§ A petition was presented from certain persons, whose names were thereunto subscribed, 634 by lord Walsingham, against the bill, now pending before their lordships, for continuing the suspension of prosecutions until the first day of March next, of certain persons engaged in the woollen manufacturer, &c. praying that, the same may not pass into a law; and for leave to be heard by counsel against the same. The prayer of the petition was strongly opposed by
§ The Duke of Montrose, who observed, that with respect to the laws which had been passed relative to the machinery employed in the trade, which made part of the subject of the bill, it might be desirable to repeal, or modify them. On that, however, he meant not then to give an opinion; but, with regard to the acts, which authorised the enforcing penalties for the use of machinery in the woollen trade, it was deemed expedient, under the circumstances, to suspend prosecutions, which might have arisen, by an annual bill; and this mode of proceeding took place for the two last years, that now before their lordships went to continue that suspension for a short time longer, only till the 1st of March next, as it was proposed, the general subject should be taken up early in the next session. Were the present bill not to pass, an immediate burthen would be thrown upon those it was meant to relieve, as the act, at present in force, would expire on the 1st day of July. The noble duke moved that the bill be now read a second time.
§ Lord Holland thought the usual practice of hearing petitioners by councel, should not be departed from in this instance.
§ Lord Hawkesbury stated the grounds of dispute between the manufacturers and the workmen, to consist in the introduction of machinery, which was prohibited by various old statutes that had long ceased to be enforced. It was a question of considerable difficulty, whether these statutes should be wholly repealed, or how they might be so modified as to remove all reasonable grounds of complaint on either side.
§ Lord Holland professed himself to be satisfied with the explanation just given by his noble friend, and said, he only regreted that the bill did not go to the total repeal of the statutes in question.
§ The Lord Chancellor was adverse to the principle of suspension bills, and expressed his satisfaction at the implied pledge that the general subject was proposed to be taken up early in the next session, was agreed to by the house. The bill was then read a second time and committed for to-morrow.