Commons Sitting of 5 February 1819

Preamble
Mr. Brougham Mr. Brougham moved a new writ for a member to serve in parliament for the city of Westminster in the room of sir Samuel Romilly deceased.

FOWEY ELECTION PETITION.
Mr. Holmespresented a petition from Richard Cotton Mould, praying that further time should be afforded him for entering into his recognizance. The petition having been read,
The Speakerobserved, that a case similar to this had not before arisen. Indeed it was not possible, because the act of parliament out of which it grew, took its date subsequent to the last general election. That act described the time when notice of the party being ready to produce sureties, ought to be given; and the present petition prayed for further time to effect that object. By the law, as it at present stood, the House could enlarge the time for entering into recognizances, but not for a longer period than thirty days from the time of presenting the original petition. That enlargement could only be granted, on the statement contained in the petition, praying for further time, being verified on oath: the manner in which it was to be verified did not appear. The only way, it seemed to him, would be, to call the petitioner to the bar, and swear him to the truth of his petition. It could not, therefore, be moved, that the petition should lie on the table, as that would dispose of it for the any, and such a delay would prevent the
[328
petitioner from applying hereafter for an extension of time. The petition having been read, the proper coarse, he conceived, would be, immediately to call the petitioner to the bur, to verify, on oath, the allegations he had made.
Mr. Holmes Mr. Holmes moved, That Mr. Mould be called to the bar, to verify the statement contained in his petition. The motion was carried, and Mr. Mould swore to the truth of the facts he had stated. Mr. Holmes then moved, That time for Mr. Mould to enter into his recognizance he enlarged till to-morrow.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that by the act which passed a few years ago, it was directed that thirty days notice should be given of the intention of petitioning, in order that inquiry might be made into the character of the sureties; that the person petitioned against might be able to recover his expenses, If the petition were declared frivolous and vexatious. By the same act, under particular circumstances, a longer time was allowed to the petitioner to find sureties, if those originally proposed were objected to. The period pointed out for the reconsideration of sureties was eight days, "at the least," after the objection. He thought, according to the strict technical construction of the words, that "eight days at the least," meant eight days exclusive of the day on which notice was given. But, as the House always acted with liberality towards petitioners, and as, in this instance, it was very probable that the petitioner supposed the words "eight days at the least" to include the day of giving notice as well as that of entering into the recognizance, perhaps they would accede to the prayer of the petition, although it was not strictly in time.
The motion was then agreed to.

COUNTRY BANKS.
Sir M. W. Ridley, seeing the chancellor of the exchequer in his place, was anxious to know whether the right hon. gentleman had submitted any proposition to the committee now investigating the affairs of the Bank, or whether he had it in contemplation to offer any proposition to their notice, on the subject of country banks. On a former evening, the right hon. gentleman had said, when a question respecting country banks was asked, that it was a subject, of such importance, as rendered it fit to be referred to that committee; But that committee was, as he understood, to

329
report on the state of the Bank of England, with reference to the probability of that body resuming cash payments. Now, he begged leave to state, that as far as the Bank of England was concerned, the subject did not at all interfere with the situation of country banks. The great body of country bankers were most anxious, in consequence of what took place last session, to know distinctly, to what part of their system the right hon. gentleman intended to draw the attention of the committee.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the hon. baronet would feel that it was impossible for him to give an explicit answer to his question, since propositions might be moved in the committee, of which, up to the time of their being submitted, he could know nothing. He conceived that the country banks, as connected with the general question of the paper currency, formed a very proper subject for the consideration of the committee, when the great point to be decided was, whether a restriction should be placed on the issue of paper. He begged, however to state, that, at present, he did not contemplate any proposition on the subject of country banks.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, he was then to understand, that there was no intention of submitting to the committee a resolution similar to that which the right hon. gentleman had in contemplation last year.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he could not presume to state what proceedings might be adopted while the committee was sitting; but at present he knew of no such intention.

MOFFAT GRAMMAR SCHOOL—MISAPPLICATION OF FUNDS.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he held in his hands a petition from the minister, elders and inhabitants, of the parish of Moffat, in Scotland. He ought first to mention that the minister and elders of a parish composed what in this country was called a vestry. They formed also an ecclesiastical authority. These inhabitants, to the number of 300, had taken the precaution to obviate the effect of an objection which was sometimes made to similar petitions, that persons of tender age had been called on to sign them, to add after each signature the age of the person signing. They composed a great majority of the inhabitants of the parish arrived at the age of maturity. The petitioners stated, that in 1639 a re-
[330
verend gentleman, who was a native of Moffat, had bequeathed 1,000 l. sterling to lord Johnstone, the ancestor of the present family of Annandale, in order to lay out that sum in land; and out of the rents and profits of the land so purchased, to give a yearly sum to a schoolmaster in Moffat, amounting to 25 l. or 26 l. a year. In the next place, a sum of 10 l. or 12 l. was to be given to an usher; and in the third place, between, 7l. and 8l. was to be paid to a writing master. The school was to be a grammer school, and the master and usher were to be qualified to teach Latin. It was also directed that a sum should be laid out in the erection of a proper building for the school. They stated that they had every reason to believe that the money had been laid out, in the first instance, in the terms of the devise, as the school had been built, and the salary had always been paid to the master when there was a master, but that a vacancy was frequently allowed to happen for several years at a time. The salary, however, was always paid when there was a master. But they stated, that instead of the other salary having been paid to the usher, as was devised, it had always been paid to the parish schoolmaster. This was a deviation from the terms of the bequest, and was the more unnecessary, as about sixty years afterwards schools had been established in every parish by the legislature. They stated that the third salary had also never been paid agreeably to the bequest. The overplus of the rents and profits of the land, after paying these three salaries, were then directed to be laid out for the relief of the poor of the parish of Moffat. A school was to be instituted for the education of the poor, and the overplus, after paying the masters, was to go towards the relief of the poor. They stated that no part of this estate, or any money, had ever been procured for a master for the children of the poor, and that they had never been able to see any account of the proceeds of the lands, and what had been done with either the lands or the money. They added, that it was a great hardship to the parish to be deprived of this school, as the parish school was not by any means sufficient for the education of the whole of the children. They stated also, that the same benevolent person, a Dr. John-stone, left in the same manner 1,000 l., for the purpose of giving bursaries or exhibitions to eight poor scholars of Moffat, to the university of Edinburgh, and they

331
farther stated that these exhibitions for poor scholars had never been given to the inhabitants of the parish, though repeated applications had been made for them—that they had generally been bestowed, from motives of favour or affection, on persons from other quarters. The petitioners craved generally, that inquiry should be made into the subject matter of their petition.
Mr. W. Douglassaid, that no man could feel more than himself the value of the labours of the hon. and learned gentleman, with respect to the education of the poor. As far, however, as regarded the money bequeathed' for the benefit of the people of Moffat, he did know from inquiry, that up to the present period the money had been constantly paid for a schoolmaster. With respect to the allegation regarding the burseries, he could only say, that young men had been regularly sent to the university of Edinburgh agreeably to the bequest. The successors of the marquis of Annandale were persons who had always been conspicuous for every thing honourable, and particularly for their charities for objects of this nature, and he was certain it would turn out on inquiry, that all the objects of the bequest had been most religiously attended to.
Lord Binningtrusted, when it was considered that he was connected both by relationship and friendship with the family implicated in the allegations contained in the petition, the house would excuse him for saying a few words on the subject. No charges had, indeed, been made directly against that family, but still charges were indirectly made against them. He would venture to say, that there never was a set of allegations of this kind which were more likely to be groundless. He could not speak as to details, as he had never heard the subject mentioned before. The hon. and learned gentleman would, in his opinion, have exercised a sound discretion, had he waited till the arrival of the hon. member for Dumfriesshire, who was nearly related to the family in question, and acquainted with its concerns. The speech of the hon. and learned gentleman would then have gone to the world accompanied by same explanation. But he wished to observe that this was neither more nor less than a question of misappropriation of property. It therefore properly belonged to a court of law, and the petitioners might have gone with it to the court of session.
Mr. W. Douglas, in explanation, observed, that two or three days ago the hon. and learned gentlemen had mentioned to him that he had received such a petition, and had asked him if he could obtain any information respecting it before he presented it to the house. In consequence he had applied to persons from Moffat in London, who told him all that they knew respecting it. They told him that the petition was signed by the clergy man, and most of the inhabitants of the parish. They told him that the salaries and allowances had been regularly paid, and that the money was left entirely at the disposal and control of the Annandale family. He could only say, that he was sure, in exercising that discretion, the family in question would always act in an honourable and upright manner.
Mr. Broughamsaid the hon. member had partly answered for hint the charge of the noble lord. He had not only communicated the petition to that hon. gentleman, but he had also communicated: it to the right hon. gentleman who was member for Edinburgh. That right hon. gentleman, after reading the petition, had returned it to him with an answer, that he was entirely unacquainted with the circumstances stated in it. He thought he had done quite enough to save him even from the possibility of being charged with any thing like unfairness.
Ordered to lie on the table.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
Mr. H. Sumnerwished to know what had been done by the commission appointed to take into consideration the present state of Weights and Measures, and whether they were likely to make a report during1 the present session.
The Chancellor of the ExchequerSaid, that the commission alluded to was not at all connected with his department. He could, however, state for the satisfaction of his hon. friend, that some progress had been made by the commissioners, but not sufficient to encourage a hope that they would be able to present a report during the present session.
Mr. H. Sumnersaid, there was a partial pressure, at the present moment, that rendered some remedy necessary. The late Mr. Whitbread had introduced a bill, whereby magistrates were required to have proper weights and measures in their different districts, by a reference to which persons having false weights and measures

333
might be convicted. The usual way was, to apply to the exchequer, where the regular standard for those weights and measures was kept. He had applied there, and found that there were but three measures of capacity, the bushel, the peck, and the gallon. It was evident that these demanded an immense number of subdivisions, to answer the general purposes of life. The city of London had employed persons to subdivide those measures into the minor denominations required; which subdivisions were afterwards used by the magistrates, in their various districts, who acting upon the measures so subdivided, received information's against persons using what they conceived to be false measures, and convicted several of them He now understood that those convictions could not be sustained, because they were founded on measures that did not issue from the exchequer. To remedy this, without interfering with the powers of the commissioners, he conceived that a bill ought to be introduced to legalize certain subdivisions, and it was his intention at an early period, to propose such a bill to the house.

CARE OF HIS MAJESTY'S PERSON BILL.
The bill was committed and reported, and on the motion that it be read a. third time to morrow.
Sir M. W. Ridleyhoped the chancellor of the exchequer would not press the third reading of this bill to-morrow. There was a part of the bill in which he conceived there was something objectionable. He did not object to giving the custody of his majesty's person to the duke of York, as he conceived his majesty could not be in better hands; but he objected to vesting in the hands of the duke of York, certain patronage and power, which ought not to be in the hands of a person who was the successor to the crown. On this subject, perhaps, some important light might be thrown, by the committee lately appointed, and he hoped, therefore, that they would wait for the report of that committee before the bill was read a third time, in order that they might know in what way that patronage could be best disposed of. If, however, it was the sense of the House that the third reading should take place now, he would not press his objection.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it was of great importance to have this bill passed as soon as possible, but
[334
he would defer the third reading to Monday.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, that if it was a matter of any necessity, he did not wish to throw any impediment in the way of the third reading.
Mr. Lambconcurred in the principle which his hon. friend had laid down. It was one which ought always to be observed, wherever it possibly could. Every person must recollect what passed on a former night, when objections were made to what was properly denominated, this imperium in imperio, because it placed influence, which belonged to the crown in other hands. At the same time, it must be observed, that this was a necessity, absolutely forced on the legislature, and that the circumstances of the case were such that they were compelled to submit to them: for it was impossible that the duke of York could be responsible for the safety of his majesty and the conduct of his household, unless he had the power of removing the persons constituting that household.
The bill was then ordered to be read the third time to-morrow.

BARNSTAPLE ELECTION PETITION.
Mr. Lambtonpresented a Petition from sir Henry Clement Thompson, who had presented a petition against the return for the borough of Barnstaple. He stated that having, according to law, given eight days notice of his sureties, he had named a Mr. Larkins, of Essex-street, Strand, as one of them. His other surely was accepted, but Mr. Larkins was rejected because he had changed his residence from Essex-street to Northumberland street, and he was also objected to because he had been a bankrupt two years ago. The petitioner was consequently recommended by the examiners to apply to the House by petition. He stated, that he was unacquainted, as was his agent, with his surety's change of abode, and he prayed for further time to give notice of another surety.
The petition was brought up and, read. Oh the motion, that the petitioner's agent, Mr. Williams, be called to the bar to verify on oath the statement,
Mr. C. Harveyobjected to the motion, because, if the whole of the allegations were proved, it was to be doubted whether House would grant the petitioner relief. He was bound, in the first instance, to have offered a sufficient surety, or to

335
have made the requisite inquiries. The fact that the person he had offered had been a bankrupt within two years should have made him more particular in his inquiries respecting him. It was, therefore, an insult on the House for the petitioner to have offered such a surety without having obtained the necessary information respecting him.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that the proceeding was now confined to the calling in the petitioner's agent, to confirm his statement on oath. They might afterwards consider whether on that statement so verified, the House was justified in granting the petitioner the indulgence he prayed. There was no primâ facie objection to the surety from the fact of his once having been a bankrupt. He was not on that account disqualified by law from holding property.
Mr. S. Bourneobserved, that the question was not whether the surety should be admitted, but whether the House should grant time to the petitioner to give notice for another surety. There appeared to be a difficulty in admitting without examination, the statement of a petitioner; for though he might state the truth, he might not state the whole truth, and might keep out of sight circumstances which had justified the examiners in rejecting the surety.
Mr. Lambtonobserved, that the examiners had recommended the petitioner to apply to the House, which was a presumption that they thought him entitled to an extension of his time.
After some farther conversation, Mr. Williams, agent to the petitioner was called in, and having verified the matter of the petition upon oath, the time was enlarged till Monday sevennight.