conviction, that when the existing prejudices against the constituted authorities had subsided, the grand jury, the petty jury, the judge who recapitulated the evidence, and the four judges, who refused to grant a new trial, and who thought the crime deserving of an infamous punishment, would all be considered as having strictly done their duty. At the same time, he confessed his satisfaction to find, by the intimation of his noble friend, that it was his royal highness the Prince Regent's gracious intention to remit that part of the sentence on lord Cochrane, which must be most unpleasant to that noble lord's feelings, and still more to the feelings of that profession, of which he was lately a member, and of which he had formerly been an ornament.

Lord Ebrington said, that after the speech of the noble lord, he did not feel himself justified in taking up the time of the House further, in withdrawing, as he intended to do, his motion. He could not help expressing his regret, however, that the communication which had been made that night by the noble lord, had not been made before, and the more especially as the noble lord had deprecated discussion. The noble lord then proposed to withdraw his motion.

On the question being put from the chair,

Mr. Holmes said, that in consequence of the statement made by the Solicitor General in the course of his speech, respecting lord Cochrane's inspection of the briefs which had been delivered to his counsel, previous to his trial, he had sent a letter to the noble lord, requesting an explanation upon this subject; and had received, by a confidential friend of that noble lord, his answer, which he would take the liberty of reading to the House. The hon. gentleman then read a letter from lord Cochrane, asserting that the statement of the Solicitor General was not correct, for that he had never read the briefs, although a part of them had been read to him by Mr. Parkenson, a person connected with his solicitors. The noble lord had also sent the brief, part of which was marked, and in the margin were the words, "Read this to lord Cochrane." This memorandum, the hon. gentleman remarked, was confirmatory of the noble lord's statement. He also observed, in allusion to what had fallen from the At torney General, that if lord Cochrane did not release his counsel and solicitors from

the secresy which their professional character imposed upon them, he should be the first to pronounce him guilty; but he was satisfied the moment the noble lord heard of the suggestion, he would, without delay, avail himself of the advice which was given.

The Solicitor General begged to repeat what he had already said, that the statement which he had given, was not made from any thing within his own knowledge, although he had no reason to doubt the veracity of the person from whom he had received the information. He did not ac tually state that lord Cochrane had seen and read the briefs before they had been delivered to counsel; but what he said was, that instructions had been taken from lord Cochrane for the briefs, which were read in his presence, and approved of by his lordship; and that, saving the indictment, and the statement of the Stock Exchange, the whole of the briefs had been prepared under his immediate inspection; and he had further stated, on the authority to which he had alluded, that the evidence of lord Cochrane's servants, as taken down by the attorney's clerk, was read over to him; and that his lordship had made an alteration in the evidence of Thomas Dewman, who had confounded the arrival of De Berenger at his master's house on the 21st, with another officer, who had called on some previous day; and with that correction, the brief was sent to be engrossed, and was afterwards sent to counsel. The hon. gentleman having alluded to the draft of the brief which had been sent to him by lord Cochrane, and stated, that parts only of it had been read to the noble lord previous to its being delivered to counsel, as was evident from the note in the margin, he begged to notice one part of this draft, in which the words "read to lord Cochrane" were inscribed in the margin. This was a part in which three or four lines were erased. This, no doubt, had been done by his lordship. What those lines contained could not be known, although it was evident, from this circumstance, the noble lord had not been inattentive to the text, which was submitted to his judgment.

Mr. Abercromby, adverting to the former discussions on this subject, said, that lord Cochrane's counsel, apprehending, that lord Cochrane would allege neglect on their part, and more particularly with respect to the brief, had furnished him with a statement of the facts, which, to the

to.

any office, place, employment, or salary, in any part of his Majesty's dominions, in reversion, or for joint lives, with benefit of survivorship, until six weeks after, the commencement of the next session of parliament."

Lord Castlereagh contended, that when the House voted the Address in 1807, they had no reason to presume any repugnance in the other House of parliament, to the abolition of the places in reversion.-[Mr. Bankes said, that the Bill was then thrown out.]-They had no reason, however, continued the noble lord, to presume, that the repugnance was of that deliberate nature, which it had since as

Mr. Whitbread, upon looking over the draft of the brief sent by lord Cochrane, said, he observed many lines erased, which did not appear to have been read to his lordship; he deprecated, therefore, any inference being drawn from these erasures, either for, or against, the noble lord. After the communication which had been made of the intention of the crown, it was quite unnecessary to discuss the motion any further; for all argument must bear not on the question of guilty or not guilty, (for, by the verdict of the jury, and by the vote of the majority of the House, for the expulsion of lord Cochrane, although he was not one of that majority, that question had been decided), but on the propriety of the punishment; and, although he should certainly have voted with his noble friend, yet he repeated, that nothing more need now be said on the subject. In his opinion, however, the noble lord would have done better, had he made his communication at an earlier period, and have thus prevented a most useless discussion.

The motion of lord Ebrington, as well as the Amendment of Mr. Barham, with the permission of the House, was then withdrawn.

OFFICES IN REVERSION.] Mr. Bankes recapitulated most of the arguments made use of by him, on the occasion of an Address which he moved in 1807, and which was carried, without one dissentient voice; and the subsequent Bills introduced by him. He concluded with moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased not to grant

made several attempts, and the other House was found to differ with them on the principle of the measure. It was not on the spur of the moment, they were now called on to make an address of the House tantamount to a law, in matters of prerogative. He opposed the Address, because he considered the object of it an innovation of the constitution, and an exclusion of the House of Lords, from their share in the legislature. It might lead to a conflict of jurisdictions, and might place the crown in a contradictory relation to each of the Houses. He wished he could persuade his hon. friend to withdraw his motion.

Mr. Tierney thought there had been a sort of tacit compact between the two Houses, on the subject before the House; that in consequence of saving the honour of the crown, and not infringing on the prerogative, the other House would have no objection to the passing of temporary Bills. It seemed, however, as if the suspense which took place six or seven years ago, and which had accumulated a number of reversions, had quickened the appetite of ministers. He did not mean to say, they meant to make any improper use of the power of granting sinecure places; for when an office was granted, with no duties attached to it, he did not see how it could be improperly filled. The noble lord had started the difficulty of a conflict between the two Houses, and as the Lords had shewn an indisposition to his measure, the present Address, he thought, might put the two Houses in an embarrassing situation. But how was this more to be apprehended now, than at any time during the last seven years? The Lords had never sent any message on the subject. The Address would

merely have the effect of keeping matters open till next session. Ministers seemed now determined no longer to keep up any appearances; and to get hold of all that the last seven years had saved for

them.

debts? His objection to such a recital, was, that since 1809, her Royal Highness had not exceeded her income, nor had any demands on that account been made on the Prince of Wales. Why, then, recite this agreement of 1809, which, to say the least of it, was nothing to the pur-. pose. It was impossible for any body to

Lord Castlereagh wished to suggest to his hon. friend, that the Bill rejected by the Lords, was preventive of the grant of reversions for two years; but another Bill, of one year's duration, might still pass that House, and be sent up to the Lords this session.

Sir Charles Burrell said, as the other House were so tenacious on this subject, it was not unfair for the country to suppose that they conceived themselves to have a stronger right to reversions than the Commons had. It was a fair inference, that they had stronger reasons than the Commons for continuing the abuse.

The House then divided. For the Motion 34; Against it 58: Majority 24.

PRINCESS OF WALES'S ANNUITY BILL.] The House being in a committee on this Bill,

Mr. Tierney admitted the propriety of the first, second, and third clauses of the Bill. The next clause, however, he could not comprehend. What ground was there for inserting a long recital of a paper, drawn up in the year 1809, respecting an arrangement between the Prince and Princess of Wales, by which, in consideration of his Royal Highness, discharging 49,000l. of debts of her Royal Highness, and increasing her allowance to 17,000l.; she, on her part, signed an agreement, that, if she exceeded her income, or contracted future debts, a Bill was to be brought into parliament, to free the Prince of Wales from being liable for future

Royal Highness had exceeded her income, and that this recital was necessary, in order to prevent it in future. What was gained by all these recitals? He could comprehend the reason of the other clauses; they served to explain why the 22,000l. a year was taken from his Royal Highness, and paid to the consolidated fund, and to exonerate him from any future debts of her Royal Highness.

Lord Castlereagh apprehended, that without such a recital, the Bill would not explain itself. He denied, that it would lead any one to suppose, that any breach of the covenant had taken place on the part of her Royal Highness. In that case, he should have adopted different kind of remedy, and have imposed on the Princess of Wales, regulations similar to those which were applied to the Prince of Wales's own income. The present Bill took away 22,000l. from the Prince of Wales, and gave 22,000l. to the Princess of Wales for life. This was certainly placing her in a situation not very natural for married persons, and which required some explanation. He really did not apprehend, that there was any thing in the recital discreditable to the Princess of Wales, either the living separately, or the having contracted debts previous to the agreement. If they erected her into a character, independent of the Prince for money, they owed it to themselves to give some explanation of this.

Mr. Tierney was satisfied the noble lord had not perused the papers before the House accurately. The settlement of 1809, bore, that in case the Princess of Wales exceeded her income, then an application should be made to parliament, for indemnifying the Prince. As long as she continued within her income, nothing. was to be said; but whenever she exceeded her income, the subject was to be brought before parliament. Now, when this subject was introduced in the Bill, was it not an inference, that the Princess had broken this agreement? He did not believe the noble lord understood the Bill himself. He believed, that the noble

lord had been desired to carry through the Bill, which had been drawn up by some other hand, and that there was some lieu upon it, which the noble lord would not chuse to avow. The noble lord had stated this, as an arrangement for life to the Princess of Wales; but it ought to be stated merely as an arrangement, during the joint lives of his Majesty and her Royal Highness; for, on the death of his Majesty, a different arrangement would necessarily take place. With respect to liability, whether the debts were incurred by the Prince or Princess, the public had to pay them. It was an ostentatious display of the noble lord, therefore, to state the readiness of the Prince, to pay the debts of the Princess. The Prince had no more means to pay 49,000l. without borrowing, than he had. When the noble lord talked of the anxiety of his Royal Highness to pay these debts, without occasioning any increase of charge to the public, did he mean to say, that he had any more means to pay the 49,000l. than his other debts? All this came of the recital. He dared to say, there were good reasons for the recital, but the noble lord did not seem to have been let into the secret.

Lord Castlereagh contended, that the creditors of her Royal Highness received payment of their debts, by instalments of 10,000l. a year; and he considered the insinuation of the right hon. gentleman as unfair.

Mr. Tierney said, that the payments, on account of Princess, were at the expense of the Prince's creditors.

Mr. Whitbread objected to the recital. With respect to the liberality of the Prince of Wales, of which so much had been said, it was sufficient to state, that the Princess had been reduced seven years, to 12,000l. a year: and that when the Prince's income was augmented from 49,000l. to 60,000l. under lord Sidmouth's administration, an application was made on behalf of the Princess, and no notice was taken of it.

The clauses were agreed to, and the Report ordered to be received to-morrow.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Wednesday, July 20. VOTE OF CREDIT.] The order of the day for taking the Prince Regent's Message on this subject into consideration being read,

The Earl of Liverpool said, he did not think it necessary to trouble their lordships with many observations, under the present circumstances, relative to the general state of affairs. A noble lord had, on a former evening, put a question respecting the sum which was proposed as the amount of the Vote of Crédit, which was held as unusual in a period of peace. It should be recollected, that the country was still placed under peculiar circumstances. They were still at war with the United States of America; besides which, there were a variety of other considerations that must entail upon the country no small degree of extraordinary expense. It must be some time before it was possible they could bring home all the armies, and consequently make those reductions in the establishments at home which were so desirable in a time of peace. It was certainly deemed expedient that a certain amount of force should be kept up in those countries whose final fate was to be settled at the ensuing Congress at Vienna. He then alluded to the expenses which were still indeed under provisions of the treaty of Chaumont, and the amount of the subsidies which were still necessarily going on, and had not yet been voted, as on the occasion of former periods, because no man could have been certain at the time that, the war might not continue the whole of the year. With reference to these expenses, a sum of four millions remained, which must be provided for out of some fund. Under all the circumstances in which the war was closed, and with reference to the various considerations he had alluded to, a vote of the sum proposed for the occasion would be necessary and expedient; and, with that impression, he would propose an Address to the Prince Regent on the occasion of his most gracious Message, assuring him of the cordial concurrence of the House in enabling his Royal Highness to meet the exigencies that might arise, &c.

Lord Holland said, though he was not prepared to resist the motion, yet he must be allowed to express some degree of reluctance in voting a sum, which, it must be owned, was a large amount, for a period which may be considered as one of peace. It was true, we were still unfortunately at war with America, which he regarded as a great calamity; yet he thought the proposed amount was greater than the reasons assigned seemed to call for. He re gretted the state of uncertainty in which

the fate of a great portion of Europe still remained; but felt a contrary emotion at hearing nothing from the noble lord which indicated an intention of keeping up a large peace establishment. As the vote was rested on the narrow grounds alluded to by the noble earl, he would not press any sort of opposition to it; but would lay in his claim to examine the grounds upon which the vote had been called for, whenever the distribution of its amount should be laid before parlia

ment.

The question was then put, and the Address immediately agreed to.

CORN LAWS.] Earl Stanhope recalled to their lordship's recollection a Petition he had presented yesterday on this subject. It was from certain respectable corn growers of Peterborough and its vicinity, stating, that on account of the heavy expense attending the growth of corn, and the low state of the markets, an adequate price could not be obtained; that if such a state of things continued, much mischief would arise to the public, as well as to individuals; and, understanding that a Resolution had been submitted to the House of Lords, tending to their relief, &c.; they prayed that the same may be taken into an early consideration. This, his lordship described to be the prayer and gift of the Petition. He adverted to the objections urged yesterday to its reception, which, he contended, were unfounded; and insisted, that the right of petitioning was a sacred unalienable right, and founded upon the principles of the constitution. He then moved that the Petition do lie on the table.

The Lord Chancellor thought that the Petition was one which ought to be received, and the noble earl's motion was immediately agreed to.

BANKRUPT LAWS.] Earl Stanhope presented a Petition from a certain individual whom he did not name on the subject of the Bankrupt laws. It was one, he said, out of those multitudes of cases which made one's heart bleed; and one which, from the state of the law, might happen without any blame being imputable to any of the judges of law or equity: but one always suspected that something was wrong when such cases existed. The petitioner stated, that he had been made bankrupt nine years ago, and had not been permitted to know the grounds on

which he had been so declared bankrupt. This was a very serious grievance. The petitioner had made several applications to the Lord Chancellor, who ordered the assignees to be removed. The petitioner also stated his application personally to the Lord Chancellor,—his inability to afford the expense of procuring affidavits, and the expenses to which the estate had been put by various meetings; where sometimes only one commissioner, and sometimes two attended; the attendance of three of them being by law necessary, as he believed. His lordship then strongly recommended it to the House to appoint some eminent lawyers, or three of the judges, to form the several laws upon particular subjects into one bill or act; a measure from which great advantage might be derived. The law on such subjects would then be much better and more generally understood. The noble and learned lord on the woolsack was stated, in some reports in circulation, relative to proceedings in the court of Chancery, to have said, that he had read the Bankrupt Laws 72,000 times, and did not understand them yet; and if he had done so, he applauded him for it; but it proved the necessity for adopting the measure which he recommended.

The Lord Chancellor said, he certainly had never said any such thing; and if he must read the Bankrupt Laws 72,000 times before he could understand them, he had better not begin. He saw, how. ever, that the noble lord did not understand them.

The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.

THE PRINCESS CHARLOTTE OF WALES.] The Earl of Lauderdale said-My Lords, I have waited in the hope of seeing an illustrious duke in his place, who yester day gave notice of a motion upon a most important and delicate subject, for Friday next. I lament that I have been disappointed, because it was my intention to have asked whether he did not think it proper that the House should be provided with some information relative to the motion which is to be brought forward? I am well aware, that it is competent to any peer to summon the House for the more solemn consideration of any subject; and I should be sorry to argue that it is not competent to any peer to submit a motion without giving the House more than a general idea of its sub