HOUSE OF LORDS.

Thursday, March 5.

THE royal assent was given by commis

sion to the sugar drawback bill, and the Exchequer bills funding bill; and the frame breaking punishment bill was read a third time and passed.

Monday, March 9.

In the appeal case, the Earl of Elgin, *. M•Lean, the judgment of the Court of Session was affirmed.

The Drury Lane Theatre bill was read a third time and passed.

Friday, March 13.

After some remarks from Lord Darnley, who thought it would not be safe to disap point the expectations of Portugal, the ad dress was agreed to.

Tuesday, March 17.

The committee of privileges sat this day, and proceeded with the further investigation of the claims of Sir James Innes Ker, to the honours and dignities of the Roxreferring to the pedigree of the claimant was burgh peerage. The whole of the evidence gone through, and the committee adjourn ed till the first Tuesday after the Easter

recess.

Thursday, March 19.

He

Lord BORINGDON addressed the House upon the subject of the recent attempt to form a more extended administration. entered, at large, into the situation of pub lic affairs at home and abroad, and contended, that catholic emancipation could no longer be delayed without endangering the safety of the country. He concluded with moving an address to the Prince Regent, representing the necessity of forming an administration, so composed, as to unite the confidence and good will of all classes of his Majesty's subjects, which could not be enjoyed by an administration, the characteristic principal of whose do mestic policy, as well as the bond of whose connection in office, is not only not to recommand, but to resist a fair and dispassionate consideration of those civil abilities under which the Irish catholics still labour,

and expressing an anxious hope that his Royal Highness might yet be enabled to form an administration on a basis calcu

lated

in council, to which he attributed the distresses and embarrassments felt in every part of the kingdom, and concluded with moving for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the state of the commerce and manufactures of the country, and more particularly as it related to the system of licences.

A long discussion ensued, in which the only novelty was, that Mr Canning supported the motion, being apprehensive that the extent to which the licence system had been carried had, contrary to the original intention of the orders in council, made their pressure fall more heavily upon the neutral than the enemy. Towards the close of the debate, Lord G. L. Gower and Lord Milton complained that an opportunity had not been afforded them of delivering personally to the Prince Regent, several petitions from their respective constituents, against the orders in council.-On a division, the motion was negatived by 216 to 144.

Thursday, March 5.

The Speaker having informed the House that he had received a letter from Mr Walsh, stating his inability to attend the order of the House,

Mr BANKES rose and addressed the House upon the necessity of preserving their honour and dignity by the expulsion of such characters as Mr Walsh. He quoted a variety of precedents, to shew that this course had been taken in cases which fell very short of Mr Walsh's in point of delinquency. He concluded with moving "that Benjamin Walsh, Esq. a Member of that House, having been tried for felony at the Old Bailey in January last, was convicted thereof; but for the reason of the opinion of the judges, that the act did not amount to felony, a free pardon had been granted him: but as gross fraud and breach of trust had been proved against him on the said trial, he is unworthy and unfit to continue a Member of this House."

Sir A. PIGOTT opposed the motion, and contended, that none of the precedents cited are applicable to Mr Walsh.

Mr WHITBREAD, and several others opposed the motion, on the ground that Mr Walsh had been virtually acquitted in the eye of the law, and that the precedent of his expulsion might be dangerous.

Sir F. BURDETT, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and others, contended that the moral turpitude attached to Walsh's conduct demanded his expulsion. Sir F. Burdett, in his speech, stated, that Walsh

had been expelled in 1809 from the Stock Exchange for his nefarious conduct; that he had given L.5000 for his seat in Parliament, and had actually put that sum among the assets of his estate given in to the commissioners under his bankruptcy! and that, in consequence, the parties implicated, had settled his debts, and hushed up the matter. An honourable Member had stated, that if Parliament voted to expel Mr Walsh, on the circumstances before them, they might go on to inquire into the moral conduct of three-fourths of the country. If that were true, they were living in a very extraordinary state of society indeed. It put him in mind of the dialogue in the play, between Lady Macduff and her son. The child inquires" Must they all be hanged that swear and lie ?" "Every one," says the mother. "Who must hang them?" asks the child. “Why, the honest men," says the lady. "Then the liars and swearers are fools," rejoins the boy," for there are liars and swearers enough to beat the honest men, and hang them up!" (a laugh.)

The motion was carried on a division of 101 to 16.

Irishmen Mr Palmer explained that not only Irishmen, but English manufacturer's were rejected by the Colonel of the 10th hussars, because they were unacquainted with the treatment of horses, which was understood by recruits who had been trained to agriculture. Lord Folkestone, then, on the suggestion of Mr Perceval, withdrew his motion; and another for a return of the number of foreign officers and soldiers serving in the different regiments of this country, was subtituted.

Wednesday, March 11.

A motion by Mr Abercromby, for a return of the convicts transported, pardoned, or received into the army and navy, was opposed by Messrs Ryder and Perceval, who observed, that it would tend to expose those men, who, on recommendation for their good conduct were permitted to enter into regular regiments in this country, instead of condemned ones.

Friday, March 13.

Mr PERCEVAL presented a message from the Prince Regent, stating, that "the assistance which we had been able to give to the Portuguese Government, his allies, had furnished the means of improving the military establishment of that country, and of rendering conspicuous the valour and discipline of its armies,, in the successful deliverance from, and defence of, Portugal against the enemy; and trusting that he will be enabled to give the same assistance in the present war as in the last from which such important consequences to the cause of the allies have resulted." Referred to a Committee of Supply.

On the motion for the third reading of the mutiny bill, Sir F. BURDETT, in speech distinguished for humanity and eloquence, animadverted on the military punishment of flogging, and urged, by many arguments, the policy of its abolition in the British Army. The Hon. Baronet 'said, that many persons died in conse quence of its infliction, by sentence of a regimental Court Martial, whose sufferings never met the public eye. He instanced, on the authority of a missionary, the ease of a soldier at the Cape of Good Hope, who being sentenced to receive one thousand lashes, had two hundred and fifty inflicted, when the surgeon interposed, and he was taken from the halberts, but. died in a few days after. He did not by any means pretend to say that summary punish ments ought not to be inflicted in the army, but what he objected to was the sysfem of torture thus practised a system

unknown, he was sorry to say, in any ar my but that of the British; and it was the more deplorable in a country like Great Britain, where the principles of liberty, of humanity, and of civilization, were better understood and practised than in any country on the face of the earth, The Hon. Baronet said, he understood that the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Moira, Lord Hutchinson, and the Earl of Wellington, were desirous of abolishing the practice.

Mr M. SUTTON urged the impossibility of supporting the discipline of the army, should the fear of this punishment be entirely removed.

Generals Tarleton, Phipps, and Porter, Sir G. Warrender, Mr Abercromby, Mr C. Adams, Lord Palmerston, Lord C. Somerset, Lord Cochrane, and Mr W. Smith, spoke against the abolition; Sir S. Romilly and Mr Whitbread in its favour.

The bill was then read a third time; but the clause proposed by Sir F. Burdett was negatived by 79 votes to 6.

Monday, March 16.

Lord CASTLEREAGH rose to propose the sum of L.2,000,000 as a subsidy to Portugal. The circumstances of Portugal, he contended, were so improved, and its troops had exhibited so much discipline and valour, that he did not conceive any opposition to the measure. His Lordship descanted, in the usual terms, of sympathy to a gallant and unfortunate people; that they shewed no inclination to desert the cause; that no instance of treachery had occurred among them, &c.-The Noble Lord was opposed by Mr Freemantle, Sir T. Turton, and Mr Ward and Colonel Dillon, on the usual Lord Cochrane; and supported by the Hon. grounds, on one side, of impoverishing would conduce to our ruin, and on the ourselves by a system which in the end other, on the plea of public faith, &c.; when the question was put, and carried without a division.

On the third reading of the local militia bill, Sir F. Burdett proposed an amendment, prohibiting the punishment by flogging, which was negatived without a divi

sion.

Tuesday, March 17.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved for leave to bring in a bill for the renewal of the law of the last session, upon a subject much spoken of. The bill he proposed to move for would be to continue the former bill with amendments, viz. to render Bank of England notes a competent payment into court, out of court, and in general,

general, and to extend its operation to Ireland; that the bill should be read a second time; and that the committal should be postponed till after the holidays, in order to the attendance of Irish members.

Lord FOLKESTONE and Mr TIERNEY OPposed the motion. The House divided-→→ For the motion 73-Against it 36.

Wednesday, March 18.

Mr WHITBREAD presented a petition with many thousands of signatures from certain manufacturers in Yorkshire, stating their distressed condition, praying that measures might be adopted for their relief, and also praying for a reform in Parliament.

Thursday, March 19.

Mr HOUSTON presented a petition from the Chamber of Coinmerce of the city of Glasgow, praying for a free trade with the East Indies.

General GASCOIGNE presented a petition from the West India planters, merchants, and others, in the port of Liverpool, complaining of the deplorable state of colonial trade, and praying that the duties on sugar, cotton, and coffee, might be lowered.

Friday, March 20.

Mr PERCEVAL delivered the following message from the Prince Regent :

"GEORGE, P. R.

"His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, in the name and on behalf of his Majesty, thinks it necessary to acquaint the House of Commons, that, in pursuance of the powers vested in his Majesty by two acts passed in the 18th and 39th years of his present Majesty's reign, his Majesty was graciously pleased, by letters patent, bearing date Feb. 2. 1802, to grant to their Royal Highnesses the Princesses Augusta, Elizabeth, Mary, Sophia, and Amelia, an annuity of L. 3000, agreeably to the provisions, and subject to the limitations of the said acts; which grant was to take effeet from the demise of his Majesty; and his Royal Highness being desirous, in the present situation of the Royal Family, to be enabled to provide for the establishment of their Royal Highnesses the Princesses, by an immediate grant, recommends to the House of Commons to take the subject into its consideration, and to enable his Royal Highness to make such provision for their Royal Hignesses the Princesses, as in the liberality of Parliament may be thought suitable to the actual situation of the Princesses, and to the circumstances of the pre Fent time."

Monday, March 17.

General TARLETON presented a petition from the merchants, ship owners, and others, of the town of Liverpool, praying that the charter of the East India Company should not be renewed, and that their moTM nopoly should be destroyed.

Mr CREEVEY took this opportunity of con firming his former statement, that there were 15,000 persons maintained by charity in Liverpool, exclusive of those supported by parochial relief. He had lately been in the town, and was perfectly convinced of the utter ruin of trade there. The commerce to America and the Mediterranean, and the manufacture of salt, had utterly failed.

THE PRINCESSES.

The order of the day being read,

Mr CREEVEY opposed the Speaker's leaving the Chair, observing, that he thought an inquiry into the revenue of the country should precede any pecuniary grant to the He likewise remarked, that Princesses. out of the L. 130,000 granted to the Prince Regent, in addition to the civil list, something might be done by his Royal Highness for the purposes in question.

Mr PERCEVAL explained, that out of the revenue enjoyed by the Prince, an income of L. 17,000 besides L.5000 pin-money, was allowed to the Princess of Wales, and that his Royal Highness had taken upon himself the discharge of her debts, amounting to L.49,000, in order that it should not fall upon the public. Another sum of L. 70,000 was handed over to the Commis.

sioners of the Dutchy of Cornwall, for the purpose of discharging his own incumbrances; the Queen also received from the civil list the same sum as formerly, so that he did not see how the Princesses were to be provided for, out of the funds of the Prince Regent.

Mr WHITBREAD observed, that the Prince, when he undertook the payment of debts to the amount of L. 49,000, was himself indebted in an enormous sum. He, indeed, who could not pay his own debts, engaged to pay those of another-this looked like a juggle. He thought delay necessary.

The House then went into a Committee of Supply, when, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after making a statement on the propriety of increasing the allowances, to the Princesses, moved that L. 36,000 insteadjof L 30,000 already provided, should be granted to the Princesses, and to be charged on the consolidated fund.

Mi