presented the following Message from his royal highness the Prince Regent:

rose and observed, that had he been present at the time the Message was presented (which, by the way, was brought forward at a much more early period than public business was usually expected), he should have objected to the motion fixing the consideration of it for to-morrow. Upon a question of such magnitude and importance, more time ought, in his opinion, to be afforded, in order to prepare the House for its consideration, especially where the object of the Message was not clearly expressed,—where, in fact, it was couched in such equivocal, such indefinite terms, that it was difficult to understand the views of those with whom it originated. Besides, as the debate upon such a subject was likely to be long, while the subject itself naturally called for some previous examination, he should rather have thought that it would be more convenient and proper to appoint Monday than tomorrow. On these grounds he should to-morrow move a postponement of the discussion until Monday. But preliminary to that discussion, he had two questions to put to the noble lord: fusty Whether it was true, as had been promulgated from a sort of half authority, that a secret understanding had been entered into, or a secret article concluded, between all the parties to the Treaty of Paris (excepting France, of course), pledging those powers to maintain the House of Bourbon upon the throne of France? and secondly, Whether the noble lord would think it consistent with his duty to communicate the terms of the treaty proposed at Chatillon, upon which the allies were then willing to conclude peace with France? If the noble lord should not be disposed to accede to this communication, it would be for the House to decide whether it would not be expedient to demand such communication, which he (Mr. W.) thought highly material to the due consideration of the subject referred to in the Regent's Message.

said, that as to the first observation of the hon. gentleman, he did not present his Royal Highness's Message till half past four o'clock, which, from his previous intimation, he could not deem as too early an hour for the introduction of such a subject. Then, as to the day fixed for the consideration of the Message, he was rather surprised at the hon. gentleman's observation, because it would be recollected that, on a former day, he distinctly stated his purpose of proposing such an arrangement in describing the coarse of business for the week, and with a view to this arrangement he moved the postponement of the American question from this day to Tuesday, in order, as the Message was meant to be considered on Friday, that the House might not be occupied by debate on two successive days. But, independently of this consideration, it would be quite inconsistent with the usual practice of Parliament to postpone the consideration of a Message from the Throne: an early consideration was, indeed, due in deference to the Throne, and was there- ] fore never delayed. With respect to the hon. gentleman's questions: first, No secret article, understanding, or engagement of the nature alluded to by the hon. gentleman had ever existed between the allies; and as to the second question, he apprehended that the House would not be disposed to delay the consideration of the Prince Regent's Message, or to postpone the expression of its opinion upon the present exigency, until all the papers connected with the negociations at Chatillon should be laid on the table, and until the hon. gentleman should have an opportunity of considering these papers. Upon these grounds, he trusted the House would not feel it necessary to revise its decision for taking the Message into consideration to-morrow.

expressed himself particularly glad to hear that no such secret article or understanding existed, as that to which he referred. But as to the treaty proposed at Chatillon, he thought it material that the House should have some information upon that subject, before it entered into the consideration of the Regent's Message. It was a mistake to suppose that he required the production of all the papers connected with the negotiations at Chatillon. A short extract would be quite sufficient, describing the terms upon which the allies were at that time willing to conclude peace with France; and without such a communication he could not think the House prepared to discuss the subject of the Message. The delay of a single day with a view to obtain and to consider such an important fact, he could not suppose in any degree disrespectful to his Royal. Highness, or inconsistent with the deference which that House owed to a communication from the Throne. The House had, indeed, been led to expect, from the intimation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Message would have been brought down on Wednesday, and thus one intervening day would have been allowed for its consideration, before the House would be called upon to decide; but the noble lord from his superior knowledge of tactics thought proper to postpone the presentation of the Message until this day, thus precluding the possibility of due consideration. The hon. gentleman disclaimed any intention of disrespect to his Royal Highness in thus pressing for some delay; adding, that although, he had no hope of persuading the House to change the order upon this subject for Monday, he had little doubt that, from the length to which such debates usually extended, it would become necessary for convenience, to adjourn the discussion from to-morrow to Monday.

said, that when the House came to the discussion he would give such explanation respecting the propositions at Chatillon as was proper, or as had any connexion with the subject of the Prince Regent's Message. With respect to the presentation of this Message, it was to be considered that the Lords did not meet, until Wednesday, and that some previous intimation was due to that House, as to the intention to make a communication of this nature, which was usually presented to both Houses at the same time. Now as to questions generally, he felt it necessary to observe, that it would be well if gentlemen proposing to put any questions, would either previously apprize ministers of their intention, or else that those gentlemen should wait until the ministers were in their, places.

What then were we to do, when the noble lord was at Vienna?

began by declaring, that he was not at all aware, that the Prince Regent's Message would have been presented so early, or he should have been in his place sooner. But he hoped that the House would, upon the subject of that Message, allow him to trespass on its indulgence for a few moments, although, there was no motion under, consideration. The Message, he observed, was composed of two parts:—first, his Royal Highness told the House that be was preparing to augment our forces by sea and land, in consequence of the recent events in France; and, secondly, his Royal Highness stated, that he would act in concert with our-allies. In thus proceeding, his Royal Highness had, in his opinion, been advised to do that which was wise and proper; for it was wise in his Royal Highness to have the country in a slate of adequate preparation for any emergency, and proper to preserve an intimate communication and concert with his allies. But beyond those two points he did not wish to express any opinion, nor did he think the House ripe at present to give any farther decision. As to the use to, be made of the force which his Royal Highness was preparing, that would remain for consideration; but upon the two points to which he had referred, he however others ] might differ from him, was ready to say that his Royal Highness had been rightly advised. Beyond those points, however, he was not prepared to go. He would not enter into any premature discussion. He was neither prepared to say that his Royal Highness and his allies should plunge into a slate of war, nor that security was to be found in a state of peace. He need not say that his wish was that the latter should be found attainable, but he felt it impossible at present to offer any opinion upon those points. He could, however, readily say, that his disposition was to rote for a suitable Address in answer to the Prince Regent's Message, provided that Address contained nothing to pledge his future conduct. From the full declaration of his opinion, when adequately informed, he should never be found to shrink; but he would never declare premature opinions, or engage in premature discussions. Therefore, he would abstain from such opinions and discussions in this instance. He would be glad to vote for the Address of to-morrow, and he hoped that but a short discussion would take place upon it. In his judgment, it was decidedly wise to consider and provide against any new difficulties or dangers likely to arise out of the present state and prospects of France; and therefore he highly approved of the preparation which the Regent's Message announced; but as to the use which Government might ultimately make of that preparation he should not hold himself bound to support it by any vote which he was at present disposed to give. He therefore wished the Address of to-morrow might be so drawn up as to meet his views. The right hon. gentleman concluded with expressing his anxious hope that it might not be found inconsistent with the safety of Europe to preserve a state of peace, and to avoid the calamities of war.

said, that without anticipating the discussion of to-morrow, he could assure the right hon. gentleman that it was not proposed by the Address in contemplation to pledge his opinion, or that of the House, as to the future conduct of his Majesty's government. With respect to that conduct, or the use that might be made of the force in preparation, and whether the ultimate end should be war or peace, must depend upon the issue of circumstances to be determined on their own merits.

rose, in pursuance of his notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the Abolition of the punishment of the Pillory. He did not conceive it necessary, in introducing this motion, to enter into any discussion of the origin of crimes and punishments. The authors who had written upon this subject were already in, the hands of most of the members of that House; it would be sufficient for him, therefore, to make a few general observations upon the legitimate objects of punishments, as the ground upon which his motion was founded. The first end of punishment was the reformation of the offender; and the next was, when the crime committed was of so deep a die as not to admit of a hope of amendment, to punish the criminal by death; and at the same time, by the severity of his punishment, to afford an example to deter others from the commission of similar offences. With this view of the subject, he was at a loss to imagine under what head to class the punishment of pillory. It could not be called a reforming punishment, because it rather tended to deaden the sense of shame than to have any other effect. Besides, it appeared to him as contrary to law, because the culprit was left to meet the fury of the populace. It was not attended with any good to the spectator, because it only gave rise to the assemblage of a tumultuous rabble, who either contravened the sentence of the Court by exalting the criminal, or violated the law by an outrageous attack upon him. It was therefore evidently a punishment of a very unequal nature. As illustrative of this remark, he begged to cite a few cases. In the year 1759, doctor Shebbeare was sentenced to be pillored for a libel of a political description—and in what manner was that punishment executed? Why, when he arrived at the pillory he mounted it in full dress, attended by a servant in livery, who held an umbrella over his head and the under-sheriff, who participated in the popular feeling, instead of calling upon him, as usual, to place his head in the pillory, was satisfied to let him simply rest ins hands on the machine, and in that way he underwent his sentence. Then again, in the case of Daniel Isaac Eaton, who two years back was pillored for a religious libel, this man, instead of being regarded, as might have been expected, with indignation, was treated with, respect, and viewed ] with silent pity. There were other cases, however, in which a different course was pursued. He alluded particularly to the case of four men who were pillored in four different parts of the metropolis, for conspiring to take a man's life away upon a charge of robbery, for the sake of the reward. He did not mean to say, that if the law directed such offenders to be punished by death, that they did not deserve it; but unless the law did direct such a sentence, he thought they ought not to be exposed to the risk of that fate—one of these men was actually killed, while the other three escaped with difficulty. This was a species of violence which, he thought, ought to be avoided. There was another case, where the caprice of the public on such occasions was strongly demonstrated. Two men were pillored at Brentford, one for compromising a Dui Tam action, and the other for a crime of a detestable nature, not less atrocious; and yet such was the indignation felt towards the informer, that he was nearly killed, while his companion in suffering escaped unhurt. The punishment, he insisted, was unequal: to a man in the higher walks of life, it was worse than death: it drove him from society, and would not suffer him to return to respectability; while, to a more hardened offender, it could not be an object of much terror, and it could not affect his family or his prospects in the same degree. To show the severity with which legal punishments pressed upon persons in the higher walks of life, he adverted to the case of Dr. Dodd, who had been justly sentenced to die for forgery; a crime, with respect to which the law could permit no variation in the sentence. Before he received sentence of death, Dr. Dodd addressed the Court, and set forth the circumstances of his former life. He stated, that many who had been among his hearers had become better men from hearing him in the pulpit, that he had thus been the means of rescuing others from vice, and he added these words, "Condescend to reflect, my lord, if these considerations aggravate my offence, how much they must imbitter my punishment." The hon. gentleman concluded with, saying, that it was grating to his feelings to leave such a punishment as that of the pillory in the hands of a court, who might treat the admirable author of Junius, if he were discovered, in the same manner as the most atrocious criminal. The punishment of the pillory was the remnant of a barbarous age, and the cruel instrument of Star-chamber authority. He then moved and obtained leave to bring in a bill "to abolish the punishment of the pillory."

said, that in consequence of a communication which he had had from the Portuguese ambassador, respecting a representation to his Court, calculated to obviate the necessity of this measure, he should press it no farther. Therefore the right hon. gentleman moved the third reading of the Bill this day six months. Agreed to.