been approved by many intelligent meh. It had been submitted to the late Mr. Windham, who advised that it should be put into a practical form, and it had been received with sufficient consideration by the late Government. An'experiment of the same nature had failed at Trinidad, but it was from total mismanagement. In the present instance, we might find in Batavia, if we got the Island, three hundred thousand Chinese who were skilled in cultivating the sugarcane. Their transportation was to be voluntary, and no one was to be permitted to come who was to leave a family behind. Great advantages of diligence, decency, and secu rity, would be gained to the islands by this measure. Mr. Barham concluded by moving, that "a Committee should be appointed to consider of the expediency and practicability of supplying the West-India Colonies with labourer from the East, and report their opinion thereon to the House."

Mr. Brown would not object to the Committee, because he was anxious for any thing that might lead to abolish slavery but it was important that there should be nothing done, which touched or injured the extensive interests of West-India property. The present project appeared to him difficult in the execution, and most uncertain in the event. It would of course be a high consideration with the Committee to respect the rights which they found already established in the colonies, and to pause upon the dangers of the doubtful plan which was now offered to the House.

Mr. Wilberforce complimented Mr. Barbam on his philanthropy, and had no objection to the Committee.

Nr. Stephen did not conceive that any favourable result could arrive from going into the Committee. The experi ment had been tried in the Island of Trinidad, and failed. If the single men who were employed in that instance could not support themselves by their labour, still less could they now support their families which were to accompany them.

Mr. C. Hutchinson should support the motion, though he felt some difficulties upon the subject.

Mr. Hibbert should vote for the motion, because if the plan should succeed, it would be productive of much benefit to the West Indies.

The motion was then agreed to, and the Committee appointed.

559

EAST-INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuantto his notice on a former day, rose to move that that House do give notice to the Directors of the East-India Company, that their Charter will expire in the year 1814. This notice,. he had to observe, was directed to be given by a clause in the Act of the 33d of the King, by which the Company's. Charter had been renewed. It was enacted by that clause, that whenever, after the first of March, 1811, notice should be given that the sums due from the public to the Company should be paid off, the Charter should expire in three years after such notice, provided such sums were then paid off. This Act referred to another Act of the same session, which contained an arrangement respecting the sums advanced from their capital stock to the public. The sum due at that period was 4,200,000. but by payments which had been made in the course of the session of 1793, this sum had been reduced to 1,207,5597, of which latter sum it was then his intention to move that the House do give notice of payment within the time limited by the Act. The time for which he proposed to fix the payment of this sum was the 10th of April, 1814. The right honourable gentleman concluded by moving, "that notice be given to the Court of Directors of the East-India Company, that on the 10th of April, 1814, the said sum of 1,207,5591. with all arrears, &c. thereon, being the remainder of the capital stock of the Company due from the public, shall be redeemed and paid off agreeably to the power of redemption contained in the last of the said Acts."

On the question being put,

Mr. Creevey observed, that a similar notice had been moved by Mr. Pitt, and that no contract for a renewal of the Company's Charter had been entered into till 1793. He trusted, therefore, that a similar delay would be allowed in this instance before any steps should be taken for a renewal of the Charter.

Mr. Dundas should be no party to any such understanding. The Court of Directors might bring forward an ap plication for a renewal of their Charter, whenever they should see occasion.

The motion was then agreed to, and the Speaker ordered to give the notice in writing to the Directors of the EastIndia Company on the 10th instant.

DISTILLERY BILL.

The House resolved itself into a Committee on the Distillery Bill; after a few words from Mr. Hutchinson, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. W. Smith, the blanks were filled up pro forma; after which the House resumed, and the report was brought up: the Bill as amended was ordered to be printed, and the report to be taken into further consideration on Monday.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

FRIDAY, APRIL 5.

REVERSION BILL.

Earl Grosvenor rose for the purpose of moving the second reading of the Bill prohibiting the granting of Offices in Reversion. He could not avoid availing himself of the present opportunity to say, that he thought the country was very greatly indebted to the Committee of Finance of the other House for their patriotic labours on this subject, which were calculated materially to promote the benefit of the nation at large, and which would have been still more beneficial had they not been thwarted in their endeavours from some other quarter. At the present moment he had no reason to expect that this Bill would be received with great favour by their Lordships; but he trusted he had, at all events, redeemed the pledge which he had given in the last session of Parliament, of again bringing before the House the subject of Places granted in Reversion. He trusted, notwithstanding, that at a future period he should be able to bring it to a full discussion, and that, too, under more favourable auspices. He was certainly at a loss to conceive what were the objections which the noble Lord on the Woolsack would offer to the object of this Bill; more particurally considering the part that noble Lord took last year in favour of a Bill for the suspension of the exercise of the very same prerogative. He was well aware, at the same time, of

the ingenuity of that noble Lord, which would seldom leave him in total want of some arguments to support his opinions. With respect to the Bill itself, he conceived, that upon every principle of liberal, ingenuous, and constitutional policy, it well deserved the unanimous support of the House. The noble Earl concluded by moving the second reading.

The Lord Chancellor was not aware of what sort of infor mation, or upon what principle, the noble Earl had thought it proper to anticipate his opposition to the present Bill, since he never had stated that the question upon the grants of places in reversion was not a question which deserved, whenever brought forward regularly, the serious attention of Parliament; but yet he must say, that this question was connected intimately with several others of importance, in as far as they related to a very important branch of the policy of the state. Those other matters, in fact, could not be properly considered separately, and apart: but he wished particularly to put it to their Lordships, whether this was the proper time for their Lordships to enter into a discussion on this subject, which so much concerned the ancient prerogatives of the Crown, as they had been exercised for three, or four, or five centuries past. Could any noble lord suppose that his Majesty who at present wore the Crown of this realm, or he who would succeed his Majesty, would hesitate even for one moment to give up such a power as that which this Bill sought to abrogate, if it appeared to be useful to the country to do so? There was still less reason for proceeding in such a Bill, when it was known to all their Lordships, that, in point of fact, the grant of places in reversion was prohibited for one year by the very Act which established the government of the Prince Regent. He thought, therefore, that there could appear no sufficient reason for going on any farther in the present Bill.

The question was putting, when Earl Grosvenor rose and said, that, under all circumstances, he should not trouble the House further at present, the power of granting in rever sion being at present suspended: but he must repeat, that he trusted, on another occasion, that he should be able to bring the matter into a full discussion.

The second reading was then negatived, nem. diss.

The Earl of Liverpool then moved, that the Bill be rejected; upon which the Marquis of Lansdowne and Earl Grey made some remarks; the latter noble Lord thought that the rejection of the Bill would be improper. He agreed VOL. II-1811. 4 C

in the postponement of it under the present circumstances; but he avowed himself a determined friend to the principles on which it was founded. He thought, therefore, that at least, the becoming way of proceeding would be to move that the farther consideration of it be postponed six months. The Earl of Liverpool had no particular objection to adopting the suggestion of the noble Earl; and therefore moved the said postponement for six months, which was agreed to, nem diss.

MILITIA ENLISTMENT BILL.

The Earl of Liverpool moved the second reading of the Militia Enlistment Bill. He would not then trouble the House on the subject; but on Monday next, when it would come more fully under their consideration, he should submit to their Lordships some observations upon it.

DISTILLATION.

The Earl of Hardwicke said, that he did not know whether the motions he was about to make would meet with any opposition; but if they did, he should think that there could not be too much fair discussion on the subject, because it was of the highest importance to the agriculture of the country. He then moved for various papers on the subject, such as the average prices of wheat and barley for a certain time, the quantity of corn spirits imported into this country from Ireland from 1801 to 1809, inclusively, &c. whic were agreed to, nem diss.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

FRIDAY, APRIL 5.

PRINTERS REGULATION BILL.

. This Bill having gone into a Committee,

The Attorney-General objected to the clause which confined the punishment to a single penalty: this would make the whole act nugatory.

Mr. H. Martin bad thought himself fully warranted in proposing that there should be only one penalty for each impression. He requested the House to observe, that all the penalties to which Printers had been liable before the 39th of the King would still be in force after this Bill passed into