consideration, and to rectify the Declaration, that he now brought the subject under consideration. With this view he now begged to ask of the noble lord, 1st, If, to his conception of the French Decree, the date was of consequence? 2dly, If he agreed that this act of the French Government was esteemed enough, so as to operate as a repeal of our Orders in Council? 3dly, If both of these points were at an end, then he begged to suggest that it should not be left to speculation what the nature of the Declaration was meant to be, but that an explanation should be published on that subject. Mr. Brougham concluded by moving for an account of the expence of Cloathing for the Army and Marines, for the ten years ending 5th January, 1812, distinguishing each year.

Mr. Rose had no objection to the motion.

Lord Castlereagh complained, that the honourable and learned gentleman had brought forward his questions rather in an argumentative sort of shape. He had no difficulty, however, in stating what was his opinion as to each. It was no doubt true that there had been communicated to the Government of this country, within these two days, a Decree of the French Government, to the effect stated by the honourable and learned gentleman, dated 15 months ago. The Government of this country received this communication with surprise, because they knew that the Ame rican Government had applied for more explicit information on this head to the French Government, and, till lately, when the Decree in question was produced, had not received any satisfactory assurances. The honourable and learned gentleman had professed not to be acquainted with French diplomacy, of which, there could not be a doubt, the Decree in question was the offspring, now first seen after it had been passed, as its date bore, 15 months, and after the promulgation of the Declaration by this country. The Decree in question, however, was not an unconditional repeal of the French Decrees, but was pointedly confined to America. Now, if the honourable and learned gentleman asked him, if such a Decree, so extraordinary and unique in its kind, satis fied him that we ought to repeal our Orders in Council, he had no hesitation in saying that, in his opinion, such a Decree in no degree satisfied his Majesty's Declaration, which was framed not to apply to one nation as to whom, for a hostile and sinister purpose, the French Government might repeal their Decrees, but only in the event of a gene

ral and unconditional repeal of those Decrees. The Decree now alluded to only went to a partial and conditional repeal of the Berlin and Milan Decrees, and now made its appearance under circumstances the most disgraceful to the Government whence it proceeded; and if any one act could convince America of fraud having been practised by France, both against this country and against America, he (Lord Castlereagh) should conceive this curious and pretended document would have that effect, which was now brought for ward with the expectation of seducing this country into a repeal of her Orders in Council. As to the instrument itself, however, it did not satisfy the terms of the Declaration issued by the Government of this country. If what he (Lord Castlereagh) had stated on this subject, however, was not satisfactory, the Declaration gave to any person enter taining a contrary opinion their remedy at law.

Mr. Brougham begged to be understood as only repeating what he had originally meant to express, that if there was not a clerical error in the date of the document in ques, tion, it must be considered as one of those acts which are most unworthy of a great nation. As to the condition, however, on which the Declaration bore that the Orders in Council were to be repealed, he once more implored that it might be reconsidered, and submitted, that though not in the words, yet in the spirit of their Declaration, the Govern ment of this country were now warranted in repealing the Orders in Council as to America. The French Decrees being repealed as to the Americans, this was, as to them, the same as if there was a repeal of those Decrees generally, Mr. Stephen disapproved of the premature manner in which the matter had been brought forward. The paper alluded to seemed to him to be singularly disgraceful to the Government by whom it was issued; but he was surprised that his honourable and learned friend should, in the present state of affairs, have been so anxious to draw from his Ma jesty's present Ministers their opinions on the subject of the effect had by that paper on the Declaration by this country. Did he do so from an impression that those measures which he (Mr. Brougham) so strenuously supported, would not be so much in favour as he could wish with that Go vernment which was yet unborn?

Mr. Baring regretted that the noble lord (Castlereagh) should have expressed any decided opinion on so important a point as the policy of continuing the Orders in Council,

so far as America was concerned, pending the evidence now in the course of proceeding at the bar of that House, and before there had been time for weighing the importance of that evidence in all its bearings.

Lord Castlereagh said, he had given no opinion as to the policy of continuing the Orders in Council, as far as regarded America. He had only answered some questions put to him on matters of fact.-The motion was put and agreed to.

Mr. Brougham also moved for an Account of the Expence of Swords and Bayonets for the Navy and Army, for the 10 years ending 5th January 1812, distinguishing each year. Ordered.

Mr. Martin, on the suggestion of Lord Castlereagh, postponed the Committees on the Registrar of the Admiralty's Bill, and on the Exchequer Remembrancer's Bill, till Friday next.

SUPPLY.

Lord Castlereagh felt that there might seem to be an impropriety in calling on the House to vote away public money in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But as to a grant, the principle of which had been already assented to by the House, he meant the grant to the children of Mr. Perceval, which had been unanimously approved of by the House, he thought there could be no difficultyHe should move, therefore, that the House do go into a Committee of Supply, for the purpose of voting that special grant only.

The House accordingly went into a Committee of Supply.-Adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

MONDAY, MAY 25.

Several witnesses were examined on the subject of the Orders in Council.

The Earl of Radnor presented a Petition from Mr. Agar against the Regent's Canal, which was laid on the table.

The third reading of the Bill for the Inclosure of certain Lands in the county of Carnarvon was, on the motion of Earl Stanhope, postponed till this day se'nnight. The object was to afford time to consider whether some general re

gulation might not be adopted for Bills of this nature, with respect to the allowance to be made for the improvements resulting from encroachments made on commons within 20 years before the passing of such Bills.

The Lord Chancellor expressed his conviction that any general regulation on the subject would be pernicious, as it would prevent Lords of Manors from ever again permitting poor people to build cottages on the commons.

Earl Fitzwilliam presented a Petition from certain manufacturers of Yorkshire, against the Orders in Council.

Some additional witnesses were then examined on the subject of the Orders in Council.--Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

MONDAY, MAY 25.

On the motion of Mr. Wilson the Clandestine Marriage Bill was taken into farther consideration, recommitted, and the Report was received. Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

ORDERS IN COUNCIL.

Mr. Brougham said, that he expected to be able to finish his part of the evidence this evening; but as it was uncertain when the evidence on the other side would be brought on, or when finished, he did not suppose he should be able to submit to the House any proposition on the subject till Tuesday fortnight. He should therefore move, that the Call of the House, which stood for Wednesday, should be postponed till Wednesday fortnight.

Lord Castlereagh had no objection to continuing the Call of the House, as it was not certain when witnesses would be able to attend.

Mr. Rose, in answer to a question from Mr. Brougham, said, that it would be two or three days before the witnesses would be able to attend.

Mr. Brougham observed, that one reason for postponing his motion was, that in the meantime something like an efficient Administration might be formed.

Mr. Whitbread postponed his motion, which stood for. to-morrow, relative to American papers, sine die; but said he saw no reason at present to postpone his other notice relative to the Toleration Act, which stood for a distant day.

Mr. Sheridan, seeing a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Ryder) in his place, should ask a question respecting an Address which had at the end of last session been voted to the Prince Regent, concerning a petition of John St. John Mason, complaining of tyranny and oppression under Lord Hardwicke's government in Ireland. He understood that an inquiry had been instituted, and a Report made, but he wished to know why this Report was not laid before the House.

Mr. Ryder observed, that an inquiry had been instituted in pursuance of the Address, but wished for time to consider the papers on the subject.

Mr. Sheridan said, it was fitting that the House should see the Report; and if he pressed the question rather pertinaciously, it was because he did not know how long that right honourable gentleman might be in office. He should, however, to give the honourable gentleman time, postpone his motion till to-morrow.

Mr. Whitbread brought up a Petition from Mr. Guy, who had been arrested at Jersey, on the ground of sending a challenge, and of insanity; and afterwards, at great expence and inconvenience, transported to Guernsey; praying to be heard by himself or counsel, at the Bar of the House. Read, and ordered to lie on the table.-Adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

TUESDAY, MAY 26.

Mr. Grant presented the 19th Report of the Commis sioners of Military Inquiry, which was laid on the table. The Bill for the more effectual punishment of persons receiving money under false pretences was, on the motion of Lord Ellenborough, read a second time, and ordered to be committed.-Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

TUESDAY, MAY 26.

The 19th Report of the Commissioners of Military Inquiry was brought up.

On the motion that the Amendments of the Margate Pier Bill be now taken into consideration, Mr. P. Moore opposed it, on the grounds of its being a job; and moved, that for