as he had this night explained it to the House?

and the country judge from a few instances. The day preceding the battle of Talavera, six battalions of infantry and Lord Palmerston answered upon the auone regiment of cavalry belonging to the thority of general Dekin, who was the German Legion, lost in killed and wounded senior Geman officer in this country. He 125; two battalions of the $7th regi- also in explanation contended that he had ment, ditto, ditto 164.-Battle of Busaço: not expressed any contempt of the Act of Four battalions and two detachments of Settlement. The command was tempothe German Legion, lost &c. 59; one bat-rary, and was founded on the Article of talion of the 45th regiment 137; one War, applicable to the German Legion, ditto of the 88th regiment 133.-Assault by which these officers took precedence. of Ciudad Rodrigo: Total British loss 626; He also saw nothing unconstitutional in German ditto 0.-Capture of Badajoz : the assumption of the command of a disBritish loss in killed and wounded 3070;trict by baron Linsingen, as it must have German loss 0.-Battle of Albuera: Two devolved upon him in the absence of lord battalions of the German Legion, lost &c. Chatham, and was perfectly agreeable to 104; two ditto of the 7th regiment of the Article of War to which he had alludinfantry 682; one ditto of the 48th ditto, ed. The noble lord appeared to have toditto 273; one ditto of the 29th ditto, ditto tally mistaken the nature of the reference 325.-Battle of Salamanca: Five bat- to the Gazettes; for the proper, and in talions of the German Legion 96; one fact, the only way to make the reference ditto, 3d of 1st foot 160; one ditto, Ist of was, to establish a fair estimate by the 7th 195; 11th 341; 58th 143; 61st 366. comparison of numbers, as equal as possi-Upon this review the country might de- ble, between certain proportions or corps cide which description of force encounter of the British army and the German Leed most danger, suffered most loss, gained gion. most glory, or was entitled to most praise. Lord Folkestone maintained, that he had To some persons he knew it would be ab-founded his estimate upon that very comsurd to appeal. From those who paid parison which he was charged with not more regard to their own will than to law having made. or reason; from those who could originate an Order apparently designed, and since it was issued he would undertake to say no. toriously conceived, to involve a direct violation of law, he could not expect due attention. But he looked to the members of that House, who must feel, that what-man Legion. ever difference of opinion might prevail Mr. Whitbread assured the House, that upon general questions, the explanation of after the arguments which had been adthis extraordinary Order was calculated vanced, and the explanation which had to do good-and he hoped that that ex-been given, he should not trouble them at planation would be rendered effective any length. He paid a compliment to the for the satisfaction of the army and the generous and liberal sentiments expressed public. With this view, he suggested by a gallant general (Stewart), on the emithat the explanation of that night ought nent services and distinguished bravery of to be put into an official shape, and the German troops employed in Spain. promulgated, in order to do away the ge- The mutual enthusiasm and unlimited neral misunderstanding, and he would confidence excited in the officers of the add, the general discontent to which the army, by the exploits of others serving Order under discussion had given birth. with them, ought, however, to increase, Perhaps the manner in which the debates instead of lessening the jealousy with of that House found their way to the pub- which we ought to guard against the inlic, might be deemed sufficient to give all corporation of foreign troops with our own. desirable publicity to the explanation; but This was not a military question, nor one he thought it would be more satisfactory, in which we were to appeal to the sentiespecially to the army, to adopt the coursements of the army. It was a constitutional he had suggested. The noble lord concluded with asking the Secretary at War, to say upon what authority he learned that the German officers understood the Order

Mr. Cochrane Johnstone wished to state, in reference to what had been said of the comparative merits of British and German officers, that five of the generals who had received thanks for their conduct at the battle of Salamanca, belonged to the Ger

question, on which the members of that House were to decide, as the guardians of the rights and civil liberties of the country. What he had risen for, was to direct the

attention of the House to a circumstance | nature of the appointments, and the dates which had not been noticed, the affectation thereof. 3. A Return of the number of offiwhich so generally and ridiculously pre- cers belonging to the 60th regiment of foot vailed of imitating the dress of foreign sol- having staff appointments at home, specidiers. All characteristics of English re-fying the nature of the appointments and

Davis and E. Protheroe esquires; and did also, by gifts and rewards, and promises, agreements, and securities for gifts and rewards, corrupt and procure divers other persons, being qualified to vote at the said

election of the said lord Henniker and Evan Foulkes; and that the name of the right hon. lord Brownlow, the lord lieutenant of Lincoln, and a peer and member of the Lords House of parliament, was made use of to influence the votes of elec-election, to refuse and forbear to give tors at this election, in favour of the said lord Henniker and Evan Foulkes; and that the petitioners W. J. Tatam and W. L. Peake, did severally tender their votes at the said election for the said G. N. Noel, (that is to say), both of them on the 2d day of the said poll, and were unjustly hindered from polling, and refused to be received on the poll, by the said J. Belgrave, and J. Torkington; and that other legal votes tendered for the said G. N. Noel were rejected, and other persons not legally entitled to vote, were admitted to vote; and that sundry voters were induced by threats, and other corrupt means, to vote against the petitioner G. N. Noel, who might otherwise have been at the head of the poll; and praying the House to take the premises into consideration."

Ordered to be taken into consideration on the 23d of February.

BRISTOL ELECTION-PETITION OF MR. HUNT AND OTHERS.] A Petition of Henry Hunt, of Rowfant House, in the county of Sussex, esq., William Pimm, of Bristol, salesman, Thomas Pimm, currier, William Weetch, clothier, and Thomas Gammage, cabinet-maker, was read; setting forth,

"That the petitioners W. Pimm, T. Pimm, W. Weetch, and T. Gammage, now are, and, at the time of the last election were electors of the said city, and claim to have a right to vote, and did vote at the said election; and, at the said election, the petitioner H. Hunt, together with Richard Hart Davis esq. Edward Protheroe esq. and sir Samuel Romilly knight, were candidates to represent the said city in this present parliament; and that the said R. H. Davis esq. and Edward Protheroe esq. by themselves, their agents, friends, managers, committees, partizans, and others on his and their behalf, previous to and at the said election, were guilty of gross and notorious bribery and corruption, and, at and during the said election, and previous thereto, the said R. H. Davis and the said E. Protheroe, by themselves, their agents, &c. did corrupt and procure divers persons, as well those who were qualified to vote, as those who claimed or pretended to have a right to vote at the said election, to give their votes for them the said R. H. ( VOL. XXIV. )

their votes at the same for the petitioner the said H. Hunt, or the other candidate, contrary to the laws and statutes enacted for the prevention of bribery and corruption; and that the said R. H. Davis and E. Protheroe, by themselves, their agents, &c. were guilty of the most flagrant and notorious acts of intimidation, thereby basely and unlawfully procuring, by threats, divers other persons, being quali fied to vote at the said election, through the fear of being persecuted, ruined, imprisoned, and otherwise ill used and punished, to forbear to give their votes for the petitioner the said H. Hunt, or the other candidate in violation of the rights of the electors, the privileges of parliament, and the freedom of election; and that the said R. H. Davis and E. Protheroe, by themselves, their agents, &c. after the teste of the writ for the said election, and before the election of the said R. H. Davis and E. Protheroe, did give, present, and allow to divers persons who had votes, or claimed or pretended to have a right to vote at such election, money, &c. in order to their the said R. H. Davis and E. Protheroe being elected, and to procure them to be returned for the said city in violation of the standing order and regulations of the House, and in defiance of the laws and statutes of the realm enacted for the preventing charge and expence in the election of members to serve in parliament; and that a large body of military, consisting of the Middlesex militia, were quartered within two miles of the said city, many of whom were actually stationed within the walls of the said city during the whole of the said election; and that col. Gore, commandant of the Bristol volunteers, gave orders the day before the election commenced, to have two pieces of brass ordnance six pounders removed from the Grove, where they had been kept for the last two years, and had them placed upon the Exchange, where they remained during the whole of the said election, to the terror of the electors and peaceable inhabitants of the said city, regardless of the privileges of the House, and contrary to the statute of the 8th of Geo. 2, c. 30, in that case made and provided; and that a great number of freemen were employ(T)

for this limitation of the time in steeping barley, was avowedly to prevent frauds

ed by the said R. H. Davis and E. Protheroe, or their agents, &c. &c. under the denomination of bludgeonmen or pretend-upon the revenue; but as no such frauds

ed constables; and that various sums of money were paid by the said R. H. Davis and E. Protheroe, or by the agents, committees, friends, managers, or others on their behalf, to influence such of them as were entitled to vote, or pretended to have a right to vote at the said election, and to induce them to give their votes for the said R. H. Davis and E. Protheroe esquires; and that the poll was closed by the sheriffs, the returning officers, two days sooner than by law directed, notwithstanding the petitioner, the said H. Hunt, openly protested against it, several freemen at that time having offered to poll for the said H. Hunt, which votes were refused to be taken and entered on the poll, and notwithstanding the sheriffs were publicly informed that many other voters were on the road, who were coming with the intent to poll at the said election; and praying, that the House will take the premises into their most serious consideration, and that the election and return of the said R. H. Davis esq. and E. Protheroe esquire, may be declared to be null and void."

Ordered to be taken into consideration on the 25th of February.

could be charged on the Scotch maltsters, by whom none such had been committed, the excise of last year having been unusually productive, amounting indeed to 130,000l. that reason could not be pressed against them. For them, therefore, he felt himself justified in urging a claim of extension to 75 hours, which extension they deemed indispensibly necessary to carry on their trade. He was sorry to find that this appeal and that of his friends in Scotland, to his friend (Mr. Wharton,) had been found totally unavailing. Yet when the Scotch maltsters laid their case before the commissioners of excise in Scotland, between whom and them there was, as in such relations generally, a na tural antipathy, the commissioners were so struck by the grievance to which the maltsters were subjected, that they allowed an extension of the time for steeping malt, to 80 hours. This allowance was made in October, 1812; but upon reference to his hon. friend, the boon was ordered to be revoked. All he asked then, if it was not wished to extinguish the Scotch maltsters, and so to injure both agriculture and the revenue, was, that the very peculiar circumstances in which the Scotch maltsters were placed should be reconsidered-at all events, that provision should be made in the Bill, investing the commissioners of Mr. W. Dundas rose on the part of the the excise in Scotland, or the commismaltsters of Scotland, from whom he had sioners of the treasury in England, with a received such a representation as urged discretionary power to grant the extenhim, from a strong sense of duty, to call sion of time required by the Scotch the attention of the House to this subject. maltsters if they should succeed in making It appeared to him, indeed, that if the li-out a case worthy of such extension. mitation fixed in the measure before the Mr. Lascelles, on the part of the maltHouse were insisted upon, there would be sters of Yorkshire, protested against any no malting in Scotland, and of course disposition to commit fraud, in requiring there would be no duty. According to the extension of time proposed to be the act of last year, the time allowed for granted by this Bill; these maltsters havsteeping barley was settled at 55 hours; ing, indeed, themselves suggested a pebut this being found quite insufficient for nalty upon fraud, the infliction of which the maltsters of Yorkshire and the northern must nearly produce the ruin of the Counties, this Bill was introduced to cor- guilty. He was glad, therefore, that the rect that mistake, and to extend the time application of his constituents had been to 65 hours, because from the comparative attended to; but if the object of that apinferiority of the barley in these districts, plication should not, upon trial, be found such extension was found absolutely ne- fully answered by the provisions of the cessary. Now what he had to require on Bill, he should, seeing a clause in the Bill, the part of his countrymen was, that as they allowing its repeal or amendment in the were still more northerly, and their barley course of the session, feel himself compestill inferior from the inferiority of the tent to apply for a futher extension of time soil, a still farther extension might be for the steeping of malt in Yorkshire. granted to them. The reason assigned

MALT-DUTY BILL.] On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill,

Mr. Wharton felt confident, that the ob

ready rather to release some part of the system necessary to check frauds, than to wish any injury or undue inconvenience to the fair trade.

Mr. Dundas asked, whether the convictions for fraud upon the excise in Scotland adverted to by his hon, friend, did not relate to the manufacture of whisky, and not to malting?

Mr. Wharton answered in the negative.,
The Bill was then read a second time.

MOTION FOR RESCINDING MR. VAN-
SITTART'S RESOLUTION RESPECTING GOLD
COIN.] Mr. Lushington appearing at the
bar to present a Report,

Mr. Whitbread conceiving the Report about to be presented to be that of the Gold Coin Bill, thought proper, before it was presented, to submit a motion to the House. Having failed to make the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer ashamed of the third Resolution inserted on the Journals in May last, declaring "That the promissory notes of the said company have hitherto been, and are at this time, held in public estimation to be equivalent to the legal coin of the realm, and generally accepted as such in all pecuniary transactions to which such coin is lawfully applicable," he thought it ne

servations of his right hon. friend were totally founded in mistake; and if he could shew that the premises were incor rect, the House would know how to appreciate his conclusions. His right hon. friend had asserted the inferiority of the barley used by maltsters in Scotland, whereas, in point of fact, that barley was generally of the very finest quality. The grain alluded to by his right hon. friend, and upon which he appeared to have received some information, was not barley, but big; and even that grain, growing upon land generally let at from 8 to 101. an acre, could not be set down as so inferior, or the growth of land so poor in quality, as his right hon. friend had stated. But his right hon. friend had been generally misinformed upon this subject, although referring to his native country. There was no doubt, a great deal of poor land in Scotland, which, of course, would grow poor grain. But it was notorious, that the greater part of the barley used by the Scotch maltsters, was of the very best quality, being the growth of Norfolk. This Norfolk barley was, in fact, bought cheaper in Edinburgh, than in London; and if then the proposition of his right hon. friend, or rather the petition of the Scotch maltsters, which applied for an extension of 100 hours, were acceded, the conse-cessary, for the sake of truth and the cha quence would be, that such barley might be steeped twice within the time required. Thus, indeed, the revenue might be completely defrauded. But, according to the assertion of his right hon. friend, the Scotch maltsters were incapable of fraud-according to him, truly, they never had any such disposition-there were no frauds upon the revenue in Scotland, whatever might occur elsewhere. What, however, was the fact? why, that in the year 1809, which was the last to which he had referred, the convictions for fraud upon the excise amounted in England to but 1321, while in Scotland they exceeded 4500 (a general laugh.) Then as to 100 hours, applied for by the Scotch petitioners, he undertook to assert, that no barley in nature could require such a period, and that 65 hours, which the Bill proposed to grant, were amply sufficient for every purpose of saturation. If, however, the contrary should be the case, and a farther extension of time should be found necessary, the Bill was so modelled as to leave room for speedy amendment, which amendment he should be as ready to support as any man; being at all times

racter of the House, to propose that the resolution should be rescinded, which proposition he would submit without any debate.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that as the hon. member expressed his intention to propose the rescinding of the Resolution alluded to, without any debate, he should, without any debate, support it. But at the same time he was ready, upon any day that might be appointed, to enter fully into any discussion upon this Resolution, and to justify its terms and character.

Mr. Whitbread declaring his desire to take the sense of the House upon this motion,

The House accordingly divided: For the
motion 26: Against it 63: Majority 37.
List of the Minority.
Gurney, Hudson
Grant, J. P.
Gordon, R.

Abercromby, Hon. J.
Bankes, H.
Bennet, Hon. H. G.
Creevey, T.
Canning, G.
Calvert, C.
Fitzroy, Lord J.
Foster, F.

Hamilton, Lord A.

Horne, W.

Huskisson, W.

Lubbock, J.
Mildmay, Sir H.