put the country. General Thornton thought that if the bank tokens were excluded from circulation, local silver tokens should be excluded also; but he thought it useful that the local tokens should be kept in circula Sir M. W. Ridley said, that if the receivers of taxes remitted the bank tokens directly to London, considerable relief, would be given to the public; but if after receiving tokens for taxes, they paid them into the country banks, the relief would fall short of the general expectation. He could not help thinking it adviseable that they should be allowed to circulate for a longer period. Mr. Grenfell thought the effect of the bill would be, to continue the circulation of tokens without restraint, as no penalties were attached to the future circulation of them. They might not only be received for rent, but be also immediately put into use again, unless a penalty were affixed. However, if it should be otherwise, and silver should not rise, in what mode were the tokens to be transmitted to London? It was incumbent on government to bear this expense, and not to thrust it on gentlemen. It had been said, that government was not concerned in the issue of these tokens, and therefore ought not to defray any expense attending them. He was of a very different opinion, and thought it the duty of government to assist in carrying on the ordinary exchange of the country. The expense would not, perhaps, be considerable; it might not exceed per cent for forwarding the tokens from all parts, but that expense ought to fall on government, and not on the country bankers, especially as they had been so active, and had afforded such facilities in the distribution of the late coinage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he was not prepared for the observation of the hon. gentleman as to the rise in the price of silver, because in many instances he believed it had fallen. If it should rise considerably, he thought there might be some difficulty; but he conceived the only way to preserve the Mint currency, was to remove this rival currency from circulation. Hitherto it had produced no inconvenience; but he apprehended the tokens might drive silver into the meltingpot, if a crisis should occur when such a course might prove to be profitable. Leave was given to bring in the bill. HOUSE OF LORDS. INDEMNITY BILL.] The order of the day being read for going into a committee on this bill, no illegality, there could be no need of indemnity. But it was said, that if ministers should be called upon to justify themselves in courts of law, they would be obliged to produce evidence which it would be improper to disclose. He could not say, that it might not be possible that a bill on this subject was requisite; but then the object of such a bill could not be indemnity. It was, then, proper that their lordships should know, before they went into the committee, to which of these objects their attention was to be directed, or whether it was to be expected of them that they should accomplish both objects. What were they to be called upon to do? Surely the same clauses and words would not answer for the difLord Holland rose, but not, he said, ferent objects he had pointed out. If all the with the intention of resisting the motion. proceedings had been legal, what danger There were, however, two or three ques- could there be in disclosing the evidence tions which he thought it right previously on which the arrests had been made?to ask, the answer to which might perhaps There was another point which also apenable their lordships to proceed with peared to him worthy of their lordships' more precision and dispatch when in the consideration, namely, how far this bill committee than they could otherwise do. flowed as a consequence from the suspenHis present purpose was not to discuss sion act of last session. It had been either the principle or the details of the asked, how their lordships could suppose bill; but as their lordships were about to that the Habeas Corpus should be susgo into the committee, it was important pended without this bill becoming necestoknow what was the object which they had sary? He must confess that he had not there to carry into execution; for, after all seen this natural consequence; but if it the discussion which the subject had un really existed, ought it not to be their dergone, there were still some points with lordships business to make out that conrespect to which the intention of those who nexion in the committee? The bill, as it had introduced the bill was very obscure. stood, contained no reference to the susOn one or two of the grounds on which pension act from which it was said to they rested the measure, they seemed to spring. The preamble declared that a be at variance with themselves. It had traitorous conspiracy had existed, and been said, that precedent was followed in that numerous persons had tumultuously the present case; but if it had been the assembled, &c. and stated acts to have object of the framers of the bill to estab- been done, which, under the supposition lish it on precedent, the result of their of all the proceedings being legal were labour was not consistent with their inten- proper to be resorted to. The bill, howtion. All former acts of indemnity in ever, did not declare that these acts this country had acknowledged or im- had been done in consequence of the susplied that certain illegal acts had been pension of the Habeas Corpus. This bill, committed, and on the ground of that therefore, applied generally to all arrests, illegality the indemnity was granted; but and was, in that respect, more extensive the present bill, according to the asser- in its application than the measures which tions of those who supported it, the report were said to have given it origin.-Anoof the committee, and its own preamble, ther difficulty here arose in considering came before their lordships with the alle- this bill, which, instead of being founded gation that no illegal act had been done. on precedent, differed in one material reThe report which had been made by their spect, not only from all the old bills of inlordships' committee stated, that the per-demnity in this country, but from that of sons who had been taken into custody had been arrested on oath. According to all the assertions and allegations, there had been no illegality; and if there was 1801, which had been so often alluded to, inasmuch as it granted indemnity, not only for arresting and detaining persons, but for discharging. Have prisoners, then, been illegally discharged? It would become their lordships well to consider what might be the effect of the introduction of this word into the bill, not merely with respect to the protection of ministers, but to the future security of the persons to whom it applied. If ministers, or the magistrates who, under them, carried the Habeas Corpus suspension into execution, had acted legally in discharging prisoners, they would stand in no need of indemnity. They could have no fear of producing evidence to show that they had acted according to law in setting the persons they had arrested at liberty. It was necessary, however, to call their lordships attention particularly to this circumstance, as it appeared that there were cases in which the discharge of prisoners by the magistrates might be illegal. In stating this, he wished to refer their lordships to a case which occurred in Hilary term, 1788, before Mr. Justice Ashhurst, Mr. Justice Buller, and Mr. Justice Grose. The case was intituled, Morgan v. Hughes. The plaintiff having been accused of felony, and discharged, brought his action for malicious imprisonment against the justice of the peace. The declaration of the plantiff stated that he had been "discharged.". Upon this a special demurrer was entered, setting forth that it did not appear by the declaration, that the plaintiff had been tried and acquitted, or discharged by due course of law, and that it did not therefore appear that the commitment was without cause. The declaration, in fact, must state, that the prosecution is at an end; for a person aggrieved cannot bring an action, without showing that he has been discharged according to due course of law, either by a grand jury throwing out the bill of indictment preferred against him, by acquittal on trial, or by a noli prosequi. Their lordships would therefore perceive, that the extension of the bill to cases of discharge was of itself an indemnity to ministers. That this was the unavoidable consequence of the introduction of that word into the bill, was evident from the judgment given in the case to which he had alluded. Mr. Justice Buller on that occasion said, "The grounds of a malicious prosecution are, 1st, that it was done maliciously; 2dly, without probable cause. The want of probable cause is the gist of the action; for it should have showed on the face of the record, that the prosecution was at an end. Saying that the plaintiff was discharged' is not sufficient: it is not equal to the word acquitted,' which has a definite meaning. Where the word acquitted is used, it must be understood in the legal sense, namely, by a jury on the trial. But there are various ways by which a man may he discharged from his imprisonment, without putting an end to the suit. If, indeed, it had been alleged, that he was discharged by the grand jury's not finding the bill, that would have shown a legal end to the prosecution." The other judges were of the same opinion. After what he had stated, and, in particular, after having recited this deci sion of the court of King's-bench, he thought it right that their lordships should be informed on the following points:-1st. Whether a person discharged by authority of the secretary of state, without any bill of indictment against him having been thrown out by a grand jury, or acquittal on trial, or on a noli prosequi, can be held to be discharged according to law. 2nd. Would a discharge by the secretary of state prevent the person from being again arrested on the same charge? 3rd. Could a person discharged by the secretary of state insert in his declaration, on bringing an action, that there was an end of the suit against him? These were important questions, and he thought them worthy of their lordships' consideration on grounds totally independent of the bill before them. The Lord Chancellor wished, in the first place, to observe, that he did not consider himself so great an adept in the criminal law as to be always prepared to give their lordships a satisfactory opinion upon every difficulty that might be started. In the present case, he must also confess, that he could not recollect the terms of the question which the noble lord had put with sufficient precision, to enable him to give it a full answer, were he in other respects capable of so doing. With regard to what had been said as to this bill being founded on precedent in all its provisions, he certainly had never so argued it. He had on the contrary observed, that when the Habeas corpus was suspended in the reign of king William, it was distinctly acknowledged in the bill of indemnity, that illegal acts had been committed; but it was at the same time declared, that these acts were so necessary for the safety of the country, and the preservation of the constitution, that it was fit no persons should be put to the expense of defending themselves in |