Oluineas above their current value, or taking Bank Notes below their nominal value. :The Marquis of LANSDOWNE expressed his disapprobation of the Bin. Furl N tines said, his intention in bringing it forward had; been much misrepreseitted; he did not wish that.bank notes tendered should he considered as payment. All he wished was,. that no landlord should . say,," you owe me 4001. hut if you pay rue in bank notes, I wi!l only take .500 i." He swished to - remove every temptation for any man oppressing his tenantry; and so leap him God ? he would sooner be a scavei*r in the street, than he would oppress his tenants. Lord GREY defended,the conduct and motion of Lord King, and said, that the principles acted upon by him . were those of i,ustice and equity. It was his intention to vote against the Bill, as he saw no end to Use calamities which would ensue from it. .After some further debate, the House went into a Commit. tee, wiien the Earl of LivERPOOL brought up a clause, the pur. port of which was, to make the tender of Bank paper a good tc.nder in lieu of cash, in all cases of distress for rent, but still leaving ro the landlord his right of action, if he should choose to recur to it. The clause was agreed to ;as was also a motion thlt the Bill do remain in force till the 25th of March, 181'2. The report was orderedsto be received to-morrow. .Adjourned. FRIDAY, JULY 5. CIRCULAIING MEDIUM. AT . . , .The Report on Earl STAN noet's Bill was brought up, when I.ord Li vr.aPOOL proposed several amendments (chiefly verbal), which were agreed to. Earl STANHOPE expressed a wish, that the amendments pro posed should be such, or so worded, that plain men might un derstand them. He had, according to his best judgment, made his Bill so fully and clearly intelligible, that it could nut be mis taken in any of its bearings and clauses by the meanest capacity. He had, as he had stated before (being the father of the Bill), consigned it to its nurses, and to their care he left it. The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that though the Noble Father of the Bill professed to disregard his offspring, he evi d6ntly betrayed his paternal regard, in his amiable solicitude to -N. l ; the cradle. He folly approved of the motives bf the Noble Earl to make his Bill distinctly intelligible, and he was certain that no opposition to such clear untierstand;ng would be offered from that legal quarter to which he seemed to allude: His Lordship then moved a verbal amendment to the second clause (for the mere sake of perspicuity!, which was qgret d to. The Earl of LIVER Poo L adverted to the long-eetablished custom in Ireland, of making a distinction between gold and piper—a distinction which was attended with endless inconve- Mei tee. 'll-.! Earl of Rossr, in a short speech, supported the clause. The Bill was ordered to he read the third time on Monday newt, and the Lords were summoned for that day. Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. MONDAY, JULY 1. STRAW HAT MANUFACTURERS. Mr. Git.Es stated, that he had a petition in his hand from the straw Hat Mantfacturers, complaining of the injury they sus• tamed from the Vrench prisoners being permitted to make these articles. An informality in the Petition prevented him from presenting it, but he hail thought it his ditty to apply to the Go vernment, ant he found that the Secretary for the Home De partment, and the Transport Board, were doing all in their power to remedy this evil If they did not succeed a Parlia mentary regulation might be necessary. Mr. FINNERTY. Mr. CHAPLIN presented a Petition from Mr. Merryweather, the . Lincoln gaoler, complaining of scamLluus misrepresenta tions in Mr. Finnerty's Petition, and prayhig f r an inquiry into his conduct. It concluded by stating, that Mr. Finnerty had been abridged of certain indulgences, on account of an attempt to stduce one of the turnkey's from his duty, fur the purpose of gaining admission by a window, to a female convict; but the Speaker said, that as there was no deposition, this Litter part of the Petition mist go for nothing. Mr. WHITBREAD was glad that this Petition of the gaoler had come forward, as it contained a specification of the charge *lade against Mr. Finnerty. But, supposing it true, it was nut therefore proper that Mr. Finnerty should be kept five or six weeks from air and exercise, at the discretion of the gaoler. He had a letter from Mr. Finnerty, however, purporting that the turnkey had made the offer to him for a bribe, and on his refu sal had this story in order to be before hand with him. Then there was no answer given as to the stench In Mr. Finnerty's . - Olnineas above their their nominal value. .The Marquis of I the Furl S raNliorn S betni much ini,repi tendered should be that no landlord she me in bank notes, I every temptation in Nap him God ? he than he would of pt Lord GREY defei and said, that the r justice and equity. as he saw no end to .After some furth tee, Wien the Earl port of which was, tender in lieu of co leaving ro the land to recur to it. Tito that the Bill do rei report was ord Cl' .The Report on J.ord LIVERPOOL p which were agreed Earl STANHOPE posed should be su derstand them. H his Bill so fully and taken in any of its He had, as he had consigned it to its r The .I.nRD CHA Father of the Bill (16litly betrayed his the cradle. H Earl to make his 13 that no opposition from that legal qt Lordship then ino% (for the mere sake ( The Earl of Li Custom in Ireland paper—a distinctioi niet tee. The Earl of Ros The Bill was or newt, and the Lort] Adjourned. STR AN Mr. GILES state Straw Hat Manta; tained from the Er articles. An it:for presenting it, but I vernment, ant he partment, and tho power to remedy I mental- regu lath)! Mr. CHAPLIN p the . Lincoln pole lions in Mr. Finne his conduct. It c been abridged of c to stduce one of tl gaining admission Speaker said, that the Petition must Mr. WHITIMEA had come forward *lade against Mr. therefore proper weeks from air an had a letter from tarnkey had made sal had this story i there Was no awn cell. ONAL RECaSTF.R. . 419 Mr. CIIA PLIN dk fended the conduct of the gaoler. As a proof that no political motive influenced the gaoler, he 11,0 only to advert to the satisfaction expressed by Mr. Drakard at the man ner hi which he had been treated. Mr. BitouunAst said that no answer had been given to the charge of solitary conf:nen►cut. He knew that Mc. Drakard ' had been well treated; but this only piaci d in a stronger light the injustice One to Mr. Finnerty. '1 he sentences were the same, and why should the punishmea he oifferent ? Mr. RYDER utterly denied the chirge i f soiitary confinement, which was not even alleged in Mr. F.'s petition. As to the gaoler having thirteen rooms in his house, they took that (loin Mr. Finnerty's petition. But supposirg it to b:• so, the gaol( r's Louse was his freehold, and he - was not bound to. give up any part of it to the prisoners. The Petition was then laid on the table. DOCTRINE OF AS3ASSINAI'ION. Mr. WHITBREAD rose to say a fgw words for the putaosse of enabling the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Perceval,) or any other Member of the Government, to make the disavowal which had been made in another place by.the Marquis Wellesley, he believed, with rtaurd to a subject in which our taen Royal fa tnily, a'. well as ail other rulers and, indeed, all mankind were intimately concerned—he alluded to the horrible doctrine of assassination which had been preached up by a part of the press; a d. 'cultic which no conceivable circumstances ceti!sl justify, and of which the canseq.tences might he dreadful; a doctrine lead ing to the destruction of the innocent and meritorious, and of. whom We ought not to be the judges. The Christian ;era had. commenced, they had subsequently been told that the tune was come when it was no longer " eye for eye and tooth for tooth." He irtaht call upon them to show any instance in whit h good had been done by assassination—to point out the beneficial resalt when the crime or deed, as they would c. 11 it, had been per t e-! trated. After the assassination of Caesar, had the iiberties cf Rome been restored ? Had the assassin's knife always area di rected against the guilty ? In the long cat.doeue of uch horrid deeds to be found in the history of maokind, had not the inno cent and no ritorious fallen oftener than the crimival f Henry. the IVth of France had been assosinated ; thtre had been an attempt to assassinate Louis the XVth of France ; an attempt had been made to assassinate the great• Prince of Orange ; and in the course of the reign of the existing Monarch of this coun try, two attempts had been made to assassinate him. Only a few years ago the King of Sweden and the Emperor Paul of . Russia had been assassinated. Let them look at these th i n g s,7 and then see whether it was prudent to preach up this doctrine, to say that every man was to be the judge of who ought to be assassinated. Bonaparte had, indeed, attacked Spain while at peace with him, and unprepared for resistance—and had not we acted in the same manner with regard to IC'aland ? Let them think of our deeds in ladia while the Marquis Wellesley, now• Siacretary of State, was Governor General. How; ver despotic the Ind:an princes, they might have some personal friends t and if they were to be the judges of who deserved to he assassinated; if the fraa.ds of the Nabob of Oude—of the Carpal tc—of Tips' pot, Sultaun, were to decide, would they nut say that the singer ought to be ahned at the breasts of those who hat: effected the subjugation of their Sovereigns ? Papers were printed here in the freach langaage, with the connivance, if not approbation of the Government, for the purpose of being eircuiatesi ii he Con tinent and wlatt would those thiek by wham dime papers' were read? Bonaparte had held out that the Fogiish Govern ment encouraged attempts aaainst ; that it had landed', men on the coast of France with this view, and that it a - as at• the bottom of the projected assassination by the infernal machine; and however untounded these charges were, yet sabst a coaiir mation would his assertions receive front the reia!ing of these papers ? Suppose hint to be as black as the hi :ckest portrait which they drew him, let them look at the consequence s of such' principle if acted upon. Was Bonaparte a man likely to sit quiet and endure all this without an attempt at retaliation ? The c ery• prints which now preached up this doctrine had declared that a person had been sent to this country by Bonaparte to assassinate the King, and even mentioned the pursuit, one Beavais. With the belief that Bonaparte was capable of such conduct, when he suspected the Government of this country of encouraging at tempts at his life by assassination, were they justified in giving colour to such suspicions, and exposing the Royal Family to re taliation. They believed, they said, that Bonaparte had a baed ready even Mr such purposes—and what then was to be thought of their conduct ? hose papers which might becalied iiidepeu , dent, and even those that were under the coinroul of the Trea sta y, had openly deprecated this doctrine. Marquis Welcsley, had disavowed it, and he was unw.Ding that the House should adjourn without a similar disavowal in that House. But the doctrine haat was so horrible, he might say so „:unable, tiad its consequences so dreadful, that he found it impossible not to call for a distinct disavowal. It it bad been acted upon for these /