the said Standing Order, than any thing contained in the bill rejected on the 3d of August, 1807. 4. Because, when we reflect, that the bill rejected on the 3d of Aug. 1807, purports to be a bill for establishing Regulations tending greatly to the benefit of the fair trader and the security of the Revenue; and that the bill now under the discussion of this house, is a bill which appears from the votes of the house of commons, to have been complained of by numbers of petitioners, as destructive of trade and revenue, we cannot conceive any reasonable ground why this house should now disregard a Standing Order, which is of such fundamental importance to the preservation of the constitution, and which it has on all occasions, particularly in the instance above referred to, shewn so much anxiety to enforce, whenever any attempt to contravene it has attracted attention.-We are therefore apprehensive, that this departure from the established principle and recent practice of the house, may be suspected to have proceeded from a des sire to hurry through parliament thcom

subjects, have been recently rejected, on the ground, that regulation, though not altogether unconnected with the purpose for which such duty was imposed, might be considered as foreign to and different from the aid given to the use of his majesty by such clause. For we observe in the entry on the Journals of this house, on the 3d of Aug. 1807, that a bill entituled An Act for abolishing fees received by officers in the service of the customs in the several ports of Ireland, and for making compensation to the said officers, and for regulating the hours of attendance, and the number of holidays to be observed by them,' was, after reading the said Standing Order, rejected; the following lords being that day marked as present.-The duke of Cumberland, lord chancellor Eldon, the duke of Portland, viscount Melville, ford Redesdale, lord Erskine, viscount Sidmouth, Longueville, bishop of Oxford, archbishop of Canterbury, earl of Cholmondeley, Selkirk, Balcarras, Glasgow, Graham, Buckinghamshire, Grosvenor, Kingston, Limerick, Normanton, viscount Carleton, lord Napier, Holland, Walsing-plicated and dangerous measure, which ham, Hood of Cath, Arden, Rawdon, Lauderdale, Boringdon, Douglas of Lochleven, Stewart of Garlies.-2d, Because it appears to us, that the Bill entituled · An act for granting to his majesty until the end of the next Session of Parliament, Duties of Customs on the Goods, Wares and Merchandize herein enumerated, in furtherance of the provisions of certain Orders in Council; the motion for the rejection of which has been negatived by this house, is a Bill of Aid or Supply, and that it contains, 1. A clause, which as it at present stands, clearly prohibits the merchants of England trading to the East Indies, from selling any of the goods or merchandize they may import, and compels them on bringing any of the said goods or merchandize into this country, to warehouse them under the king's lock for re-exportation. 2. A clause, for taking off, in certain cases, a duty of two shillings a ton, imposed on ships of the United States of America, by the act of the 37th of his majesty's reign. 3. A clause, enacting that no action or suit shall be brought or commenced against any persons for any thing done in pursuance of the Orders in Council, of the 9th and 25th of November, 1807, except such action be commenced within three calendar months after the fact committed; and many other clauses which are stronger and more direct violations of

threatens the destruction of our commerce, and to prevent the people of this country from being heard against the provisions of a bill, which may prove ruinous to their most valuable interests. Lauderdale, Spencer, Grenville, Auckland, Essex, Grey, Vassal Holland, Cowper, King, Jersey, Stafford, Erskine, Cawdor, Cholmondeley, Crewe, Clifton.”

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Wednesday, March 16.

[SUSSEX ELECTION PETITION.] Sir A. Piggott, pursuant to notice, rose to move, that the petitioners who prayed by petition, yesterday, to be admitted as parties to defend the seat of Mr. Fuller against the petition of Mr. Sergison, the defence of which had been abandoned by the sitting member, do, on or before the 21st of March, exchange lists with the original petitioner, of the persons whose votes were to be objected to, together with the several heads of the objection against the names of each person intended to be objected against, to be delivered to the agent or agents of the respective parties. petition of Mr. Sergison, he observed, was ordered to be taken into consideration on the 24th, and the Election Judicature bill enacted, that petitioners claiming to be heard as parties in defence of an aban

The

doned seat, were to be considered, to all intents and purposes, in the place of the sitting member. As the resolutions of the house, therefore, required that lists of objectionable votes should be exchanged between the sitting member and the petitioner against his return, within a reasonable time, he trusted that the house would, in this instance, see the necessity of appointing some day for the exchange of such list between the original petitioner and the parties who had succeeded to the place of the sitting member in the defence of the seat. He should therefore move, that the said lists be exchanged on the 21st instant.

in, if they should call upon them within three days from this day to exchange lists of a poll that lasted 15 days, in a county 80 miles long, and in which 8000 electors had polled. The petitioners too had had the opinion of very eminent professional characters to direct them in the course they had taken, and the impression they entertained, that they should not be called upon to give or exchange lists.

Mr. Tierney did not pretend to be lawyer enough to determine how far the opinion of the counsel alluded to by the hon. gent. was correct; but of this he was certain, that if the house consulted its own honour, it would not give effect to the present attempt. It was well known a month before Mr. Fuller gave in his declaration in writ

return. It was natural therefore for col. Sergison to say, Why should I put myself to expence, or the house to trouble, till I see if any other person will undertake to defend the return? If the freeholders do so, I know I have 30 days within which to demand an exchange of lists.' The effect of precluding col. S. from this right, would just amount to this;" that a sitting member, against whom a petition was presented, had only to allege his resolution not to defend his seat; give in a declaration to that effect, immediately before the day fixed upon for the ballot; and prevail on a freeholder to step forward and ask leave to defend the return; thus the petitioner complaining of his return would no longer be at liberty to attack him, and the house itself would be made a party to the imposture.

Mr. Huskisson thought that the house had to consider two points upon the present question; 1st, Whether it was coming, that he did not intend to defend his petent to the house to fix any day for the exchange of the lists demanded; and 2dly, whether there was sufficient time for so doing. The petition against the election of Mr. Fuller, had been within the proper period presented in last session, and had been regularly renewed in the present. It was not the duty of the sitting member to call for any exchange of lists, and the petitioner had neglected to do so until the sitting member had declared his intention to abandon the defence of the seat, which was on the eve of the day on which the petition was ordered to be taken into consideration. If the sitting member had persevered in the defence of his seat, no lists could be exchanged, because a motion to that effect could not be made without notice; and the house was aware that, as no such notice had been given before the eve of the day for taking the petition into consideration, it could not be available if given on that day, because the ballot for the committee must precede all other business on the subsequent day. As the petitioners, therefore, were by the act placed, to all intents and purposes, in the place of the sitting member, and no lists could be demanded under these circumstances from the sitting member, he contended that no lists could, according to the provisions of the act, or the usage of the house, be demanded from the petitioners. They were required to defend the seat only against the other allegations of the original petition, and were not obliged to enter into any scrutiny of objected votes. The house, too, would do well therefore to reflect, as to the second question, respecting the time now remaining for exchanging, what a situation they would place the petitioners

Mr. C. Wynne thought the present a question of considerable importance. It had occurred rather unexpectedly, and therefore, he wished the debate on it postponed till to-morrow, that gentlemen might be better prepared on the subject.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer had no objection to indulging the hon. gent. with the delay proposed. As to the point itself, however, he had no doubt. The question was simply this; should col. Sergison stand in a better situation now, than if Mr. Fuller were himself defending the return? If Mr. F. had not declined, col. S. not having in due time applied for an exchange of lists, could not afterwards have insisted on it.

Mr. Ponsonby and sir A. Piggott resisted the position that the petitioner against a sitting member was not, at any time before balloting for the committee, entitled to

an exchange of lists: such exchange was made partly for convenience, and partly for the dispatch of business; and even if omitted to be applied for in that house, or there refused, the committee had a right to inquire into the legality of votes, and even to order the exchange of lists; they being by their orths required to declare the person having a majority of legal votes duly elected, not to exclude all evidence on the subject.-After some farther discussion, the debate was adjourned till to-morrow.

[ORDERS IN COUNCIL IN IRELAND.] Lord H. Petty begged to know when it was the intention of ministers to bring in the Bill for carrying into effect the Orders in Council in Ireland?

Mr. Foster declared, that as the bill for Ireland was to be the same in every respect with the bill for carrying into effect the same Orders in Council in this country, he only waited to know finally what the regulations of the bill for this country would be, in order to bring forward the bill for Ireland.

there had been no question for some time before the house.

Mr. Foster rose, now that this conversation was finished, to move the order of the day for the house going into a committee on the Fourth Report of the Commissioners of Enquiry in Ireland.

Mr. Tierney wished still to be heard on the former subject.

The Speaker informed the hon. member, there was now a question before the house on which he might be heard.

Mr. Tierney then observed, that he should take the opportunity of calling the attention of the house to the manner in which he had been prevented from replying to a personal observation made upon him.

[KING'S MESSAGE respecting SwEDEN.] The house having resolved itself into a committee of supply, and his majesty's Message being referred to the said committee,

Mr. Secretary Canning said, that as he did not expect that any opposition would be made to the proposition which he should have the honour to make, he did not think it necessary to preface it with many observations. He should, therefore, simply mention the circumstances connected with the subsidy stipulated to be granted to the king of Sweden, together with the grounds on which the engagement had been entered into, trusting that the liberality and wisdom of the house would enable his majesty to make good these engagements. The fidelity and steadiness of the king of Sweden in ad

Mr. Tierney observed, that as the bill was to be founded on the resolution of the committee of ways and means, which had passed some time since, there was no occasion for delay in bringing it forward. Whatever alteration might be made in the bill for this country, the resolution upon which the bill for Ireland was to be brought in was clear, and there was no reason whatever for waiting for any changes or regulations which might be made in another measure in another place. Mr. Foster replied, that he should un-hering in every circumstance, and under doubtedly bring forward the bill founded on the resolutions of the committee of ways and means, and with such provisions and regulations as should appear to him most likely to be effectual for the collection of the duties to be imposed by the bill.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that gentlemen on his side of the house were anxious to bring in the bill in question as early as possible. If gentlemen on the other side were surprised at the delay which had taken place in doing so, he must be allowed to be equally surprised that they should now regret any delay which took place-delay having hitherto been so much their object.

Several gentlemen rose at once, and, amongst others, Mr. Tierney, who proceeded to address the house, but was called to order by the Speaker, who submitted that

every change of fortune, to his connection with this country, was matter of universal admiration. It was true, that the circumstance of this fidelity, exciting admiration, was not of itself a sufficient ground on which to grant pecuniary assistance. But the fact was, that the former treaty of Subsidy which had for its object the defence of Pomerania alone, expired as soon as the king of Sweden withdrew his force from Germany. The engagements which it contained were formed with a view to his co-operation with this country and the other powers of the north of Europe in that particular spot, and this force having been withdrawn in the month of Oct. last, the arrears of subsidy were paid up, and from that time down to the signing of the late treaty, his Swedish majesty had neither asked nor received any pecuniary succours from G. Britain. In

Mr. Whitbread rose for the purpose, not of objecting to a subsidy to the king of Sweden, but of declaring his sentiments respecting the actual situation of that monarch. Much as he admired the fidelity of his Swedish majesty, he did not think it superior to that which had been displayed by Austria; and if the king of Sweden was reduced to the same situation in which both Austria and Russia had been reduced, by the pressure of the war, he did not think it would be any impeachment of the honour and character of that prince, if he were to conclude a peace as they had done. He was of opinion, that the wisest policy which the king of Sweden could pursue in the present circumstances, would be to conclude a peace with France. And it was highly important for the government of this country to consider, that by offering him an inducement to persevere in the war, it might be contributing to bring him into a situation in which he might be obliged to accept of terms of peace much more disadvantageous than those he might now obtain. He reprobated in strong terms that article of the treaty which stipulated that the king of Sweden should not conclude a peace, or even a truce, with his enemies, without the concurrence of this country. Either this article was meant to be observed, in which case it might be attended with ruinous consequences to that monarch; or it meant nothing at all; and in this view he thought it

the interval, a case had arisen in which his Swedish majesty had been called on, not merely to conclude a peace with France, but to join the confederacy against this country; which proposition he had not hesitated to reject, and, in consequence of the rejection of this proposition, he was now placed in the situation of being obliged to defend his own dominions. In these circumstances, this country, he thought, was bound by every consideration, whether moral or political, to come forward to his aid, and trusting that upon this general proposition there would be no difference of opinion, he should simply state the engagements that had been contracted. In the greater number of treaties of subsidy which had been contracted with foreign powers, the subsidies had been granted to procure the active co-operation of such powers in carrying on offensive hostilities against the common enemy. But in the present case, certain pecuniary succours were stipulated to be granted to a power not for the purpose of achieving conquest, but to enable that power to defend its own dominions, which were attacked in consequence of its steady attachment to British interests. Such a treaty of subsidy was not, however, unprecedented in its nature. A similar subsidy had been granted to the king of Prussia in the 7 years war. In other treaties of subsidy it had been usual to stipulate the amount of the force to be employed by the power subsidized, and the particular periods at highly blameable to bring such engagewhich that force was to be brought into ments into disrepute, by making them the field. But in the present case, as merely for the purpose of being broken. well as in the treaty of subsidy with the If it was binding upon one party, it was king of Prussia, to which he had just re-binding also upon the other; and would ferred, it had been thought unnecessary to clog the treaty with any such stipulation. The only difference there was between the present treaty and the model on which it was formed was, that in the present instance government had reserved to itself a power of controul, by making it payable in monthly instalments, which was not reserved in the other, the whole sum having been advanced to the king of Prussia at once, leaving him to dispose of it as he judged proper. The whole sum stipulated to be advanced was 1,200,000l.; 100,000l. of which had been already advanced out of the vote of credit of last year, he therefore concluded with moving a Resolution, that 1,100,000l. be granted to his majesty, to enable his majesty to fulfil the engagements contracted with the king of Sweden.

the right hon. secretary contend, that if a favourable opportunity occurred for this country's negotiating a peace with France, and the advisers of the king of Sweden should object to our availing ourselves of it, the British government ought to consider such an interference as an insurmountable obstacle in the way of negotiation? A similar engagement was contracted in the course of the last war with the king of Sardinia, by which we had bound ourselves not to conclude a peace with France, but upon the express condition, that he was to be reinstated in the whole of his dominions. This engagement was violated by the treaty of Amiens, and thus had brought disgrace upon the country. He did not mean to say, that we had acted wrong in concluding the peace of Amiens, but he insisted that we

1

[JESUITS' BARK BILL.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer having moved that the house should resolve itself into a committee on this bill,

Mr. Whitbread repeated his objections to the bill, which he characterised as a most abominable measure, calculated only to hold the country up to universal execration. It was the first attempt to put on the statute book any of those ideas which evidently shewed that the moral character of England had been gradually deteriorating. One of those ideas was that infamous one, some time ago so prevalent, that in case of invasion no quarter should be given to the French troops, but that they should be all massacred, or confined for life to work in mines and coal pits. The object of the bill was, like the old one of hedging in the cuckoo,' impossible. Great quantities of bark were on the continent, and he read a Parisian price current, to shew that bark was much lower in price there than what had been stated. There were, in this country, above a mil

from that in which G. Britain and Sweden, upon by his majesty's ministers for the now stand. That the experience of such successful prosecution of the war." contracts, made in the course of the late war with France, tend to prove that they cannot be binding on the weaker of the two contracting parties, because no manner of obligation can bind a state to its utter ruin; and in the peculiar situation in which Sweden now stands, it appears to this house, but too probable, that all the efforts of his majesty may not be sufficient to preserve her from submission to her enemies, whilst, on the other hand, the perseverance of Sweden in the contest, can in no way be beneficial to G. Britain, and the article in question may throw difficulties in the way of negociation for the restoration of the blessings of peace.-To represent to his majesty the surprize of this house, at not finding in the Treaty submitted to its consideration, any Article of Commercial Regulation between the two countries. His majesty's ministers having represented to this house, that the best hope of success, in the present contest, depended upon certain measures affecting the commerce of neutral nations, which are manifestly and avowedly impractica-lion of pounds of bark, which, in another ble without the co-operation of Sweden. It was natural to expect, that at a time when Sweden is to be defended with the blood and treasure of G. Britain, some stipulation should have been required from her, that she would not render totally ineffectual the measure which his majesty's ministers have repeatedly declared to be most efficacious, now remaining to be used against France.-That his majesty's faithful commons are the more disappointed at this omission in the present Treaty, because by the 5th Article of the Secret Convention entered into between his majesty and the king of Sweden, and signed at Stockholm on the 3d of Dec. 1804, it appears that commercial arrangements had become matter of discussion between the two powers, and that New points, whereby the commercial interests of the two countries might be more closely connected, were reserved for a particular act.'-In these circumstances his majesty's faithful commons do freely grant to his majesty the supply necessary to make good the promise of his majesty's royal word, but at the same time they deeply lament, that such engagements should have been entered into as may tend to embarrass this country in negociation: and, that stipulations are altogether left out, the omission of which may defeat the means now relied

sense of the word, had become a mere drug,' and it was impossible to sell it on any terms whatever. This bark had been imported under licenses from government. Several persons had invested their whole property in this article, and had, in his opinion, a right to call on his majesty's ministers to require that the public should take it all into their hands. Were they to be consumed for the purpose of carrying into execution the vengeance of the country? Were they to be treated as shells, the explosion of which involved their own destruction? The bill united in itself detestable cruelty with absurd folly. He therefore opposed the Speaker's leaving the chair.

Sir C. Price defended the policy of the measure, and contended that it was perfectly justifiable as a mode of warfare. To his certain knowledge, yellow bark had been purchased in London at 10s. per lb. and after having paid 30 per cent. insurance had sold for a considerable profit in France. The withholding of this article must give a facility to the introduction of our manufactures, and in this point of view the measure was most humane, as it tended to relieve the distresses of our manufacturers. The opposition to this measure was part of that systematic plan of thwarting the measures of govern