the dangerous tendency of the measure which was then before the house.

Lord Castlereagh argued, at considerable length, to prove that barley and oats were at present nearly double the price which they were sold at in the years 1795 and 1800, in London; and in some parts of Ireland they were treble the price that they were in these two years of remarkable scarcity.

Mr. John Smith did not think the measure went far enough.

Sir Henry Mildmay thought it necessary to controvert the assertion of the noble lord (Castlereagh), in order to prevent the effect of any unfounded alarm in the country, which might be the consequence of his calculations if they were not disproved.

Mr. W. Smith denied that the proposition was the production of the committee. The stopping of the distilleries now could not be productive of any benefit to the West Indian colonies.

Mr. M. Laing opposed the motion, and Lord Binning made a short reply.

On the question for the speaker's leaving the chair, the house divided:

Ayes
Noes

122

108

14

Majority

While strangers were excluded, another division was threatened, but did not take place.

On our re-admission into the gallery, the assessed taxes amendment bill was read a second time.

The committee respecting the purchase of annuities was fixed for Thursday; as was also the committee of the English local militia bill.

The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

FRIDAY, MAY 20.

Mr. Mellish, and several other members of the house of commons, brought up the tanners bill, and a private

bill, which were read a first time; as were also some private bills brought up by Mr. G. Vansittart, Mr. Graham, sir Martin Foulkes, and other members.

The house proceeded to give judgment in the appeal, the earl of Wemyss v. Macqueen. This case is of great importance to the clergy of Scotland, as it involves a question whether the stipend of a minister, having been once augmented since the year 1707, can legally receive a second augmentation. The court of session had decided in the affirmative.

The Earl of Lauderdale, in a very long and able speech, contended, that the court of session had no power to grant a second augmentation, and moved to reverse the interlocutor of that court.

The Lord Chancellor, at considerable length, contended, that the usage upon this point, in favour of a second augmentation, ought not to be disturbed, and was of opinion that the interlocutor ought to be affirmed with some alteration.

After a few observations in reply from the Earl of Lauderdale, the motion was negatived, and the interlocutor of the court of session affirmed, with the alterations pro posed by the lord chancellor.

Several bills on the table were forwarded in their respective stages. Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

FRIDAY, MAY 20.

Sir Samuel Romilly brought in a bill for providing compensation for such persons as had suffered long confinement for supposed offences. The bill was read a first, and ordered to be read a second time on Friday next.

The tanners bill was read a third time, and passed, after a short conversation between Messrs. Jones, Mellish, Davies Giddy, and Hawkins Browne, in which Mr. Jones opposed, and the other gentlemen approved of, the bill.

The lunatics bill went through a committee, and the report was ordered to be received now, and the bill to be recommitted on Thursday next.

The Dean and New forests bill was read a second time, and committed for Monday.

CHILD-STEALING.

The Solicitor General wished to make one or two obser vations on the wording of the bill on this subject as it now stood. The taking a child's clothes was certainly an indictable offence, but the taking the child itself, it was well understood, was not so now; certainly the object of the present bill was to make it such; but from a certain inaccuracy in the wording, as it now stood, that object might in many cases be defeated; for instance, the words

taken with malicious intent," might confine the operation of the bill, and prevent it from applying to the case of the child-stealer who took the child to beg with, or for any other purpose of gain. He cited cases which had come within his knowledge, in which the law was evaded by the construction of the word "malicious." He should propose, therefore, to insert in the bill after the words he had already cited, the words, "or for any other purpose of lucre or gain."

Mr. W. Wynne was willing to bow to the legal experience of his learned friend, but could not understand a case in which the stealth of the child would not be malicious.

After a few words from Alderman Combe, Mr. Lushington, and Mr. Simeon, the amendment was agreed to, and the bill read a third time, passed, and ordered to the lords.

Mr. Wardel moved for a series of letters from the secretary of the treasury to the secretary of war, dated the 10th of December, 1507; and also the copy of a letter from the commander-in-chief to the secretary at war, respecting the best mode of supplying the army with great, conts for the year 1808. Ordered.

Mr. Huskisson brought in a bill for improving the land revenues of the crown. Read a first time, and or dered to be read a second time on Monday next, and the bill ordered to be printed.

The duchess of Brunswick's bill was read a second time, and committed for Monday.

The military inquiry continuance bill was read a second time, and committed for Monday.

The stamp duty bill was read a second time, and committed for Monday.

A message from the lords announced that they had passed a bill for discharging debtors imprisoned for small debts in certain cases, to which they desired the assent of the commons.

MR. PALMER'S CLAIM.

Mr. Lethbridge moved (the house having gone into a committee) that the chairman be directed to move for leave to bring in a bill to secure to Mr. Palmer for the future, his per-centage on the net increased revenue of the post-office, according to the agreement with Mr. Pitt in the year 1789.

Mr. Bankes wished to know from the honourable gen. tleman, whether the present bill was to embrace all the compensation? and if it was not so, he confessed he should be disposed to object to any plan that would take from the other house its right of interference and if this was not to be the only measure, and if another was to be comprehended in a mere grant of that house, the other branch of the legislature would be, he thought, unfairly deprived of their right in deciding upon the merits of that agreement. He was of opinion, therefore, that it would be desirable that the entire amount of Mr. Palmer's claim should not be divided, but comprehended within the compass of one bill. He wished to know from the honourable gentleman, how far he concurred with him in the view he had taken of the subject.

Mr. Lethbridge admitted, that the présent bill was not intended to include all the claims of Mr. Palmer, or to comprehend the amount of whatever compensation that house might be disposed to grant him.

Mr. Bankes then wished to know, from what fund any such grant was intended to be made.

Mr. Lethbridge replied, that that would be for the house itself to determine whenever it should regularly come before it; but if he might hazard a conjecture, he should be inclined to think that the post-office revenues, which had been so considerably benefited by Mr. Palmer's invention, would be the most fit source to draw upon for whatever further compensation it might be deemed necessary to remunerate him with.

Mr. Bankes said, that when he put the question which he did, this was the precise answer he expected to have received from the honourable gentleman; and here he

begged leave to observe, that if it was meant to draw upon that part of the post-office revenues which was consoli dated, it would not be competent in that house only to do so, it must be an act of the legislature. He thought there was something of an unfair division in the proceedings: one measure went to secure to Mr. Palmer his percentage on the post-office revenues, this was the object of the present resolution; and then another was spoken of to secure to Mr. Palmer the annuity from 1793. Besides, in the present proceeding there was both prospective and retrospective effect; now to the latter he had no objection, but to the former he would move an amendment, omitting in the resolution submitted to the committee by the ho nourable gentleman, the word "future." He moved accordingly, that the said word be omitted.

4

Mr. Marryat opposed the resolution, and supported the amendment. He said, that he considered all obligations cancelled by the subsequent conduct of Mr. Palmer ; and that it ought to be remembered that the ancients in their representation of the statue of justice, had put in her hands not the balance only, but the sword.

The question being then loudly called for, the com mittee divided, when there appeared that the word future stand part of the resolution,

Ayes
Noes

Majority

63

21

42

While strangers were excluded, we understand, the Speaker, in a short but impressive speech, supported the claims of Mr. Palmer with his wonted precision and ability.

On the readmission of strangers, Mr. Fuller, as chair man of the committee, put from the chair the original resolution, moved by Mr. Lethbridge, that the chairman be directed to ask leave of the house to bring in a bill to secure to Mr. Palmer his per-centage on the net increased revenues of the post-office, according to the provisions of and the appointment made in 1789, which was agreed to; on the house being resumed, Mr. Fuller moved and obtained leave to bring in the said bill.

Lord Binning rose, to ask an honourable gentleman (Mr. Taylor) whom he now saw in his place, whether, as had been that evening very generally rumoured, it was