conveniently fed, they were to be allowed to starve. He then affirmed that it was utterly impossible to prevent bark finding its way to France, for a smuggling vessel could carry at once as much as would be sufficient to render the bill a perfect nullity, as a measure of privation. The measure was one of detestable cruelty, and at the same time of consummate folly. Sir C. Price considered it a bill which was likely to distress the enemy, and of course likely to serve this country. Mr. M. A. Taylor opposed the measure, which there was every ground to conclude, would serve no purpose whatever, except, that of bringing disgrace on the nation. Mr. Perceval said, that the arguments advanced on the score of humanity might be applied to any bill which tended to retaliate on the enemy his schemes of attack on Great Britain; for instance, it might be said by those who opposed this bill on the ground of humanity, that we ought not to pass the cotton bill because it will affect thousands of manufacturers in France. But were we to abstain from punishing our enemy, because we could not distress, in person, the individual at the head of the French government? Were we never to attempt to redress ourselves against his subjects, who furnished to him the means of inJuring and attacking us? Surely it was hardly necessary to state the cases, in order to carry conviction to the mind of every one who heard of the imperious call on this country for resorting to every kind of justifiable warfare, for our security and independence. Mr. IV. Smith, opposed, the bill from a sentiment of humanity. Our permission of the exportation of bark in the present instance, or our doing any other act that would shew an inclination to be generous towards our enemy, would, if it did rot inspire him with respect for our character, and a desire of conciliation, at least tend to elevate the name of England, amongst other nations; whilst an opposite line of conduct must inevitably tend to depress us, not only in the estimation of the enemy, but of the world at. large. He then read a letter from an officer in our squadron off Cadiz, stating, that the kindness and humanity of the Spanish fishermen, in supplying our fleet with fish, fruit, ve getables, &c. was carried on to such an extent, and in such an open manner, that it must have been done with the concurrence of the Spanish government. This he contrasted with the conduct of our present ministers, in having framed such a detestable measure as that which was then before the house. Sir IV. Efford supported the bill. A bullet was as dangerous as a dysentery; and in his opinion we ought to do every thing in our power to prevent the supply or accommodation of our enemy. Mr. Lushington condemned the principle of the bill, as likely to affect our national character for humanity, because if it passed into a law, it would in reality amount to a prohibition of this useful and almost indispensable ingredient for the restoration of health amongst the lower and poorer orders of people on the continent. Mr. Gordon strongly argued in support of the commitment of the bill. Lord Milton was impelled, from every consideration of the probable evil consequences of this bill, if carried into a law, to enter his hearty protest against it. 1 A division took place on the question, that the Speaker do leave the chair, "when there appeared:For it 92. | Against it 29. Mr. Tierney having complained of irregular conversation in that house, and stated his intention to make the complaint the object of a specific motion at some future period. The Speaker addressed the house in refutation of the charge of partiality. Mr. Canning afterwards moved a vote of approbation of the upright, able, and impartial conduct of Mr. Abbot, in the chair, and it was carried with the solitary negative of Mr. Tierney. Thursday, March 17. Mr. Sumner moved that the reports of the grand jury, who in February examined Cold Bath Prison, as also a report of a committee of the magistrates of the county, on the same subject, should be referred to a committee appointed by government, to inquire into the petition complaining of abuses in that gaol. Mr. Perceval thought that the business should be left in the first instance to government, though he had no objection to the motion. Sir F. Burdett confessed, that he stood in the predicament of differing in sentiment with those who had spoken upon the subject. In the first place, he protested against the doctrine of leaving the grievances of the people to be redressed by what one honourable gentleman had pompously denominated his Majesty's government, or in other words, by the administration of the day. The honourable gentleman who had brought forward the present motion, seemed to entertain the most perverse notions of the nature of the petition which it was possible to enter into the head of man. A petition presented to that house praying for a redress of grievances on the part of the people, he had construed into a charge against the magistrates of the county, and the only reason he adduced for inquiring into the matter of the petition was the vindication of the characters of these magitrates. He contended on the contrary, that the petition had nothing to do with the characters of the magistrates of the county, and that if any of the magistrates were implicated, it was the committee, at the head of which was Mr. Mainwaring, and whose duty it was to superintend the due execution of the regulations for the management of the prison. He was convinced, that if the house of Com their mons did not appoint a committee of own for the purpose of investigating the complaints of the petition, neither the petitioners nor the country would be satisfied. The honourable gentleman had thought fit to attribute improper motives to the petitioners, because they had not addressed themselves to the secretary of state before applying to that bouse. But he thought that the business had been quite long enough in the hands of government. It was first brought forward in 1799, since which nothing had been done to redress those grievances complained of, and he did not wonder that those who were subjected to them despaired of obtaining any relief from that quarter. Neither was he astonished at the objections which had been started to the appointment of a committee of the house of Commons by Mr. Perceval, be the result of a public investigation. aware, as he must be, of what would Restricted, as were the powers of the former commission, because it had no and, notwithstanding the long warning authority to make retrospective inquiry, and time which had been given to the gaoler to prepare for their inquiry, it appeared from the report then made, that he had set at nought the regulations of the magistrates, and the authority of the laws. And by the late report of the members of the grand jury, it appeared that the prison weights were short of the legal standard-that innocent men were confined in irons-that the guoler was in the habit of whipping and beating the prisoners by his own authority-that he was in the habit of borrowing money, and accepting bribes from the prisoners, or, as the report expressed it-that the prisoners had found out the secret of suiting their proposals to the wants of the governor. The honourable baronet said also, that he should be able to prove something respecting the governor's daughters, which, till proof is brought in support of the allegation, we shall forbear to state. He concluded with expressing a hope, that the house would interfere in a business which was at all times important, but which was particularly so at the present time. Mr. Mellish spoke in favour of the motion, and denied several of the charges which had been brought against Governor Aris. Mr. Sumner then moved that a report made by the grand jury in February last, on the state of the prison, should be laid before the committec. Mr. Sheridan contended that he was borne out in saying, that the second report of the grand jury corroborated generally the complaint of abuses contained in the petition which he had formerly presented. He then alluded to the case of the foreigner mentioned in that petition, and contended that there was every reason to suppose that the severe treatment he had met with had occasioned his insanity. Mr. Sumner said, that this foreigner had been taken up as a spy, and coufined under the provisions of the alien act. Sir F. Burdett was of opinion, that even though a committee should be appointed, no report of theirs could clear the character of Aris, the jailor, who had himself confessed many of the enormities of which he had been guilty, Indeed he doubted whether the superintendence and investigation of any committee whatever could prevent abuses in a prison so constructed, where there were at least 300 cells, and where all their wretched inhabitants were subject to the caprice of the jailor. It was the very nature and constitution of the prison which he chiefly found fault with. It had been first erected upon the plan recommended by the late Mr. Howard; but the experiment had completely failed of suc cess. There appeared to him something fastonishing in the protection which hung about Aris, He knew it to be a fact, that that man had been a collector of parochial taxes for a certain parish, and that having become a defaulter, he had been recommended by that parish to fill the situation which he now held, from the hope that he would thus be able to make good the sums in which he had been deficient. Such was the man to whom the reform of two or three hundred individuals had been entrusted. But the principal object which he should have in view in all discussions on this subject, would be to put an end, if possible, to that scandalous and absurd species of solitary imprisonment exemplified in this prison, and which was so inconsistent with the free spirit of our constitution. He himself had visited it three or four times before he discovered the dungeons to which miserable wretches were confined, excluded from air and common light, aud he never could have known or suspected these facts but from some private intelligence he had received respecting a prisoner of the name of Jones, whose situation had been de scribed to him, and when he asked for him, the jailor and turnkey seemed surprised he should have known of his being there. On his being brought out, he found him with his head bound up, and in a very emaciated state. He said, that Mr. Aris had beaten him, which Aris did not deny, but said he' would treat every fellow so who should behave with the insolence that the pri soner had done. He thought the house was bound to consider the mischiefs of this new mode of imprisonment; and what effect such a system must produce in the minds of the people if it were allowed to be persisted in. He would therefore submit to the house to take into its consideration what was the best mode of ameliorating the pitiable condition of these poor and miserable creatures, who were pining in these abodes of wretchedness and woe, hitherto without pity and without redress. Mr. Perceval was of opinion, that it was not the business nor the province of the house to appoint the officers who were to have the direction and actual management of the prisoners. He con sidered that this fell under the juris diction of the magistrates for the county of Middlesex. Notwithstanding the allegations which had been thrown out against the conduct of Mr. Aris, no fucts were brought forward to prove that he exceeded the due bounds of his autho rity, or the practice usually observed in the treatment of the prisoners; on the contrary, it was not to be denied that the governor had shewn every act of kindness and good treatment towards them, that was compatible with his situ ation! He therefore thought that there were not sufficient facts before the house to justify it to appoint a committee to enquire into the grievances complained of, but that the better mode would be to appoint commissioners for that purpose. Sir F. Burdett, in explanation, said, that the grievances complained of, and so necessary to be redressed, did not fall so properly under the inspection of n commission as that of a committee of the house. Lord Folkstone saw much reason for appointing a committee in preference to a commission, and he trusted the house would be also of this opinion, and that the hon. baronet (Sir F. Burdett) would be one of the committee. Mr. Wilberforce could not form any particular judgment respecting the real existence of the grievances complained of, from the general arguments which were advanced in proof of their reality. It was, however, possible they did exist; yet he could not help doubting of the truth of the charges which were brought againgst the governor of the prison. On the whole a commission, appointing well qualified persons to inspect the prison and to report, seemed to him preferable to a committee of the house. Mr. W. Smith thought that there was something very mysterious in the management of the concerns of the prison, and he believed that it was owing to party feeling that Mr. Aris was at this monient the governor of that place. He thought a committee infinitely preferable to a commission to carry the inquiry into effect. Mr. Brand spoke in recommendation of a committee. Mr Sheridan having restated that no steps had been taken in consequence of the report of the commission, and having mentioned that a poor man of the name of Dickie was now in prison, and was likely to continue so for life, for damages given against him for a libel on Mr. Aris, notwithstanding the facts stated in the commissioners' report, moved, that the petition on the table be referred to a select committee. Mr. Perceval opposed the motion. Mr. Whitbread contended that there did exist sufficient grounds for the suspension of Mr. Aris from his office, on account of the grievous complaints which were preferred against hun. He supported the appointment of a committee of enquiry. The question was then called for, and the house divided, when there appeared For the committee 50 Against it 75. Friday, March 18. Col. Stanley presented a petition from Manchester, having nearly 50,000 signatures. The Peruvian bark prohibition bill, after a division of 73 to 30, was read a third time and passed. Counsel was heard in support of the London, Liverpool, and Manchester petitions against the orders in council; and Messrs. Palmer, Glenning, and Bell were examined in support of the allegations contained in them.-The further examination was deferred till Tuesday.— Adjourned to Monday. Monday, March 21. Mr. Baring alluding to what had fallen from Mr. Rose on a former night, that the export trade of this country had increased, instead of being diminished, by the orders in council, moved, for the purpose of ascertaining this fact, that there be laid before the house an account of the real value of all merchandize exported from Great Britain from the 10th. of October 1807, to the 15th. of March, 1808, distinguishing the port from whence exported. Mr. Rose denied that he had said the exports had increased.-He had only said they were greater in the 9 weeks prior to the issuing of the orders than in the corresponding 9 weeks of the preceding year. He had no objection to the motion, which was agreod to. COPENHAGEN. Mr. Sharpe rose, and said that the public had a right to call for the most ample information respect ing the actual hostility of Denmark to this country, which had induced his Majesty to forbear and abstain from hostilities until the very last moment. At least the country had a most unquestionable right to learn the grounds upon which such idea. of hostility had been founded. Ministers had captured the Danish ships and the arsenal with stores. That was an important fact, but it was a libel on the people to refuse to show the grounds on which ministers justified such an act. The peuple had a right to know why we had bombarded the capital of a nation with which we were in a state of strict neutrality. He denied that ministers had any genuine information in regard to the immediate or ultimate views of Denmark; and that they had acted upon a most wild and vague presumption that Denmark was driven into hostility against this country. He contended that there was no shadow of evidence to the contrary and if there was, ministers would readily produce it in their exculpation. He then descanted forcibly upon the inability of Denmark to enter into a war with Great Britain, urging at the same time that ministers were fully apprised of that inability, and also of the disinclination of Denmark to enter into such a struggle. All that ministers had got by the expedition was 16 hulls of ships of war, valued at 81. a ton. After some further remarks, the hon. gentleman concluded a speech that lasted two hours and a half, by moying a long address to his Majesty, condemnatory of the conduct of his ministers in regard to the expedition to Copenhagen. Mr. Wortley moved a negative to the address, and proposed a vote of thanks to his Majesty's ministers. Whitbread's acrimony and invective, tending to the degradation of the ministry, whom he was always calumniating most forcibly, and applauding the wisdom and vigilance of Bonaparte. He should profit by the hon. gentleman's precepts but disdain his example. The house divided-For the motion 64; against it 224.-Majority 161. Mr. Wortfey then moved a vote of approbation of the conduct of ministry with respect to, the Copenhagen expedition. The previous question on this was moved and negatived. They then divided on Mr. W's. motion— Ayes 216, noes 61.-Majority 155. [For an account and Remarks on the above debate, see Polit. Review, p. xlii-xlix.] F Tuesday, March 22. Sir C. Pole, after stating the commission of King William in favour of Greenwich Hospital, and the clause in the charter granted by his present Majesty, stipulating that no officers should be employed about the hospital, unless they were seafaring men, or men who had been disabled in the service, moved an address to his Majesty, beseeching him to order that the charter should in future be strictly acted up to. Mr. W.Orde supported the motion, Mr. Perceval approved of the inand said he was astonished that not- tention of the hon. member, but withstanding the ministers had been doubted the adequacy of the proposo often called upon to give some sition now made to secure the ends proof of the disposition of Denmark in view. He therefore moved that in favour of France, the house was the offices of surveyor, auditor, orstill left without a shadow of evi-ganist, and brewer, be excepted dence with respect to their hostile attack on Copenhagen. Mr. Whitbread in a long and impressive speech supported the motion of Mr. Sharpe, and censured all the conduct of ministers in regard to Copenhagen which he condemned in toto. Why, he asked according to the new morality, were they so shabby in their iniquity? Why did they not seize the flotilla of Sweden ? Mr. Canning complained of Mr. from the general rule; that with these exceptions no landsmen be competent to hold a situation in Greenwich hospital, unless, after previous advertisement, no seaman properly qualified should offer; and that an address be presented to his Majesty, praying him to alter the charter accordingly. This was unanimously agreed to. Wednesday, March 23,-... Col. Long field presented a petition from Cork against the orders in |