Star.
London, England, 1816-04-09 00:00:00

•

in what the Noble Baron hid
t. but ht
Mid not suppose that their Lordstips *mils] br
convinced by his arguinents to impede the p-ogies,
of the Bill _ _ .

Lord HOLLAND contended, that the NAL,
Earl had not at all obviated his objections to the
Bill, or to she terms in which it was coliched. The
Treaty was of no advantajte. but on the contrary,
sharcltled us, and exposed ns to possible, if not very
probable inconvenienoe. He would suppose a case,
an extreme one indeed, but yet such as ought t.•
hive come into the view of Ministers. He would

suppose a new tr;nlption in Franc"; by which, in the
fluctuation of po;itical interests and alliances, we
might be connected with France and Austria, and in
which the son of Napoleon might have an opportu•
pity. of sheaving more affection for his lather than the
Emperor of Austria appeared at present to entettain
for his daughter. He repeated, that he was putting
an extreme case, bin he would iikeaise repeat, that
it WAS not beyond the proper view, er contemplation
of Ministers.
Earl BA 11-1 RST explained, olyervii:g, that this
country had n excluive right to th:t detention or
custody of Bonaparte,- who was the COlibrilifil prisoner
of all the Allied lowers.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE could not help
.making a few observations. It really appeared as if
it were sopposed that there was something preterna-
tural about the person who was the ol.ject of the Bili
in question. For his own•part, he could never dis•
cover why a very safe custody might not have been
provided for Bonaparte in many parts of this coun-
try, and he could entertain no doubt that we had
not only prisons but Officers of Police sufficiently
strong and vigilant for that purpose. He fully
-agreed, however, with his Noble Friend, in thinking
that the 13tH was introduced in terms not of sufficient
clearness. The first sentence of the preamble
.in-
volved an absurdity, for it set out with stating,
that because Bonaparte was then detained in the
Island of St. Helena as a prisoner of war, he should
continue to be so detained there. The circumstance
of his being there was urged as the sole reason for
keeping htrn there; The question as to the legality
of Bonaparte's being a prisoner of war he would
willingly put to the Noble Lord on the Woolsack,
but he thought it would become the House to pro.
coed with the utmost clearness of the principles of
• Legislation in all weir enactments, and therefore lie
would recommend the reference of the question to
the Judges.
The LORD CHANCELLOR could not help
romancing,, that there appeared to be mare ingenuity
requited to misinterpret than to widerstand the hill.
- He sSnuld not, on the present occasion, resort to
either of the alleged arguments of convenience
• allu.!ed by the Noble Baron,' the year 18u6," or
aig the.pirtialicr .towards Bonaparte ;" but he would
defend the propriety of the present Bill, which, in
Lis opinion, did by no means require the attention of
the Judges : indeed, so far was that from being the
case, that if the Twelve Judges were to declare that
Bonaparte was or was net a prisoner war, their
opinion would in no wise alter his conviction of ;he
propriety of the Bill, which had no other object than
to enable his Mi..), sty to apply the laws rela.ive to
prisoners of war to the particular instance of Bona-
pane, and to authorise the Gown to place him in
such a place, and under such restriction, as might be
deemed proper.
The Earl of LAUDERDALII, Earl BATIIMILST, and
Lord HOLLAND, severally explained ; alter which'
the Bill was read the second rime.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY (in the absence*
of Lcrd Grenville) presented a Petition for leav'e to
bring iu a Bill to eu'able the Principal and Society of
Magdalen Hall (intended is be taken down for the
improvement of Magdalen College.). to remove to
the scite of the dissolved College of Hertford, in the
University of Oxford, and for other purposes.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL, in behalf of the
Crown, which is become entitled to the main part of
Hertford -2ollege by escheat, assented to the prayer
of the Petition. Leave given.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Petitions against the Leather fax were presented from Lud-
low, Cumbertand, Somerset, Macclesfield, Salop, Rutland, Stal-
ford, and Southwark. .
'LW Priam* Charhaties Establishment Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be committed.
A Petition from the Freeholders of Milli-let, praying relief
foe she Agricultural Interests, was laid on the
Lord LASICSiLLYI presented a Petition from the Licensed Vic-
tuallers ut Knaresboruagb against the increased Licence Duties.
Laid on the table.,
Petitions from the Innkeepers of Shrewsbury and Canterbury'
against the hicreased Licence Duty were presented, and laid on
the table.
The Hun. T. BEAM) presented a petition from Ham:hutch,
Emu, against Lithe..
. Mr. HILLY ADDINGT(iN brought up a Return of the Contlis•
gest Espeuses in the Secretary of State's Office.—Ordered to be
primed.
A Petition front the Tanners of Winchelsea was presented
against the Leather Tn.—laid on the table.
Mr. Foam-4 presented a Petition front the inhabitants of. Be.
wiry against the Insolvent Act.—Ordered to be referred.
MALT DUTIES.

Mr. HARVEY presented a Petition from. the
Maltstets of Norwich, praying for relief from the
Mali-duty for the quantity of Malt now on hands.
Mr. CALVERT was sox!), he had not been in the
Rause when the Right Honourable Gent:e::..to. (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) propos...i
lions respecting the Malt Tax, as he considered them
quite inefficient in affordiq relief with regard to the
quautity. of Malt now ca hands. The lowering of
the price of Porter atone penny a pot was complained.
of as not being low enough ; but the redui:tion of the
Tax on Malt did not allow it to be lower. The. Por-
ter of this Metropolis was by a penny a pot better than
that of any other part of the kingdom.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY said, that the reduction
should be the same as the increase was when the war
Malt Duty was laid on. He complained of the mo-
sopoly which the Brewers of the Metropolis held
over the public-Muses, as a great public evil.
Mr. cALvERT said, that the Porter had bees
sixpeace a pot, it was now five pence, and would bei4
shortly four pence, which was as low as the Brewers
could afford. •
Mr. C.. DARCLAY said that the reduction of the%
price of Porter Was as great as could be afforded.—
With respect to the monopoly of Brewers over pub.
lic•houses, he considered it a great public evil.
Mr. CLIWNICN and. Mr. WESTERN complained of the
monopoly of Bres.ers over the public-houses of aw
blerropolis, as a great public evil.
The CHANCE:4IOR of, the EXCHEQUER

d'd not think the Hononrabie Gentleman's (Mrs Cal.
Yen's) consplßint well founded. He wouhl twin--
mend to_ the Honourable Gentleman to brew imrne•
diately, before ..der the pnee cil•Barley rose, or d e
price of Porter w 4; reJoced.—(if laugh.) '
The Petition was then teal, and laid on the table.
Mr. HARVEY presented a Petition from the Malt
sters of Great Yarmouth, praying that tie war Malt
Duty should be immediately taken WE—Laid on the
table.

WATWORD RA ILSOUR.
Mr. FOSTER prtsented a Petition from the Mayor
and Corporation of Waterford against the bill now
pending in Parliament, for the improvement Of the
Harbour of Waterford, as injurious to their vebted

•
rigb ts.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT contended, that his own
application to this HOuse on the subject of the-Bill
WAS public, and that. the Cot poration had appeared
satisfied on the subject. He sent a printed copy -.it
the Bill tollie Mayor if Waterford before he until,-
diced it into the Huuse. He insisted, that the mea-

sot e was but justice due to the body of the inhabi-
tants of Waterford, and no wrong on the Corporation.
The Petition was then reAd, and laid on the table.

EcAN(MHY AND RETRENCHMENT.

Sir FLANCIS BURDETT presented a Petition
from theaCounty of Wilts, complaining of the system
of bribery and corruption in the Election of Relate-
sentatives to serve in Parliament—of the enormous
load of Taxation—eof the Mardage Establishment for
the Princess Charlotte of Wales bearing on the come
try, while- the King had so much money hr the Funds
which had paid ne Property Tax—ot the large Mili-
tary Establishment in time of Peace, and praying for
economy and retrenchment.
Mr. METHUEN said, he should, in a few days,
have another Petition to present from the CoMity of
Wilts to the Ilouse, which be conceived, would be
couched in somewhat different terms.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said, that he had
heatd that h was the intention of some Gentlemen el
the County of Wilts to h ore another Petition drawn
up and presented to the House; but this had been
given to him for presentation as ia Petition voted at
mil assemblage pnbliely and lawfully convened.
Mr. METHUEN was intormed that there were
not more than twenty persons at the Meeting where
the Petition was 'voted, and that a Gentleman desi-
rous to speak at the Meeting was not permitted.—
(Hear, hear !)
The Petition was then laid on the table.
FRENCH SUBSIDY.
Mr. DOUGLAS moved for a teturn of all sums
of money due and paid by France to this country, and
of the manner in which it was applied.
Lord CASTLERE.-‘GH said, that, as had been
over and over again stated in the House, All the
sums received from France had been applied to the
public service-
Mr. HORNER had not heard how the sum of
£Sbo,oooe which was more particularly the object ot
his Hon. Friend's motion, had been applied.
Liiird CASTLEREAGH most certainly recol-
lected.having stated how this very sum had been ap. I
plied. He had stated that every part of the money
r...ceived-hini France had been applied to the public
service, with the exception ot a trifling sum for traits-
reran some of the works of art from Paris tr Rune.
There had been 50 millions ot francs paid by France
to the Allies, and of this sum I() 'Miami* wete to this
country, the application of every franc of which had
been before elated in the House.
Mr. BENNET had not heard a word of the appli-
civion of the £BBO,OOO, mentioned by his Honourable
Friend.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, he had already
stated the sources from which this money would arise,
and these were the contributions to be..paid by the
French Government, which -might be considered as
Droits of the Crown.
Mr. BROUGHAM complained, that on a former
occasion no notice had been taken of these immense
funds called i)roits ; they had not been noticed at
the time when his Honourable Friend had made his
motion for the production ot different sums ; instead
of *which this sum was kept back ; and now, for
the first time, the House was informed of the exist-
ence of such funds. It was highly usconstitutional
to keep such things as this from the knowledge of
Parliament. This sum of £BBO,OOO was never before
mentioned to the House. •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
declared, that he had stated on a former occasion
that a sum above £700,000 had been received from
France as war conwibutions ; at the same time he
stated, that more particular accounts would be laid'
before the House at a convenient opportunity, and
such opportunity had not as yet arisen. The sum
had been appropriated to Army Extracirdinaries.
Mr. TIERNEY conceived that a distinct docu-
ment ought to be laid before the House, to let the
House know what the exact sum was. Without that
it would be impossible for the House to know whe-
ther the sum was not eight millions, instead ot.
41'300.000. In this view ot the question, it appeared
to be a VW alarming proceeding.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, the contributiops
owing from France to this country amounted to ten
millions of francs and these were made applicable
to the payment of? the army in France ; for it never-
was understood that the share of the French contri-
bution received by Britain would be sufficient to cover
the expense of our Army of Observation is that
comer/ ; this arose from the increased expense at-
tending a British above the armies of other nations;
and the calculation 'of the expenses on the part of
France was applicable to the Allied nations only.
Mr. TIERNEY contended, that he emit:nil bad
been wholly deceived iu this• affair, because the un-
derstanding had been, that die whole expense of our
Army of Observation Was to be defrayed by France,
whereas the nation was now to be put to the expense
,of ammo% in addition to the French contribution
for the support of the Army of Observation, and all
this expense was to be incurred for the purpose of
keeping the Bourbons on the Throne of France.
Mr. BARING observed, that the .Princes of Get.
many were ready to sell their pretensions to the.
French contributions next year for one-halt of the sti•
pulated sum, and therefore we were worse off than
any other country.
Lord CASTLEREAGH admitted,, that the
wants and necessities the Get man Princes might
induce them to make such a sale.
Mi. BROUGHAM said, he did not understand.

that the Prince% crwl.l CO any purchasers; in loch
estitte seer • Vieir 4:l,4ims held.
live motion of Mr. Docia.As was then agreed to.
Mr. TIERNtY 'wired tnr the charges on the
Civi List up to' Apia, 1 IG. —Ordered. I-Is also
mpred (or an :,4conot of the anuatiit of sums re-
,ived frdm the hi.ri-ditary reirtniies of the Crown in
Scotland since ISI`2 :tiso All accouot of expenses
incurred by the BoarJ of Work for 1'.0.5 also an
account of the salafes anJ allowances granted in
the (Aces of the Secret +ties of Stair for the Home.

the Foreign, akid War Departments for two years.—
Or del ed.
Mr. BANKES mitred for an estimattf of the pro•
bible expeme of repai: ing tfe front of the Secretary
of State's OfAcr,in Whitehall, and the dangerous

state of that building.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said, this work 'tat twen undertaken without any
authority from the Treasury, in virtue of a power
they had of making repairs to the amount of £lOOO.
They began by repairing the wall, but it was found
' that the stones were falling down, and it was reeom.
mended to repair it in a different wanner, by a
casing of bricks. On hearing this, he (abe Chan-
collor of the Ese.equer) gave orders that nu farther
progress should he nntit: until an estimate of the
expense, and tt•e correspondence between the Board
•of Works and the Treasury, could be laid befote the

House.
Mr. BANKES did not know that any such corre-
spondence had taken place. .
Mr. TIERNEY thought that one-third part of the
office of Secretary at State, together with the whole
of the building, ought to be demolished.—The mo-
tion was agreed to.
Mr. BROUGHAM moved for an account of the
Names, Sal dies, and Emoluments of the Officers of
the Court of Appeal, from the ji:dgment of the
Board of Excise, with the number of Appeals that
had been made, and also the number of causes tried
before the summary Court of Excise.—Ortlered.
Mr. BIRCH asked what was intended to be done
with the. ground, purchased some years ago, for
erecting Barracks, near Liverpool ?•
The CHANCELLUR i.t the EXCHEQUER
answered, that the ground was to be sold.
• Mr. HUSKISSON said, the ground Was to be
sold AC SOOII as a purchaser could be found.
• Mr. BIRCH said, the interest ahwe of the money
expen:led in the purciln,e amounted to 410()(1; and
he welled to know, ?f public notice of s.le had ben
given ? No atiswer being made..
Si: J. Nr.WI'ORT tiesited to know if notic.: of
sale had Nei given: • .
The CHANCELLW. of the EXCHEQUER
coal nit, at this timi.. r.-..w..- ilre question.
Mr. TIERNEY. rn..ved 1. e ‘• Copies of all Coires-
poothnce between Ole Lola* of ..rite Tleastiry and the
Lord Chamberlain, vn t:•.-.: sulijcct of the Estinfates,
'directed to he produced by the Lord Chamberlain,
telative to the Civil Lit in the said Lord Chamber-
lain's department.
Lind CASTLEREAGH considered it highly
lunfair to bring forwnril a partial minion of this kaid,
I which only took in a coriAr of the questi.at, be:ore
1 the "whole Estimates cattle regulariy before the
IHouse. Vi. hich 'Arnold he duite shaft; atter ilie recess.
Mr. TIERNEY said, this was only asking for a
i
sep,tia raper
te which c.ttue I:n.ler eke Lot si Chao-
I
betialit's depa.trnetit, and which it was Ins July to!
have produt.ed, as he had been specially directed tinder''
the sign manual; but which he neglected to do.
Lord CASTLEREAGH thoug!it the House ought
to have the question beloreit generally, previou. to
any partial circumstance of- this kind being brought
forward. He should oprie the M,‘11,111.
Mr. BANKES conceived, the Lord Chamberlain
had ri,t complied with the Act of Parliament in not
producing the Estimates.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
asked. if the Right Hon. Gentlentin had auy right
to take the 1-luuse by surpeise, in moving for a par-
ticular correspondence, which Ministers were not pre-
pared at the moment to prialuce. All the flouve could
get by this motion would he to receive a pit of tlu•
utformatiun intended to be laid before them in a few
days in a complete state.
The House divided-ZFor the motion 40—Against
it 49.—Majority 9.