Page:Blackwood's Magazine volume 001.djvu/209

1817.] Mar. 14.—Lord presented a petition from Belfast, complaining of the distresses in the north of Ireland, from the scarcity and bad quality of corn.

Mar. 17.—Lord moved the first reading of this bill, and the Lords were ordered to be summoned for Thursday.

Mar. 18.—Lord moved for a great number of papers and correspondence, respecting the confinement and treatment of Bonaparte at St Helena, calling upon Government to vindicate themselves from aspersions thrown upon them in various publications, for their harsh treatment of the ex-emperor. Earl denied that any unnecessary severity was exercised towards Bonaparte; and said that there is no other restraint upon his correspondence than what is usual respecting prisoners of war—the letters must be opened. The sum allowed for his establishment is equal to that allowed for the governor—£12,000 per annum; and he has, besides, personal property, which he may expend for his own comfort, if he find that allowance too small. His Lordship assured the house, that the inconveniences complained of were created by Bonaparte himself. The motion was negatived.

Mar. 21.—In the case of Arnot v. Stuart, counsel were finally heard. Affirmed, with £50 costs.

The House went into a Committee on the, on which some amendments were made.

Mar. 24—Shepherd v. Waterston affirmed, with £120 costs to one of the parties, viz. Mr Harvey.

Macdonald v. Stalker affirmed.

Mar. 25.—The order of the day for the third reading of this bill was read. Lord objected to the bill as unnecessary, and considered the existing laws sufficient for every purpose. The Lord supported it. Lord introduced a clause to prohibit public meetings within a mile of Westminster Hall, with the exception of meetings at Covent-Garden and Southwark. Several Lords objected to this clause, when the House divided. For the clause 111; against it, 23; majority 88. The clause was of course annexed to the bill, which was read a third time and passed.

Mar. 26.—In the Scots appeal cause of Walker v. Weir, their Lordship's decision was, that the case be remitted back for further consideration.

The Naval Stores Bill, and the Exchequer Bills Bill, were read a third time and passed.

Mar. 27.—The Earl of presented a voluminous report from the Appeal Committee, the recommendations in which were agreed to by the House.

On the motion, that the consideration of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill be put off for three months, being negatived.

Dissentient,—Because we concur entirely in the reasons stated in the protest entered against the second reading of the said bill on the 24th February last, and because the delay that has taken place since the bill has been hurried through this House, contrary to its established forms and standing orders, (in consequence of which unbecoming haste the amendments have been found necessary), has confirmed and increased our conviction, that this measure which necessity alone can justify, is without any such justification. . . . . Lords and  entered a protest, dissenting from the resolution of the Lords, refusing the motion for the production of papers regarding the treatment of Bonaparte in the island of St Helena.

Mar. 28.—The Exchequer Courts Bill was returned from the Commons, their Lordships' amendments having been agreed to.

Mar. 29.—Mr, accompanied by several members, appeared at the Bar, and requested a conference with their Lord ships on the subject of the amendments in the Seditious Assemblies Bill, which was granted, and the alterations agreed to.

Mar. 31.—The of the House of Commons attended, with several members, and heard the royal assent given, by commission, to the Seditious Meetings and Naval Officers' Half-pay Bills. The House then, on the motion of the Earl of, adjourned till Wednesday fortnight.

Mar. 3.—Sir wished to introduce a bill to alter and amend the Game Act, which was to prevent persons from going out at night armed to destroy game. The bill was brought up and read a first time.

The rose to move the second reading of the bill for preventing seditious assemblies. Of the various means, he said, employed by the fomentors of discontent, one of the most efficacious was, to call together a number of persons, to inflame them by harangues, to persuade them that the evils arising from the circumstances of the times would be remedied by their application to Parliament, and to persuade them that they had a right to force Parliament to comply with their demands. These meetings, which might be turned to every mischievous purpose, the