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. [SUGAR DISTILLERY COMMITTEE.] John Sebright gave notice, that he would, on Monday, move, that the names of some additional persons be annexed to the Su [PROTEST AGAINST THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.] The following Protest against this Bill was entered upon the Journals: Dissentient; 1st, Because the Bill ap-gar Distillery committee. pears 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 Besborough), Nugent, (Buckingham) St. John, Spencer, Rawdon, (earl of Moira,) Erskine, Essex, Grey, Lauderdale, Ponsonby, (of Immohilly) Vassall Holland, Jersey, Clifton, (earl of Darnley,) Auckland." 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. 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 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. sent system of partiality must necessarily produce, both on the individuals immediately affected, and on the Irish public at large. The motion was then agreed to, as were also two subsequent motions by the same hon. gent. for an Account of any sums which had been repaid to the Post Master General, and by what authority; and for an Account of the Expence of King's Messengers from 1801 to 1808. [IRISH EXPRESSES.] Mr. Parnell made | part of the subject it appeared to him, his motion on this subject. During the that although one set of papers could only last four years above 25,000l. had been be sent to one place, it would be an easy paid by the Post Masters General of Great matter to let the different editors have Britain, towards the establishment of Go- access to them. He again insisted strongvernment 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. 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. He trusted therefore, that the hon. gent. would not press his motion on that subject. Mr. Parnell acquiesced in the wish just expressed by the hon. bart. On the other [AUSTRIAN MEDIATION.] Mr. Whitbread rose to ask a question he had once before put to the right hon. secretary, and to which, if he understood it well, he had then received an answer in the negative. The question was if no communication had passed between the court of Vienna and this country, from April to Oct. last? Since he had received the answer to which he alluded, the Declaration had appeared, and it afforded information, that in July certain propositions had been submitted to this country from the court of Vienna; and that an answer to them had been returned from this country, which he (Mr. W.) should suppose must have gone through the hands of the right hon. secretary. He now wished to ask that right hon. gent. if he had any recollection of such intermediate communication; or, if he was to understand that the assertion in the Austrian Declaration was false? He had two other questions to put to a noble lord, whom he now saw in the house (lord G. L. Gower); first, if the expression stated on a former night, to have been used to him, il faut pour le moment menager l'Angleterre,' had been communicated to ministers at home, in any of his dispatches at the time? The other, if he believed that such letter or other communication was in existence, that he would favour him with the date of it, as it was his (Mr. W.'s) intention to move for it, that it might be seen who the person was who used that expression? Mr. Secretary Canning said he could only repeat, that as to the best of his recollection, no communication on the point al luded 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 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 had 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 he 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 he should feel it to be his duty to propose several amendments to the bill in its progress through the house. He agreed fully with the hon. gent. as to the expediency of preserving a good understanding between the two houses of parliament; and therefore, although he allowed that these were objects of such importance, that even the risque of a breach ought to be incurred rather than they should be abandoned, yet as he had always considered the present measure as of no very great importance, and had always so expressed himself upon it, he would rather oppose its production than admit it, were he apprehensive 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 disappointed. For this purpose, it was his intention to propose that for a limited period, every reversionary grant should be subject to abolition, or any alteration that his majesty, with the advice of parliament, might think proper to make in it. These propositions would, in his opinion, meet the views of his hon. friend, and might at the same time relieve the bill from the danger which had hitherto been so fatal to it. With respect to the pensions mentioned by his hon. friend, it would be found on examination, that they were chiefly in the revenue departments, granted to persons grown old in the exercise of their official duties. He was convinced that they were of a description which the house would never wish to abolish; but this subject would more properly come before them when the report of the Financial Committee had been presented. 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, and to reduce the public expenditure. | ministers, and was surprised how those to whom he alluded (looking at Mr. Canning) could possibly so far demean themselves as to submit so completely to this influence; for it appeared from the paper in his hand [the extract from the Lords' Journals], that the ministers were not the confidential advisers of the crown. Among the many strong objections to the present ministers as a body, there was this serious one, that they had contributed in almost an unprecedented degree, to the increase of the power of the secret faction; and they now reaped the fruits of their conduct in the degradation of office. He was no friend to the present administration; but such as it was, while it did last, he wished it to be invested with the power which belonged to it, and that it should not be degraded by a subjection to court influence. He cordially supported the motion; if he had any objection to the proposition of his hon. friend, it was, that he did not submit the bill in a shape as nearly resembling the former one as was compatible with the rules of parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in explanation repeated, that in his opinion-an opinion which he had before expressed in the house, the measure was not of considerable importance. The amendments which he had described he should propose to the house for the express purpose of endeavouring to carry into effect more securely the objects in view. Mr. W. Dundas professed to entertain the highest respect for the Committee of Finance, but he could not help thinking, that the rights of the crown ought to be held equally sacred with the rights of the people, and that by sanctioning a bill of the nature of that now moved for, these rights would be essentially invaded, for the circumstance of its operation being restricted to limited time, did not at all change the obnoxious nature of its principle. Whether it was to be of perpetual or only temporary duration, it was equally an infringement of the legitimate rights of the crown. The hon. gent. who had supported the measure, talked as if he had been arraigning the other house of parliament in rejecting the former bill for sanctioning some enormous abuse, or for usurping some prerogative which did not belong to it; whereas no abuse had ever been proved to exist, and the house of lords had merely exercised a right which was vested in it by the constitution. He gave it as his opinion, that the bill, either in its for |