Sitting of 9 July 1805

IMPEACHMENT OF LORD MELVILLE.
Mr. Whitbread Mr. Whitbread moved, that the engrossed articles of Impeachment against Henry lord viscount Melville, be read; which were read accordingly; on which the hon. member moved that they be carried to the lords:—Ordered. It was then ordered, on the motion of earl Temple, that Mr. Whitbread do carry the articles to the lords, which he instantly did, accompanied by many members; and on his return acquainted the house from the bar, that he had delivered the articles of Impeachment, pursuant to the order of the house, at the bar of the house of lords.
Mr. Whitbread, pursuant to notice, rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to continue the powers of the committee during the recess. In consequence of what he had before stated, it would be unnecessary for him to take up much of the time of the house. The measure he proposed was undoubtedly a deviation from the constitutional forms; but as every such deviation was justifiable, on the ground of the expediency that existed for it, the question then was whether such a degree of expediency existed in the present instance, as would justify such a deviation. Cases of impeachment had not frequently occurred, and when they did, it was on very grave and serious grounds.—The house of commons had voted an Impeachment in the present instance against Henry lord viscount Melville, and it would be to be regretted that the object of it should be defeated by any accident that might occur. The house was aware that the Impeachment had been voted at a late period of the session. The committee that had been appointed to draw up the articles of Impeachment, had set every day without intermission. Many witnesses remained yet to be examined, one of whom he had mentioned the preceding day. That person had since arrived from Scotland, and might undoubtedly be examined before the prorogation. But there were other witnesses from

807
that quarter, whom it would be desirable to examine as soon as possible. If the other house should agree to the indemnity bill, it would be desirable also to examine Mr. Trotter without delay. These were the grounds upon which the committee felt it their duty to submit this proposition to the house. If the house should agree to it, they would unquestionably grant large powers, which he was confident would be exercised with moderation. At the same time, if the house should not be disposed to grant these powers, it was not his intention to press the proposition. If any case should occur to defeat the proceedings already taken, neither the committee nor he would think they had discharged their duty, if they had not submitted such a proposition to the house. The hon. member them moved, that leave be given to bring in a bill, that the proceedings now pending before parliament for the Impeachment of lord Melville should be continued notwithstanding any prorogation or dissolution of parliament; and that the committee of Impeachment do continue to sit, notwithstanding any prorogation or dissolution of parliament.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer felt that it would be necessary for him to say but a very few words indeed, as the hon. gent. himself had admitted that his proposition was liable to grave objections; to him the objections seemed insurmountable. The motion, if a-agreed to, would amount to a direct inroad upon the constitution. Nothing could be more certain, than that his majesty possessed constitutionally the prerogative of putting an end to their deliberations, either by prorogation or dissolution, which would be virtually taken away by a measure of the nature of that proposed. There was not a single instance of a similar mode of proceeding, except in such periods of our history as the house would not be much inclined to draw into precedent. It was only for gave and weighty reasons that he could bring himself to object to any thing proposed for the purpose of promoting the views of the house in the present instance. But he felt that any degree of inconvenience that might be apprehended was better, than in order to obviate it to commit a breach of the principles of the constitution. He felt, therefore, that no ground had been laid for the measure, because the utmost inconvenience that could arise would be, that the committee could not continue their functions a few days longer now, but might employ themselves on the same subject a few days in the beginning of next session, because it was not to be supposed
808
that the house would proceed with the Impeachment in the earliest days after their meeting. The only question therefore was, whether the committee should sit a certain number of days at the commencement of next session, or the house should adopt a measure that would break down the barriers of the constitution.
Earl Temple agreed with his hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread), that this motion should not be pressed against the sense of the house; but did not think that his right hon. relation had stated the question fully. The question was not, whether they should have the power of examining now such witnesses as they might next session examine, but, if the other branches of the legislature should pass the indemnity bill, whether they should not have an opportunity of getting the evidence which that was calculated to procure, before any improper impressions should be made, that might interfere with it.
Mr. C. Wynne thought there was another inconvenience which might be remedied by the bill, and which had not been noticed by his noble relation. The death of Mr. Trotter might withdraw him altogether from examination, and if the committee were to have the benefit of his evidence immediately in the event of the bill passing, it might lead to other sources of information
Mr. Whitbread proposed that the objectionable part should be left out of his motion, and trusted that there would be no objection to pass a bill for continuing the proceeding already taken and now pending, notwithstanding any prorogation or dissolution of parliament, as in the case of Mr. Hasting's impeachment.
Lord Henry Petty accordingly moved the amendment, that the part of the motion which related to the sitting of the committee be left out; but on the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the motion was put in the exact terms of the precedent in Mr. Hastings's case, "for leave to bring in a bill to provide, that the proceedings now pending before parliament for the Impeachment of Henry lord viscount Melville shall not be discontinued notwithstanding any prorogation or dissolution of parliament."—The motion was agreed to, and the committee of Impeachment ordered to prepare and bring in the bill.
[CASE OF CAPTAIN WRIGHT.[CASE OF CAPTAIN WRIGHT.—Mr. Windham felt it to be his duty, previously to the separation of the house for the session, to recall to their recollection a subject of much interest, which he had twice before had occasion to mention, once at the close of the

809
last session and again at the commencement of the present. This was the case of Captain Wright, an officer who had been captured with his ship, when serving on the high seas in the regular course of his profession, and with his majesty's commission in his pocket. This was material to show that his case was not distinguished by any circumstances from that of the other prisoners of war; but the French emperor, it appeared, thought he had been employed on other services, as in landing men upon the coast of France, which placed him on a different footing from prisoners of war. When questioned on this head, Captain Wright very properly, and as might have been expected from men even far less determined than he, refused to give an answer though menaced, not obscurely, with proceedings that went to affect his life. Nothing so atrocious, however, had been perpetrated, but he had been committed a close prisoner to the temple, denied pen, ink, and paper, and excluded from all communication with persons without. The severity of the confinement there could be explained from experience by a gallant officer then in his eye (sir Sidney Smith), who had, after escaping confinement there, nobly revenged himself upon his oppressors by his illustrious exploits in the defence of Acre; exploits, he would venture to say, not to be exceeded by any thing which could be found in the naval or military annals of any country. As to the truth of the charge against Captain Wright, he thought it unnecessary to enquire into it; it being a matter of perfect indifference for the present purpose whether it was true or not. Nobody, he supposed, would contend, that to put on shore upon an enemy's coast persons meaning to excite commotion or insurrection, was contrary to the laws of war. If it was, what would become of all which the French had done during the course of the last war, in landing Tandy and others on the coast of Ireland? If men so landed were not of the nation on whose coast they landed, and yet did not avow themselves as enemies, they were liable to be treated as spies. If they were subjects of that nation, they might be treated as rebels or traitors: but neither in one case or the other, was there any ground for charging with a breach of the laws of war those by whom they were landed. The fact was, that the hostility of the French emperor to captain Wright arose from his having been the close friend and intimate associate of the gallant officer to whom he had before alluded. How captain Wright was to be relieved now, he could not say; and though that officer
810
had every claim on the country, his relief was not the principal consideration, but the prevention of similar acts of violence in future. Retaliation in the first instance was the only means of preventing such violence. The omission of that retaliation was as much as to tell Bonaparte he might do what he pleased, and we should not retaliate for fear of what he should afterwards do. If we were once to admit this, it would amount to a confession of inferiority, which must have the most fatal effect upon the country and upon every man employed in its service. What officer would enter a service when exposed to such violence?—But what people would not flock to it, if assured that any unwarrantable violence offered them would be repelled with the whole weight of the nation?—This principle, he was sorry to say, had suffered considerable relaxation in its application towards the enemy with whom we have had to do in the last and present war. The admission of inferiority that would follow from our being afraid to retaliate would be the most grievous degradation. It had been said, that Bonaparte had a hold upon us through the persons that had been detained at the commencement of the war at Verdun. These were no doubt so many hostages, but not distinguishable from those who became hostages by being made prisoners of war in the service of their country. If they were to be distinguished, as many of them undoubtedly might, it was in a way not to entitle them to any preference. If they had not less, they had not greater claims upon the feelings of the country, especially such as had gone to France for amusement without business or necessity. So far, he stated, if it should be supposed that retaliation would be productive of the intended apprehended consequences. But what ground was there to suppose that it would be productive of such consequences? The French emperor, great as he was, was not released from the obligations of public faith, nor without the reach of the public opinion of his subjects, on whom the effects of the retaliation would fall. He saw that the attempt would be made with infinitely less advantage late than at first. Without pretending to answer for it now, or at any time, he was strongly of opinion that it would have been effectual in the first instance. It must he grievously affecting to the country to know, that a meritorious officer had been suffered to languish under severity which he had drawn upon himself by his meritorious exertions in its service. He had mentioned this subject last session, and had been given to understand that some

811
steps would be taken. If he were to proceed with the business now, he should conclude what he had to say with a motion for an account of what steps had been taken. He should omit that, however, as long as he had any ground to hope that further measures would be taken during the recess; and he should confine himself now to a notice, that if no such steps should be taken, he would bring the matter before parliament early next session.—No reply was made to the right hon. gentleman.—Adjourned.

MINUTES.
Judgment was given in the important Irish appeal cause, Redington v. Redington. The lord Chancellor spoke at considerable length, when the decree of the court of exchequer in Ireland was reversed, and a reference was made with respect to part of the matter in dispute, back to that court.

CASE OF MR. TODD JONES.
The Earl of Suffolk begged leave to trespass, tho' aware it was not strictly regular, shortly upon the attention of their lordship, relative to a topic of some importance: he adverted to what had been alledged on the part of Mr. Todd Jones. Many of those facts, he had the satisfaction to state, were far from being true. He derived his information on the subject from a highly respected friend, and gallant officer, general sir Eyre Coo re; that officer commanded for some time in the district in which Mr. Jones was imprisoned. So far from his treatment being harsh and
798
severe, it was humane; and, as far as circumstances would permit, comfortable. His allowance was liberal: he was accommodated with a good, comfortable room, favoured every day with walking for air and exercise, in the prison yard; and, above all, he was indulged with a female a tendant to wait on him; a favour, he believed, not usually conferred on persons in his situation. He had these facts from an authority in which he could confide; and, he thought it incumbent on him thus publicly to state them.

IMPEACHMENT OF LOLD MELVILLE.
Mr. Whitbread, accompanied by a great number of the members of the house of commons, exhibited at the bar Articles of Impeachment in the name of all the commons of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, against Henry lord viscount Melville, impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors. The members of the house of commons having withdrawn, the articles were read at the table by the clerk.
Lord Hawkesbury then moved, that a committee should be appointed to search the journals for precedents of their lordships proceedings in cases of Impeachment—Ordered, and that all the lords present be of the same committee. His lordship next moved, that a copy of the said Articles be granted to Henry lord viscount Melville within one month; and that the said Henry lord viscount Melville should put in his answer on the second day of the next session of parliament.—Ordered.

TROTTER'S INDEMNITY BILL.
The order for the commitment of this bill being read.
The Lord Chancellor quitted the wool sack, and delivered his sentiments with respect to the above bill. In the course of his observations, he said, the present was a bill of as much importance as any that ever came under their lordships' consideration; and he was surprised that those who supported the measure should have urged its progress so far, without stating any thing of the grounds or principles upon which they thought the house ought to adopt it. However, as the subject presented itself, with reference to the proceedings at the bar that day, and what was set forth in the preamble of the bill, it was worthy of the most serious consideration of the house. His lordship then referred to certain parts of the preamble of the bill, as the statement of the resolution of the commons to impeach lord viscount Melville of high crimes and misdemeanours the statement of certain acts, being contrary to law,

799
&c. This last called upon them, by their agreeing to the bill, to admit previously, that the acts alluded to were contrary to law. To such an implication, as well as to the generality of the language of that part of the bill, he must seriously object; besides, they were called upon to enact that which had reference to the articles of Impeachment, which had been just read, and of which it was impossible the house could as yet be masters of their contents. The preamble of the bill contained three propositions, respecting which they had no information. One referring to the Impeachment before they knew what it was; a second referring to certain acts done; which acts they knew nothing of; and a third and most serious consideration, was the proposed indemnity from civil actions and suits; not only on the part of his majesty or the public, but on the part of individuals. In this view of the case, their lordships could not consistently proceed, without adequate information. The bill went further, it proposed to indemnify for all acts illegally done, whether connected with the impeachment or not. Adverting to the consideration of the objects of the bill, being accomplices in the facts charged in the impeachment, his Lordship stated the rules and provisions of the existing laws, with respect to the evidence of accomplices; particularly the acts of king William and queen Anne; respecting burglaries and other offences; and argued for the propriety of adhering to the principles of that part of the law. He adverted to the cases of sir Thomas Coke, the earl of Macclesfield, and the proceedings in contemplation of the impeachment of lord Orford; upon which occasions the conduct of the house either was different, or held by the first authorities at the time that it should have been, from that which it was proposed to be, in the instance of the present. He highly disapproved of the indemnifications in the way proposed, especially with respect to civil suits, which he considered, in effect, as giving a witness money for his evidence; as the bill proceeded upon the supposition, that there might be demands upon the parties by civil suits, from which it was proposed to indemnify them. To this principle he could not agree; the bill required to be materially ahered and amended, ere that house could, consistently with its duty, countenance it. For those purposes, he should not object to the bill's going to a committee; but, for the better security of all that was done then, it would be preferable to act upon the known and established principles of the law in these re-
800
spects; and he conjured their lordships, with regard to the measure in question, not to go too far, which might lead to consequences, the injurious effects and operations of which, it was impossible to foresee.
Lord Holland, in answer to the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, spoke at some length. He contended that the case before them did not admit of those constructions, which the noble lord on the woolsack had given them, and that the cases referred to did not bear, in respect to the case under consideration, in the way he had stated. With respect to the information which was so strongly insisted upon as necessary, that already before the house, in the reports from the commiffioners of naval enquiry, constituted by the legislature, and the different reports sent up from the other house, together with the articles of impeachment, was he thought, sufficient to enable them duly to take the bill into consideration. The parties who were the objects of the bill, were as strictly defined as those in the case of lord Macclesfield. They were those who served in the navy pay office, under the treasurer-ship of lord viscount Melville, and limited in number. The indemnity was proposed, without reference to whether their evidence should be in favour of viscount Melville or not. A true and correct testimony was the object aimed at; and their lordships should not be over scrupulous in a case, wherein, on similar occasions, notwithstanding what was advanced by the learned lord, their ancestors were not scrupulous at all. It was for the interest of truth and justice, and not with reference to what might be the event of the trial of lord viscount Melville, that they were called upon to pass the bill. Neither, he contended, would their passing it go in the least to prejudge the case of lord viscount Melville; and, as to that part of the wording, "contrary to law," he conceived, that all bills of indemnity were for no other, than for acts contrary to law; but they bore a construction different from that put upon them by the noble and learned lord. As to any language which might be incorrect, and not essential to the object of the bill, it might be amended in the committee; but, with respect to the objection against the indemnity for civil suits, their lordships should consider how far, without it, it would be practicable to obtain the necessary evidence, either for the vindication of the character of a noble member of that house, if innocent, on the one hand, or of the interests of the public and of truth and justice on the other.—On these grounds he hoped no alterations

801
would be made in the bill tending to defeat an object which was equally evident and laudable.
Lord Hawkesbury professed himself friendly to the principle of the bill, which was a fair one, and borne out by precedent and the practice of parliament. He thought there was evidence sufficient to induce them to entertain the measure, in those documents alluded to by his noble friend; and, as coming from the grand inquest of the nation, it was therefore admissible in point of principle.—The questions which remained, involved the nature and effect of the provisions of the bill, and the probability, whether those could be so corrected and amended in a committee, as to induce them, upon the whole, to agree to the measure. He, therefore, could not object to the bill going to a committee. As to the words objected to by his noble and learned friend, they might be left out, or any other, which would not produce inconvenience, affect the principle of the bill, or frustrate the objects of those who brought it forward. With respect to the latter clauses—those indemnifying the parties from all civil suits and applications—it was, he thought, an unheard of extension of the principle, and would tend to set a precedent of a very dangerous nature. In this view, it should be considered what might be done with a reference to the desired object, without the interference of the legislature, as in the instance of the Attorney-General's entering a noli prosequi, in the case of a criminal proceeding, which would leave the parties liable to a civil action. His lordship then referred to a part of the provisions of the bill, and which had a prospective operation, with re-respect to an indemnity against all civil actions, as well as criminal prosecutions, and which, he confessed, appeared to him to be so violent and outrageous an extension of the principle, as, he thought, could never be seriously in the contemplation of the promoters of the bill. He adverted to the propriety of limiting the indemnities, with reference to the circumstances of the pending impeachment, and of placing the parties in that situation, in which a noli prosequi would leave them. At the same time, at the close of the session, he thought as little delay as possible should obtain; and that it would be better to let the bill go through its two next stages, and consider the proposed alterations on the third reading.
Lord Sidmouth shortly delivered his sentiments. He agreed in a great deal of what fell from his noble friend who spoke last upon the subject, and thought the objections
802
made to the language of the bill were such as might easily be obviated in a committee; but he thought it would be a lamentable consideration were the bill altered in such a way as to throw obstacles in the way of attaining the evidence necessary for the ends of substantial justice on the one side, or of establishing the innocence of the individual accused on the other. He thought that all due facilities should be given, and that they might confide in the vigilance of the noble lord on the woolsack, that no illegitimate measure should be resorted to. After a few words from the lord Chancellor, the bill passed through the committee, was reported, and on the motion of lord Hawkesbury, ordered to be read a third time to-morrow, it being understood that the amendments were to be proposed on the third reading.

SMUGGLING PREVENTION BILL.
Lord Holland opposed the bill proceeding any further during the present session, on the grounds that it was a bill of the highest importance to the best and dearest rights and privileges of the inhabitants of the islands of Jersey and Guernsey; that considerable doubts were entertained by the inhabitants of those islands, which doubts had been strongly supported by counsel in both houses, whether the Parliament had a right to legislate for those islands, it having been the custom, time out of mind, for the king in council to be their sole legislator. He did not say that he was prepared to admit those arguments, as to the rights of legislation; but he could have no doubts on his own mind, that if the inhabitants of those islands entertained such sentiments, the passing of this act could not fail to engender discontents, the effects of which would be highly injurious to the interests of this country. His lordship went into a considerable length of argument on the great hardship and oppression of many of the clauses, which empowered Custom house officers to bring persons, who were only passengers on board vessels in which contraband goods were found, to any part of the united kingdom, to be tried by laws of which they were totally ignorant, and before tribunals to which they were utter strangers. He was certain, he said, that those who framed the bill, and those who had passed it in another house, did not understand the nature of many parts of it; for they had enacted, that persons committing offences against the act, should be brought to answer before the justice of the peace—a description of persons altogether unknown and unheard of in either of the islands. He complained of the late period of the session

803
in which the bill had been brought forward in that house, and the very hasty manner in which it was attempted to be hurried through. He entreated their lordships to pause—to consider well the many inaccuracies—to say the least of them, to which he had alluded, the numerous mischiefs to which the bill might give rise, and that they would consent to defer it to the next session, when it might be more seriously and fully considered. He therefore moved, that the chairman do leave the chair, and report progress.
Lord Hawkesbury allowed the lateness of the session, and the immense press of business which was now before the house for its consideration; if, however, such was ever excusable, it was during the present session. He differed, however, from his noble friend who spoke last, as to the principle of the bill. The islands of Guernsey and Jersey were well known to be a great entrepôt for various kinds of merchandise; they, of course, became a great entrepôt for smuggling also; and the state of our trade required that smuggling should be suppressed as much and as speedily as possible, particularly in those islands, in and from which it was carried on to an amazing extent. The bill, he allowed, was of the highest importance, and, as such, it had received the fullest and most serious consideration. It had been before the other house ever since the 10th of April; had been repeatedly discussed; counsel had been fully heard against it in both houses; the people of Jersey had made no objection to it; and, for all those reasons, it had his decided support.
The Duke of Clarence objected to so important a question being brought forward at so late a period of the session. He regretted he had not had an opportunity of hearing the counsel at the bar on a former occasion. His royal highness observed, he had been more than once in the islands of Jersey and Guernsey, and could vouch for the loyalty and attachment of the inhabitants to the government of this kingdom. In the year 1783 it was the wish of government to employ officers to prevent smuggling; and it was then found, that vessels of very small construction only could be serviceable. It was impossible for French vessels to navigate near Normandy, without coming within a few leagues of those islands. Exclusive of the lateness of the session, he considered this by no means the proper time for considering a question of so serious importance. The officers who were employed upon that service, thought that such a measure was certainly necessary; but they considered that this was by no
804
means the time for entertaining the question; he therefore gave his decided opposition to the further progress of the bill.
Lord Holland shortly explained. He thought the bill replete with inconveniences, and must give rise to many difficulties and disputes, and if not rejected altogether, he at least wished it should not take place till next session. Lords Hawkesbury and Holland severally explained, when the question for the Chairman leaving the chair, was put, and negatived without a division. The first clause was then read in the committee, and lord Holland moved, "that this clause should be omitted," when a division took place, and the numbers appeared, for retaining the clause 19—for rejecting it 7.—Majority against lord Holland's motion 12. The several other clauses were then read, the house resumed, and the report ordered to be received to-morrow.

PADDINGTON CANAL COAL BILL.
The Marquis of Buckingham presented a Petition from a number of inhabitants of the county of Middlesex, against the bill for restricting the quantity of Coals to be brought to London by the Paddington Canal, and for imposing a duty on them. The house having gone into a committee on the bill, the noble marquis stated his objections to it, as tending severely to affect the lower orders.—The coals in question were chiefly used by the bakers, so that any duty on them would necessarily increase the price of bread. Several manufactories, worked by steam, had been erected within the limits of the operation of the bill, (twenty five miles from London,) which must inevitably stop working.—He should be more scrupulous in opposing the measure, if it were one intended as a means of supply to the revenue; but as it was merely a local regulation, he moved that the chairman do leave the chair, with the intention of afterwards proposing, that the bill should be read a third time this day three months.
Lord Harrowby defended the bill, contending that it protected the Newcastle trade, which it was well known was of inestimable value to Great Britain, as a nursery for her seamen; and that so far from lessening the quantity of coals to be brought to the London market, it permitted the introduction of what was totally prohibited. The marquis of Buckingham persisting in his motion, the house divided. Contents 13—Non-contents 8—Majority 5. The different clauses of the bill then underwent considerable discussion, in which the marquis of Buckingham, lord Harrowby, the duke of

805
Montrose, the duke of Norfolk, lord Holland, and lord Hawkesbury, participated.—It chiefly related to the mode of conveying to the pit and barge owners, the information, when the limited quantity, (50,000 tons) had passed the boundary, to the duty which the bill appeared to impose on the cinders of sea coal, sent by the canal into the country, as manure, &c. and to the object of which the duties were to be levied. Several amendments proposed by the marquis of Buckingham were at length agreed to be deferred till the third reading, for the purpose of facilitaing the progress of the bill.

DUKE OF ATHOLL'S CLAIM.
On the motion for going into a committee on the duke of Atholl's Annuity bill,
The Marquis of Buckingham put it to the candour of noble lords, whether in the exhausted state in which they were, it would be proper or decorous to go into a committee on the bill at that late hour of the night. The papers which had been moved for, had not been printed, or, if they had, he had not been fortunate enough to procure a copy of them, and consequently he, and he presumed many other noble lords were in the same state, was but ill prepared to enter at that hour upon the consideration of the bill. It was also impossible that the counsel, who could only have known early this morning, or late last night, that they would be heard at the bar against the bill, could have had sufficient time to prepare themselves. For those reasons he trusted the bill would not he proceeded in to night. He moved that the house should now adjourn,
The Earl of Westmoreland was of opinion the bill had undergone as ample a discussion as was necessary. He objected to the adjournment proposed by the noble marquis.—On a division, the motion for adjournment was rejected by a majority of 45 to 12, proxies included.
The house having at length resolved itself into a committee on the bill, Mr. Romilly was heard on the part of the Keys, or Representatives of the people of the Isle of Man, as to the interest which they had in the passing of the bill. Counsel having withdrawn,
The Earl of Westmoreland observed, that he thought the petitioners had no more right to come to the bar to oppose the bill, than any other of his majesty's subjects.
The Lord Chancellor stated, that the learned counsel, in his opinion, had not made out that species of interest in his clients, the house of Keys, which would entitle them to be heard, or to bring evidence to the bar against the bill.
The Marquis of Buckingham expressed himself
806
against further proceeding in the bill in the present session. The allegations in the bill were proved at the bar, by the counsel for the duke of Atholl. The preamble of the bill was postponed. On the motion, by the duke of Norfolk, that the Annuity clause should be postponed, the house divided, when it was rejected by a majority of 19 to 5. The several clauses of the bill were afterwards gone through, the bill was reported without amendments, and ordered to be read a third time to-morrow—Adjourned.