having listened to the appeal of Corporal Curtis : he certainly had not listened to that appeal, because that person had not a right to make it. The Article of War (which the noble lord here read) took away the appeal from a person found guilty of military offence by a regimental court-martial. The general court-martial was for trial of heinous offences; the regimental, for petty offences. When the person, whose case was referred to was charged with a heinous offence, he appointed a general court-martial, but at the same time, took care that no officer, who had served on the regimental court-martial, indeed that no officer of the regiment should serve upon the General Court. He trusted, after what he had stated, that the House would consider him clear of the charge of having committed a breach of the Articles of War. As to this man, he believed he went away from his Colonel on the 25th of April, perfectly satisfied that his complaint was unfounded. On that day he signed his return, "all well." In the following May, Major-General Houston (we believe) proceeded on his half-yearly inspection through the district. It was part of his duty to ask, whether any individual in the regiments inspected had any complaints to make. This duty be knew was performed by that officer, and not a word of complaint was heard from any individual in the Oxfordshire regimeut. As to what had been said about Bellis and Reeve having been forced out of the country, he should only say, that there was no foundation for the charge. When their conduct was known, he did not order a CourtMartial. He directed the Major-general to inquire into the circumstances, and on his report had brought the meu to a Court-Martial. With respect to the treatment of the man in prison, he had certainly ordered the mob, for mob he would call them, not to be admitted to him: but he at the same time directed that his friends and witnesses should have free access to him, and that he should be allowed the use of pen, ink, and paper. But to shew more clearly with what indulgence and lenience he had been treated, he need only say, that on the 8th of July the mob having entered into a subscription to enable him to employ Counsel, he applied to the Court for time to procure Counsel, when the Court adjourned to one o'clock; and on its being re-assembled, the Judge Advocate offered to the Counsel the proceeding for his perusal. The hon. baronet had said, that the man was entrapped into a trial of one offence when he was prepared to expect the trial for another. The fact was, that on the 4th of July.

a list of the charges has been given to the prisoner; on the 6th the Court met, when he was called upon for a list of his. witnesses; and even on the 7th and 8th he called fresh wit nesses. With respect to the charge of intimidation of witnesses by Serjeant Cox, as stated by the honourable gentleman, if any such thing had taken place, it must have been mentioned in the defence; and yet not one word was said of it on the trial. If there was any thing to be remedied, the Commander-in-chief had offered to have the matter inquired into. The course proposed by the honourable member was therefore not the only means of investigation. He returped thanks to the House for its attention, and should vote against the motion.

Mr. Lockhart knew both the unfortunate man and his father, they being both his constituents. The impression upon the mind of this man's family was not that he had been treated with severity. He had received a letter from the father of the man, begging him to apply, not for a revision of his sentence, but for mercy. He had written upon the subject to the Dukes of Kent and Cumberland, and made application to the magistrates, who humanely exerted themselves to obtain the execution of justice in mercy. The father of this man knew nothing of the motion of the honour. able gentleman. The speech of the honourable gentleman was deserving of the severest criticism. If popularity was the object of the honourable member, he would recommend to him to court it by other means-by means which, as Lord Mansfield well observed, would make popularity follow him, instead of his pursuing popularity.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer would not rise except in justice to Sir David Dundas, to shield him against some imputations which seemed to have been insinuated. He did not mean to infer that the honourable gentleman who brought forward those charges took advantage of his situation as a member of Parliament to propagate inflammatory and mischievous harangues, (Hear, hear, hear!); he rather supposed he came down to seek redress for some supposed injury. He was the more ready to believe this, as every man who wished well to the country must be aware how very much the bring ing forward military charges in that House ought to be avoided (Hear, hear!) The right honourable gentleman here read a correspondence between Sir David Dundas and Mr. Wardle, in which Mr. Wardle desired that the condemned Corporal Curtis should not be sent abroad, as he, as VOL. II. 1811.

a Member of Parliament, was determined to make the matter the subject of investigation (Hear, hear!); and in which Sir David uniformly answered, that he would be ready to accede, provided Mr. Wardle stated the grounds of his application. (Hear, hear!) (Hear, hear!) This, however, Mr. Wardle declined doing. He must state this in justice to Sir David Dundas. But Mr. Wardle broached a principle which would go to convert the freest country under heaven into the most wicked and abominable tyranny which ever existed. He, denying all information, demanded, as a Member of Parliament, the suspension of the Law. What! was he to arrogate to himself the right of becoming a walking Committee of the House of Commons? (Hear, hear!) He seemed also to insinuate that the military could not have fair play under a regimental Court-martial! He could not conceive a viler or more unfounded insinuation; but though he was ready to give the honourable gentleman every allowance as to the purity of his views, still he was sure the House would allow he could not have chosen a worse way, or adopted a more injudicious course, towards their accomplishment. (Hear, hear!) He should now conclude, having made these few remarks on a speech which he was sure all men in that House must regret, and which none should regret more than the person who delivered it. (Hear, hear!)

Colonel Wardle very briefly replied, and the House divided:

For Colonel Wardle's motion, 1. — Against it, 91. Majority 90.-Adjourned.

[The Member who voted for the motion was Colonel Langton.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

WEDNESDAY, FEB. 27.

PETITIONS.

Sir S. Romilly presented a Petition from several proprie tors of bleaching-grounds in the north of Ireland, which he said were signed by 130 names, but that these consisted of the most respectable inhabitants, who were all interested in these bleaching-grounds, praying a repeal of the several acts making stealing cloth from bleaching-grounds a capital felony. The reason stated for this was, that from the excessiveness of the punishment, both juries and witnesses were deterred from doing their duty, and the petitioners were thereby

left without any means of redress or remedy.-Ordered to lie on the Table.

He also presented another Petition to the same effect, from the Master Calico-printers, in the neighbourhood of London, who constituted a majority of the trade.-Ordered to lie on the table.

The honourable and learned gentleman then gave notice, that he would take an early opportunity to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the repeal of the 3d Geo. III. making it a capital felony to steal cloth from bleaching-grounds, and the 18th George II. making it a capital felony to steal to the value of 10s. in a fulling-house. The petitioners, he said, were persons who did not speak on speculation or unfounded information, but from practical knowledge. They were the persons most intimately interested, and who were the only sufferers by these Acts being inadequate to the purposes for which they were framed, and therefore had the strongest reasons to wish for their repeal.

PRECEDENCE OF NOTICES AND ORDERS OF THE DAY.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose to make the motion of which he had given notice. He said, he conceived the House must be sensible of the great inconvenience and delay which had been occasioned to the public business last session by the continual conflict there was between Notices of Motions and the Orders of the Day, by which many orders of the greatest importance were obliged to be brought on at so late an hour as two o'clock in the morning. This, he thought, might easily be avoided, by making an order of the House that orders of the day should have the precedence on certain days in the week, and notices of motions on the others. When he mentioned this matter before, the principal objection seemed to be, that such an arrangement would affect the right which every Member possesses of making a motion without giving any notice. To obviate this, however, he would propose, that, let the matter of this motion be settled how it might, he intended it should in no way whatever preclude any gentleman from making such motion as he might think necessary, without giving any notice. He would not, therefore, trouble the House farther than to move, "That in the present Session of Parliament, the orders of the day set down in the order-book for Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, should have the precedence of notices

fixed for those days; and that notices should have precedence on the other two days.'

The question being put from the Chair,

Mr. Ponsonby objected to the motion, because, notwithstanding what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could see no inconvenience from adhering to the old mode. He thought, therefore, it would be better to leave it to an understanding of the House than to make it a standing order. It would be dangerous to depart from the standing rules of the House, established by long usage and practice, which ought to be adhered to even though some inconvenience should be produced from so doing.

Mr. Yorke spoke in support of the motion.

Mr. G. W. Wynne thought it would be better to fix it on an understanding of the House.

Mr. Banks said, he had felt the inconvenience alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of the last session, and if it came to a vote, should certainly give his in favour of the motion; but he thought it would answer the same end, if agreed to as an understanding of the House.

Lord Folkestone said, if any inconvenience had arisen in the course of last Session from the causes mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was owing in the first place to the assembling Parliament so late and in the next to the Ministers so long deferring to bring forward the public business. Before the Union took place and brought with it so much more pressure of business, Parliament used to sit near double the time it had done since that pressure was so much increased. He thought it would, therefore, be better to let it be fixed as an understanding of the House.

Mr. Whitbread opposed both the resolution and the understanding. He thought it unfair that three days should be allowed for a preference to orders of the day, and only two left for notices of motions, which might involve the most important concerns of the country. The Minister had seized on Saturday as his own, and had made it merely a day of registration and so would all the other days be converted into days of registration in a very few years. He objected to the introduction of the word "notices" at all. Mr. Burke said, that "forms" were the intrenchments of minorities; and there was a time when the right honourable gentleman had thought it necessary to entrench himself to the teeth in those forms, and had thereby baffled the whole power of Government. The right honourable gentleman knew,