HOUSE OF Lords.

Tuesday, July 12.

[MINUTES.]-Counsel was heard in the Appeal, Anderson and Cadel. The farther hearing postponed.-The Five Millions Loan Bill, and the East India Dock Bill, were read a third time and passed. Lord Pelham presented a message from his Majesty relative to granting a compensation to Lord Amherst for the lands in Canada, given him by his Majesty for the service of the late Geoffry Lord Amherst, in America. -The message being read, (See Commons, July 11.) Lord Pelham moved an address of thanks to his Majesty for his gracious communication. Ordered.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Tuesday, July 12.

[MINUTES.] The Bill for the better encouragement of Seamen, was brought up and read a first time.-The Irish Ship Destruction Bill from the Lords, was read a first time.-The Bill for Improving the Highlands of Scotland, was read a third time. The Report of Bell Rock Lighthouse Bill was received, and ordered to be taken into further consideration on Friday. -The Report of Friendly Societies' Bill was received, and the Bill ordered to be engrossed.The Grenada Loan Bill was read a second time. Bill for the prevention of Frauds committed by Bum-boatmen and others, plying on the River Thames, was brought up and read a first time.

[CHAPELS, RESIDENCES, &c. for PAROCHIAL CLERGY ]-Mr. Burton moved, in pursuance of his notice, that leave be given to bring in a bill to promote the building, repairing, or otherwise providing of churches and chapels, and of houses for the residence of ministers, and the providing of churchyards and glebes. -The terms of the motion would probably be said to render it unnecessary to add many words in support of it. The expediency of some measure of the sort could not be doubted by any one who was acquainted with the number of parishes, both in England and Ireland, where churches and parsonage houses were either wholly wanting, or unfit to answer the ends for which they were designed, Important, however, as these defects appeared, it was in vain to expect that they should be supplied at present out of the public purse, which induced him to think it the more necessary to ●pen the sources of private liberality, as far as could be done without infringing any rule

of public policy. He stated, that as the law now stood, so cramped and fettered by a statute passed in the late reign, was every individual in the disposal of his property, that even the patron or incumbent of a liv ing could not devise a rood of land to make a garden to the parsonage house. All that he wished was, to loosen a little the shackles which had been put upon private property. The only objections to it that he knew, were the fear of throwing too much land into mortmain, the disherison of heirs, and the dread of enriching the church overmuch. But he trusted that these objections would be completely obviated, by limiting the benefac tions to so small an extent as five acres of land, or 5001. in personal property. He would only mention one other provision which he should wish to see in the bill, though it was rather declaratory of the ex isting law than introductive of any thing new. In the construction of several modern churches, it seemed to be forgotten that they were destined for all ranks and condi tions, and so destitute were they of all decent and suitable accommodation for the poorer sort, as to be utterly inconsistent with every just notion of public worship. The bill, therefore ought, in his opinion, to contain a clause for the remedy of this abuse in future. He concluded with moving in the terms above-mentioned,

Mr. Hurst had no doubt but that the learned gent. was actuated by the best motives in moving for such a bill; but he must be aware that at so late a period of the ses sion, a measure of this importance could not receive an adequate discussion: and therefore he would recommend it to him to have the bill printed, and put off till the next session of Parliament.

Mr. Burton said, he meant to move that the bill be printed; and he trusted it would be found to be a measure that did not require a long discussion, nor contain any objectionable matter.-Leave was then given; the bill was brought up, and read a first

time.

[LONDON ADDITIONAL FORCE.]-The Lord Mayor brought in a bill for enabling the city of London to raise a certain quota of men for the better defence of the coun try, which was read a first time; and on the motion for the second reading-The Lord Mayor said, he hoped the House would indulge him while he said a few words, in order to vindicate the city of London from certain imputations that had gone abroad into the world, concerning the number of men that were to form its quota of the new army of reserve, and in which it was said

that the city did not supply a number proportioned to its population. It was said that London contained one-ninth part of the population of the whole kingdom. So far was that from being the fact, it would appear from the returns made under the late population act, that the population within the walls of the city did not exceed 74,000 persons; and that without the walls it was not more than 54,000. In fact, it would be much nearer the truth had it been stated that the inhabitants of the city did not exceed those of the parish of Mary-la-bonne. The number of men, therefore, as a part of the army of reserve, to be raised by this bill, was sufficiently great in proportion to what was raised by the rest of the country; but he believed it would be found at all times most cheerfully to contribute and to maintain its quota of the public force, in proportion to its population and its ability; and it would appear, by resolutions recently entered into, that the city of London had shewn a degree of spirit and determination which proved it did not deserve the imputation of apathy or backwardness thrown out against it; but that on the contrary, the citizens would always be ready to bear their portion in contributing towards the public defence; that they would be ready to shed the last drop of their blood, and spend their last shilling in the defence of their country; that they would ever act in a manner which became Britons, and by their conduct preserve that character which they had ever maintained as members of the first city in the empire. The bill was then ordered to be read a second time the next day.

NAVY REGULATIONS.]-Sir Charles Pole brought up the bill for transferring to the directors of Greenwich Hospital the administration of the Chest of Chatham.

Captain Harvey said, that although he was not prepared to oppose this bill, yet he could not perceive the necessity of it so clearly as to induce him to support it. This chest of Chatham was established and endowed by the voluntary act and donations of the seamen.-The administration of it was certainly not expensive, when compared with that of other establishments; and if there was any thing wrong in it, he conceived it might be remedied without having recourse to the legislature. His great objection to the bill in its present stage was, that it appeared to him a hasty measure, and that no sufficient grounds had been laid before that House for the interference of the legislature. therefore rather wished to delay the consideration of it for some time longer.

He

The Attorney General said, there were

some grievances already stated to the House of sufficient magnitude to call for redress. It was a most outrageous grievance that poor disabled sailors should pay 201. or 251. per cent, for agency for receiving their small pittance; it was an enormous grievance that they should be obliged to attend themselves at Chatham. These were, as he thought, sufficient grounds for legislative interference, and if the bill went into a Committee, he hoped it would have the assistance of the hon. gent. (Capt. Harvey) in making it perfect.

Sir Charles Pole said, that although in proposing this measure the Commissioners of naval inquiry might at first appear to have recommended a subject foreign to the discussion of the question they were at that time examining, namely, the abuses in the dock-yards, yet he trusted it would appear to that House, that nothing was improper for the interference of the legislature, which materially affected the British navy and British sailors. He considered it a most

cruel grievance to require (as was now the case) that a poor disabled sailor, who had lost his limbs in the service of his country, should come perhaps from 250 miles distance to receive his little pittance at Chatham.The bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Thursday next.

[FRAUD ON THE BANK.]-Sir Francis Burdett said, he had given notice of a motion on the preceding day, the question concerning which lay in so very narrow a compass, that he would only trespass on the time of the House for a few minutes in what he had to say. It was necessary that the House should be in possession of certain facts, to obtain which should be the object of his motion. He felt that it must be extremely irksome to animadvert on the conduct of others, however reprehensible that might be. But after a fraud of vast extent had been committed on the bank, under circumstances which affected the credit of the government, it was of the utmost importance that the business should be enquired into. A great criminal had baffled the justice of the country, and escaped from punishment, on account of the negligence of a high officer, who had a great salary for performing a very trifling duty: it was merely on account of his negligence in performing that trifling duty, that several millions of the public security were rendered of no value, and Parliament was afterwards obliged to pass an act, to repair and solder up that great error that had taken place, and the great evil that was likely te

E 2

arise from it. The act passed through that House without any explanation, or without any body knowing what its object was; and it was not until a late trial that the nature of it was understood. This circumstance must have had a most mischievous effect on the public mind, and make men look with distrust on the proceedings of that House, which should ever be considered the guardian of the public property. He should have thought it to be the duty of the Attorney General to take notice of the negligence of a public officer, as an offence punishable in the courts below. But as no such thing had been done, he felt it his duty to call on the House to exercise its inquisitorial power, and to enquire into that conduct of public officers, in order that those guilty of criminal negligence might be made examples of, and that its mischievous effects might be cured. Although the fraud that had been committed was of such magnitude, yet it was a matter of much lighter consideration, than the question of negligence on the part of an officer. It was of the utmost importance for the House to see that the public money was not wasted on useless offices, and that it should not appear to have connived at the neglect of public officers. It was more important even than any consideration of the public credit having been endangered by the impunity of the monstrous criminal in question. Punishments had frequently been inflicted on persons for much less offences than this act of negligence. In the year 1780, the Lord Mayor of London was fined and disgraced for certain instances of neg lect in times of great danger and difficulty, in times when men hardly knew how to act, and while he held an office, not of his own choice, nor attended with any emolument. The House had very lately deprived an ancient corporation of its privileges, for no other reason but because the magistrate of the place had not been able to preserve the public peace during the time of an election, which was the only occasion on which the people had an opportunity of expressing their sentiments on public men and public measures. He would therefore ask, whether the House, consistently with its former practices, could pass over without notice or enquiry, the act of criminal negligence in question. If ever there was a time when such enquiries were necessary, it was the present; when every man in the country was making sacrifices, and when all unnecessary waste of public money ought to be put a stop to. Nothing was now heard of but vigilance and economy on

the part of public officers, and although the auditor of the Exchequer had 4000l. a year from the public, no notice, it seemed, was to be taken of his neglect of duty. After the several penalties continually inflicted for trifling infringements on the revenue laws, and for trifling neglects, was this thing to be passed? If a man happened through negligence to put a little powder in his hair, he was liable to a penalty of twenty times the amount of the hair pow der duty. When all this was submitted to for the sake of the public, it would be a lit tle too much to suffer to escape, without animadversion, that negligence on the part of an officer, which had nearly endangered the public credit, and had enabled a great criminal to elude public justice. He would therefore move, "That a Committee be ap pointed to enquire into the circumstances of the recent fraud on the bank, so far as the same relates to Astlett."

The Attorney General said, that had it not been for the speech with which the hon. Baronet prefaced his motion, it would have been impossible to know what the object of the motion was. As to the degree of blame which might attach to those who had lately introduced the bill for making valid the issue of Exchequer Bills, the hon. Baronet must take his share of that blame, inasmuch as he suffered the bill to pass the House, without making himself acquainted with its contents. Had he read the preamble of it, he must have been satisfied as to its object; for it expressly stated the omission of the proper signature to the Exchequer bills. It was undoubtedly a subject of lamentation, that the offence against the bank had been committed, and that the omission of the proper signatures had enabled a person to escape from punishment: but he would submit it to the House, whe ther that omission partook of that malus animus necessary to justify the interference of Parliament? This was not a case that bore the slightest resemblance to the affair of the corporation of Nottingham, which the hon. Baronet alluded to, when he stated that an election was the only place where the people had an opportunity of expressing their sentiments. The fact was, that the peace of that town had been disturbed in such a manner, as to prevent the true representative of the place from coming into that House; and if the act for restoring the peace of that town was made the subject of censure, it was a censure he had no hesi tation to take a share in. He then quoted the preamble of the act of Parliament passed this session, in consequence of the mis

take being discovered in the signature of the Exchequer bills-" Robert Jennings, Esq." who was legally authorised in 1799, but not since that year. As the preamble of the act stated all those circumstances, he thought the hon. Baronet might also tax himself with negligence in suffering that bill to pass without any observation. The case now brought before the House certainly was not without blame; but the House must feel, that it was not one which required the interference of Parliament. On that account, he would move the previous question.

Sir Francis Burdett in reply, said, the question was, whether some person was not responsible for some great neglect which had produced a great public evil, by nearly shaking the credit of government, and suffering a great criminal to escape justice. With respect to what he had said, as to the people having no other opportunity of expressing their sentiments, except at elections, he meant that great body of the people from whom the right of elective franchise was with-held.

The previous question was then put and carried; by which means the original mo. tion was lost.

[JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.]-The House having resolved itself into a Committee on the Magistrates' Protection Bill,

Mr. Giles strongly objected to it, on the ground of its taking away the power and privileges of juries in cases which hitherto were decided by the judge and jury together: he then moved a clause, for the purpose of giving to juries the full exercise of

their power.

Mr. Hurst opposed the bill, because he thought magistrates were already sufficiently protected, and did not require the protection intended to be given by this measure.

Sir Robert Buxton said, that a most valua ble magistrate of his acquaintance had resigned his office, because a penalty was awarded against him for a conviction he had made, on account of that conviction not having been drawn up in all legal form of special pleading. If country gentlemen, who, without any emolument, dedicated so much of their time to the public service in the character of magistrates, were not protected against informations and penalties, none would be found to act in that capacity. Mr. Kinnaird said, he considered this bill as a direct attack on the rights and privileges of juries.

The Attorney-General said, the object of the bill was nothing more than this: that when a conviction made by a magistrate

was drawn up informally or incorrectly, the judges, in cases of appeal, should have a discretionary power, if they thought there had been no improper conduct on the part of the magistrate, to prevent any damages from being awarded against them. They were to have the power of deciding the question without sending it to a jury.

The House divided on the amendment, ayes 23, noes 28. The bill then went through the Committee.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Wednesday, July 13.

[MINUTES.]-The Exchequer Bills Bill for Five Millions, the Irish Custom Duties Bill, the Militia Pay Bill, the Militia Adjutants Bill, the London Port Bill, the Blackburne Paving Bill, and two private bills, received the Royal Assent by commission.

[WOOLLEN MANUFACTURE BILL.]-The order of the day for the second reading of the woollen manufacture bill being read, counsel was called to the bar to be heard on the petitions against the principle of the bill.-The Lord Chancellor asked which of the gentlemen appeared on behalf of the petitions from the cloth hall at Leeds?— Mr. Piggott said he did.

The Lord Chancellor desired Mr. Piggott to look at the petition, and he would see that the names were all signed on a separate sheet of parchment, which had been tacked to the petition, and consequently that the petition had not been signed by any one of the persons whose signature appeared to the tack.

Mr. R. Jackson explained that it was done in the country; that the petition had originally been a petition to object to the clauses, but that it was thought more convenient to the parties to be heard in that state of the bill, and therefore they had endeavoured to avail themselves of the expedient of altering the petition.

The Lord Chancellor said, that very explanation proved, that the persons whose names appeared in the tack-sheet had never signed the petition, and therefore they could not be heard by counsel.-Mr. Piggott withdrew.

Mr. Serjeant Lens was then heard on behalf of the petitioners from Yorkshire, Wilts, and Somerset, and was followed by Mr. Randle Jackson, who, in a very able speech, urged a variety of strong objections, as well against the form of the bill as against its principle.

Mr. Plomer was heard in support of the bill, and having strenuously contended for the necessity of repealing many of the acts

to which it referred, very readily admitted, that those, whose object it was to have the bill entertained, would consent to any modification or amendment of its clauses. He said, that out of the thirteen acts alluded to in the bill, it was conceded on all hands, that ten of them ought to be repealed, because their provisions and regulations were, from the change of circumstances, customs, and manners, utterly obsolete and impracticable.

The Lord Chancellor interrupted Mr. Plomer, and desired the counsel to withdraw. His lordship then left the woolsack and said, though he felt many objections to the bill, as it at present stood, yet he had taken the liberty to interrupt the learned counsel, because he had heard enough from all the gent. at the bar, to convince him that, with all the imperfections of the bill, there did arise in it sufficient principle to entitle it to be read a second time, and he hoped their lordships would concur with him in that opinion. Having said this, his lordship proceeded to point out a variety of objections to the form of the bill, which he promised the House he would do very shortly; first, he shewed that there was an omission in the title of the bill of one of the many objects of its provisions, which must be amended, as the title ought to refer to all its separate objects. This would put the suitors of the bill to the expense of delay, but it must be amended. His lordship next objected to the reference of the bill to statutes of particular years of various reigns; whereas, instead of that general reference, it ought to have specified the acts themselves, with their exact title and date, and have pointed out the particular clauses of each, that had rendered the regulations therein provided "impracticable and useless," and "others which, if enforced, would create delay, and inconvenience in the carrying on the said manufacture, to the great detriment thereof." These were matters which would require their lordships most serious attention and consideration in the Committee, as it would otherwise be impossible for magistrates, and those whose duty it would be to enforce the bill, should it pass into a law, to act upon it. He mentioned the way in which it referred to the gig-mills, and said the proper mode of legislating would have been, to have repealed so much of the act of Ed. VI. as referred to the improper use of gig-mills, and to have established their use as to what actually was conducive to the expediting the manufacture, without injury to the material. Englishmen, he thanked God, possessed that most valuable quality, good sense, and he

would trust to that good sense (which, however they might be puzzled at first, would generally set them right at last) to prevent them from persisting in any practice that experience convinced them was prejudicial to their own interests. He had no hesitation, therefore, in believing, that they did not use the gig-mills in "burling and working" the cloth they manufactured, since that practice had been found to be injurious to the manufacture. In the recital of the bill a most extraordinaay mode of reasoning was adopted. The recital stated, that " doubts were entertained whether many of the aus (previously stated) were not repealed by subsequent acts;" and, afterwards, it takes upon itself to resolve those doubts, declaring the acts in question to be repealed. His lordship stated several more objections, and after again stating the great importance of the bill, and recommending its several parts, provisions, and principles to the serious attention of their lordships in the Committee, in order to satisfy the petitioners that the House had acted honestly, honourably, fair ly, and faithfully by them, and paid doe and serious attention to their objections, moved that it be read a second time.

The Earl of Rosslyn rose and said, the bill was the most ill drawn and unparliamentary of any he had ever read in point of form. It was full of objectionable parts, several of which he stated; in particular the want of the mention of the prosecutions and suits which might have been commenced and were now pending; in the title, the nonenumeration specifically of the several acts of Parliament to which the bill referred; by mentioning the chapter of the respective acts that were deemed impracticable, as well as the particular clauses of the acts which it was complained by the suitors, tended, if enforced, to create delay and inconvenience, to the great detriment of the manufacturer; and the contradictory operation of the end of the first clause and the last clause of the bill, respecting costs on actions commenced the first of Jan. last. His lordship also objected to several of the clauses, referring only to the counties of Gloucester, Wilts, and Somerset, as if they were not legislating for the counties of York and Lancaster, and indeed for the whole kingdom. He mention. ed a former act that took place in Chester, and its whole county, for obvious reasons, viz. it bore upon the adjoining manufactur ing counties of York and Lancaster. With regard to the objections that were taken at the bar to the act of Richard II. prohibiting the sale of plain cloths in certain counties tucked and folded, his lordship said, he