1

Monday, March 27.

· EXPORTS TO AMERICA. Mr Rose stated, from an account, which had been presented to the House, of the general return of the exports and imports for the year ending the 5th of January 1809, that notwithstanding the embargoes and other measures of the American Government, the exports of British manufactures, for the last year, exceeded that of the preceding year by nearly a million and a half, and that it had been nearly equal to the best years which the country had ever known.

LOCAL MILITIA.

Lord Castlereagh, after an appropriate exordium, in which he spoke of the unanimity which existed throughout the country, stated to the House, that, since the measures he had suggested were adopted, 250 regiments had been raised, viz. 184 in England, and 99 in Scotland, consisting of 195,191 men; 125,000 volunteers, belonging to various corps, had entered into the local militia. This he could not but con

sider as 2 propitious omen. Between 50,000 and 60,000 men had entered into the service, without being in any manner compelled to do so, and without receiving any bounty. This led him to speak on the subject of bounties more at large. Every district was formerly liable to the operation of a ballot, and, besides, obliged to pay a bounty to those who voluntarily entered. He proposed abolishing the bounty system altogether; but in those instances where parishes preferred raising men by bounty, he did not mean to take away that protec tion from the ballot. They were, however, to give but one guinea bounty instead of two.

To obviate any objection that might be started, as to the difficulty of disciplining them in certain counties, he proposed giving his Majesty the power of having them disciplined in any adjoining county. It did not appear adviseable to suffer the yeomanry cavalry to put themselves under the laws of the local militia ; but he had it in contemplation to establish an equality of rank between them. The yeomanry cavalry, he stated, had 51. a year, the local militia but 21. Such a disparity he thought unjust; it was his wish to make their allowances equal, by placing them at 41. each. He thought the public service would be well performed by an army of this description, amounting to 200,000 men; in such a state of organisation, they were not merely a paper army, but a force consisting of the most effective, athletic, healthy men in the kingdom, and commanded by officers alike exalted in rank and wealth. He proposed they should

be exercised 28 days in the ensuing year. Here would be a force as well clothed, as well armed, as the regulars, and only inferior to them in that degree, that must naturally be expected, from their not being, like the regulars, incessantly on duty.With such a force to defend us, every fear: of invasion must be dissipated. He concluded, by moving for leave to bring in service, by establishing a permanent local a bill to render his Majesty more effectual militia."-Leave given.

ABUSES IN THE SALE AND BROKERAGE OF APPOINTMENTS, &C.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose, to move for leaving to bring in a bill for the prevention of the sale and brokerage of offices, &c. He stated, that, by the statute of the 12th of Edward II. a law was made to regulate the office of Lord Keeper, and by the 5th and 6th of Edward VI. that law extended to all law offices under the Crown, the King's Treasury, Customs, &c. The object of the present act was to extend those provisions to all other offices. It did not appear, upon the late investigation, that any offices had been sold by the person having the power of appointment, but by persons who pretended to have an influence in procuring them. He had stated, that a prosecution had been instituted against persons in the city, and unless his Majesty's law officers had been able to find those several persons in a conspiracy for which they were indicted, they would have some difficulty in instituting any process a gainst them, as the law now stood; and the only way in that case, would have been, to indict them for receiving money under false pretences. It would be found, however, that these abuses had not extended to any degree whatever, and the object of the bill, in the first instance, was to make it penal, not only to keep shops for sale of commissions, &c. but also to publish the sale, or circulate advertisements to that effect.-Leave given.

Monday, April 17.

Lord Folkstone, after a number of observations on the abuses that had been lately brought to light, moved, that a Committee be appointed to inquire into the existence of the corrupt disposal of offices in the State; of the disposal of commissions in the army, contrary to the regulations; and also into the practice of levies; and to report the minutes of their evidence from time to time to the House. This motion occasioned a long debate. It was supported by Lord A. Hamilton and Mr Whitbread; but opposed by Mr Perceval, Mr, Canning, and by most of the leaders of the opposition

Mr Ponsonby wished to be informed of the meaning attached to that part of the Spanish treaty which bound his Majesty to aid the Spanish people, and to acknowledge no King of Spain but Ferdinand VII. his legitimate heirs or successors acknowledged by the Spanish nation. Mr Canning answered, that the meaning was obviously this, that his Majesty bound himself, while Spain and Great Britain acted their parts faithfully in common against the usurpation of France, to acknowledge no King but such as the Spanish people acknowledged. Ferdinand VII. was now the legitimate King of Spain; but he, with his whole family being in the enemy's country, it might so happen that hereafter another Sovereign might succeed to the throne, from the failure of the present branch of the House of Bourbon. In that event, it was understood that two persons divided the opinion of the Spanish nation: Upon the point of which was the legal successor, the Government of this country might have an opinion; but nothing could be more im, politic than to attempt to impose their judgment on the people of another country. It was to avoid the slightest appearance of this that the treaty was framed in the manner it was, and in the true spirit of the British character, to show that while they acted together, no King of Spain would be received as such by this country, unless the legitimacy of this claim was qualified by the acknowledgment of the Spanish nation. The other alternative put by the Right Hon. Gentleman was obviously unnecessary; for if Spain united with France, and acknowledged the house of Bonaparte, the treaty was consequently null. Mr Pan

sonby expressed himself satisfied with the answer, though he did not thereby mean to pledge himself to approve of the engage ments his Majesty had been advised to enter into.

Tuesday, April 25.

Lord A. Hamilton rose to make a motion of a vote of censure of Lord Castle. reagh, for his attempt to facilitate the elec tion of Lord Clancarty to be a Member of Parliament, by means of an Indian writership. He stated the evidence of this attempt, namely, Lord Castlereagh's own acknowledgment, when examined before the Committee appointed to inquire into the abuses of East India patronage, and proposed that that evidence should be read. Lord Castlereagh then rose up, and made his defence. He acknowledged the impropriety of the transaction, but stated a va riety of circumstances in extenuation of it,

and then withdrew. Lord A. Hamilton then proposed the following resolutions :

Resolved-1st, That it appears to this House, from the evidence on the table, that Lord Viscount Castlereagh, in the year 1805, he having just quitted the office of President of the Board of Controul, and being then a Privy Counsellor, and Secretary of State, did place at the disposal of the Earl Clancarty, a Member of the said Board, the nomination of a writership to India, for the purpose of thereby procuring the said Earl Clancarty a seat in this Honourable House.

2d, That it was owing to a disagreement among other subordinate parties to the transaction, that this corrupt negotiation did not take effect.

3d, That Lord Viscount Castlereagh has been by the said conduct guilty of a viola. tion of his duty, of an abuse of his influ ence and authority as President of the Board of Controul, and also of an attack upon the purity and constitution of this House.

A very long debate ensued. Lord Bin ning, Mr Manners Sutton, Mr Perceval, and Mr Canning, were the principal speakers in favour of Lord Castlereagh ; and Mr W. Wynne, Mr W. Smith, Mr Grattan, Mr Ponsonby, Sir Francis Burdett, Mr Whitbread, and Mr Tierney, were those who chiefly defended the motion of Lord A. Hamilton. At last the house divided. For the original motion 167-Against it 216-Majority for Lord Castlereagh 49. Mr Canning had proposed as an amendment, That it is the duty of the House to maintain a jealous guard over the purity of election; but, considering the intention to interfere in the election of a Member of Parliament had not been carried into criminal effect, the House does not conceive

it necessary to come to a criminating resolution upon the subject.'

The House next divided on this amendment. For it 214-Against it 167-Majority 47. Another amendment was proposed to be added by Mr W. Wynne, that the House were confirmed in their opinion by the regret expressed by Viscount Castlereagh for his misconduct. This amendment, however, was negatived without a division.

Mr Eden rose to make his promised mo-> tion. On the 3d of December, Mr Frere wrote to Sir John Moore, mentioning the disposition of the people of Madrid to defend the place, and requesting him to delay his intended retreat. This letter he dispatched by a Frenchman, and General Moore received it on the 5th of December. He received, at the same time, a dispatch from the Junta of Madrid. Mr Canning

had intimated that Ministers were not in possession of this paper. He happened himself to have a correct copy of it, and would read it, with the permission of the House, as a part of his speech. It stated, that Castanos was advancing to Madrid with an army of 25,000 men ; that another army was also on its march to Madrid that the people were determined to defend the town, and had nothing to fear from the French; and concluded by pressing Sir John Moore to advance with his army, to join and support that of Castanos. The dispatch is dated 28 December, and signed by Don T. Morla. On that very day Morla had an interview with the French General, and next day the French took quiet possession of Madrid. Hence there was every reason to believe that this was a snare calculated to draw on the British army to its ruin. Mr Eden's motion was, that a copy of this dispatch be laid upon the table. After some conversation, the motion was negatived without a division.

On the motion of Mr Huskisson, the House resolved itself into a Committee, to take into consideration the act of the 37th George III. on newspaper restrictions. He stated, that in 1797 an additional three halfpence was laid upon newspapers; and it was agreed that the proprietors should be allowed 12 per cent. duty on stamps, provided they restricted the price of their papers to sixpence. Since that period, owing to the rise in the price of paper, the additional expense of labour, and other circumstances, the present profits were not adequate to the expenditure. Two modes of redress were proposed. The first, to take off the discount altogether, and allow the proprietors to fix their own prices. The second, and he thought the preferable mode, was to continue the discount, and al

low the proprietors to raise the price sixpence halfpenny. He then moved for leave to bring in a bill, in order to amend the 37th of Geo. III. relating to the restrictions on newspapers. After some conversation, during which it was stated that the last year's duty on newspapers amounted to two millions, the motion was agreed to without a division.

Friday, April 28.

Lord H. Petty severely animadverted upon the issue of a sum of 80,0001. for the maintenance of Portugueze emigrants during the sitting of Parliament, without consulting the same; and concluded with moving, That the applying any sums of money to uses not voted by Parliament, is a misapplication of the public money, and an invasion of the acknowledged right and privilege of the House of Commons." The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he would not differ from the Noble Lord in the principle laid down by him. There were numberless precedents of this being done; and such things happened during the administration of the Noble Lord himself. Mr Tierney supported the motion, and Mr Huskisson opposed it. The question was negatived.

Monday, May 1.

In

Mr Orde called the attention of the House to the conduct of the Dutch Commissioners, as explained in the 4th report of the Financial Committee. Their accounts had not been called on by Government, and were 14 years in arrear. stead of putting the money into the Bank of England, as they were bound to do, they had put it into the hands of private bankers. They had refused to advance L. 50,000 for the service of Government, when they had large sums in their hands; they had taken each L. 27,000 as a remu. neration for their services for four years and a half; they had claimed the enormous sum of five per cent. on the gross amount, while, had they even been considered as exposed to risks and losses, they could only have claimed two and a half. He concluded a speech of considerable length by moving several resolutions, the substance of which was, That to permit any persons to hold a pecuniary trust without some check, and without calling regularly for their ac counts, must inevitably lead to evils the most serious; that neglect must have existed on the part of Government, in not having called for such accounts; that the Commissioners were chargeable with the most represensible neglect; and in appropriating to themselves the sums they had claimed as a remuneration for their servi ces, had shamefully abused the confidence

re

Sir Thomas Turton rose to make his motion respecting the determination formed by the Court of India Directors for the pe. remptory recal of those persons whose appointments to India, as cadets and writers, were procured by corrupt or clandestine influence. He argued, at much length, on the cruelty and injustice, not only of recalling those persons from India, after years of faithful service, but of totally ruining their future prospects, by declaring them incapable of being again employed in the East India Company's service, to the preparation for which the whole study of their youth had been devoted. He concluded by moving, "That this House do not concur with the determination on the part of the Court of Directors to recal from India the persons so obtaining their appointments, and excluding them for ever from the service of the Company, because the House conceived such a measure towards unoffending par

ties, under such circumstances, as contrary to the spirit of British justice and humanity." Mr Dundas defended the conduct of the Directors, and showed that they could not act otherwise than they had done.He moved the previous question. A debate of some length ensued. The House at last divided. For the previous question 77; against it 35.

Mr Wardle rose, to show that, by a proper regard to economy, eleven milllons annually might be saved to the nation. In a very long speech, he pointed out a great saving might be effected. The household. troops, three thousand, were never employed in service, They might be reduced to 500. The dragoons were 23,400; they might be reduced to 15,000. The foreign troops in our service were nearly 25,000; they ought, he thought, to be all disband ed. He noticed the military roads, the martello towers, the military canal, the fortifications at Dover, all of which he thought useless expenditures of public money. noticed the expence of levying the taxes, which he considered as too great; the post-office was too expensive; the clothing the local militia was too high; the volunteers ought to serve without pay; about a third part of the total expense of the navy might be saved. These were the chief points noticed. We have not room to be more particular; nor is it of much consequence to our readers that we should, as the speech, from the very nature of it,

He

could be nothing else than a string of assertions unsupported by proof. He concluded by moving for a number of papers. All his motions were agreed to, after Mr Huskisson had animadverted with great ability upon some of the most striking of his assertions.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Tuesday, June 20.

The Lord Chancellor submitted to the consideration of the House his promised motion relative to the Roxburgh cause.— He accordingly moved, "That it appeared to their Lordships, the term used in the deed of 1648, to the eldest daughter, and her heirs-male,' was meant to the daughters feriatim, and that by the term ' heirs male general,' it was also meant the heirsmale of their bodies feriatim should be preferred to the heirs male general. It

was therefore clear that the claim of Sir James Innes Kerr was substantiated, if he could satisfactorily prove himself to be the heir-male of the body claiming as such, under the right of Lady Margaret." He should also move, "That the further consideration of this question regarded the acpostponed till next session". He, lastly, tion of reduction, which he wished to be moved, "That the whole of the appeals on the Roxburgh cause be taken into consideration the first cause-day of next session of Parliament." All these motions were unanimously agreed to.

Wednesday, June 21.

At half past three o'clock, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and the Earls of Dartmouth, Camden, and Westmoreland, took their seats in their robes, as his Majesty's Commissioners; when the Commons, with the Speaker at their head, being in attendance at the bar, the Lord Chancellor read the following speech:

My Lords and Gentlemen,

"We are commanded by his Majesty to acquaint you, that his Majesty has great satisfaction in being enabled, by the state of the public business, to release you from your laborious attendance in Parliament.

"His Majesty doubts not that, on your return into your respective counties, you will carry with you a disposition to incul. spirit of attachment to those established cate, both by instruction and example, a laws, and that happy constitution, which it has ever been his Majesty's anxious wish to support and to maintain, and upon which, under Providence, depend the welfare and prosperity of this kingdom.

"Gentlemen of the House of Commons, "We have it in command from his Majesty

jesty to thank you for the liberal provision which you have made for the services of the present year, and to express the satisfaction which his Majesty derives from your having been enabled to provide for those services, without any great or immediate addition to the burdens upon his people.

"His Majesty particularly commands us to acknowledge your prompt attention to his wishes respecting an increased provision for the poorer clergy; an object in the highest degree interesting to his Majesty's feelings, and deserving the favourable con sideration of Parliament.

"My Lords and Gentlemen

"The atrocious and unparallelled act of violence and treachery by which the ruler of France attempted to surprise and to enslave the Spanish nation, while it has excited in Spain a determined and unconquerable resistance against the usurpation and tyranny of the French Government, has, at the same time, awakened in other nations of Europe a determination to resist, by a new effort, the continued and increasing encroachments on their safety and independence.

Although the uncertainty of all human events, and the vicissitudes attendant upon war, forbid too confident an expectation of a satisfactory issue to the present struggle against the common enemy of Europe, his Majesty commands us to congratulate you upon the splendid and important success which has recently crowned the arms of the Emperor of Austria, under the able and distinguished conduct of his Imperial Highness the Archduke Charles.

To the efforts of Europe for its own deliverance, his Majesty has directed us to assure you, that he is determined to continue his most strenuous assistance and support, convinced that you will agree with him in considering that every exertion for the re-establishment of the independence and security of other nations, is no less conducive to the true interests, than it is becoming the character and honour of Great Britain."

The Lord Chancellor then, in the usual form, prorogued the Parliamant to the 10th of August.-By successive Royal Proclamations, it has been further prorogued till the 23d of January next, to be then holden.

Scors APPEALS.

The following are the appeals determined by the House of Lords, last session of Parliament, with their determinations generally :

1. Smith v. M'Neil-This question was, whether a decree of valuation of tithes, pronounced by the Sub-Commissioners, was defective, because it did not appear that the minister of the parish had been a party to it. The Court of Session decided, that that was not necessary, the minister not having been a parson, but merely a stipen diary, that is, he had no right to the tithes, but only to the fixed stipend out of them, and of course without direct interest in the valuation.Affirmed.

2. Magistrates of Kirkcudbright v. Affleck. This was an important case. A prisoner, for debt, had escaped from the prison of Kirkcudbright. The Court of Session found the Magistrates liable in damages, as sufficient care had not been taken. Affirmed, with 801 costs.

3. Playfair v. McDonald.-This question was, whether the Principal of the University of St Andrew's had an original and casting vote, or an original vote only, or a casting vote only. The House of Lords found that the Principal had both an original and casting vote, and reversed the decision of the Court of Session.

4. Arnot v. Hill, respecting the election of Dr Flint and his Son, to be joint Professor of Medicine in the University of St Andrew's.-Reversed.

5. Frank v. Frank, This question was brought to invalidate a will upon two grounds, 1st, because the testator was incapable of making his will; 2d, because one of the witnesses had not seen the testator sign the will, or acknowledge his signature. The Court of Session was of opinion that there was not sufficient evidence, upon either of the points, to invalidate the will.-Affirmed.

In the appeal respecting the Roxburgh cause, Counsel were heard for six weeks. No decision was given; but the Lord Chancellor delivered his opinion in favour of Sir James Innes, provided he proves his propinquity. Resolutions, respecting his Lordship's opinion, were entered on the journals; and it was also ordered, that the appeals on this question do stand for the first cause day next session of Parliament.

Counsel were also heard at great length upon the Peerage of Borthwick, and the session of Parliament. further consideration postponed till next

During the last 26 sessions of Parliament, 282 appeals from the Court of Session have been heard before the House of Lords, only 39 of which have been totally reversed. This does great honour to the Court of Session, as many of them were cases of great intricacy, doubt, and difficulty. The above statement clearly refutes the unfounded allegation, that one half of the Scots appeals had been reversed.

HLS