thought it would be most desirable to increase the circulating medium, which would give a facility to the employment of the labouring cl sses throughout the kingdom, and do more to restore prosperity than any remedies which had been proposed.

Mr. Lockhart said, he was anxious to correct an erroneous idea which a noble lord (Cochrane) had either expressed or implied, namely, that it was in contemplation, by way of reform in the poor's laws, to propose to refuse relief to able bodied men who were without employment. No such idea was entertained, he believed, by any member of the house, and certainly not by any member of the committee on the poor laws: the idea entertained by the committee, was to encourage industry, but by no means to refuse relief when industry was found unavailing. He agreed in what had been said by the noble lord (Castle reagh), as to the bad effects of mixing up poor's rates with the wages of labour, but he denied that this system had been voluntary on the part of the landlords.

Mr. Brougham protested as well against the proposal of the noble lord (Cochrane) as that of the honourable baronet, who had professed so much abhorrence of the noble lord's proposition. The dif. ference between the noble lord's project for reducing the interest of the debt, and the honourable ba. ronet's proposal for increasing the quantity of the circulating medium, was only the difference between two modes of bankruptcy, or, as had been well expressed by a celebrated writer on these subjects, the difference between secret fraud and open violence. The distresses in the manufacturing districts were

under-rated; for the average rate of wages was not more than 35. The petitions were brought up and read.

March 12.-In a committee of ways and means, the chancellor of the exchequer proposed a vote of 18 millions of exchequer bills for the service of 1817. The chancellor intimated that it was his intention to pay off the unfunded debt of Ireland by exchequer bills raised in this country, the interest of which would be only four per cent. while in Ireland it was five per cent.— Agreed to.

March 13.-Mr Brougham, after a long and eloquent speech on the state of the manufactures and commerce of the country, moved, "1st, That the manufactures of the country are in a state of unexampled difficulty, that demanded the most serious attention of the house. 2d, That that difficulty is materially increased by the sy. stem of restrictive policy, pursued with respect to foreign powers, which ought to be rescinded.-3d, That it is further increased by the severe taxation under which the country suffers, and which ought to be removed by every possible means.-4th. That the system of foreign policy pursued by the British government has not been such as to obtain for this country those advantages with respect to trade and manufactures, to which the just influence of Great Britain fairly entitled her." The first resolution having been put from the chair,

The honourable F. Robinson saw that no possible good could result from the adoption of this motion : he would beg leave to move, as an amendment, that the house should pass to the other orders of the day.

After

After the question upon the amendment had been put from the chair, Mr. Brougham begged to explain, that in what he had said of the watch trade and unemployed tailors, he meant merely to advert to them as developing some of the general symptoms of prevailing di

stress.

Mr. C. Grant thought that the object of the motion was to criminate his majesty's ministers on their foreign policy. On this ground he would oppose it.

Lord Castlereagh said he was willing to go along with the honourable and learned gentleman in admitting the existence of a great degree of distress; but the latter part of his speech was rather directed to wound the government than to point out the mode of relieving the people.

After an able reply from Mr. Brougham, the house divided. For Mr. Brougham's motion 63, against it 118; majority 55.

March 17.-In a committee of the whole house on the East India trade act, Mr. Robinson submitted a resolution that the privilege of trading to the East Indies should be communicated to Malta and Gibraltar :-the resolution was read a second time.

Mr. R. Ward stated that the ordinary and extraordinaries of the ordnance estimates were in the aggregate 749,0001. The charge for the ordinary service was this year 538,0007, which was less than the former estimate by the sum of 135,000l. The extraordinaries amounted to 211,0001. leaving a reduction under this head of expense of 104,000/. He concluded by moving for a sum of 248,0001. for the service of the ordnance till the 30th of June 1817.

House of lords, March 18.—Lord Holland moved for papers connected with the treatment of Napoleon Buonaparte at St. Helena. Humanity alone, observed his lordship, might justify such a motion; but the chief, if not the only motive for bringing the subject before their lordships, was a regard to the character of the country, of parliament, and of the crown. The heads of complaint made by his lordship were, 1st, that the liberty allowed to Buonaparte of riding and walking to several parts of the island had of late undergone considerable restriction. 2d, That he was not permitted to receive such books, journals, newspapers, and public prints, nor to subscribe for such publications as he thought proper. 3d, That Buonaparte had been refused permission to send a sealed letter to the prince regent. 4th, That the expense of Buonaparte's establishment had been curtailed from 20,000l. to 80007. ; and he had been told that this country could afford no more, therefore he must find the other 12,000%. himself. His lordship then observed, that if an extraordinary expense was necessary, it should be kept in view, that it was owing to the place where Buonaparte was confined; and it was unworthy of a great country, first to say, "I will place you in a situation where a great expense is necessary;" and then to come like a beggar and say, "You yourself must be at the greater part of that expense." The noble lord concluded by declaring, that documentary evidence would be the best confutation of the reports that had been spread, and therefore he should not satisfy his own mind without moving for, 1st, Copies of all the instructions to the governor or governors of St.

F 3

Helena,

Helena, as to the personal treat ment of Napoleon Buonaparte. 2d, Extracts of all such parts of the correspondence as had passed between Napoleon Buonaparte and the secretary of state, relative to the expenses of Buonaparte's establishment. 3d, Copies of such letters or applications of Buonaparte to the governor or governors of St. He. lena, with the answers of the governor, as had been received by the secretary of state. 4th, Copies of all such dispatches as had been transmitted to the secretary of state relative to the intercourse claimed by Napoleon Buonaparte to be allowed between his place of residence and other parts of the island, with any remarks by Napoleon on that subject. 5th, Copies of any dispatches to the secretary of state relative to applications by Napoleon Buonaparte to the prince regent.

Earl Bathurst contended at great length, that the restrictions imposed on Buonaparte by Sir Hudson Lowe were justified by the instructions which he had received from ministers, and which were absolutely necessary to ensure his detention. He was, however, still allowed about ten miles of airing ground. His orders for books to the amount of 15001. had been executed; but some of them being on military subjects, and very scarce, could not be procured either in England or France. It had been thought pro. per to withhold newspapers from him, because attempts had been made to correspond with him through their medium. All letters sent by him or his attendants were previously read, not by subaltern officers, but by Sir Hudson Lowe himself. Government intended that his allowance should be 12,000l.

yearly-Seeing no ground for the motion, he should oppose it.

The marquis of Buckingham and earl Darnley thought the statement of lord Bathurst satisfactory.-The motion was negatived without a division.

House of commons, March 18.— Mr. Littleton reprehended the dangerous, immoral, and fraudulent mode of raising money by lotteries. The gross sum accruing annually to the revenue from lotteries was 500,000l. He characterized the present scheme as being a fraud upon the public: the chance of any great prize was about 71 to 1. He feared that a certain degree of patronage formed one of the motives for supporting the present system of lotteries. In England there were four places of 5007. a year each attached to this institution, five of 350%, one of 3007., one of 2507., twenty-one of 2007., six of 100l. to 150%; and he had no hesitation in saying, that these places were altogether sinecures. In Ireland, there was the first commissioner, sir A. Alexander, at 300l. a year; four other commissioners, at 2007.; two certificated commissioners, at 1001. ; two comptrollers, at 1007; one stamp comptroller, at 1417.; two clerks, at 60%.; two at 50%. There was Mr. Thompson, who had been an absentee 16 years, received 2501. a year: in fact, no lotteries had been drawn in Ireland for 16 years. The honourable gentleman concluded by proposing, 1st, That by the system of state lotteries, a spirit of gambling was promoted, destructive to the morals of the people, and detrimental to the revenue of the country. 2d, That this house will no longer authorize the existence of state lotteries.

The chancellor of the exchequer,

Mr.

Mr. W. Ward, and lord Castlereagh, contended, that the evils flowing from lotteries had been greatly lessened; and that, if this source of revenue was taken away, it would be difficult to supply it by fresh taxes.

The motion was negatived, by 73 to 26.

House of lords, March 24.-The bill to prevent seditious meetings being reported, viscount Sidmouth proposed a clause to prohibit public meetings within a mile of the two houses of parliament when sitting, or of the courts of justice when sitting at Westminster.

Lord St. John thought the clause tended to embarrass the right of holding public meetings.

The earl of Rosslyn observed, that this clause would prevent the inhabitants of Westminster from exercising a privilege which was possessed by the inhabitants of every other part of London.

The clause was agreed to. March 25.-The third reading of the seditious meeting bill was opposed at some length by lord Erskine, who concluded his speech with the following declaration :-"Just so was it with measures for keeping down freedom-in the sagnation of public sentiment, in the destruction of its vivifying principles, you encountered infinitely more danger than from its excesses. He did not now hold the opinions that he did when he formerly signed a paper upon the subject of parliamentary reform; he did not now hold these opinions to the same extent; and to those who said he ought to be consistent, he would say he was bound to nothing but a faithful discharge of his duties as a member of parliament. But let every man have the same freedom of opinions, and let not that freedom be shackled by unnecessary

fetters. He thought this bill pregnant with danger to the liberty of the subject, from the powers given by it to a single magistrate to prevent, at his discretion, the right of petitioning from being exercised, and that magistrate appointed by the crown. With these views of the subject, and considering this measure as calculated to excite discontent, instead of allaying it, by the obsacles it threw in the way of the fair and proper expression of public opinion. by means of petition, by its leaving to the discretion of a single magistrate to prevent every kind of meeting for that purpose, he felt it his duty to oppose the bill."

The duke of Sussex, following on the same side, contended that the measure was a serious infringement upon the rights and liberties of the subject.

Viscount Sidmouth proposed to withdraw the clause brought forward yesterday for the prevention of public meetings within a mile of Westminster hall; for the purpose of proposing an amendment, excepting that part of the parish of St. Paul's Covent-garden, and of the borough of Southwark, within the distance described in the clause. He also proposed to have this clause inserted in the permanent part of

the bill.