Was the question to be put off sine die? Three weeks had already elapsed since the country had been without an Administration, and how much longer they would have to wait was uncertain. Did the noble lord and his friends think that those gentlemen who had never yet read the evidence, would ever make any attempt to look at all into it? In two former cases, the inquiry into the conduct of the Duke of York, and into the Walcheren Expedition, the House proceeded to discussion in less than a week from the closing of the evidence. Speedy discussion was so necessary, that he thought his honourable and learned friend would not be doing justice to the question, if he did not endeavour to bring it forward on Thursday next.

Mr. Marryat said, a most important part of the evidence was not yet ready.

Mr. Baring hoped the noble lord, if he would not consent to Thursday, would name an early day in the following week.

Mr. Rose suggested Friday se'nnight.

Mr. Brougham said he was resolved that this responsibility, which he felt very heavy, should not rest with him. Be it on the right hon. gentleman, or be it on the House. But why could not the question be brought forward to-morrow se'nnight, or Wednesday? He should move, therefore, that the order for the Call of the House should stand over for Wednesday se'nnight..

Lord Castlereagh moved as an amendment Friday se'nnight.

It was at last agreed that the call should stand for Friday se'nnight, and that Mr. Brougham should bring forward his motion on the Thursday preceding.

Mr. Wortley then wished to ask the noble lord (Castlereagh) whether such a commission had been given to Lord Liverpool, as had been given to Lords Wellesley and Moira?

Lord Castlereagh had no information with respect to these two cases. Lord Liverpool, he knew, had received powers to proceed in the formation of an Administration.

Mr. Wortley said, he wished at present to impute no blame to his Royal Highness or Ministers; but he gave notice that he should, probably to-morrow, make a motion for an Address to his royal highness the Prince Regent,

expressive of the regret of the House, that his Royal Highness had not followed up the steps stated by him in his gracious answer to the former Address of the House. He certainly thought the House had a right to information on this subject.

Lord Castlereagh wished the honourable Member to fix some distant day.

Mr. Tierney wished the noble lord to name a day himself-perhaps Wednesday would do.

Lord Castlereagh objected to that day.

Mr. Wortley then gave notice, that he should bring forward his motion on Thursday next.

General Gascoigne postponed his motion to Friday. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, after which the House adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

TUESDAY, JUNE 9.

Earl Stanhope moved an Amendment to the Welsh Inclosure Bill, which he had opposed in its former stages. A conversation took place on the subject between Lords Stanhope, Berkeley, Bridgwater, Eldon, and Walsingham, when the Amendment was negatived by a majority of 9 to 1. The Bill was read a third time and passed.

Several witnesses were examined on the subject of the Or ders in Council.-Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

TUESDAY, JUNE 9.

The Sheriffs of London presented a Petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, &c. in Common Council assembled, praying that the East India import trade be confined to the port of London.

ORDERS IN COUNCIL.

Mr. Whitbread presented a Petition from several merchants and manufacturers who were in attendance on the Committee on the Orders in Council. They prayed that the VOL. III.-1812. 2 D

discussion of this important question might not be postponed after next week, and hoped, that in consequence of the daily received accounts of increasing distress from the country, amounting even to starvation, and from he rumours of the proceedings in America, the House would pardon their impatience in requesting an early day. This Petition, said Mr. Whitbread, fully justified the earnestness expressed by his learned friend; and he felt assured that neither the noble lord (Castlereagh), nor the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Rose), would wish to interpose any farther delay to this discussion.

Lord Castlereagh had conceived that the House could not, consistently with its dignity, agitate the question on an earlier day than the one fixed; but he fully agreed that the delay should extend no farther.

Mr. Brougham had no doubt that a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) would postpone his motion, which stood for Thursday, on which day he pledged himself to the performance of his duty. He trusted that no arrangements, no intrigues, no news even from America, would be suffered to postpone the important deliberation of the House on a domestic nature, one day later.

The Petition was then ordered to lie on the table.
Adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10.

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

INSOLVENT DEBTORS.

The Earl of Lauderdale moved the second reading of the temporary Insolvent Debtors Bill. It was nearly a transcript of the Bill of last year.

Lord Moira stated that he had had conferences with certain noble and learned lords, and he had strong hopes that a permanent measure might be agreed upon. In the mean time, however, he would support the present Bill; and in the Committee should propose that its operations should extend to debis of any amount, under its proper guards and checks.

The Lord Chancellor said he would support the Bill

and agreed that an extension of its operation even to debts beyond 30004. might be proper.

The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed for Monday.

Earl Stanhope proposed that the consideration of the Irish Peasantry Bill be postponed till Tuesday next. Ordered.-Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10.

ORDERS IN COUNCIL.

Mr. Canning stated, that in his absence an arrangement had been come to respecting the day on which the honourable and learned gentleman (Mr. Brougham) was to have submitted his motion respecting the Orders in Council, which arrangement would materially interfere with the question which he (Mr. Canning) was to introduce upon the same day. He was willing, however, if the House would consent to it, to wave his day, the Thursday of that week, provided he was allowed to bring it forward on the preceding Wednesday.

The Speaker said, that the established usage was against accelerating notices.

Mr. Canning said, that he had merely thrown out the suggestion for the sake of mutual accommodation, and that, if not approved of, he must then adhere to his day.

The Speaker said, that whatever might be thought by the Members present a matter of convenience, might appear as other than convenience to the Members absent.

Mr. Williams Wynne would not hear of the doctrine of notices as interfering at all with the right of a Member of Parliament to originate any proposition in that House.

Lord Castlereagh admitted the abstract right, but thought that it was the last right that gentleman would be disposed to insist on. He expressed a hope that the right honourable gentleman and the learned gentleman would so arrange it that the question of the former could come on by the Monday following.

After a few words from Mr. Whitbread and Mr. Brougham, on the necessity of an early decision upon the question respecting the Orders in Council; and also from Mr.

Canning, stating the great inconvenience that must result to the Irish gentlemen, if his question was postponed, it was then agreed upon that Mr. Canning's motion should come on on Thursday se'nnight, and that Mr. Brougham's should be brought forward upon Tuesday next, the 16th instant.

CATHOLIC CLAIMS.

Mr. Spencer Stanhope wished to ask the noble lord below him, what was the nature of the policy which the present Cabinet intended to pursue with respect to the question of Catholic Emancipation?

Lord Castlereagh replied, that in some respects he had a difficulty in answering the honourable gentleman, referring as that question did to the intended policy of a Cabinet not yet completely arranged. His lordship stated, that he had always differed upon the Catholic question with the noble earl under whom the Administration was forming; that the noble earl's opinions on the question remained unchanged. However, he was aware that a considerable change of opinion and feeling had arisen in Parliament upon the subject; that it was imposisble, therefore, for the noble earl, consistently with his own opinions, and in justice to those who concurred with him, to become a member of any Administration which avowed the intention of making use of the influence and authority of Government in supporting concessions to the Roman Catholics. But, on the other hand, the noble earl had no wish or intention that the influence and weight of Government should be used as any bar to the consideration of the Catholic Claims, or to any measures of concession which may arise out of such consideration; and his lordship was satisfied that, under existing circumstances, the decision of the Catholic Claims should be left to the free consideration and determination of Parliament, after such investigation as Parliament might think proper to institute with respect to it. His lordship, having thus stated the sentiments of the noble earl who was forming the Administration, proceeded to state his own. His lordship said, that whatever had been the difficulties attending the subject which bad hitherto influenced his own conduct, that part of them which resulted from the sentiments of Parliament were now almost entirely removed; others might still remain, arising from the disposition of the nation out of doors, and particularly from the Catholic temper He was, however, now ready to enter into the full