pursuant to notice, rose to call the attention of the house to this most important subject. He did not mean to detain the house by going at any length into the question, because it must be obvious to any gentleman who should examine the report of the committee on the commercial state of the West-India Colonies, that some relief was necessary to maintain the interests of those colonies. It would be impossible to carry into effect, during the present session, any remedies to which that house was to be a party, but he must recommend it to the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, to direct his attention to this most interesting subject during the recess, in order that he might be prepared with some means of alleviating the distress of the West-India planters in the ensuing session. He wished to direct the attention of that right hon. gent. to the subject more anxiously, because he had reason to apprehend that it was the opinion of that right hon. gent., that a reduction of the duty upon sugars would not be any relief to the planter. The hon. member then went into a consideration of the Report, to shew that all the duty laid on sugars, after a certain amount, fell on the planter, and not on the consumer; and contended that even if the reduction of the duty should not immediately relieve the planter, it would have the effect of increasing the consumption, by which means the market, at present overstocked, might be cleared, and the increase of the consumption would augment the revenue. The employment of sugar in distilleries would also have contributed to the relief of the planters, by adding to the consumption of the article, but the objection that existed against it rendered that impossible. Whilst the market was unrestrained, the price of sugar had kept pace with the rise of the duty, but the contrary had been the case ever since the year 1800. If the ports of Europe were to be shut against them, the planters would have but the home-market to look to, and what would be their prospect with an import of 100,000l. above the consumption, unless that consumption should be encouraged? Another remedy suggested in the Report he should not then dwell upon, because he did not wish to force his majesty's ministers to any premature declaration upon the subject, nor was he disposed to give rise to any discussion which might assume that intemperate tone that characterized the proceedings in another country. He hoped, if a reduction in the duty upon brandy was in contemplation, that it would be accompanied with a reduction of the duty upon rum. On all these grounds he moved a resolution, "that the house should, early in the next session of parliament, take into consideration the report of the committee on the Commercial State of the West-India colonies."

jun. seconded the motion. He expressed his conviction of the urgent necessity of the case, and was sorry, that the state of the session would not allow the house to go into it.

had no objection to the motion of the hon. gent., and certainly the handsome and candid manner in which he had brought it forward claimed the attention of the house. For himself, he could answer, that the subject should have his most serious attention. He did not think it necessary to go further into the question then, though he should say, that it was impossible to read the Report without feeling how interesting the subject was from the circumstance of so large a mass of property being involved in difficulty, not to use any stronger terms. He could therefore assure the hon. gent., that his majesty's ministers would not lose any time that could be profitably applied to this subject, and that next session some measure would be brought forward to obviate the difficulties at present existing.

was glad to find that the attention of the house was at last directed to West-India interests. The circumstances in which the colonies were placed by the abolition of the slave trade, contrary to the opinion of the planters, gave them a claim upon the legislature. The Report said, that unless some immediate remedy were to be applied, ruin would be the consequence to the West Indies; but it would be five or six months before any legislative remedy could be applied, and this was one of the circumstances that contradicted that passage, which ministers had introduced into his majesty's speech at the close of the last session, that the dissolution took place at a time when no material inconvenience to the public business would arise from it.

was happy to observe the very candid manner in which this subject had been brought forward, and which was much more calculated to produce an impression on the house, than the use of stronger language. The hon. gent. then warmly urged the claims of the West-India proprietors on the legislature, agreeing with the hon. member who preceded him that the dissolution of parliament had been the cause of inconvenience in this respect; and contending, that the justification of that measure was unsatisfactory to the West-India interests, as well as to many persons in that house, who had no ambition to obtain any place in the administration.—The resolution was then put and agreed to.

brought up the second report of the committee of finance respecting the Bank. The report was ordered to lie on the table; but on the motion that it be printed, the hon. gent. thought it necessary to say a few words. It was not in consequence of any inattention on the part of the committee, that this report had not been presented sooner, but, from the various details into which it was necessary to enter, it had been found impossible to present it sooner to the house. Yet if the report had been laid before the house as early as he at first had reason to expect, it was not his inten- tion, nor, he believed, that of any member of the committee, to ground any motion upon it in the present session, because it would require much time for gentlemen to make themselves acquainted with the whole of the circumstances. As an individual member of parliament, and not as a member of the committee, he might feel himself called upon to submit some resolutions to the house on the subject, though such a proceeding might, and probably would, be rendered unnecessary by the regulations which might be adopted by the governors of the company.—The report was then ordered to be printed.—The hon. gent. next presented the third report from the finance committee, respecting sinecure offices, places, and pensions, held under the crown. After the report was brought up and read, the hon. gent. observed, that this report had been prepared by the committee pursuant to an instruction from the house of the seventh of last month. Immediately on receiving the instruction, the committee had issued its precepts, and the return to these precepts formed the matter of the report which was just read. It would be for the house to judge whether any vote should be founded on the report, and he did not know whether he should move that in its present state it should be printed, because returns had been received only for a small part of Scotland, and but one or two from Ireland. He hoped, however, that the whole would be completed by next session, when he should be able to take such a course as might seem most eligible.—The Report was then ordered to be printed.

observed, that he had a Petition in his hand containing matters of a very grave and serious nature. The statements in the petition were such, that though no man was more disposed than he was to lay any complaint before the house, he would have hesitated to present it were it not that it contained matter of great moment to the public in general. The petitioner Nathaniel Highmore had studied the civil law for 11 years at Jesus college, Cambridge; had performed his exercises with applause, and taken out his degree of doctor. The grievance was, that he was not permitted to practise in Doctors Commons, in consequence of the refusal of the archbishop of Canterbury, to give him the proper authority. He had applied for redress to the courts of law, but could not be heard; he had, therefore, no appeal, though rejected without any reason assigned. This was an affair of so serious a nature, that if the allegations of the petition should be proved, it ought, perhaps, to be made the subject of legislative regulation hereafter. But he meant to give no opinion on it at present. He imputed no blame to the metropolitan or his officer. They had not acted without precedent, for it was not the practice for 7 years past to give a reason in cases of rejection. He was happy to see those opposite to him (the advocate-general, &c.) who might, perhaps, explain this business. The practitioners of the common law were admitted by the benchers; but they never rejected without reason, and there lay an appeal to the 12 judges. But the present petitioner had in vain attempted to be heard before any court, and that was the reason that he had now come to parliament for redress. The reason privately assigned for this, for none was publicly assigned, was, that the petitioner was in deacon's orders. Even if owing to this he was to be considered as a spiritual person, it was not a reason why he should not practise in a court of civil and ecclesiastical law, and more especially as the practice was, till the 37th of Henry the 8th, entirely confined to spiritual persons; and the chancellorships of the dioceses were still in the hands of spiritual persons. The public had a strong interest in tins case, for it appeared to be decided by a side wind, that persons in deacon's orders were unqualified for practising in the ecclesiastical court, and that without any legislative provision on the subject. The hon. gent. then adverted to a book written by one of the Civilians, so late as 1804, which contained a passage, stating that, in 1764, a person, in deacon's orders, had applied to archbishop Secker, and was rejected, because it was more agreeable to the doctor's practising; and the reason was, that they apprehended the society would become too numerous if this was permitted. Doctors, therefore, appeared to differ on this point; but this writer seemed to think, that being in deacon's orders was no objection; but that the rejection was because it was more agreeable to the actual practitioners, who were apprehensive that the society would become inconveniently numerous. Now, that a gentleman, who had studied at Cambridge, and therefore might be considered as in this instance standing up for the privileges of the university, should be neglected merely because it might be more agreeable to the society that he should be so, was a point that required some attention from the legislature. They apprehended that the society would become inconveniently numerous. As to that point, there certainly appeared no reason to think that those who were to study 11 years at Cambridge before they were admitted, would incommode the society, supposing that this were an argument worthy of any attention. The power to reject without appeal was too great to be entrusted to any man. This gentleman had gone through all the forms, and if the power of rejection without appeal was to be allowed, the principle would go this length, that not only those who desired to be admitted, but those who were already admitted, would be dependent entirely on the archbishop. But it was said that the archbishop had granted his fiat, without knowing that the petitioner was in deacon's orders, and withdrew it upon receiving information that this was the case. This, however, was not alledged publicly. All that was alledged was, that the thing was not agreeable to the practising doctors. He had some other things to state, but as he had taken up the time of the house so long, he would finish for the present, trusting that the house would take up the matter with that seriousness which its importance seemed to deserve.—The hon gent. then presented the petition, which was read at the table. It stated, "that the petitioner, Nathaniel Highmore, doctor and professor of civil law, and member of Jesus college, Cambridge, was, during 11 years, a student of civil law in the university of Cambridge, in consequence of which he obtained the degree of doctor and professor of civil law; and that this degree has ever been held, as by the statute and canon law ordained, a qualification for, and as giving a right to exercise the profession of, an ecclesiastical advocate in the courts of civil and canon law, holden in Doctors Commons, and which courts are placed under the administration of the archbishop of Canterbury; and that the rights, privileges, and immunities of the university of Cambridge are guaranteed and secured by divers royal patents and charters, confirming the same to its different members, and to their several academic degrees; by one of which charters, it is especially provided, that doctors in civil law shall experience neither hindrance nor obstruction in their admission into all ec- clesiastical offices, whether with or without the cure of souls, the latter of those, as the petitioner conceives, including the office of an ecclesiastical advocate; and this, together with the other charters of that university, was confirmed by an act of the 13th Elizabeth; and the petitioner further states, that having received from the register of the said university a certificate of such his full and complete qualification, he did, consequence thereof, duly and regularly obtain the fiat of the archbishop of Canterbury, in pursuance of which his grace's rescript, or commission, appointing him to this ecclesiastical office, was made out, and sealed with the seal of the vicar-general of the province of Canterbury; and that having, notwithstanding such his qualification and his commission, been refused admission, to exercise thereunder his spiritual and canonical profession, and having in vain appealed to the archbishop of Canterbury, as also to the visitors of the college of doctors of law, applying to his grace, and to the said visitors, for an hearing of his case, and for redress of the injury by him sustained, he did carry his suit into the court of king's bench, and did apply for a rule to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue for his admission: which application was however refused by the said court, for the reason that the petitioner had not been able to shew his right to be admitted to this ecclesiastical office, on any grounds of which that court could take cognizance; and unable as the petitioner thus was to obtain, in a court of civil jurisdiction, a discussion of his title and of his qualification for this spiritual office, he applied to the archbishop of Canterbury for permission, in a court of spiritual jurisprudence, to plead his case, but with which application for such public hearing it was deemed unadvisable to comply; and that having been thus excluded from the exercise of his canonical and clerical profession, on the ground of his having formerly taken the orders of a deacon, he has, by the refusal of an hearing to his case, been deprived of the opportunity of shewing, in the first place, that he was duly authorized to divest himself, and did divest himself, of those orders and of his clerical character; and secondly, that although he were even still a clergyman, he would not thereby be disqualified; and therefore praying the house, to take his case into consideration, and grant him relief."—On the question, that the petition do lie upon the table,

observed, that as the hon. gent. did not mean to institute any proceeding immediately upon the petition, it would not be necessary for him to go at length into the consideration of it. He had only to state, that the petition was founded upon a great misapprehension of facts, and a great misapprehension of legal principles, as applicable to those facts. He did not mean, however, to charge the misapprehension on the hon. gent.

stated, that the allegations in the petition, were founded on the allegations in an affidavit made in the court of king's bench.—The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.

rose to submit, pursuant to notice, a motion on the subject of granting offices in reversion. If be might assume, and he hoped be might, that the opinion of the house had undergone no alteration on this point since their late resolution, he thought it would be unnecessary for him to trouble them at any great length, as he might expect an unanimous concurrence in the proposition which he was about to lay before them. It would be waste of time for him to address them at any great length, when he expected no opponent: but because he heard that it had been surmised that the object of the bill passed by the house against the granting of offices in reversion trenched on the just prerogative of the crown, and that it would be of no real service to the public in point of economy, he begged leave to say a few words on these topics.—With regard to the prerogative of the crown, he was firmly persuaded that the object of that bill touched upon it but very little, and could not be properly said materially to trench upon it at all. There was at present an opportunity for an undue dissipation in that prerogative, and he was convinced that it would be more full, better exercised, and much more beneficial, if be granting of offices in reversion should be restrained in the manner pointed out by the bill. It would certainly be rather strengthened than weakened, for the gratitude of persons entering upon the reversions, would naturally be small when they considered them in some measure as a vested right, rather than a favour conferred solely for services to the public. There were some instances where these reversions were held by persons perfectly unfit for whatever trust might be attached to the offices, and more especially in the cases of reversions held by persons of the other sex. The incapacity was, indeed, in some cases so palpable and glaring, that no ministers would have ventured to recommend the grants in the first instance, without the danger of creating the strongest sensation in the public mind, and of exposing themselves to the severest animadversions.—But it had been said, that in point of economy this object would be of no advantage to the public. Directly it might not. But certainly the committee expected, and he was persuaded that the expectation was well founded, that the establishment of the principle would ultimately lead to much practical economy. Several offices afforded very large emoluments, while they had no duties attached to them. The committee might judge it proper to review these offices, and see reason to subject some to new regulations, and advise the total abolition of others. But, if, in the mean time, the practice was persisted in of granting these reversions, the labours of the committee would meet with increased difficulties; and parliament seeing no prospect of any immediate benefit from whatever arrangements they could propose, might be more callous and indifferent respecting this important object. On these principles, he presumed, the house had adopted the resolution formerly submitted to it on this subject, and on the same principles concurred unanimously in the provisions of the bill winch he (Mr. Bankes) had the honour to carry up to the house of lords. What the fate of that bill had been, the house had an opportunity of ascertaining from the report of the committee appointed to examine the lords' Journals, for their proceedings upon it. It appeared that it had been put off to a term to which there was no probability that this session would extend, and consequently that it might be considered as totally lost for the present. In order therefore, that no inconvenience might arise to the public service, as the legislative measure had failed, and what had before been the prerogative, might now be considered as in force, he thought it the duty of that house to address his majesty, that he would be graciously pleased not to grant any offices in reversion, till both houses should have an opportunity of considering the subject most fully. It was on this ground he proposed to move the address. It might be thought that it would be better to bring in the bill, but both he, and those with whom he acted, were of opinion, that the house ought not to resort to any act, which might betray a disposition to usurp the legislative functions of the other house. The constitution had defined the duties of both, and he could not contribute more to the interests of that house, than by confining it within its just and natural limits. It had been suggested to him, therefore, that if a bill were to have been brought in, it might appear to be an attempt to do that by the single act of that house which should be done by the act of the legislature. The mode be proposed to adopt was altogether free from such an objection, and there were several instances on record, in which, whilst enquiries were carried on by that house, it had addressed his majesty to suspend the exercise of certain prerogatives until the result of such enquiries should be known. With such a view he had framed is motion, and if the house was disposed to support the principles when it agreed to the resolution last session, and passed the bill this session, he was convinced that there would be an unanimous concurrence in his motion. He then moved, "that an humble address be presented to his majesty, that he would be graciously pleased not to grant, in any part of his majesty's dominions, any office, place, employment, or salary, in reversion, or for joint lives with benefit of survivorship, until six weeks after the commencement of the next session of parliament." Before the question was put, he had one observation to make, which he would take the liberty to add by way of notice, namely that he meant, in an early period of next session, to move for leave to bring in a similar bill to that which had passed that house this session.—On the question being put,

said it was not his intention to enter upon any long discussion at present, and he now only rose to express that surprise and regret which he could not help feeling at the result of the enquiry of the committee which had been appointed to examine the Journals of the lords, relative to their proceedings upon the Reversion bill. From this it appeared, that that important bill had been rejected. But he could not help being very much surprized at this, because it was an unusual thing that a bill which had met with so very slender an opposition [none, none, from several quarters of the house,]—which had met with no opposition in that house, which was directed against public abuses, an object so peculiarly necessary in the present circumstances of the countrv, should be rejected in the other house. It was a subject of very great regret, too, with him, both on account of the failure of a most important object, and also on account of the indication that was manifested of a want of disposition in the other house to co-operate with the house of commons in restraining the undue expenditure of the public money. Of course, the house could know nothing of the detail of the proceedings in the other house on that bill; and, if it could be known by any indirect means, it would, of course, be irregular to allude to it here. But, one must naturally suppose that it was maturely considered and amply debated in a full house [hear, bear]; that the whole proceedings were conducted with that gravity and serious deliberation which the importance of the case required, that all the ministers of the crown attended in their places, [hear, hear,] as it was their duty to do, in order manfully and openly to oppose the bill, if they thought it an improper one, or to support it with all their strength, if they were of a contrary opinion! It must at least be supposed that if the house was not so full as it might be, their lordships, out of respect to their own character, and a due regard to the unanimous opinion of the house of commons, would have consented to an adjournment of the debate on the bill for a short time, in order to enable those who might be absent to attend their duty! [hear, hear!] It must be supposed that the discussion on so important a bill was not disgraced by an empty house, lest there should be an appearance of gross neglect, insufferable insolence, or some motives of a worse description! Of course the commons could not be supposed to know who proposed the rejection of that bill, or by whom that motion of rejection was supported. But they might be fully assured that it could not have been by a person who was himself in the possession of a reversionary office of great emolument. [hear! hear!] They might be assured it was utterly impossible that the motion rejection could not have been supported by a person who was already gorged with the spoils and plunder of the country;—by a person loaded with reversions three deep in his family already. Far less could he suppose, that the motion for its rejection should be seconded by another person, whose name stood recorded in the journals of the house—as one who, with a keen and avaricious eye sat feasting upon the hopes of reversions to himself, his family, and dependents—[hear! hear!]—or a person whose delight was to hunt after that species of property called by the civilians the hereditas luctuosa. In that house of parliament, which consisted of 400 members, it was quite ridiculous to suppose that only 22 were present at the inglorious and indecent rejection of this bill. He insisted, that notwithstanding the voice of the aristocracy, the house of commons should discharge its duty to the country, and adopt a mode to prevent any thing similar from occurring. He hoped that the house would persevere, and bring forward a similar bill, session after session, until they convinced the house of lords, that the people and the commons of England were not to be trampled upon.

did not feel any objection to the motion of his hon. friend, and had risen only in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. gent. who had just sat down, to state why he did not object to the present motion, and the grounds of the conduct which he had observed with respect to this measure, when it had been before in its progress through that house. And he thought this the more necessary after the ingenious course which the hon. gent. who had just sat down had taken, by which, in a way certainly perfectly parliamentary, he contrived to throw out the severest animadversions on the servants of the crown. The reason for the non-attendance of the ministers of the crown probably was, that they had not thought the bill of such importance as necessarily to require their attendance. Two opinions seemed to prevail respecting the importance of the bill. Some thought it of vast importance, with a view to purposes of œconomy, while others considered it formidable, as trenching on the prerogative of the crown. In neither of these opinions did he concur. He thought there was nothing in it that materially trenched on the prerogative of the crown, for he considered it as a matter of nice calculation, whether it increased or diminished the prerogative. If it diminished it in one view, it certainly increased it in another; and where the matter was so nicely balanced, he did not think there could be any reasonable grounds for supposing that the prerogative could be materially trenched upon. As to the economical effects of the bill, he could only regard them in the view that had been stated by his hon friend (Mr. Bankes); some offices might in this way be saved for the reward of services. But it ought to be recollected, that this method of reversions was the best way of making provision for the families of meritorious servants of the public, without imposing any new burthens on the public. It was once a mode of providing for lord chancellors, to whom, for instance, the reversion of a tellership of the exchequer might be granted, instead of the provision now in use in such case. On the one side, therefore, he thought there was no great advantage to be expected from the bill in point of economy, and on the other he saw no reason to fear any danger to the prerogative of the crown. If it was assumed, that this was a measure of great importance, on one hand, in point of economy, or on the other with a view to an infringement on the prerogative, it certainly might be considered as the duty of the ministers of the crown to attend. But those who adopted neither of these opinions, would of course act as if they considered it as a matter of no uncommon interest. When, therefore, his hon. friend had proposed the measure, he had not thought it necessary to oppose it, but at the same time he did not regard it in that great and favourable light in which it had appeared to others. The hon. gent. over the way, had expressed his surprise at the rejection of the bill, but he saw no reason why he should be surprized at the exercise of its rights by any branch of the legislature. It was the right of the other house, undoubtedly, to reject or approve, and nothing could be more prejudicial to this house than to assume a dictating authority, and to attempt to do by its own act what could only be properly done by an act of the legislature. As to the disgrace imputed by the hon. member, for the manner in which the measure had been disposed of in another place, he should leave that to others to decide. But certainly no person could be more disinterested on such a question, than one who enjoyed an office that had devolved upon him by a reversionary grant. He had never understood that it was in contemplation to deprive such persons of their offices, and he was therefore at a loss to conceive, why persons of that description might not as well as any other persons exercise their discretion upon the general question. The individual to whom the hon. gent. alluded (lord Arden), and of his connection with whom he had himself reason to be proud, had on this and every other occasion exercised his own judgment with a view to the public interest. Nothing could be more unfounded or ridiculous than the statement, not that he had heard in that house, but that had reached his ears from another quarter, that, instead of manfully opposing the measures themselves, ministers had sent others down to reject it. It that statement had made any impression either there or in the country, he was glad to take that opportunity of removing it. There was no candid mind that would not allow, that if he were to be actuated by such feelings, he could never have selected a worse person for the purpose, than one so nearly connected with him as the person that had been alluded to. He was ready, however, distinctly to state, that he certainly had known that it was the intention of that person to oppose the measure, on what appeared to him great constitutional grounds of objection. This he had known from a conversation which he had with that person on the subject, in which that person had expressed surprise that he had suffered the measure to pass that house without opposition. But, if he could not produce any change in that person's opinion, so neither had any been effected in his own, and he admitted that he had felt surprise at the active opposition made to the measure from that quarter. Nothing could be farther from his thoughts than to influence any person on the subject; so far from it, that he had assured his hon. friend in a communication which he had with him since, that whether he should bring forward his motion for an address or not, no act on the part of his majesty's government would be resorted to, that could interfere with his views. Before the present motion was brought, he had given his hon. friend his assurance, that even if he should not bring forward any motion, the practice of granting places in reversion, should be discontinued until the subject should come again fairly before the consideration of parliament. If the motion, however, appeared to him at all to interfere with the just respect due to the other branch of the legislature, he should have resisted it; but it appeared to him to have no such character, he gave it his sincere support.

expressed his difference in opinion from the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, as to the importance of the bill to which the motion then before the house referred. That right hon. gent. as of opinion, that it was a matter of extreme doubt, whether the prerogative of the crown received any additional strength, or was diminished by the provisions of that bill; and also, whether considered as a matter of public economy, it was to be considered as being advantageous or disadvantageous to the interests of the public. In fact, that right hon. gent. thought it to be so unimportant, that he was rather inclined to believe that he did not attend in his place in that house, on the different discussions which took place upon the subject. Now, he (lord H. Petty) was of a very opposite opinion; he did conceive that two most important principles were involved in the consideration of that question. Was it not, in the first place, of some importance, that persons of ability should be appointed to fill different offices in the service of the public; and was it not of some importance also, that the legislature should provide that his majesty should not be deprived of the fair exercise of his prerogative, in selecting such only as he thought qualified to fill the offices? This power, the practice of granting places in reversion might deprive him of, in many instances. And in the second place, was if not of some considerable importance, with a view to public economy that if at any particular time an office should be declared to be useless with respect to public service, and such as ought to be abolished, was it not of some very material importance, that it should be in the power of the servants of the crown to abolish the office upon the office becoming vacant? There was, for instance, a case that occurred last year, in which it would have been well if the measure, which was then spoken of, had been so long in force, as that places were entirely free on the death of the present occupant. The place of Customer of the port of Dublin became vacant by the death of the last officer who filled that place. That was one of the places which it was recommended by the committee of finance to abolish. The duke of Bedford then lord lieutenant of Ireland, being influenced by the same spirit of economy which actuated the minds of his majesty's confidential advisers in this country, would have abolished the office if it had been in his power so to do; but, he found on enquiry, that a reversion was entailed upon him; he did then all that was in that case left for him to do; he took care that during his administration of the affairs of Ireland, no reversionary interest of that situation should be granted. The right hon. gent., however, stated, with reference to what was supposed to have passed in another place, that a noble lord, who already possessed a reversionary interest, might be considered one of the most fit persons to speak upon the subject. Now, to make out this case, the right hon. gent. should at least have proved, that a person in such a situation must be completely satisfied that the measure of his desires must of course be full. Until he did this, which would be extremely difficult for him to do, he could not support his proposition. Unfortunately, however, for his argument, an instance was glanced at in the course of the debate, in which the person alluded to had two reversionary interests; and it naturally followed that, where this strong desire, for emolument was manifested, the person might very probably be ready to accept a third, or would even have no objection to the acceptance of a fourth for himself or some branch of his family. In every point of view in which he could consider the subject, he thought it to be such as deserved his utmost approbation, and from every additional discussion that it underwent, he was strengthened in his former opinions on this subject. The house had itself declared its opinion almost unanimously, they had done what they conceived to be essential to the public interest, and he hoped that that house, the great inquest of the nation, would continue to proclaim its opinion with all the weight which it carried with it, to the other branch of the legislature, to the crown, and to the country, in the most firm and dignified manner. He hoped that the other house might by next sessions of parliament, view the subject in a more favourable light, and that then the bill would have a better fate.

owed it to his country, to his constituents, and to himself, to declare his full and entire concurrence in the motion of the hon. gent., and he could not but express his extreme surprise at the manner in which the bill had been disposed of in the other house.

observed, that the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer had now put the question in a different paint of view from that in which it had before been looked at. He gave his support to the present motion in order that the business of reversions might not interfere with the labours of the committee of finance. Now, this appeared certainly to throw some new light upon the subject; it was to him matter of information, as the silence of his majesty's present ministers heretofore on this subject would rather have inclined him to believe that they were rather averse to the measure, if it had not been for the words that had been put into the king's speech, recommending the continuation of the finance committee. Then, with these apparent inconsistencies before them, he would beg leave to bring to the recollection of the house, that the only measure which was recommended by the finance committee to be put into execution, was that which passed that house in the form of a bill, which was afterwards lost the other house. It was reported that at least all his majesty's ministers who belonged to that house were not present on that occasion, and indeed the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, confessed that he was not certain whether or not he attended all the discussions that took place an that subject. But now that the right hon. gent. did happen to be in his place when the subject was mentioned, he should have thought it would have been more natural for him to have defended the measure on the principle itself, on the same ground that it might be supposed to have been recommended in the speech from the throne. However, at the same time he must declare, that he most cordially agreed with the right hon. gent., that if there had been any thing like a trick in the business; if there had been any thing of management in the matter, the noble relation of that right hon. gent. was, of all others, the most improper person to select for giving the measure any kind of secret opposition in another place. But the right hon. gent. considered it to be one of those indifferent, milk-and-water measures that it was hardly worth his attention; however, to oblige his hon. friend (Mr. Bankes) when he did speak upon it, he gave it a sort of cold support. There was one circumstance, how- ever, that was to him a matter of extreme surprise, which happened to escape the notice of his hon. friend (Mr. Ward); it was to him matter of extreme surprise, if it could be possible that the lord chancellor, who delivered the speech in the name of his majesty, in which the labours of the committee of finance were most graciously noticed; if it were possible that the same lord chancellor could afterwards ever have thought of opposing the first fruits of their labour, which was brought before him in the form of a legislative proceeding. It would also be to him a matter of extraordinary surprise, if he should be told that a noble lord, who could not certainly be a stranger to official proceedings, taking up a paper, and on looking at it, expressed his surprise most innocently, saying, "Oh! dear; so the reversion bill has been rejected in the lords!" If he should happen to be informed of such circumstances, he must confess that he should be a good deal surprised. But then, some said that the measure would trench on the royal prerogative, and therefore it was objectionable. Now, he did not hesitate to say, that with him an objection of that sort had very little weight, as he was decidedly of opinion, that in many instances the prerogative of the crown, inasmuch as it obtained influence, ought to be diminished. Some gentlemen, however, took it in another view, and talked of coercing the other house of parliament. This was what could not bear a serious answer—to talk of coercing them was ridiculous. But so much would he say, that it was the acknowledged right and duty of the house of commons, to guard the public purse; and that, as guardians of the public purse, they ought, in a measure of finance, which was peculiarly their province, to persevere until they might possibly at length convince the other house of the strength and propriety of their arguments. He should be glad, if it were possible, that a resolution should be framed, expressive of what appeared to be the unanimous opinion of the house on this subject, that it should be carried up to the house of lords, and that their lordships should then be called upon deliberately to express their opinion on it.—The question was then put on Mr. Bankes's motion, which was carried, nem. con.; and it was ordered that the address should be presented to his majesty by such members of that house as are also members of his majesty's privy council.

On the motion, that this house at its rising do adjourn to Thursday next,

rose. He observed, that this country being at present surrounded by the most gloomy prospects which perhaps ever offered to any nation, events were not unlikely to occur which might induce irremediable distress, if the utmost vigour and vigilance were not employed by all the departments of the state to avert the evils that menaced us. In such a crisis, of course, he deprecated the prorogation of parliament; pregnant, as the crisis was, with events which might render it peculiarly desirable for prudent ministers to resort to parliament for advice. He hoped, therefore, it was not intended by ministers to advise his majesty to prorogue parliament on Friday next, as rumour stated. Among the causes of gloom and alarm which this country at present witnessed, the hon. gent. noticed the state of our relations with a particular power—he meant Turkey; with regard to which, that house and the country were really unable precisely to decide whether we were at peace, or whether we were at war. An ambassador had been appointed to that state, and yet what was the nature of our connexion with it, or our future prospect regarding it, was quite uncertain. But he did not propose to press any embarrassing questions upon his majesty's ministers as to this topic. There were, however, other points upon which he was anxious, in common with the country at large, to receive all the information which ministers could consistently afford. The first and most important was with respect to the Russian treaty. In that treaty he observed an article specifically referring to the mediation of Russia between this country and France. Now, he wished to know whether any direct communication had been received from the court of Petersburgh, in consequence of this article? At the same time, he could not help observing, that there was something in the present juncture peculiarly favourable for the restoration of peace upon honourable terms, if ministers dexterously availed themselves of it. Thinking so, he strongly recommended ministers to accept the proposal of negociation; and, if they would enter upon it in the spirit of peace, he had no doubt that it would terminate in the establishment of that invaluable blessing; but if ministers proceeded upon a different spirit, he had serious fears that it would lead to great and permanent calamity.—The next point upon which the hon. gent. felt extremely anxious for information, was with regard to America: whether communication had been made by the American government upon the subject of a recent event on the American coast; and whether any steps had been taken by ministers in consequence of such communication? This was a question with regard to which the country felt extremely interested, and particularly as to the probable result. These were the two important points upon which he thought it his duty to apply to ministers for information, not only for the satisfaction of that house, but of the country. But with regard to the proposed prorogation, the hon. gent. called the attention of ministers to other important considerations, which appeared to him strongly to forbid that proceeding so early as was expected. According to the conditions of the Prussian treaty, it was stipulated that our commerce should be excluded from all the ports subject to that power, and it was understood that, in consequence of that stipulation, a large expedition had been sent out, with an object in view which exposed us to the liability of having a new enemy. The probability even of such an event ought, in his opinion, strongly to impress upon the minds of ministers, the impropriety of proroguing parliament, particularly as that probability must, in the nature of things, be so soon determined. While the result of such a proceeding was suspended, and with a just impression of the consequences, should the result be unfavourable, it would obviously be wise in any ministers to keep parliament together, in order that they might occasionally resort to the aid of its counsel. But, there were many other reasons which should impress this advice upon ministers. Among others, the incidents which might arise either out of a negociation for peace, or a continuance of war—the consequences which might result from the state of our present relations with America, and from the nature of our prospects with other powers; all of which it might be proper and necessary immediately to communicate to parliament, enforced time propriety of postponing the prorogation. But another, and a forcible reason for such postponement, was suggested by the present alarming situation of our West-India trade, through which we were likely to have so considerable a portion of our revenue cut off, and with regard to which, immediate proceedings ought of course to be taken by parliament. Under all these circumstances, the hon. gent. expressed his hope and wish, that ministers would not attempt to counsel his majesty to prorogue the parliament so soon as was reported.

rose, and spoke to the following effect:—I do not rise, sir, for the purpose of offering any argument to justify the exercise of his majesty's prerogative, with regard to the prorogation of parliament, or to state the reasons which may influence his servants in the counsels which they may deem it advisable to offer upon such a subject. Any attempt at that sort of justification is, according to my judgement, in the present instance, totally unnecessary. But I rise to make such replies to the hon. member's questions, as I feel consistent with my public duty; and I am happy that I do feel enabled to afford a full answer upon those points to which the hon. gent. appears to attach the most importance. First, then, as to Russia; the hon. gent.'s interrogatory is—whether any direct communication has been received from the court of St. Petersburgh, conformably to a certain article in the treaty recently concluded between that country and France? Undoubtedly, a direct communication has been received from the Russian court, by his majesty's government, containing an offer of mediation between this country and France. But, I think it right, at the same time to state that this communication was unaccompanied by any copy of the treaty lately concluded, or any of its conditions—but specifically not the article alluded to by the hon member. This communication was received on the 2d of this month, and at that time his majesty's ministers had no knowledge whatever of the terms of the Russian treaty; but least of all of a certain article in that treaty. Nor had they, indeed, any intelligence upon the subject, until they received it through the same medium as that which conveyed it to the public, namely, a French newspaper. Under these circumstances, ministers received the communication I have mentioned from Russia, and to that communication; they returned, what in such a state of things must have been expected, only a conditional answer. What the nature of that answer was, the hon. gent. will not ask me to state; but I can assure him, that the answer of ministers was given in the most perfect ignorance of the Russian treaty, and particularly of the article alluded to by the hon. gent.—The next interrogatory of the hon. gent. alluded to America: now, upon this point, I can have no difficulty in communicating to the house and to the public, the fullest information in my power; and I am peculiarly glad of the opportunity which the hon. gent. has afforded me of so doing. But, before I enter into the transaction to which the hon. member's question more particularly refers, I beg to state, that any circumstances which may have occurred with regard to America, can, in no degree, have arisen out of the conduct of his present ministers. For this reason, that finding upon their accession to office, certain relations subsisting between this country and America—finding a treaty pending, though not yet ratified, and the public faith of this country solemnly pledged—they felt no duty so sacred.—they saw no line so clear, as not to interfere with the course of these relations; but to proceed according to the impulse given by their predecessors. Whatever our own feelings were upon the merits of the measure, we felt it our duty, and formed our resolution, to give the fullest effect to the stipulations of the treaty which our predecessors had concluded; such, in fact, both collectively and individually, was our determined purpose. Under these considerations, I can assure the house that no alteration whatever was made in the course pursued by our predecessors—nothing whatever was done that could bear on their treaty, or the objects they had in view. No new instructions whatever were sent to our minister at the American court; and as to our naval force off the American coast, they had precisely the same orders as those which prevailed under our predecessors. Upon the conduct of that force, I cannot as yet attempt to pronounce an opinion. Until a recent transaction shall be enquired into, and the fullest and most accurate examination shall take place, it would be premature to decide upon it. But, whatever the conduct of this naval force, or the nature of this particular transaction may have been, the present ministers are no more responsible for it than as the representatives of the government. In the present stage of the business, I have nothing more to say upon this question but to add, that the British government have not received, either through its minister at the American court, or through the American ambassador here, any official communication whatever relative to the transaction alluded to by the hon. gent. Ministers received the first authentic account of this affair through the American newspapers, transmitted by our minister, which contained the president's proclamation, and in consequence of this publication I thought it my duty, no later than this day, to enquire of the American ambassador, whether he had any official communication from his government to make upon the subject; but was answered in the negative. In such circumstances, of course, ministers have no communication to make to parliament on this topic.—Upon these two points, with regard to which the hon. gent. professed to be particularly anxious, I have endeavoured to answer as fully and satisfactorily as my duty enabled me to do. With respect to the other points to which the hon. gent. referred, the house must feel that it would be impossible for me, consistently, to state any thing with regard to the measures which he supposes ministers to have taken in consequence of the Prussian Treaty with France, or as to the object of the expedition which government has lately sent out; particularly as no intelligence has as yet been received from that expedition. Upon another subject of the hon. gent.'s allusion, I mean Turkey, I shall only repeat the words of his majesty's speech at the commencement of the session, namely, "that his majesty has taken such measures, as may best enable him to take advantage of any favourable opportunity for bringing the hostilities in which he is engaged against the Sublime Porte, to a conclusion, consistent with his majesty's honour and the interests of his ally."—The right hon. gent. observed, that he had communicated as fully upon all the points adverted to by the hon. gent. as he was enabled to do consistently with his duty. Having no official communication to make to parliament; seeing no probability of an event that should render an immediate communication with parliament necessary, and considering that the public business was over, he could not conceive the reason of acceding to a principle so new, as that of continuing the attendance of members—of preventing a prorogation, particularly at the present season, when, according to the ordinary practice of parliament, his majesty exercised his unquestionable prerogative in allowing to both houses a certain recess.

expressed himself obliged to the right hon. secretary for the candour with which he had answered the questions he had thought it his duty to ask, but disclaimed any intention to interrogate the right hon. gent. as to those points, which he could not be consistently expected to answer—he meant particularly with respect to the destination of the expedition. With regard to his majesty's prerogative to prorogue parliament, he had no intention whatever to question it. But at the same time he must repeat, that the exercise of it in this instance, under the circumstances which he had stated, would be extremely ill advised.—The motion, that the house should at its rising adjourn till Thursday, was then agreed to.