HC Deb 26 January 1807 vol 8 cc550-1

On the motion of lord Temple, that the Oak Bark bill be read a second time,

Mr. W. Herbert

said, he was sorry to oppose any measure proposed by his noble friend, but could not agree to the bill in its present form. If the act of James I. was to be revised, he thought that all the penalties imposed by that statute should be repealed. It appeared to him to be an act of injustice to repeal the clause that was the object of this bill, and to leave the rest of the penalties imposed by that measure in force. The repeal of the whole act was necessary to the comfort of the different classes of tradesmen, whose interests were concerned, and it would not be prejudicial to the public. He begged to suggest to his noble friend the propriety of putting off the second reading of the bill, and of appointing in the mean time a committee to consider of the propriety of the revision, or repeal of the whole act.

Mr. Wilberforce,

from the letters which he had received from different parts of the country, could state, that the measure before the house, was one which had excited a considerable and lively sensation in the country. He agreed in the suggestion that had been so ably urged by the hon. gent., for the appointment of a committee to consider of the act, before which all the parties interested might be fully heard.

Lord Temple

wished to say a few words just to acquit himself of the charge of precipitation in bringing forward this measure. The clause of the act which it was designed to repeal, had lain dormant, and had never been acted upon, till, in the course of last sessions, prosecutions had been instituted for the receiving of penalties incurred under it. He had thought it necessary in that instance to bring forward a bill to suspend these prosecutions, and had then given notice of his intention to produce the present measure to the house early in this session. But, whatever his feeling of the necessity of the measure might be, he was alive to the paramount necessity of procuring every possible help to enable the house to judge upon the question, and was therefore ready, with the permission of the house, to put off the second reading of the bill to this day fortnight, under an understanding, that if the committee should not report in the intermediate time, the second reading should then be deferred to a more distant day.

Mr. Rose

thought that the committee could not report in a fortnight, nor, possibly, in two months. He was of opinion, that the repeal ought to extend to a great part of the act of James, though not to the whole of its provisions.

Mr. Sheridan

thought it would be a great hardship to tanners, if this clause were to be repealed, whilst the penalties under the other provisions of the act were to be continued. As the suspension act of last session was to be in force only till 40 days after the commencement of the present session, he submitted to his noble friend whether it would not be better that the bill should go into a committee in order to prevent the renewal of the prosecutions on the expiration of the suspension bill.

Mr. Corry

highly approved of the proposal of the noble lord to put off the second reading of the bill, only from time to time, and not for any long period at once. He was of opinion, that the committee might report in a short space of time.

Mr. Whitbread

observed, that the measure had excited great interest in the country, and the manner in which his noble friend had conducted himself with respect to it, would prove satisfactory to the country. He thought that the committee would be able to report in a short time, because the whole of the clauses of the old act were inapplicable to the present time; and trusted that the second reading would not be deferred for any considerable time.

Mr. Grattan

was happy to find that the particular clause in the act of James was to be repealed. When the present bill had been brought forward, it bad excited great alarm amongst the tanners of Dublin, who had done him the honour to send a deputation to him on the subject. If this particular clause were not to be repealed, it would be necessary to have some Irish tanners examined before the committee, which would require time.—The second reading of the bill was put off to Monday se'n night.