evidence produced in support of the allegations of the petitions, which might be erroneous, partial, absurd, or even false, as night be proved by other evidence. There were also many cases wherein the house, without any claim made on the part of an adverse party to be heard, had thought fit for its own satisfaction to call for further evidence, after the Petitioners case had closed. The Tobacco case, which had been referred to by the rt. hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, was one of that description. For, after the petitioner and his counsel had closed the case and withdrawn, the house ordered other witnesses to attend, and the committee sat again to hear the evidence of these witnesses, and the house took other proceedings thereon. If any gentleman had any doubts on the subject, he would do well to consider that case. The case of the Shop Tax bill was similar. The proceedings, therefore, had been hitherto all regular, and the next step would be to hear out the case of the petitioners, and the observations of their counsel in summing, after which the house would decide whether it should order other witnesses to attend, or whether other evidence should be necessary. on Tuesday, with the view of their being made standing orders.-Ordered. The house then resolved itself into the committee, and proceeded with the examination of the remaining witnesses in support of the Petitions. Mr. Garland, Mr. Pollock, Mr. Mann, and Mr. Rathbone were the witnesses examined. After the examination was closed it was agreed by the gentlemen who conducted it on both sides, that progress should be reported, and that the committee should sit again on Tuesday. HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, March 25. [PATENTS.] The Earl of Lauderdale presented three motions with respect to applications for continuing the terms of Patents, directing that notice of every such application should be given in the London Gazette, 6 weeks previous to the meeting of parliament; that no application should be received, unless the term of the patent should be within two years of expiring; and that the person applying should bring proof that he was either the inventor or the representative of the inventor of the invention specified in the patent. His lordship moved, that these motions should be taken into consideration [JOURNALS OF THE HOUSE.] Lord Grenville took up the idea which of late had been frequently adverted to by many noble lords, viz. that of taking some measure for procuring a more regular printing of the journals of that house, together with fit Indexes to the same; and concluded with moving an instruction to that effect to the standing committee of the journals. Lord Hawkesbury most cheerfully concurred in the motion of the noble baron, and promised every support on his part, and on that of his colleagues, towards the accomplishment of so desirable an object. [ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.] The Orders in Council bill was read a third time. Lord Grenville re-urged several of his former arguments upon this subject, and contended that the evidence adduced in another place had proved the injurious effects of the Orders in Council, in the prevention of the export of our manufactures to America for the purpose of their being exported to Europe, and in the detention of American vessels bound to Europe, by which the remittances were to be procured, which were to pay for our manufactures exported to America. Lord Hawkesbury contended that the Orders in Council were calculated to benefit the trade of the country, and that they tended to that object was the opinion of the greater part of the merchants of London, and of the merchants of Liverpool, even those of the latter who were engaged in the American trade; and if the manufacturers in Yorkshire, or any other part of the country, had sustained losses, those losses were not to be attributed to the Orders in Council, but to other causes. Earl Grey argued that the assertions with respect to the benefit to be derived from the Orders in Council were not proved.-The amendment was negatived. A number of other amendments were subsequently moved by lords Auckland and Grenville, chiefly those which were moved and negatived in the committee. A long conversation took place upon them, which turned on the same points that formed the topics of discussion in the committee. The amendments were all negatived. Upon the Clause for limiting the period for bringing actions against those who may have acted under the Orders in Council, Lord Grenville moved an extension of the time mentioned in the clause, as from the period specified it was impossible that any American who had reason to complain could seek redress. Upon this a division took place, For the Amendment 19; against it 52. The bill was then read a third time and passed. [PROTEST AGAINST THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.] The following Protest against this Bill was entered upon the Journals: "Dissentient; 1st, Because the Bill appears to us to have been passed in manifest violation of the letter and spirit of the Standing Order of the house, No. 25. A. D. 1702, the maintenance of which Order is essential not only to the privileges of this house, but also to the fundamental principles of the government. 2dly, Because, the unprecedented manner in which Commercial Regulations of the highest importance are in this bill coupled with matter of Aid and Supply, and the precipitation with which the Bill has been hurried through the house, when evidence is about to be heard as to the effect of the late Orders in Council, in furtherance of which the bill is passed, give to this measure in our judgments a character which we are always unwilling to attach to any act of parliament. 3dly, Because, various Amendments proposed to be made to this Bill have been rejected, although the same were obviously necessary to give effect to those very provisions which the bill was intended to establish, and to remove doubts admitted to exist as to the legal construction of some of its most important provisions. 4thly, Because, the object is to give effect to the late Orders in Council, which it declares to have been expedient and necessary. Whereas, we conceive them to have been wholly unjust and unnecessary, and in the highest degree injurious to the most important interests of the country. (Signed) Grenville, Ponsonby, (earl of Eesborough), Nugent, (Buckingham) St. John, Spencer, Rawdon, (earl of Moira,) Erskine, Essex, Grey, Lauderdale, Ponsonby, (of Immohilly) Vassall Holland, Jersey, Clifton, (earl of Darnley,) Auckland." HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, March 25. [INDICTMENT BILL.] The Attorney General moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for amending the law with regard to the course of proceeding on Indictments and Informations in the court of King's Bench in certain cases; for autho Sir [SUGAR DISTILLERY COMMITTEE.] John Sebright gave notice, that he would, on Monday, move, that the names of some additional persons be annexed to the Sugar Distillery committee. Lord Binning thought it proper on this occasion to call the attention of the house to certain statements which appeared in the public newspapers, purporting that the Sugar Committee had come to a resolution to recommend the prohibition of the use of grain in distillation, and that the report would be made in a week. The committee had come to no resolution, nor could it be presumed what resolution they would come to. All he could say was, that the committee was pursuing the investigation of the subject with the diligence which the importance of the subject required, and the fidelity that the trust reposed by the house demanded. He could not say at what time the Report would be made, though the committee, for its own sake, would be anxious to terminate its sittings as soon as possible. He thought it right to say thus much, in order to correct any false or premature statements that might have gone abroad. The Speaker informed the noble lord, that it would be his duty to apply to that house for summary redress against any persons that should again so violate their privileges. Lord Binning pledged himself to the house, that if such a circumstance should again occur, he would bring it forthwith before the house. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, March 28. [MINUTES.] Mr. Biddulph, the chairman of the committee appointed to take into consideration the Petition complaining of an undue return for the borough of Penrhyn, reported, that the sitting member, Charles Lemon, esq. was duly elected, and that the said petition was frivolous and vexatious. Mr. M. Pitt, the chairman of the committee appointed to take into consideration the Petition complaining of an undue return for the brother of Stirling, reported that A. Campbell, esq. the sitting member, was duly elected, and that the said petition did not appear to them to be frivolous or vexatious. [IRISH EXPRESSES.] Mr. Parnell made his motion on this subject. During the last four years above 25,000l. had been paid by the Post Masters General of Great Britain, towards the establishment of Government Expresses from London to Dub-ly on the injurious effects which the prelin, without parliamentary authority. He wished to know, therefore, under what authority that sum had been paid. He wished also to obtain information respecting the steps intended to be taken for the improvement of the regular communication by mails and packets between London and Dublin. He repeated the statements which he made on a former night, respecting the exclusive communications which had been made by the Irish government to the editor of a Dublin newspaper, by which he was enabled to anticipate his contemporaries; and contended that such a practice must in evitably ruin the other Irish papers, and materially injure the liberty of the press. He trusted, therefore, to the candour and liberality of the hon. bart. that he would abandon this obnoxious practice. He moved, That there be laid before the house, a return, showing by what authority the Post-Master General of Great Britain had paid the sum of 25,0971. for Government Expresses between London and Dublin, from the 1st of Jan. 1804, to the 1st of Jan. 1808. | part of the subject it appeared to him, that although one set of papers could only be sent to one place, it would be an easy matter to let the different editors have access to them. He again insisted strong Sir A. Wellesley had no objection whatever to the motion. As to the communications which had been made by the Irish government to the editor of a Dublin newspaper, they had been made, because when an express did arrive, it was deemed expedient not to withhold from the Irish public the intelligence brought by it: they had been made to the editor of that paper, because it was the only daily evening paper published in Dublin; and they had been made to him alone, because it was not practicable to send one set of papers to more than one place. He repeated that the paper in question was by no means in the interest of government, but was totally unconnected with it. With regard to the information respecting the improvement of the ordinary intercourse between the two countries, the subject had engaged the serious attention of Government, who had for some time been concerting measures with the Post-master General for the attainment of so desirable an object. trusted therefore, that the hon. gent. would not press his motion on that subject. sent system of partiality must necessarily Mr. Secretary Canning said he could only repeat, that as to the best of his recollection, no communication on the point alHeluded to by the hon. gent. had taken place. He did not say, that no communication had passed within the period alluded to; but certainly nothing like that stated by the hon. member.. As to the questions Mr. Parnell acquiesced in the wish just expressed by the hon. bart. On the other put to his noble friend, he could only say, that if in his place, he should not feel it his duty to give any farther explanation than that given on a former night, as to the person by whom the expression was used. Lord G. L. Gower said, the expression bad been communicated by him to some person in this country, he believed, in a private letter. Mr. Whitbread gave notice that he should move for this communication, with the date of which he hoped the noble lord would favour him, on the first open day. [OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.] Mr. Bankes rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to prevent, for a time to be limited, the granting of Offices in Reversion, or for joint lives, with the benefit of survivorship. Two principal reasons had originally actuated the committee of which he had the honour to be chairman, in recommending a bill of this kind to the consideration of the house. The first was an opinion that there was no utility in granting Offices in Reversion, but that it would be of infinitely greater advantage, both to the persons performing services to the state and also to the government itself, that an opportunity should be afforded, at the time a vacancy happened, of considering who was best qualified to supply it, than that it should be disposed of long before there was any prospect of a vacancy, thereby affording an opportunity to those in power at the time, of bestowing such offices on persons not meriting by their services any mark of public favour. The other was a consideration merely financial; it appearing to the committee to be advisable that the power of granting Offices in Reversion should be suspended, till they should have concluded their inquiries as to what offices were fit to be abolished, and what to be reformed. In what he should state to-day, he begged it to be understood, that he did not depart from any thing he had said when he first introduced this measure; he trusted the house would be actuated by similar sentiments, and would not so suddenly and lightly depart from what, in a former parliament, they had resolved unanimously, and in the last and present parliament had passed, though not unanimously, yet nearly so. He was one of those persons who wished to do all the good he could, where he was not allowed to do all the good he wished. Therefore, he should not to-day give any opinion on the first of the two points to which he had alluded, except merely to lay in his own claim to consistency in feeling his conviction of the propriety of the measure in no respect shaken. What he meant now to do, was to confine himself to the financial view of the subject, and to the giving time to the committee to report what offices should be abolished, and what reformed, before any additional grants in reversion were made. Another inducement which he had to proceed in this shape was, that it appeared to have been the opinion of persons in the other house, that such an alteration would have been advisable. He was at all times averse from agitating any question which might create differences of opinion between the two branches of the legislature; he would be willing even to sacrifice something, on such an occasion, to prejudice, where it was not connected with any general question. Harmony was peculiarly desirable at the present moment; and he hoped, that limiting the duration of the bill to such a period as would enable the committee to make their report, would have the effect of removing every objection which had been urged to it in another place. As to the question of prerogative, he begged to express every respect and regard for the feelings of the executive government; but, at the same time, he could not carry his deference for it so far, as to believe that any office in a free constitution could be established, but on account of the public service; and if, from accident, or change of circumstances, offices of duty became offices of sinecure, so that the establishment of other offices of duty became necessary, he could not agree that these useless sinecure offices ought, on that account, to be retained. It was but fair that the public should be assured that the money drawn from them was not lavishly expended in sinecureplaces, and it would be a satisfaction to them to understand that those places of duty which were retained, were far from being overpaid. It was chiefly sinecure offices which were granted in reversion. It was therefore the more necessary that the granting of them should be suspended, at least for such a period as would enable the committee to make their report. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in the bill for a time to be limited. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, though he had no objection whatever to the motion of his hon. friend, thought it but candid to state to him, that, in all probability | subject would more properly come before them when the report of the Financial Committee had been presented. he should feel it to be his duty to propose abolition, or any alteration that his maseveral amendments to the bill in its pro- jesty, with the advice of parliament, might gress through the house. He agreed fully think proper to make in it. These prowith the hon. gent. as to the expediency positions would, in his opinion, meet the of preserving a good understanding be- views of his hon. friend, and might at the tween the two houses of parliament; and same time relieve the bill from the dantherefore, although he allowed that these ger which had hitherto been so fatal to it. were objects of such importance, that even With respect to the pensions mentioned the risque of a breach ought to be incur- by his hon. friend, it would be found on red rather than they should be abandoned, examination, that they were chiefly in yet as he had always considered the pre- the revenue departments, granted to persent measure as of no very great import- sons grown old in the exercise of their ance, and had always so expressed him- official duties. He was convinced that self upon it, he would rather oppose its they were of a description which the production than admit it, were he appre-house would never wish to abolish; but this hensive that such an unpleasant consequence would ensue. But it was probable the bill might be so framed as to answer all the chief objects of the persons most attached to the measure, and at the same time be exempted from opposition elsewhere. It was in that view he meant to recommend his amendments. His hon. friend had stated, and he wished it could have been stated more regularly, that an amendment to the last bill had been proposed in the committee of the house of lords, by which amendment he meant to be regulated in the construction of the present bill. Now, as that amendment had been negatived, to proceed upon it in the formation of the present bill, appeared to him to be the sure way of incurring the evil which it was so desireable to avoid. One of the great objections also that had been made to the bill in another place, was that it destroyed a prerogative of the crown, without such a previous enquiry into a demonstration of abuse, as would warrant parliament in their interference. That objection, in its degree, must apply to the bill as it was proposed to be introduced by his hon. friend. There were two great objects which the house had in view in this measure; the first was to obviate improvident grants, by attaching immediate instead of remote responsibility to the advisers of those grants. To remedy this, he should propose a clause, by which no grant should be considered valid until it had been publicly announced in the London Gazette. The other great object which the house had in view was, that their expectations of any reform or retrenchment resulting from the report of the Committee of Finance should not be disappoint ed. For this purpose, it was his intention to propose that for a limited period, every reversionary grant should be subject to The Hon. J. W. Ward, after having stated the benefits which the adoption of this measure would afford, observed, that the principal cause of his regret at its having been lost in the other house was, that it showed that that branch of the legislature was not disposed to assist the house of commons in redeeming the pledge which they had a few years ago given the people to enquire into and to reform public abuses. That their lordships had been actuated by the sincerest wishes for the public advantage, he would not deny; but he certainly did not think that the wisdom of their decision corresponded with the purity of their motives. He was ready fairly to own, that he did not look upon economy as a means of considerably alleviating the public burthens. But although it would not do so much as some expected, and as all wished, it would be consoling for the house to reflect, that under the present circumstances of the country, when the people were called upon for such extraordinary sacrifices, every thing had been done by the legislature to prevent an unnecessary aggravation of their hardships. There existed in the country a description of persons encreasing with the weakness of the countrypersons unconnected with any party in parliament, but whose great object was to decry parliament altogether. The leaders taught, and the followers believed, that parliament disregarded the interests of their constituents. This was a danger daily augmenting; the only way of meeting it was, by a conduct that should not only be free from guilt, but also free from suspicion; by adopting measures that should show unequivocally the disposition of parliament to correct public abuses, |