The gallery was now cleared, and the house divided:
For the resolution

Against it

Majority

19

Mr. Wallace then rose, and said, that after what had rassed on this and former discussions, it was unnecessary for him to introduce the resolution which he was now going to move, with any preface; he should content hiinself simply with moving the following resolution: Resolved, that it is the opinion of this house, that the marquis Wellesley and lord Clive, in their conduct relative to the Carnatic, were influenced solely by an anxious zeal and solicitude to promote the permanent security, welfare, and prosperity of the British possessions in India.

Sir James Hall said, that he only differed from the honourable gentleman who had made this motion in thinking that it did not go far enough; it was high time that parliament should do that justice to this illustrious character, which the meanest, the most degraded subject of our laws had a right to demand. After submitting the conduct of the noble marquis to the severest scrutiny, during a long course of years, and after deciding by very great majorities that he had done nothing wrong, the house was bound to grant him a deliverance, not only to free him from the present charge, but to protect him from all future attempts on similar grounds. It would become the justice, the honour, the gentlemanlike feeling of the house to do a great deal more; not only to clear the character of the noble marquis from blame, but also to declare their high opinion of the services he had rendered his country, in such a manner as to revive the recollection of those services, which seemed to be in a great measure forgotten. If the consequence of such a declaration were to be what a right honourable gentleman (Mr. Sheridan) had deprecated, were the noble mat-quis raised to a high station in the ministry, he should rejoice in the experiment, by which there was reason to expect, that our councils at home might be animated by that astonishing efficiency which has shone so conspicuously in his Indian administration.

Sir T. Turton said he had a trifling amendment to propose, which was to leave out the words after the word influenced," and to insert the following: "By a desire

to extend the British territories in India, in contempt of all treaties, and in violation of the national character.

The amendment was supported by Mr. S. Lushington, and Mr. H. Fitzgerald, after which the house divided on it:

Ayes
Noes

Majority

19

98

79

Mr. Wallace then moved the original question of the vote of approbation, when the house again divided :

The lords commissioners, consisting of the Lord Chan cellor, Duke of Montrose, and Lord Walsingham, took their seats; the commons being in attendance, his majesty's commission, authorising the commissioners to grant the royal assent to the bills enumerated, was read, when his majesty's assent was accordingly declared to the ten millions loan bill, the copper duty bill, the malt duty regulation bill, the pilchards bill, the frish militia voluntary services bill, the British ships bill, the land revenue improvement bill, to a bill authorising John Peter Grant, Esq. of Rothicmurchus, sell his extensive woods in the county of Inverness, to employ the price thereof in pur

chasing other lands to be added to the entailed estate, and to authorise the heir in possession at the time, if so in-, clined, to become the purchaser of such woods, and a number of other public and private bills.

Earl Stanhope presented a petition from major Cartwright, against the local militia bill, similar to the petition presented for him in the house of commons. The Lord Chancellor, at first, objected to the petition, on account of the way in which the house was described, the petition being addressed to the lords of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in parliament assembled; and not, as is usual, to the lords "spiritual and temporal." After a few words from Earl Stanhope, however, the Lord Chancellor was satisfied that the description was sufficient, and the objection was, of course, waved.

The Lord Chancellor begged to call the attention of the house to the important case of the Roxburgh peerage. The house, in its judicial capacity, had been already occupied twenty-five or twenty-six days in hearing parties as to their right to the estates. Great doubt, however, seemed to be entertained, whether the clause of devolution in the deed of 1648, did not convey the estates and the digni ies together. The clause conveyed "all and sundry the lands, baronies, mills, woods, fishings, title and dignity of an Earl, and others," to a certain series of heirs, "and qlks all-failzing be decease, or be not observing of the provisions, restrictions, and conditions above writ ten, the right of the said estate sall pertain and belong to the eldest dochter of the said umquhil Hary Lord Ker, without division, and their heirs male, she always marrying or being married to one gentleman of honourable and lawful descent, quha shall perform the conditions above and under written; qiks all failzing and their -saidis airis male, to our nearest and lawful airis male qtsomever." On this clause his lordship observed three diffcrent arguments were founded: First it was argued by sir James Innes, that, taking the clause in question in conjunction with the former deeds expressive of earl Robert's intention as to the settlement of his estates and dignities, it was obvious that he meant to confer then on the daughters and heirs male of the bodies of the daughters of lord Harry Ker in succession. On the part of colonel Walter Ker, another of the claimants, it was argued that the deed

of 1648 was a new investiture; that the omission of the names of the younger daughters of lord Harry Ker, in this deed, was fatal to their claim and to that of their heirs; that the omission of the words " of the body," evidenced a change of intention on the part of earl Robert, the term "heirs male," and "heirs male of the body," being completely distinct from each other; and of course that colonel W, Ker, as heir male of Robert first earl of Roxburgh, and also as heir male of Harry lord Ker, his son, was entitled to the succession. On the part of Mr. Bellenden Ker, it was contended, that the axiom in the law of Scotland was certo certius, whereas here it was incerto incertius. There was no clear and fixed des'tination marked out, and therefore the late duke was not bound by a deed which he could not understand, but was entitled to make out a new destination. In these circumstances, it was essential that the house should weigh well the mode in which they proceeded; for they must feel themselves placed in a very aukward situation on the idea that it should ultimately turn out that this clause in the deed of 1648 regulated the succession to the estates and dignities together, if while as a committee of privileges they gave the dignities to one claimant, they should find that in another capacity, they had decreed possession of the estates to another claimant. To avoid the possibi lity of falling into any situation of this kind, his lordship had to propose that parties should be heard in a committee of privileges on the import of the clause in question. He did not think it would be necessary in this stage of the business, to go fully into the claim, but simply to inquire into what was the effect of that clause in conveying the dignities, and what interpretation was to be given to the words "heirs male." To make this inquiry with effect, at the same time, to save, as much as possible, the great expence to the parties, and to free those lords who had given such unremitting attention to the cause, from the irksome task of carrying in their minds all the particulars of it, during the vacation, he should propose that the house sit on this subject on other days besides those strictly assigned to the examination of the questions of privilege, so that the point might be determined in the course of the present session. His lordship then moved, "that the house do on Tuesday go into a committee of privileges on the Roxburgh peerage;" inti

mating it to be his intention on Monday, to move an instruction to that commit ee. Ordered. His lordship then, seeing no probability of bringing the Banbury peerage to à conclusion during the present session, moved, that the further consideration of it be postponed till next session.

Mr. Ashley Cooper, attended by the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Bankes, &c. brought up from the commons, the land-tax commissioners names bill, the Irish malt duty bill, and a number of other bills, all of which were afterwards read a first time. Mr. C. W. Wynne brought from the commons a message, stating, that the commons had agreed to the amendments made by their lordships on the pauper lunatics bill. The other bills on the table were forwarded, and the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF

COMMONS.

SATURDAY, JUNE 18.

The Speaker, agreeably to a requisition from Mr. Quarme, deputy usher of the black rod, attended in the house of lords, and, on his return, acquainted the house that he had heard the royal assent given by commission to a number of public and private bills.

The Irish treasury bills bill, the Tower hamlets militia services bill, the American goods bill, the South sea whale fishery, and the silk duties bill, were severally read a second time, and committed for Monday.

The subdivision clerks bill was read a third time and passed.

In a committee on the Madeira postage duty bill, the postage of a single letter from Great Britain or Ireland to Madeira, was fixed at 1s. 6d. ; of a double letter, 3s. ; of a treble letter, 4s. 6d. of an ounce weight, 6s.; and so in proportion.

The lotteries bill went through a committee, and was ordered to be reported on Monday.

Mr. A. Cooper brought up the reports of the committees of supply and of ways and means, imposing countervailing duties on spirits from Scotland to Ireland, which were agreed to, and bills ordered to be brought in agreeably to the resolutions.

The exchequer bills bill (vote of credit), and the pay