Colonel Palmer wished merely to observe, that the report of a committee of that house had already been decidedly favourable to the claims of his father; he therefore saw no necessity for any new investigation. At the same time, speaking for himself individually, and on the part of his father, he should not object to the appointment of a new committee.

The chancellor of the exchequer then said, he should now move, that a select committee be appointed to consider of the agreement of Mr. Palmer with the post office, and to report to the house their opinion on the same.

Mr. P. Moore objected to the appointment of any such committee, because he considered the case as already completely discussed and adjudicated by the house.

Mr. Long contended, that as this was a new parliament, it was only fair that there should be a new committee. The former committee had thought proper to report on his (Mr. Long's) testimony alone; but more witnesses might have been examined on the subject.

Colonel Palmer conceived, that if a committee were thought necessary at all, at any rate it would be an open one, where all who came had voices.

The chancellor of the exchequer observed, that it was generally found that an open committee was a very inconvenient one.

The speaker begged to remind the house, in point of form, that every committee up stairs was a select one; at the same time it was competent to any member to move, that all who came have voices.

After some further discussion, the motion for a committee was agreed to; but the gallery was cleared for a division on the ques

tion, whether or not it should be an open one? No division however took place, and it was agreed that the committee should be open. The bill was afterwards read a second time, and was finally carried through all its stages in the house of com mons, but was thrown out by the lords.

A new bill was brought in to. wards the close of the session, and was passed by both houses; o: the third reading of which, in the commons, Mr. Tierney asked upon what ground the sum of 50,0002. was selected as the amount of the proposed grant to Mr. Palmer, particularly after committees of that house had reported that this gentleman was entitled to 84,000%. in addition to his salary from the postoffice?

The chancellor of the exchequer replied, that the sum alluded to by the honourable gentleman was inserted in the bill, because it was estimated to be a fair reward for the ingenuity of Mr. Palmer's invention; and he supposed that those who thought that gentleman should have more, would not object to the bill, especially as Mr. Palmer had expressed himself content with the proposed grant.

Mr. Tierney differed from the right honourable gentleman's estimate of Mr. Palmer's services. But he wished to know whether it was intended to grant Mr. Palmer a clear sum of 50,0001. for, if the grant were to include all, he really believed, that from the expenses incurred by that gentleman in prosecuting his claim, he would not have to receive above 35,000!. This diminished grant he was however disposed to consider as a sacrifice to a party in the lords, who, although the privilege of granting money belonged to the commons,

had

had succeeded in repeatedly defeating the declared sense of that house to do justice to Mr. Palmer; and this proceeding was taken without even requiring any con ference with the house of lords to ascertain the reasons of such repeated rejection. Mr. Palmer might be induced, under all the circumstances, to express himself content with the proposed arrangement; but as a member of parlianient and a friend to justice, he felt it his duty to oppose it.

The chancellor of the exchequer said, that it was not his intention to propose any further grant than that specified in the bill. As to the expenses incurred by that gentleman in prosecuting his claim, the public could not be fairly called upon to indemnify him.

Mr. W. Smith could easily conceive that the spirit of Mr. Palmer, wearied out by repeated disappointment, might consent to ac. cept less than the fair amount of his claim, but that could not reconcile his mind to the proposition. However, as it would be competent to any member of that house, notwithstanding this measure, to move next sessions for a further grant to Mr. Palmer, he should not in that understanding oppose the motion.

Mr. Ponsonby rose and said, that he had some time ago taken the liberty of asking the noble lord opposite some questions regarding the relations of this country with Sweden, and also with Denmark. He now wished to ascertain from the noble lord, whether any sum of money had been advanced to the former power, except that which was stated in the vote of credit? Upon the answer of the noble lord would depend the course of con

duct which he (Mr. Ponsonby) should feel himself called upon to adopt.

Lord Castlereagh said, that he had no difficulty in stating, for the satisfaction of the right honourable gentleman, that some advances had taken place besides those specified in the vote of credit. He rather hoped that, after the holidays, he should be enabled to nake a communication upon the subject to the house.

June 1.Lord Castlereagh, in the house of commons, presented a petition from the general assembly of the church of Scotland, praying for the extension of religious liberty to all sects, and stating their conviction, that it would be pru dent, in the present state of the empire, to open all civil and military employments to the talents and ambition of all sects of his majesty's subjects. They wished at the same time, in the case of the Roman catholics, to provide against any danger that may arise from their acknowledgement of a foreign jurisdiction. Ordered to lie on the table.

June 2.-Lord Cochrane presented a petition signed by certain inhabitants of Manchester, com. plaining of having been unjustly confined, being accused of administering unlawful oaths when they met to petition for parliamentary reform. The petition set forth the various grievances to which they had been subjected, and the inju ries their character had sustained by the statements which had appeared on the subject in the newspapers. The conclusion of it prayed the house to afford them redress for the wrongs they had suffered, and to take such measures as would effectually guard against a repetiL 2

tion

tion of them. His lordship moved that this petition do lie upon the table.

Mr. Bathurst wished the noble lord had stated, before he made his motion, what redress he was of opinion could be afforded by parliament. He (Mr. Bathurst) understood that the petitioners had been accused of administering unlawful oaths, but acquitted, and that they felt what had passed to be extremely injurious to their characters. He did not know with what view parliament could be just ly called upon to give relief in such a case. If they had been unjustly accused, the law was open to them to bring their actions against those by whom they were prosecuted; and if the newspapers had stated their case unfairly, they could be proceeded against for a libel. He did not object to the language of the petition (nothing could be more properly expressed), but he wished some honourable member to state what redress could be afforded by parliament. He thought it would be inexpedient to receive this petition, as it might be understood to hold out to all the country an idea that parliament would redress that to which the law of the land offer ed a remedy. If the law were found incompetent to afford redress for individuals so situated, it would then be for parliament to step forward; but he thought it was not for them to step forward in the first instance, to put themselves in the place of the courts of law.

Mr. Whitbread said, there was much good sense in the speech of the right honourable gentleman; but as many petitions presented to the house were suffered to lie on the table, though they had no immediate prospect of affording the

petitioners redress, he hoped the present petition would not be rejected. It was true that the law, as the right honourable gentleman had said, was open to those from whom this petition came, but really it was little better than a taunt to persons in their situation to state this. They would be likely to refer to the language used by Mr. Horne Tooke, who, when it was said the law was open to all, ob. served, "So is the London Tavern, and those who can bear the expense may go to law, as well as to the London Tavern." If these people could afford to go to law, he had no doubt they would do so, and his opinion was, they would obtain very heavy damages. To those who had read their trials, gone into the characters of the witnesses against them, and all the circumstances of the case, he thought it must appear that there never was a grosser act of oppression than that which was here furnished. But to tell a man who was now in prison for debt, or who had been turned out of his public-house, and had not the means of supporting himself, and with hardly a penny in his pocket, that he might go to law, was little better than mocking him. He thought the house would not consult its dignity, by refusing to let this petition lie on the table. Their refusal, if not unjust, would appear harsh and unkind; and he thought the house should encou rage complaints of this nature, that, if they could not afford redress, those who were aggrieved might at least know there was one place where their sorrows could be heard, and their complaints deposited, without being treated harshly. With this feeling, he hoped the petition would not be rejected.

Mr,

Mr. serjeant Best was anxious that it should not go forth to the world, that a man without money could in no case obtain redress by law. He denied this to be the fact, and thought the house ought to be cautious how they entertained petitions containing allegations which they had no means of ascertaining to be correct.

The petition was ordered to lie

on the table.

House of lords, June 14.-Earl Grey was desirous, before they proceeded with any further business, to put some questions to the noble earl opposite (Liverpool,) with respect to the treaty with Sweden, lately laid on their lordships' table [see Public Papers]; because some additional information was indispensably necessary for the due consideration of that treaty. In the 2d article it was stated, "that his Britannic majesty promised and engaged to accede to the conventions already existing between Russia and Sweden, insomuch that his Britannic majesty would not only not oppose any obstacle to the annexation and union, in perpetuity, of the kingdom of Norway, as an integral part of the kingdom of Sweden; but also would assist the views of his ma jesty the king of Sweden to that effect, either by his good offices, or by employing, if it should be necessary, his naval co-operation, in concert with the Swedish or Russian forces. It was, nevertheless,, understood, that recourse should not be had to force, for effecting the union of Norway to Sweden, unless his majesty the king of Denmark should have previously refused to join the alliance of the north, upon the conditions stipu lated in the engagements subsisting between the courts of Stockholm

and St. Petersburgh." By this article, then, Great Britain was bound to co-operate by force, if necessary, in obliging Denmark to give up Norway, that valuable part of its possessions, to Sweden, in the event of the court of Copenhagen refusing to accede to the northern alliance, upon certain terms and conditions not as yet known to their lordships. Now, without wishing to raise any discussion at present, or giving expression to those feelings which the bare perusal of such an engagement, as it appeared upon the face of the treaty, naturally excited, he wished to be informed what were the conditions in the alliance between Russia and Sweden, upon the failure of acceding to which, Denmark was to be deprived of Norway by force, and that country to be for ever united to the kingdom of Sweden? He wished to know this, because, without such information, it was utterly impos sible to judge of the whole merits of the question; and therefore he trusted the noble earl would agree to lay the treaty between Russia and Sweden on the table, before the discussion. To that he could anticipate no objection. But there were other points upon which it was material also to have the fullest information. They who had with just indignation reprobated the principle of dismemberment and partition, under the pretence of moral or physical convenience, in rendering defence more easy, or secu rity more complete; they who had considered such principles, or rather such a want of all principle, as subversive of all right and all justice, ought to know-distinctly to know-upon what grounds they proceeded before they entered inte any engagement, or gave their sanction to any treaty, that appear

ed, in any degree, to recognise the political doctrine against which they had so warmly protested. Their lordships ought, therefore, to know what had lately passed between the court of Copenhagen and our government. We were now unfortunately embarked in a war with Denmark, upon what grounds, and originating in what causes,he would not then stop to inquire: but if this country still rested in any degree upon that character for justice and generosity which, he hoped, it would always maintain, it ought to evince every disposition to put an end to that contest, if terms were offered consistent with its honour and safety. We did know the fact that a Danish minister had come to England. We knew that a sus pension of hostilities on the part of Denmark had taken place until the Court of Copenhagen could ascertain the result of this mission. We knew that this minister was soon dismissed, and hostilities then recommenced. Nay, we knew more than that not only had hostilities been suspended, but, as a proof of the sincerity of the Danish government in the propositions for reconciliation made by them, Danish troops advanced to Hamburgh, and fought in its defence against the common enemy; which Sweden had not as yet done. But when Great Britain refused to enter into any negotiation, the Danish troops were withdrawn; and that power, which had by this direct act manifested its resolution to co-operate against the common enemy, immediately lent its assistance to the accomplishment of the views of that enemy, and the Danish and French troops took possession of Hamburgh together. He was now speaking on the 14th of June; and this treaty, which, it was to be feared,

might form an addition to the long list of errors and crimes of which the present ministers were guilty, had been signed on the 3d of March. He wished, then, to know how it came that the treaty had not socner been laid on the table-why it had been delayed till a period of the session when they were not so likely to have that full attendance which the importance of the subject demanded? There was another point, also, with respect to which it was highly fitting that some information should be given. They were now come to a time when Sweden, considering the sacrifices made, and to be made, by this country under this treaty, might be expected to have made some progress in the fulfilment of the engagements on her part, for which we were to pay so great a price. He asked, then, for information, as to the practical steps which had been taken by Sweden, pursuant to her engagements? He wished to know what troops Sweden had landed on the continent?-what directly offensive operations against the common enemy she had commenced?-or whether any unjustifiable delay had taken place in that respect? Upon these points their lordships must have information before they could come to the discussion with the proper degree of preparation. The first point was the most important; and he was particularly anxious, in regard to that, to have the fullest possible information. He likewise wished to know, what sum had been actually paid to the Swedish government upon the ground of this treaty? He thought too, that, in order to have a complete view of the whole subject, they ought to have on the table our engagements with Russia and other foreign powers: for, without this, it would

be