Sitting of 29 June 1807

MINUTES.
Sir S. Romillyobtained leave to bring in a bill for rendering the freehold property of persons subject to the bankrupt laws assets for the payment of their debts.— On the motion of Mr. Long it was ordered, that there be laid before the house, an account of the expenditure of the British Museum in the years 1805 and 1806, together with an estimate of the expenditure of 1807.—Mr. Rose presented a petition from the Trustees of the British Museum, setting forth, that the Trustees and administrators of the will of the late marquis of Lansdown have proposed to the consideration of the petitioners, the expediency of purchasing for the use of the public a valuable collection of manuscripts belonging to the said late marquis of Lansdown, chiefly concerning the public writings and records of this country, composed and collected by William lord Burghly, lord high treasurer in the reign of queen Elizabeth, sir Julius Cæsar, master of the rolls and judge of the high court of admiralty in the reigns of queen Elizabeth and king James I., and other learned and eminent persons; and that there is already in the British Museum a very valuable and extensive collection of manuscripts important to the public, for the purpose of elucidating the public history of this country, and for furnishing evidence of the rights and possessions of individuals, to which the Lansdown collection of manuscripts would be a most valuable addition; but that the funds of the petitioners being insufficient for the common annual expenditure of the Museum without the accustomed aid of parliament, they are unable to provide for the purchase of the said collection of manuscripts; and therefore praying the house to take the matter into consideration, and to adopt such measures as to the house shall seem fit, for ascertaining the public importance of adding the Lansdown collection of manuscripts to those already lodged in the British museum, and also the value of such collection; and further to act therein as to, the House shall seem meet.—Mr. Bankes, with a view to shew the progress that had been made towards rendering the British Museum useful in the degree that it ought to be to the public, moved, that there be laid before the house copies of all the Regulations adopted for the better preservation of the different collections, and for rendering them more accessible to artists and others;

669
and also, an account of the number of persons admitted to see the Museum, since the year 1805, distinguishing the year, month, &c. Ordered.— The house, on the motion of lord Castlereagh, went into a committee on his majesty's message, and resolved, nem. con., that a sum of 1000 l. per, annum be granted to his majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to be settled, during his natural life, on general sir John Stuart. The house then resumed, and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.—Petitions were presented, complaining of the late elections for Evesham and Downpatrick, which were severally fixed fir consideration on the 21st of July.

OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.
On the motion of Mr. Bankes, the resolution of the 24th of March last against granting Offices in reversion, was read, and leave was given to bring in a bill, similar to that pending when the late parliament was dissolved, for carrying the resolution into a law.
Sir John Newporttook this opportunity of stating, that in the bill introduced by him in the last session, for abolishing certain useless offices, and for the better Regulation of other offices in Ireland, one had been omitted, which he had since found ought to have been included. He meant the office of Surveyor and Inspector of the River Ken mare; an office created a few years since, and granted to Sir Boyle Roche and J. Aylmer, esq. with benefit of survivorship. There was no Surveyor or Inspector, of the same description, for any other river in Ireland: it was quite a sinecure, with a salary of £300 a year, It had been, he knew not how, omitted in the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry in Ireland, and therefore omitted in the bill brought in by him on that report.
Mr. Herbertsaid, that the river Kenmare lay principally in the county he had the honour to represent. Its course was forty miles long, and above five or six broad, with numberless creeks, and without a single Revenue Office in its vicinity to controul the smuggling exercised upon it, till this office had been created. The smuggling had, shortly after the appointment, been greatly reduced.
Lord H. Pettywas aware of the smuggling upon the river Kenmare; but that was a stronger reason for suppressing a useless sinecure, and substituting an active prevention.
Mr. Herbertexplained. He meant that some inspection was necessary, The smug-
670
gling was not now so considerable as it had been before the creation of this office.
Sir Arthur Wellesleysaid this office appeared, from what had been said, to be one of those that ought to be regulated, rather than suppressed. It was, however, subject to the disposal of parliament, as the vacancy created by the death of sir Boyle Roche had not been filled up, unless it had been by the late ministers.

RESOLUTIONS RELATING TO PRIVATE BILLS.
The Speakeracquainted the house, that, pursuant to the direction of the house, an account had been prepared of all Private Bills pending at the time of the late dissolution, with the several stages in which they were on the 27th of April, and those that were passed, with the exception of receiving the royal assent.— The account was ordered to lie on the table, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Percevalrose to submit to the house a motion, which he hoped would remove all the inconveniences affecting private bills, arising from the late dissolution of parliament. If, however, the house should estimate more highly than he did those inconveniences, those who had such a superior feeling of them, would, he trusted, be but more strongly compelled to adopt the resolution which went to remedy them. He was sure that those who regarded the dissolution as a crime not to be forgiven, would be disposed to visit the punishment of it wholly upon the advisers, without involving those who were but innocent sufferers. He never had said that the dissolution was not attended with inconvenience: it was merely on a comparison of that inconvenience with the superior importance of the reasons that rendered the dissolution necessary at that precise time, that he defended it. The principal inconveniences complained of were the delay and the additional expense. The delay of two months, he hoped, could not be attended with any material inconvenience; and as to the expense, it would be obviated in one of its branches by the liberality of the officers, who, according to the precedent established by their former liberality in 1784, agreed to advance the bills so pending at the dissolution, to their former stages, without any additional fees. It remained only to obviate the expense of agency, and the attendance of witnesses in town. This was the principal object of the resolution he meant to propose, which was to give an instruction to the committee, to which every petition for a private bill should be re-

671
ferred, to inquire whether any petition had already been presented in this late session, from the same parries, on the same subject; and if so, that the minutes of the evidence, taken before the committee on the former petition, should be evidence before the said committee; and so, in like manner, with respect to private bills, founded on such petitions, allowing the committees to call for further evidence, if necessary. He hoped that the inconveniences arising from the late dissolution to private business, would be in a great measure done away, by adopting this arrangement. Those who looked upon the dissolution as an evil which nothing could remedy, would not, of course, think this remedy satisfactory. But those who, On the contrary, looked upon it as a necessary appeal to the sense of the country, under the circumstances existing at the time, would be gratified to think that the inconveniences which the appeal occasioned, could be made so light. He concluded with moving a resolution accordingly.
Lord H. Pettywas ready to concur in every proper measure to lighten the inconveniences caused by the late dissolution. He, however, wished the house to consider, that to the serjeant at Arms, and others of the officers, the deficiencies of their fees beneath a certain amount was to be made good from the public purse, and this deficiency would of course be increased by remitting the fees.
Mr. Curwencould not reconcile himself to so dangerous a precedent as this, which by presenting a mode for relieving the private inconveniences incident to such a stretch of power, would always render it a matter of facility to a minister to dissolve parliament, in every case in which its temper and disposition might be adverse to his views. It was true, there had been a strong opposition to the late ministers on the two questions that had been tried touching the manner in which they had come into power. He had been one of those who had opposed them upon these questions, and he lamented that the decision upon them had not been different; for as it was, it tended to endanger the security of the crown, and of the country itself. He was sure, however, that no vexatious opposition had been intended; and if there had been, he would not have been a party to it. He lamented the inconveniences to private persons resulting from the dissolution; but though he wished to alleviate those inconveniences, he could not consent
672
to relieve them by opening door for public mischief.
Lord Howickcoincided in what had fallen from his hon. friend near him. However desirous of remedying the inconveniences occasioned by the dissolution (and every day shewed those inconveniences to be so great, that the period seemed to have been purposely chosen at which they must have been the greatest), he could not easily bring himself to consent to the measure now proposed to remedy those inconveniences. The magnitude of the inconveniences might indeed be well estimated, from the extraordinary nature of the remedy proposed. That remedy went to suspend and repeal for the time, the forms by which the privileges of the house of commons, and the rights and the property of the people, were secured and protected. However highly he might be disposed to commend the liberality of the clerks, it was not a very pleasant situation in which to place the house or the country, to make them dependent on that liberality. However it might answer in cases in which there was no opposition to allow the bills to proceed, without the necessity of bringing up witnesses, in cases of contest and opposition, the vast expence attending such cases must be again incurred. The necessary notices were not to be insisted upon, and individuals might find their property invaded, without any intimation to put them on their guard. It was impossible for him, in these circumstances, to consent to the arrangement proposed. If the right hon. gent. would but allow himself a pause of 24 hours, he would not think of pressing a measure, not only differing widely from all precedent, but violatory of every parliamentary principle. He recommended at least the appointment of a Committee to search into precedents. In 1784, though the expedient of forwarding the bills without fees had been adopted, no standing order had been violated. He again expatiated on the mischiefs attending the dissolution. He disclaimed all idea of vexatious opposition. Though there had necessarily been a decided opposition on the questions immediately touching the change of administration, and involving great constitutional principles, the decision that had been formed upon which he feared there would be cause to regret, there would not have been another division in the course of the session, unless something new had been brought forward. The Inclosure bills could not possibly be carried into effect, when passed at so late a period of the session.

673
The precedent was totally novel, and dangerous in its principle, and therefore he could not assent to it.
Mr. Percevalsaid, he could not hope to alter the noble lord's opinion, nor that of those who acted with him, as to the merits of the late dissolution. He was happy to think, however, that there was a great majority of the house, who were of opinion with him, that the prerogative was properly exercised in that instance. The importance of the circumstances that led to the dissolution were more than sufficient to counterbalance the private inconveniences. It was the great public interest that was to be consulted, and not private convenience. The noble lord was mistaken in supposing that any standing order was violated, or that the usual notice to parties was infringed upon. The standing order relative to notices required that they should be given at the Michaelmas, or in the August and September preceding the session in which the bill was to be brought in. The Michaelmas, the August, and the September that preceded the last session, were also the Michaelmas, August, and September preceding this, and therefore the same notice answered for the bills to be now brought in, The same construction had been put on the law of notices in the year 1784, and in the year 1800, in the first session of the United Parliament following the short session of the British parliament. He thought it rather a strange way of strengthening the argument derived from the inconveniences attending the dissolution, to refuse to alleviate those inconveniences.
Lord Howickin explanation, vindicated himself from the imputation of being disposed to add to the inconveniences arising from the dissolution, which he had every wish to remedy, so far as that could be done without creating public mischief. He denied the application of the precedents of 1784 and ,1800, in the most material circumstances. No resolution, like the present, had been then adopted.
Sir John Newportobjected to the resolution, as going to substitute written evidence for paroie evidence, with the power of personal examination.
Mr.Rosesaid, the committees were to be at liberty to call for parole evidence whenever they might think it necessary. He thought the house could by its own power obviate the difficulties touching the fees in every instance: for though the fees were, in some instances, appropriated by act of parliament,
674
they were levied only by a resolution of the house, which the house could dispose of according to its pleasure.
Lord H. Pettyallowed that the power of the house might extend as far as the hon. gent. stated; but it would not, perhaps, be right, after the house had passed an act of approbation, to withdraw, the sums to be appropriated.— After a few words from Mr. Bastard and sir J. Anstruther against the motion, Mr. Shaw Lefevre moved, that the debate be adjourned till to-morrow. This produced a short discussion between the chancellor of the exchequer, lord Howick, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. C. Wynne, and Mr. C. Dundas, in which it was contended, on the one hand, that there were no grounds, and on the other, that there were ample grounds for such a postponement. Upon which the house then divided: For the adjournment 76. Against it 164. The resolution was then put and carried.

CONDUCT OF MARQUIS WELLESLEY
Lord Folkestoneentertaining still the same opinion that he had from the beginning, relative to the conduct of marquis Wellesley in the Oude transaction, moved, that the several Papers ordered with a view to the accusation and defence of the noble Marquis on that charge in the last session, be again laid before the house.
Sir John Anstruthersaid, it must be equally the wish of all persons, as well those who disapproved of the administration of the noble marquis, as those who thought like him, that it was the brightest period of the British history in India; that as well on public as on private grounds, these charges so long pending should be brought to a decision as speedily as possible. As those who had been in the last and the preceding parliament, must have already made themselves masters of all the documents; and as there were in the vote office a sufficient number of copies to supply all the new members, he recommended, with a view to economy and expedition, that instead of renewing the general order for presenting and printing, the remaining copies should be distributed to the new members, and that the business should be decided oil as early a day as possible in this session.
Lord Folkestoneexpressed his willingness to promote a speedy decision, but with a fear that the present session, from the variety of other important business, would not in its short duration afford either sufficient time, or a sufficiently full attendance for this question.
Mr. Creeveyfrom the difficulty of deciding in a case in which the noble marquis's friends thought his administration most useful, and the East India Company, according to a book published under the authority of the Court of Directors, represented it as the most injurious to their trade and revenue, as an absolute despotism, violatory of all the laws for the government of India, thought the present short session, occupied as it would be with a multiplicity of other important matters, would not afford a proper opportunity for coming to a determination upon it.
Mr. H. Addingtonthought there was a combination of every private and public reason for coming to a decision as speedily as possible. Those who had been members of the last parliament, had read all the documents which had been ordered, he would say too precipitately, without the substantiation of a prima facie case of guilt. The papers in the vote office would supply the new members.
The Speakersaid, it was not necessary that papers should be presented and printed in every new parliament, in order to afford ground for parliamentary proceedings. It was enough that they were in the custody of the house, and might be read. If the sense of the house should be to dispose of any papers in its stores to any particular description of members, it would be the duty of the Speaker to carry the wish of the house shortly into execution.— In answer to a wish expressed by sir A. Wellesley, that a day should be appointed for the decision of the question, lord Folkestone stated, that for himself he was always ready to come to the discussion, but he could not fix any day without consulting others.

MEMORIAL OF SIR HENRY MILDMAY.
Sir Henry Mildmayrose, to give an explanation of some circumstances, which had caused much unmerited obloquy to be cast upon him. He did not wish to conceal the state of anxiety in which he was. But that anxiety arose from a fear, lest his abilities should not be sufficiently, adequate to the task; and lest the feelings of one, little accustomed to calumny, should render him incapable of giving a full explanation. That transaction was the only one he had ever had with government, or ever would have if he could help it. The fourth report of the Commissioners of Military Inquiry had been perverted for the purpose of casting aspersions on him; and it had been said, that he had received undue favours from govern-
676
ment, and had taken an undue advantage of the public. That charge was most false and unfounded; but he did not think himself called upon to answer anonymous aspersions, and had therefore waited with patience till the meeting of parliament gave him an opportunity of justifying himself. He felt that this explanation was due to the house, to himself, and to his constituents, but particularly to the administration of Mr. Addington (lord Sidmouth), during which the transaction had commenced; and more particularly still to one of the present lords of the Treasury (Mr. S. Bourne), who at one period of the affair had been secretary of the Treasury, which had exposed him, as well as himself, to a great deal of unjust calumny. In 1795, he had come into the possession of a large estate in Essex, on which he was obliged to reside three months in the year. The works began to be erected in 1803. During the time he resided there about 1500 people were engaged on them, which certainly did not render the residence the most desirable. All his tangible property on the outside of the house was in danger, and his family not very comfortable; but he still resided there till, nine nights out of ten, footpad robberies were committed in the fields near his house. He then thought that he had some claim to relief by law from the residence, and applied to Mr. Addington's administration for that purpose. He then was directed to apply to Mr. Vansittart, and obtained what he wanted. But the bill went only to relieve him for four years, and he was actually obliged to return to the place with all its inconveniences on the 24th of June next. If this was a job, it was singular that the administration should have jobbed against themselves, for he never gave them a vote in his life. He made the proposal of the house as a residence for the general of the district, to colonel Gordon, who told him that he could do nothing without a report from the barrack board. Their report was favourable, and he had a meeting with Mr. William Dundas, the Secretary at War, who said that it would be necessary to send a surveyor to examine the premises. Mr. Johnstone, the surveyor to the board, was then sent. He was totally unconnected with Mr. Johnstone, whom he had never seen in his life, and who had his own way in the whole affair. He made a report that £400 was a fair rent for the house and 20 acres about it. The house was furnished, as he had not removed one article. The house had cost £70,000. He had received at £200

677
for repairs and £400 a year for rent. On the 24th of June, 1804, the bargain was made, but the lease was not signed as general Delancey left the board. The rent was, however, due from that period. As to the letters from one department to another, he had nothing to do with them, and never saw them till they appeared in the report. By the general's residing in it, the government would save money. For their repairs he was not obliged to them, as he wished to have the house pulled down. But he had received no atom of compensation for being turned out of doors. On the 18th of August a jury was impannelled—one would think from the report that it was in 1803; but it was in 1804, which made a very material difference. On that occasion he employed the agent that generally acted for the gentlemen in that Part of the country. The agent employed counsel; but he had given him no instructions to do so, and knew nothing of it. The jury was one of the most respectable that ever sat, and did not give a rash or hasty verdict, for they were locked up three hours before they agreed upon it. They gave a verdict of £1300 for thirty acres one rood, &c. on which the military works stood. But he would ask, if there was a single word in the verdict that prevented him from living in the house or pulling it down, if he thought proper: and a surveyor had valued the materials of the house at £10,000, which would produce £500 a year. Was there any thing that prevented him from letting the house to the Speaker of the house of Commons, to government, or to any one else? The thirty acres for the military works, had nothing whatever to do With the Barrack Office agreement as to the house and 20 acres. The furniture for such a house was worth a good round sum. This estate was worth above £11,000, and had a suitable house. For this £400 a year was no adequate compensation. He wished that the value of the furniture of the house could be ascertained, or to what sum the fair annual valuation would have amounted; and he also wished to know, what gentleman who heard him, having such a house, so furnished, would have considered £400 a year an equivalent. He appealed to those who had known him for many years, whether, in his conduct, he had evinced any thing which could induce them to believe him capable of a transaction, such as this had been described to be. His estate in Essex had been granted to his ancestors by Henry VIII. He repeated
678
the question, was £400 a year a compensation? He had been told that the Grand Junction Canal had to go through lord Essex's Park, and he would be contented with one-fourth of the compensation from government that lord Essex received from private individuals. The noble lord over the way (lord Howick) had hinted, that he was unfit to sit on the Committee of Finance, on account of the facts that were stated in the Report. This was certainly premature decision. The Military Commissioners themselves had said that no imputation rested on him. They only said that the Barrack Board had made a negligent bargain for the public; at all events, he would not be a moment longer in possession of this lease, and he in treated of his majesty's ministers to have a fresh jury impannelled. He wished to justify himself, and would answer any questions that should be put to him, either at the Bar of the House, in his place, or in a Court of Justice. As he had spoken from memory, some subordinate points might not be accurately stated, but the substance was correct. He concluded by moving for the production of a Memorial which he had that day given in to the Commissioners of Military Inquiry.
Mr. Sturges Bourneseconded the motion. He rose,. he said, in consequence of the calumnies that had been circulated against, him, which he regarded less on his own account than on account of his hon. friend. Indeed, they would have been unworthy of notice if they had not been echoed by the noble lord over the way (lord Howick).He seemed to have looked at the newspaper report rather than at the Report of the commissioners. His name had not occurred in the Report, except where it was found at the bottom of one letter on this subject. He had been told that the age of insinuation was past, but if it was so, he was very unfortunate, for no one had met with more insinuations. He hoped the practice of making insinuations on account of private friendships, would be done away. He had no concern with the origin of the business, and yet he was accused of giving 630 l. for repairs instead of the estimated 250 l. and that because he had not chosen to deny a charge in the newspaper, but had waited for the meeting of that house. The business came to his notice officially in 1805, and the reason was, that by a late regulation no issue could be made for the Barrack-Board above 500 l. without a communication to the Treasury; and the application was not mis-

679
understood, nor passed over with out attention, as had been said. The object at that time was not the policy of the agreement, for that had been determined and acted on, and the repairs had been done. The Treasury, therefore, gave its authority, though sensible of the disadvantage of the terms. In every instance of this sort a jury gave a large compensation, and so it ought to do, where the one party had no choice. It fell to his lot as secretary to the treasury, to communicate the determination to the Barrack-Board; but the object was not to execute the lease, for that had been done already. Some of the gentlemen on the other side must know the course of the Treasury. He was answerable for any mistake in the letter, but when he had to sign so many, it was not surprising that a mistake should have occurred in one, which it was not thought required any very minute attention. The letter ought not to have alluded to repairs at all, and the gentlemen must have known that the letter admitted of a different construction from what they had put upon it, Having stated this, he left it to the house to judge of the fairness of their proceedings. He would ask the noble lord (H. Petty), whether he had found that he had ever been apt to make use of his official situation to serve his friends particularly? The charge against him was false, foul, and scandalous, and he had only to say that he had much rather be the object of it than the author.
Mr. H. Martinconsidered the bargain as highly advantageous to the hon. baronet, and ruinous to the public, and therefore contended that the matter should be inquired into. It appeared to him also objectionable, that the hon. baronet, in justifying himself, seemed to impute blame to the Military Commissioners. He did not mean to say that the hon. baronet intended to do so; but the consequence that would follow from his statement was, that the commissioners did not understand the transaction. The compensation of 1300 l. awarded by the jury for the first year for thirty acres, amounted to the fee simple of the land. The hon. and learned gent. made some further observations on the terms of the bargain, and contended that the matter should be enquired into. It was desirable, particularly at this moment, to show that the reports of these commissioners were deserving of credit, When they had made so small a progress in the subjects they had to investigate. He knew the commissioners to be men of as much honesty, integrity, and principle, as any gentle-
680
men in that house, and was sure they had no intention to make any unfavourable report against the hon. baronet. When the matter should again be brought before the house, he hoped the hon. baronet would be prepared to explain, why no person, had attended on the part of the crown, to take care of the interests of the public, He was much misinformed, or it was the duty of the person who was counsel to the Board of Ordnance, to attend under the defence act, upon such occasions, if directed. This explanation would relieve his mind from a suspicion, not of the hon. baronet, but of the negligence of the public boards.
Mr. Secretary Canningapproved in warm terms of the candid statement made by his hon. friend. He did think it an ingenusous statement, and he hoped that the gentlemen who were so ready to charge would prove equally ingenuous in their own defence when called upon under any circumstances that might hereafter arise to vindicate themselves. He censured the manner in which the calumnies of the daily publications had been sanctioned by the authority of the noble lord (Howick), and contended that such calumnies would have sunk into their merited oblivion, had they not received a sort of stamp and currency from what had recently passed within that house.
Lord Howicksaid, that in the very few words he should feel it necessary to say upon the present subject, he should cautiously abstain from following the example of the right hon. secretary, by trying to divert the attention of the house from a serious charge affecting one of its members, by a vague recrimination, equally inapplicable and groundless. He did not blame, he rather approved of the hon. baronet's refusing to answer the newspaper attacks that bad been made upon him; and though the right hon. secretary had accused him (lord Howick) of sanctioning newspaper calumnies, he had been so much more the object than the promoter of such attacks, that he did not think such insinuation in any respect just towards him. He would not retort the charge upon the right hon. secretary, though, at the same time, he could not forget the keen and poignant wit that in other times had distinguished the papers of the Anti-jacobin. As to the other hon. gent. (Mr. S. Bourne) he had never imputed to him any timing more than negligence, which might naturally be the consequence of a great multiplicity of business; but he had satisfaction in saying, that so far as that gentleman was concerned, he

681
was totally exculpated. He felt it a painful duty to state, that he was not satisfied with the explanation given by the hon. baronet. He censured any blustering attempt upon the part of his majesty's ministers, to influence that house in its decision on the present case; if the cause of the hon. baronet was a bad one, the injudiciousness of the defence might tend to aggravate the crime, and if it was a good one, it was certainly most impolitic to attempt to controul, when it could so easily convince. This was not a time to resist inquiry by menacing challenges; the country expected inquiry, and recrimination would prove but a bad method to evade it. If there was calumny in this attack upon the hon. baronet, that calumny was to be found in the Fourth Report of the Commissioners of Military Inquiry, and surely no member in that house was to be censured for not at once discrediting and denouncing that Report, though not one title had been yet offered by the hon. baronet or his friends in denial of its statements. As to what had fallen from him (lord Howick) upon a former night, with respect to the reappointment of the hon. baronet on the Finance Committee, he was willing to repeat, that till this transaction was fully explained to the satisfaction of parliament, and the public, he did think it most inadviseable to allow that gentleman's name to appear on the list of a committee appointed for looking with a jealous caution to the expenditure of the public money. He had said that the hon. baronet's explanation had not satisfied him; and why? because that explanation did not in any way go to disprove what had been stated, that the public had paid twice for the same thing. This had not been cleared up, and until it was, he could not, consistently with his duty to that house and the public, totally acquit the hon. baronet.
Lord H. Pettyjustified the hon. gent. (Mr. S. Bourne) from the imputation against him. So far as he had an opportunity of judging, there appeared no ground to suspect that hon. gent. of any corrupt practice while Secretary of the Treasury.—After a few words from general Hope, Mr. P. Carew, Mr. Montague, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Ashley, and lord H. Petty, the motion was agreed to.

AMERICAN TRADE BILL.
Lord Hawkesburypresented, by his majesty's command, the Order in Council, continuing the provisions of the American Intercourse act, which expired during the recess, and gave notice that it was the intention of his majesty's government to propose to parliament a bill for continuing the above act for a time to be then specified, and to propose in such bill a clause of Indemnity for the advice given to his majesty to continue the provisions of the former act, after it had legally expired.
Lord Aucklandstated that the reason he did not, when in office, recommend the continuance of the act which had now expired was the pending negociation with America. He trusted, that when the treaty which was the result of that negociation came to be discussed, it would be discussed as a treaty ratified, and he felt satisfied it would be found that every possible attention had been paid to the interests of this country. He thought it but fair now to state, that when the question of the renewal of the American Intercouse act came to be discussed, he should probably be of opinion, that the same reasons which before operated did not exist for the continuance of the act. One part of it, in particular, he objected to, and was objected to during the negociation; he alluded to that part of it which allowed to the Americans a carrying-trade between our possessions in the East Indies and Europe.
Lord Hollandreferred to the Bill of Rights to prove the illegality of levying money by the authority of the crown, without the consent of parliament, and which he contended was done in the present instance, by continuing to levy duties without any competent authority.
Lord Hawkesburyadmitted that it was an infraction of the law, and therefore his majesty's ministers came to parliament for indemnity. Admitting the general principle, as stated by the noble lord, he wished to be understood that this case must stand upon its own special circumstances, of which that house would judge when the subject came regularly before them.
Lord Grenvillecontended that the order of council for levying duties which had no legal existence was a violation of a most important constitutional principle, which ought to undergo the most serious discussion in that house. Ministers had advised his majesty to levy duties for a whole month without any legal authority, and now proposed to introduce a clause in the bill intended to be brought in to indemnify themselves for this violation of the law. He thought at least that house ought to have the opportunity of discussing the great question involved in this act of the ministers in a manner which its importance deserved, and not in the shape of a clause tacked to a money bill.
Lord Hollandconsidered the question of so much importance, that he deemed it necessary to move for the appointment of a committee to search for precedents since the year 1688, of money being levied or applied by the crown without the authority of parliament.
Earl Bathurstexplained the nature of the operation of the order of council, which in fact raised no new duties, and raised in many instances less duties, in no instance higher than the crown was legally entitled to after the expiration of the act under a former subsisting act.
Lord Grenvillecontended that this statement did not alter the nature of the case. By levying lower duties than the crown was legally entitled to, might, in some instances, be levying more money than before, as in the case of prohibitory duties, in which, by lessening the duty, more money might be raised. It was still, therefore, a violation of the principles of the constitution, for which only urgent and imperious necessity could be pleaded, and if the necessity arose out of the late dissolution of parliament, it would still remain for ministers to account for their conduct in advising a dissolution of parliament, without making provision for the legal continuance of an act which they afterwards deemed it necessary to continue without legal authority.
The Lord Chancellordefended the expediency of the order of council, but admitted that it might be more adviseable to bring the indemnity as a separate measure before parliament.
Lord Harrowbyurged that the order of council only went to carry into effect the last known intentions of the legislature; similar circumstances had repeatedly happened under almost every government, and in many instances an indemnity had not been applied
666
for. He conceived the motion of the noble lord (Holland) was not called for by any circumstances in the present case, which was nothing more than a mere formal violation of the law.
Lord Grenvilleobserved that the argument of the noble lord (Harrowby) did not apply, as it was a matter of great doubt, whether the legislature would again continue the act; it therefore did not appear that ministers had carried into effect the intentions of the legislature.—Some further observations were made by lords Hawkesbury, Auckland, Holland, Grenvile, Boringdon, the earls of Lauderdale, Roslyn, and the lord chancellor, after which lord Hawkesbury moved the previous question, which was put and carried.
Lord Grenvillewished for some farther information with respect to any subsequent directions for carrying the order of council into effect.
Lord Hawkesburysaid he would make the necessary inquiries.

SCOTCH JUDICATURE BILL,
Lord Grenvillemoved for leave to present two bills for the amendment of the Judicature of that part of the united kingdom, called Scotland. His lordship stated, that there was nothing new in his motion, for that these bills were presented pursuant to resolutions passed in a former session, and which resolutions were framed, proposed and passed, with the avowed determination not to take the people of Scotland by surprise, but, on the contrary, to afford the most ample opportunity to that part of the united kingdom to deliberate upon, and maturely to consider the necessity and importance of passing the bills here proposed, without any unnecessary or further delay. If any delay had occurred in the passing of these bills, it was not the fault of the mover of the resolutions, in which it was expressly provided, that these bills should be passed in the present session, as their great and expedient advantages were called for, upon the admitted defects and insufficiency of the present mode of administering justice in Scotland. The titles of these bills were, a bill for the Amelioration of the Administration of Justice in Scotland, in certain Civil Causes, by the trial by Jury; and a bill for the better regulating the court of session in Scotland.
The Lord Chancellorstated, that he was a friend to the principles of these bills, but that great difficulties having occurred in some of the clauses therein, he had proposed another bill, which he hoped would stand clear of several objections in the noble lord's

667
bills, or resolutions, and which bill, the lord Chancellor stated, he would bring forward in the next session of parliament, it being manifestly too late to introduce such a subject in this.
Lord Grenvillereplied, that as the subject of these bills was fully and universally understood, and imperiously called for, to put an end to an admitted and crying defect in the administration of justice in Scotland, there was abundant time for passing these bills, which had been so long considered and adjusted, unless it was the object of his majesty's ministers, to have, for their own convenience, dissolved the late parliament, and to make this so short, as that no efficient or important business could be done in it; which intention of the ministry would be fully evinced, by the result of this question, in rejecting, or even postponing these bills.
Lord Hawkesburysaid, he felt himself warranted in insisting on a notice, previous to the bringing these bills forward, although he felt no difficulty in asserting, that the great body of the Scotch nation were not for the change proposed.
The Duke of Atholstated, that he had taken care to make inquiries upon the subject, and found that it was not the general sense of the people of Scotland to have these bills passed at present.
The Earl of Rosslynstated that it was the general and prevailing sense of the country, that such bills were necessary, and that he wondered to hear such a change of sentiments in those noble lords, who in the last session were such strenuous approvers of the measure.
The Earl of Lauderdalecontended that these bills should not be postponed, on account of the act of the ministry, in dissolving the late parliament; as such a dissolution, unnecessary, in his opinion, caused much delay to many measures of urgent and important necessity. He stated, that the sense of that great and enlightened body, the Scotch bar, had been taken upon this subject, as also that of the commercial and mercantile interests of that country, which were in unison with the noble mover for the expediency and necessity of the speedy passing of these bills.
The Duke of Atholagain rose,and stated, that notwithstanding all the noble earl had said, he knew that the present measure was not the universal or general sense of the Scotch nation— The bills were then read a first time and ordered to be printed.