that so far as he was personally concerned with any of the items in the account, every thing had been conducted with the utmost attention to economy. The account for snuff-boxes, it should be observed, was for two years and a half, and did not exceed those of former periods. Such presents had long been customary on the exchange of Treaties. Out of 22 presents of this kind from foreign Courts, in the last two years, only five had come to his share, and they should certainly be transmitted to his heirs, as memorials of the transactions wherein he had been engaged.

Sir M. W. Ridley, in objecting to several of the charges, gave the Noble Lord credit for having, on one occasion, considerably lessened the expence of presents, by exchanging one only in the lieu of

Mr. M. A. Taylor brought up the Report of the Committee on the petition from Mary-le-bonne against the Water Companies. He said, as those Companies had evaded all former statutes, he hoped one would now be so framed as to compel them to supply the metropolis with water at a moderate rate.

Mr. Lambton presented a petition from the London booksellers, for a repeal of the Copy Right Act. He stated during the four last years Messrs. Longman and Co. had lost upwards of 3000%. and Mr. Murray 12757. by the delivery of the eleven copies required by the Act.

Mr. J. Smith brought up a Bill to alter and amend the Bankrupt Laws, which was read the first time, and ordered to be read a second time.

The Report of the Committee appointed to enquire into the proceedings at the Penryn election, was agreed to; and, on the motion of Mr. A. Wright, it was ordered that the Attorney General should prosecute Mr. Swann, for various acts of bribery, and John Goodyer, Henry Dunsford, and Abraham Winn, for corrupt practices during the said election.

In a Committee of Supply, various sums were voted for making good various deficiencies in the votes of last year for the contingent expences of the Treasury, the Secretaries of State, the Privy Council, and the Lord Chamberlain's departments. On a Resolution being proposed 60,000l. towards the completion of the Penitentiary at Milbank, Mr. Alderman Wood objected to the expence charged

for

for a steam engine, and to the general scale of the expenditure, and moved to reduce the grant to 40,000Z.; but, after a long and general conversation, he withdrew the amendment, aud the original resolution was agreed to.

The sum of 5000. for completing the Caledonian Canal was also voted, after some opposition from Lord Carhampton.

On the question for the third reading of the Bill for repealing the Trial by Battle and the right of appeal, Sir R. Wilson opposed it, as removing a great bulwark against the introduction of a military government, and consummating the infringement made on the constitution by the Riot Act.

Alderman Wood also opposed it. On a division, the question was carried in the affirmative by 64 to 2, and the Bill was passed.

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 23.

The Royal Assent was given, by commission, to the Mutiny Bill, the Marine Mutiny Bill, the Indemnity Bill, the Aliens and Denizens' Bill, the Steam Vessels' Tonnage Bill, the Plate Glass Bill, the Exchequer Bills Bill, and a number of private Bills.

In the Commons the same day, Mr. Broug ham presented two petitions complaining of improper conduct on the part of Governor M'Quarrie, of New South Wales. After a long conversation, in the course of which several Members spoke highly of the character of Governor M'Quarrie, the petition was ordered to be laid on the table.

A motion by Sir J. Newport, for an Address to the Regent, praying that an enquiry be made into the power assumed by the Lords of Session in Scotland to declare statutes, or parts of statutes, to be obsolete, or in desuetude, was, after some discussion, negatived by 33 to 15.

March 24.

Mr. M. A. Taylor obtained leave to bring in a Bill to enable the inhabitants of Mary-le-bone to contract with whatever water companies they may think proper, for a regular supply of water.

Sir J. Graham addressed the House on the case of the London Clergy. Though their petition had been declared unfounded by a Committee, he had ascertained its accuracy as to the claim which, but for the passing of the Fire Act, they had under an Act of Henry VIII. and a decree of the Court of Chancery. The augmentation which they had received in 1804 was not sufficient to support them in that rank of life in which it was their lot to move. He concluded with moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend an Act passed in the 44th year of his present Ma

jesty,

jesty, entitled "An Act for the Relief of certain Incumbents of Livings in the City of London."

Mr. D. W. Harvey contended, that the Committee had come to a proper decision. The Act of Henry VIII. was inoperative, the decree given under it not having been enrolled in the terms of the Act; and it had been foisted into the petition for no other purpose than to serve as a screen for the rapacity of the clergy, whose object was, by degrees, to exact one sixth of the rack rental of the city of London.

After a considerable discussion, in which Mr. Dent, Mr. Alderman Wood, and Mr.Alderman Waithman, opposed the motion, and Mr. Wrottesley, Sir W. Curtis, Mr. Gipps, Sir T. Baring, Mr. Williams Wynn, Mr. Peel, Mr. Plunkett, and Mr. Wilberforce, gave it their support; the motion was agreed to.

March 25.

Mr. S. Bourne, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the settlement of the poor, stated the hardships to which the poor were, in several cases, subjected by the present law of settlement, and the expence to which parishes were put by the Jitigations arising out of it. He should propose that a settlement should be gained by a three years residence; but, if others were for five years, he should not object to it. The period of absence to defeat a settlement, he would fix at 90 days.

After some observations from Mr. Atkins, Mr. Wright, Mr. Curwen, and Mr. Western, the motion was agreed to.

Mr. S. Bourne, after some further conversation, also obtained leave to bring in a Bill to prevent the msapplication of the poor's rates, by giving, as practised at present in several places, parochial relief in part payment of wages to labourers.

March 26.

Mr. J. Smith presented a petition from Messrs. Lackington and Co. against the Copyright Act. (See p. 272.)

The

Sir J. Mackintosh presented a petition for reform in the Scotch burghs. whole population of those burghs, he said, amounted to 480,000, of whom 410,000 had already petitioned for this reform.

Lord. Althorp complained that William Stinton, a private in the first regiment of guards, whilst in attendance on the Committee on the Worcester election, had been arrested in the lobby of the House, and tried by a court martial, for absence from parade, occasioned by his attendance on the said Committee. After a long discussion, it was ordered that Stinton, and the serjeant who arrested him, should be forthwith brought to the bar of the House. This case, at a subsequent period of the evening, occupied the atten

tion of the House, when the parties attended, and the matter was at length satisfactorily explained.

March 29.

Sir J. Graham moved for the second reading of the London Clergy Bill.

Mr. Bennett, Mr. F. Douglas, and Mr. Waithman objected to the step as too precipitate, as numerous petitions were about to be presented against the measure.

Sir W. Curtis repeated his assertion, that the Clergyman who held the living of St. Peter's, Cornhill, only received 3007. a year, and not 6007. as had been stated on a former evening. He hoped that some Hon. Gentlemen who spoke on the previous night had repented of the character they then gave the City clergy.

Mr. Alderman Wood said the stipend was 2001. and the glebe was worth 4327. a year. After several other Members had spoken in favour of postponement,

Sir J. Graham insisted, that the fullest notice had been given: as to the amount of stipends, he should himself vote against any increase, unless the clergymen resided and performed the duties of the several parishes; he had told them so, and that be would not support any extravagant proposition. The motion for reading the Bill a second time was carried by 82 to 34.

Mr. Waithman presented a petition from the inhabitants of the parish of St. Michael, Bassishaw, in the City of London, against the claims of the Clergy of the City. The Honourable Alderman said that he did not see that the condition of the London clergy alone ought to be ameliorated. If no other member would undertake the task, he would bring the situation of the whole of the Clergy in the kingdom under the consideration of Parliament.

On the motion of Sir Robert Wilson, the matter of complaint against Mr. Quin was gone into. Mr. Quin then rose, and gave a detail of the transactions between himself and Mr. Grady. In conclusion, he declared he had never intended to act corruptly or immorally; if he had in the course of the transaction acted wrong, he hoped it would be attributed to an error of his judgment. He should throw himself with confidence on the candour of the House, and retire.

Sir Robert Wilson, having commented at some length upon the examinations taken at the bar, moved several Resolutions, which went to declare that Mr. Quin had violated the purity of election, the privileges of Parliament, and the duties of Custos Rotulorum.

Mr. Bootle Wilbraham moved counter Resolutions,tending to negative every thing criminative in those of Sir R. Wilson:

they

they were to the effect that though Mr. Quin had promised 2007. a-year to the petitioner out of the receipts of the office, it was unconnected with any condition for political support-that that demand was first made by Mr. Carew Smyth in September, but withdrawn on the 11th of October following. That House could not pass over the existence of such an intention, or the demand of such support, with out expressing its disapprobation; and that if the demand had been persisted in, an offence would have been committed, which that House would not fail to have visited with the severest reprobation.

Mr. F. Douglas remarked, that the disposition or resolution of Mr. Quin to commit this offence was, through the minute adduced by Mr. Carew Smyth, as clearly established as any fact could be where only two parties were concerned.

Sir James Mackintosh contrasted the evidence of Mr. Carew Smyth with that given by Mr. Goold. The former had delivered his statement in so clear and satisfactory a manner, as to produce in his behalf the most favourable impression. Whereas that of the latter, whether wilful or unintentional, was so extremely defective, that it must be struck out altogether.

The

Messrs. Plunkett and Grattan endeavoured to exculpate Mr. Quin. speech of the former produced an extraordinary impression on the House.

Messrs. John Smith, Brougham, Wynn, and Sir J. Newport, spoke in favour of Sir R. Wilson's motion.

The first three Resolutions of Sir R. Wilson were then agreed to. On the fourth, Mr. Wilbraham's amendment was carried by 162 to 73.

Mr.Lambton then moved that Mr. Goold, having prevaricated in his evidence, be committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms.

Mr. Brougham attributed that gentleman's contradictory statement to a lapse of memory.

Lord Nugent thought Mr. Goold guilty of deliberate falsehood.

On a division, this motion was negatived by 134 to 8.

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 30. The Bill regulating the Windsor Establishment went through a Committee. The Grant of 10,000l. per annum to the Duke of York as Custos, caused some discussion. Earl Grey, Lord Darnley, Lord King, and the Marquis of Lansdown, warmly opposed it.

The Earl of Lauderdale spoke in favour of the Grant, not on the ground of its being a salary, but as a remuneration for the extraordinary expences to which the acceptance of such a trust exposed the Duke of York. The Earl of Liverpool and Lord Eldon followed on the same side.

The Grant was agreed to without a division, and the Bill passed through a Committee.

In the Commons, the same day, Mr. M. A. Taylor, after some observations on the number of causes in arrear in the Courts of Equity, and the propriety of separating the cognizance of questions of Bankruptcy from the jurisdiction of the Great Seal, moved for "au account of the money of suitors in the Court of Chancery, lying in the Bank of England in the name of the Accountant General, in the year 1750, at the end of every ten years subsequently, and in the year 1818."

The motion, after some observations from the Solicitor General, was agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 31.

The Royal Assent was given, by com. mission, to the Consolidated Fund Produce Bill, the Exchequer Bills in Aid Bill, the Husbandry Horses' Bill, the Netherland Slave Trade Bill, and several other Bills.

In the Commons, the same day, Mr. Alderman Waithman, who had on a former night presented a petition from one William Weaver, now stated, that upon inquiry he found Weaver was not the immaculate character he had represented himself, and, moved for an account of the expences incurred, and the amount of penalties received.

Mr. Lushington observed, that Weaver was a notorious offender; he had been twice convicted under the Excise laws, thrice convicted at the Thames Policeoffice, and twice at Shadwell-office, for smuggling offences. Smuggled tobacco was found in his house within a few days of the presentation of his petition. The papers were ordered.

April 1.

Lord Archibald Hamilton, after noticing the flagrant abuses which prevailed in the Burghs in Scotland, moved for some papers tending to prove the corruption of the Burgh of Aberdeen, in the election of its magistrates in 1818.

The Lord Advocate of Scotland and Lord Castlereagh warmly opposed the motion.

On a division, the motion was nega tived by 110 to 105. The announcement of the numbers was greeted by loud cheers from the opposition; and Lord A.Hamilton, anticipating a future triumph from the high number of the minority, gave notice, that after the holidays, he should move for other papers upon the subject.

stituents more advantageous; and to accomplish this object he had pulled down a number of houses, by which about 100 families had been driven from their homes, and were received into a temporary poorhouse, where they were sheltered for a time, yet only 18 or 20 of them had been paupers, the rest maintaining themselves by honest industry. Notice, however, was given, in consequence of prevailing political dissentions, that these unhappy families would be deprived even of that shelter; the parish resisted, and an ejectment being brought, they were turned out: thus 163 men, women, and children, had been driven into the open streets in the most inclement season; some had screened themselves from the cold with straw and hurdles; some had taken refuge in open stalls, or in the neighbouring fields, and a considerable number of old and young of both sexes, decrepid old people, with helpless infants, and women in the last stage of pregnancy, had been huddled together in the Town-hall without distinction.

Mr. Merest and Mr. Dickinson confirmed the statement of the petitioners.

Mr. Wynn did not see how the House could interfere between a landlord and his tenants.

Lord Castlereagh recommended that the petition should be withdrawn, with which suggestion, after a few words from Sir J. Newport, Mr. Bennet complied.

Mr. Lambton presented a petition from Gen. Gourgaud, complaining of his having been seized and sent out of the country, without being allowed an appeal to the Privy Council.

Lord Castlereagh would not oppose the reception of the petition, but he should be ready to justify the General's arrest, and to show that the officers had not acted in the brutal manner alleged by the peti

tioner.

After some observations from Mr. H. Clive, Sir R. Wilson, Mr. T. Douglas, Mr. Bennet, Sir G. Cockburn, and others, the petition was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

Lord Clive obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the prevention of bribery and corruption in the election of Members to serve in Parliament for the borough of Barnstaple.

On the motion of Mr. Wynn, it was ordered that the Attorney General should prosecute Sir M. M. Lopez for bribery.

HOUSE OF LORDS, April 5.

The Earl of Harrowby presented a Report from the Committee, on Bank affairs, to the same purport as that noticed in the Commons.

In the Commons the same day, Mr. Peel appeared at the bar with a special

Report from the Committee of Secrecy, appointed to inquire into the affairs of the Bank.

Mr. Peel asked leave to bring in a Bill, the object of which was to restrain the Bank from issuing gold for certain notes under 51. On the 1st of September 1817, the governors of the Bank had given notice that cash would be issued for all their notes for sums under 5. and dated previously to the 1st of January, 1817." In consequence of this notice, a considerable decrease of specie had taken place. The issues from January 1817, till January 1819, amounted to 4.500,000.; and since the latter period 700,000l. had been issued; so that the whole drain of specie amounted to 5,200,000. The issue of that treasure, he conceived, had been productive of no good effect whatever. appeared that the sum of 121,000,000 francs had been coined in France; and the Committee had reason to believe, that three-fourths of that sum, amounting to 5,000,000. sterling, were derived from coin exported from England. The reasons for which he introduced the Bill were these-It was evident that, whenever the period arrived which might be fixed on for the final removal of the restrictions, it would be necessary for the Bank to be possessed of a considerable quantity of bullion; and that that quantity would exceed the sum which they at present possessed.

It

previously to the first of January, 1817, was read the first, second, and third time. The Royal assent was subsequently given to it, along with other Bills.

In the Commons the same day, Mr. G. Lamb presented a petition from the inhabitants of Westminster, praying for the removal of the present Haymarket to some part near Portland road.

Messrs. Byng and Holme Sumner opposed the petition, notice not having been given to the parties concerned; besides, the Haymarket, which had been established many years, was a public convenience. The petition was received by 97 to 91.

April 7.

Mr. Bennet rose to move an address to the Prince Regent, praying that he would issue an order to stay the sailing of the female convict transports. The object of all punishments should be, to produce a salutary example; and no one could say that this was effected by transportation. From 1787 to 1818, no fewer than 2987 female convicts had been transported. They were generally unable to provide means to return home, and could obtain a passage only by prostituting their persons. The present, he said, was not the time to send out a fresh cargo of women to New South Wales, where so much vice and immorality prevailed, and where the character of the sex had become so shockingly contaminated. Even the hospital at Paramatta contained only two wards-the one for males, the other for females. It was open, night and day, to persons of the most infamous character. He objected to the sailing of the female convicts who were now about to be conveyed to New South Wales, because it was now evident that when these persons had arrived there, they had neither home, food, nor clothing.

Messrs. Wilberforce and Buxton spoke in support of the motion.

Messrs. Bathurst, Goulburn, and Sir Byam Martin, opposed it. Ultimately it was negatived without a division.

John Chapman and John Evelyn were put to the bar, when the Speaker addressed them as follows:-" John Chapman and John Evelyn, you were reported by the Select Committee appointed to try and determine the merits of the petition complaining of an undue election and return for the borough of Camelford, as having given false evidence ;-for this you were both of you committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House, and afterwards, by this House, committed to his Majesty's gaol of Newgate. You now petition the House to be discharged from farther imprisonment, expressing your deep regret for your misconduct.

Much as it is to be lamented, that the feelings with which you now state yourselves to be impressed had not at an earlier period suggested something more of consideration for the fairness of your own characters,-and something more of respect for the sacred obligation of that oath by which you were sworn to speak the truth. You, John Chapman, plead in excuse of your misconduct the inexperience of youth, and your ignorance of the forms of this House; and you, John Evelyn, offer in explanation something of misapprehension of the purport of the question that was asked of you by the Committee;-but these are circumstances which can in no way account for or extenuate the misconduct of either of you.— If, however, your repentance and contrition be sincere, your own reflections will be your bitterest punishment: they will remind you of the disgrace and infamy with which you have branded your own characters, and, at the same time that they mark the striking contrast between the lenity of this House and the enormity of your offence, they will teach you, what I hope you will never forget, that truth and honesty are the ouly means by which this stain can be removed, and your credit be re-established. I am now to acquaint you, that this House, taking into consideration the petitions that have been received from both of you, has ordered your discharge; and you are both discharged, upon payment of your fees."

April 22.

Sir J. Newport called the attention of the House to the union of parishes, and residence of the clergy in Ireland. He read a letter, which stated, that many parishes were never visited by their clergy, except for collecting the tithes. Some diocesans did their duty in enforcing residence, and it is but justice to mention the name of the Abp. of Cashel in their number. In many parts of Ireland, however, 10 or 11 vicarages had been formed into one; and there were benefices which comprehended a space of 20 miles square. He concluded with moving, "That an humble address be presented to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, that he would be pleased to direct an enquiry to be made into the state of the Church of Ireland, in communication with the Archbishops and Bishops, similar in its details to the enquiry instituted in 1806, and of which a report was presented to the House in July 1807, in order that, by a comparison of their results, it might be seen how far the recommendations of the former report had been carried into effect, and the benevo lent intentions of his Majesty realized, for securing to the people of Ireland the benefits of public worship and a resident clergy.