which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second on Thursday.

On the motion of Sir John Newport, the Dublin paving commissioners' bill was read a second time, and ordered to a committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

Lord Temple postponed the second reading of the American intercourse bill to Thursday next; his reason for so doing was, that the papers connected with this subject, which a noble lord (Castlereagh) had signified his intention of moving for, might be brought under the consideration of the House.

Lord Castlereagh then postponed his motion for the papers till the next day.

Mr. Rose wished that a still longer time than that which the noble lord proposed might be given for the consideration of the bill, as it affected so materially the trade and navigation of this country.

Lord Temple did not see, after the delay which had already taken place, at the request of the right honourable gentleman, how the farther consideration of the bill could be postponed any longer than Thursday. He believed that the papers meant to be moved for would not alter his opinion on the subject, but would leave the question exactly as it stood before.

Sir Charles Price observed, that he had also moved for papers on the subject, which were not yet before the House.

Mr. Rose then moved, that an address be presented to his Majesty, praying, that he would be pleased to direct "that there be laid before. the House the memorials to the privy council from Upper and Lower Canada in 1804, and also from New Brunswick, stating the quantity of produce exported by them to the West Indies, together with an account of the number of ships and tonnage employed in the trade." Ordered.

The Secretary at War brought up the papers relating to barracks in the Isle of Wight. Ordered to be printed.

MARQUIS WELLESLEY.

Mr. Paull gave notice, that on Monday next, he would present a third charge against Marquis Wellesley.

Lord Temple wished to know from the honourable gentleman, when it was his intention to move some specific day for the House taking into consideration the charges which

he had already brought forward. It was the more necessary that no time should be lost, as a direct charge of murder had been brought against the noble lord: and should the honourable gentleman decline fixing any day, he himself intended to move for some specific day on which the charges might be considered.

Mr. Paull answered, that all the papers on which the charges were founded were not yet before the House, though it was likely they would be presented the next day. When the papers were presented, he should propose an early day for their consideration, though in this matter he was resolved to consult only his own ideas. He also complained that certain papers had been detained at the board of con

troul.

General Wellesley expressed a similar impatience, that the charges against his noble relation should be as speedily as possible brought under the consideration of the House; and particularly, that which conveyed an accusation of murder. He observed, that though the papers alluded to were not regularly transmitted to the board, yet they were to be found in the detail of Bengal transactions for 180S.

Mr. Vansittart brought up the bill appointing commissioners for the more effectual examination of accounts and expenditure in the West Indies, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time the next day.

Mr. Parnell brought up the report of the committee of ways and means, and the resolutions imposing an additional duty on malt in Ireland, which were read and agreed to, and a bill was ordered to be brought in accordingly.

On the motion of Sir John Newport, the Irish stampduty bill was read a third time and passed.

On the motion of Mr. Va sittart, the House resolved itself into a committee of supply, to which an account of the amount of exchequer bills issued in 1805 was referred. The sum of four millions and a half was then voted for paying off exchequer bills of 1805, granted on the credit of Reaids for last year, outstanding and unprovided for. port to be received the next day.

Lord Henry Peity then said, that it had been found ne cessary to omit introducing any exemptions to persons of small fortunes, and with large families, into the property bill which had lately passed, in order to prevent any embarrassment in the operation of that bill. But this omis sion did not proceed from any want of feeling for the situ

ation

ation of such persons; and he now gave notice of his intention to move fora bill exempting persons of that description, which would not be liable to objection, either in point of principle or of execution,

Lord Henry Petty also gave notice, with regard to the tax on private brewers, that as it was never meant to introduce the excise into private families, it was his intention to omit that part of the bill which authorized an excise duty on private brewers. But it would be necessary that the resolutions on which the bill was founded, should be altered in a committee of ways and means on Friday; the bill could not therefore be submitted to the House before the early part of next week.

Mr. Perceval wished to know how the noble lord would be able to ascertain who were private brewers, and who were

not.

Lord Henry Petty replied, that every person making a return under the assessed taxes would be required to state, whether or not he brewed his own beer,

MILITARY PLAN.

The House resolved itself into a committee on the mutiny bill.

Mr. Windham proposed that one of the blanks in the clause relative to limited service, should be filled up with a period of seven years.'

66

Lord Castlereagh moved, that the whole of that part which related to the proposed plan should be left out; and in doing so he entered at considerable length into the nature of the measure, and his objections to it. He could not avoid taking this opportunity to state his objections to it, as the more he considered them the more serious they appeared to him. He wished, however, to avoid details as much as possible, and only state the prominent features. It was a most painful difficulty to him and to the House to be called upon at all to decide úpon a measure of this nature, and more especially in the absence of that information which the official situation of ministers enabled them to command. If the right honourable secretary, with all his advantages, was four months in settling the details of his. plan, it was rather embarrassing for Parliament to decide upon it only three or four days after the Chelsea bill had been laid on the table, which was absolutely necessary in order to form any correct opinion upon it; and there was

an additional difficulty, as the blanks in the clause were not ́now filled up, and as much was matter of regulation. But it was unnecessarily embarrassing, because ministers withheld that body of valuable information which they possessed, and even changed their opinions on some points, before their resolutions had passed. He owned that he thought that we came to the consideration of this plan under circumstances disgraceful to the character of Parliament and to the government. He then proceeded to object strongly to the measure, as trenching on the prerogative of the crown. There was no occasion for bringing this to Parliament at all, as it was acknowledged in the other side, that the crown might execute the measures which ministers had in view. In such a case it had never been the practice of Parliament to proceed without a communication with the crown When additional pay was granted to the navy in 1797, there was an act of parliament, indeed, on that occasion, but then there was a previous order of council, and, therefore, this could not by any racans be stated as a precedent. This was depriving the crown in some measure of the power of the sword, which belonged by the constitution solely to the executi e authority, under the controul of parliament. In no instance was it ever proposed to trench upon this power, except in the tory administration under Queen Anne. He contended that his right honourable friend had been much misunderstood by the right hon. secretary of state (Mr. Fox) the other night, in stating the difference between a parliamentary army, and an army peculiarly belonging to the crown. In such kinds of force as the militia and the additional force, raised for home defence, the Parliament there might make terms and regula tions, but such a thing was never attempted, except in the above-mentioned instance, with regard to the regular army. Now, he wished to consider in what situation the crown stood at present, and in what situation it would stand, should the present plan be adopted. The crown at present might levy men in any mode, and under whatever regulations it thought proper, within the numbers and the expence limited by Parliament. If this measure passed, it would be impossible for it to raise men except for the term of seven years, as directed by the schedule A. in this bill. It therefore limited the power of the crown prodigiously in raising men. Where was the necessity for this? It was said that the soldier would have the security of Parliament

for

for the performance of engagements. It was improper and invidious in this case to make a distinction between parliamentary security, and the security afforded by the crown, but unfortunately for this statement, the purpose might have been completely answered by directing an alteration in the articles of war, which were considered as law, and under which, after such alteration, the soldier might move his habeas corpus, and be regularly discharged at the proper time. He thought this then a most unadvised attack on the prerogative of the crown. But the means used were also highly objectionable. By looking at the journals of the House, it would be found something similar to this was attempted in 1749, by Mr. Thomas Pitt, who at a time. when a great jealousy prevailed respecting the power of the crown, brought in a bill to provide that no officer should be retained in the service beyond a certain period. This was rejected by a great majority. But Mr. Thomas Pitt rested the matter on its own merits, whereas ministers now skulked behind the mutiny bill. By this means the House was deprived of the proper forms; and the House of Lords was prevented from saying "No" to the measure, by its being tacked to a money bill, so that the Lords could make no amendment without risking the loss of the bill altogether. But what was the situation of the crown when it came to exercise its negative power on this bill? It would not have the power to object to it, otherwise, by the loss of the bill, it would be left without an army, or at least without the means of controuling it. It was impossible, then, that the measure could be considered as having been submitted to the House with any degree of fairness upon its own merits. It was open to all the objections that existed to the tacking of measures which might be offensive to the crown, but which the Commons wished to carry, to money bills. Upon the impropriety of such a proceeding he read a quotation from Hatsell, who stated that such a conduct was highly irregular, and a breach of the rules and orders of Parliament. He also read his observations upon the tory measure in 1704, when they wished to carry the bill against occasional conformity. Their proceedings, Mt. Hatscil stated, as tending to create confusion in the government, to force a peace, and to render our allies disposed to accept of such terms as they could procure for themselves, and as France would offer. These observations he thought very applicable to the present case. He concluded this point