Sitting of 11 March 1807

MINUTES.
Mr. Franklandchairman of the Yarmouth election committee, reported that the sitting members, Messrs. Harbord and Lushington, were duly elected, and that the petition against them was not frivolous or vexatious.—On the motion of Mr. Tierney, it was ordered, that there be laid before the house a monthly return of desertions from the army, from the 1st of January to the latest period; also a return of the effective strength of the army, from which the said desertions had taken place at the same periods; also a weekly account of the number of recruits raised in the same period, distinguishing Ireland from Great Britain.—On the motion of Mr. Kenrick, it was ordered, that there be laid before the house, an account of the number of causes tried by the court of exchequer in Scotland during the last 15 years.—Mr. Herbert, after commenting briefly on the important question now before the house, touching the expulsion of one of its members, and observing that it was desirable, in addition to the report of the committee of precedents, to have every other information calculated to give a full and fair view of all parts of the case, moved, that the Proceedings of the Court Martial for the Trial of John Fenton Cawthorne, esq. colonel of the Westminster militia, laid before the house, April 8, 1796, and ordered to be printed, be now reprinted. Mr. Tierney objected to the motion on the ground of the expence, trouble, and delay of printing a voluminous mass of papers, when the question before the

79
house was not whether the expulsion had justly taken place, but whether the member expelled could legally sit again. Mr. Bankes thought the papers ought to be printed, in order to afford a full view of the case. Mr. Sturges Bourne, Mr. Hurst, Mr. Simeon, Mr. Osborne, and Mr. Fuller, argued to the same effect. Mr. C. Wynne wished this question to be reserved for future discussion. The Speaker thought it right to observe, that when this business had been first before the house, it had been thought right to print not only the sentence of the court martial, but the whole of the proceedings relating to the case. Upon which, it was ordered that the whole of the proceedings be reprinted.—On the motion of lord Folkestone, it was ordered, that there be laid before the house copies of papers tending to shew in what capacity William Drake, the witness on Mr. Paull's petition, had served in the navy.—Ordered, that the orders for reporting the names of members who do not appear on the appointment of select committees for trial of petitions complaining of undue elections and returns, do not extend to members who are petitioners, or petitioned against, during the trial of the respective petitions in which they are concerned, or to members serving on committees actually sitting.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.—MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES.
—The house went into a Committee of Supply, in which the following sums were voted, on the motion of Mr. Vansittart: "Resolved, 1. That a sum, not exceeding £196,949. 19s. 10d. be granted to his majesty, for paying off and discharging certain Annuities, after the rate of 5 per cent. per ann. being part of the annuities granted by two acts of the 37th and 42d years of his present Majesty; and that the said sum be issued and paid without any fee or other deduction whatsoever.—2. That £11,750. 14s. 6d. be granted towards completing the purchase of buildings and ground in and near Palace Yard, Westminster, in pursuance of several acts of the 44th, 45th, and 46th of his present majesty, and for carrying the said acts into execution, for the year 1807.–3. That £29,500 be granted to defray the charge of printing and stationary for the two houses of parliament, for 1807.—4. That £20,000 be granted, for defraying the expence of printing and delivering the votes of the house of commons, and for printing bills, reports, and other papers, by order of the said house, during the present session.—5. That £10,000 be granted, for defraying the expence that may be
80
incurred for re-printing, in the proportion of 8 volumes a year, of the Journals, Indexes, and Reports, of the house of commons, agreeable to the resolutions of the house in the session 1802–3, for 1807.–6. That a sum, not exceeding £4000 be granted, for defraying the expence which may be incurred for printing 1750 copies of the 59th volume of Journals of the house of commons for the year 1807.–7. That £9,789. 11s. 8d. be granted, to make good the deficiency of the grant of the last session of parliament, to defray the charge of printing and stationary for the two houses of parliament.—8. That £14,881. 16s. 2d. be granted to make good the deficiency of the vote of the last session of parliament, to defray the expence of printing and delivering the votes of the house of commons, and for printing bills, reports, and other papers, by order of the said house during that session.—9. That £459. 2s. 4d. be granted, for making good the deficiency of the sum voted in the last session of parliament for printing 1750 copies of the 58th volume of Journals of the house of commons.—10. That £70,977. 17s. be granted, for defraying the expence of carrying on the building of a New Mint on Tower Hill, for the service of 1807.—11. That £2046. 6s. be granted, for defraying the expences of printing Articles of Impeachment, Minutes of Evidence, and copies of the Trial of lord viscount Melville.—12. That £10,250. 14s. be granted, to be applied in further execution of an act of the 43d of his majesty, towards making roads and building bridges in the highlands of Scotland, for 1807.–13. That £51,250. 14s. be granted, towards defraying the expence of making an Inland Navigation from the Eastern to the Western Sea, by Inverness and Fort William, for 1807.–14. That £5000 be granted, for paying Fees on passing the Public Accounts, for 1807.–15. That £25,000 be granted, to discharge bills drawn and to be drawn from New South Wales, which may become due in 1807.–16. That £8,280 be granted, for defraying the charge of the Civil Establishment of the Province of Upper Canada in America, from the 1st Jan. to the 31st Dec. 1807.–17. That £7,165 be granted, for defraying the charge of the Civil Establishment of the Province of Nova Scotia, from the 1st of Jan. to the 31st of Dec. 1807.–18. That £4,650 be granted, for defraying the charge of the Civil Establishment of the Province of New Brunswick in America, from the 1st of Jan. to the 31st of Dec. 1807.–19. That £3,100 be granted, for defray-

81
ing the charge of the Civil Establishment of the Island of Saint John in America, now called Prince Edward's Island, from the 1st of Jan. to the 31st of Dec. 1807. –20. That £2,040 be granted, for defraying the charge of the Civil Establishment of the Island of Cape Breton in America, from the 1st of Jan. to 31st of Dec. 1807.—21. That £2,565 be granted, for defraying the charge of the Civil Establishment of the Island of Newfoundland in America, from the 1st of Jan. to the 31st of Dec. 1807.—22. That £4,400 be granted, for defraying the charge of the Civil Establishment of the Bahama Islands in America, in addition to the salaries now paid to the Public Officers out of the Duty Fund, and other incidental charges attending the same, from the 1st of Jan. to the 31st of Dec. 1807.–23. That £1,030 be granted, for defraying the charge of the Civil Establishment of the Bermudas or Somers Islands, from the 1st of Jan. to the 31st of Dec. 1807.–24. That £600 be granted, for defraying the charge of the Civil Establishment of the Island of Dominica, from the 1st of Jan. to the 31st of Dec. 1807.–25. That £12,704. 19s. 6d. be granted, for defraying the charge of the Civil Establishment of New South Wales, from the 1st of Jan. to the 31st of Dec. 1807."

FREEHOLD ESTATES BILL.
—On the motion of the Solicitor General, the report of the Freehold Estates bill was brought up.
Col. Eyre warmlyopposed the principle of the bill. He thought that it shewed much of the modern spirit of innovation; and that it would decrease the credit of the landed proprietor, to a very mischievous extent. The commercial man carried on speculations which tended to his own advantage, and the advantage of the public, and was not so likely, therefore, to be injured by this bill, while it would tend to the ruin of the man of landed property. It had been said, that the honest and considerate man would make all his debts burdens upon his estates; but in his opinion, the honest and considerate man Would act in such a manner as to render this bill totally unnecessary.
Mr.Roscoestrenuously defended the principle of the bill; and thought the house was much indebted to the learned gent who had introduced it. As to its being an innovation, he begged to observe, that the effects of the measure proposed had been experienced every day, as it would do nothing more than make every real estate subject to a debt which every honest man would wish to see paid; and whether it was done by the act of
82
the testator, or by the act of the law, would make no great difference in regard to the alledged innovation. It was a crime of the highest magnitude to bequeath an estate to an heir, when a testator knew it to be greatly burdened. This, he thought, ought undoubtedly to be prevented by law from occurring. It might happen that a person of integrity and honesty, intending to make his estate liable for his debt, might, through negligence or other circumstances, be prevented from doing so. This bill would, therefore, tend to remedy these evils. Entailed estates were not to be affected, nor were copy hold estates. He hoped, however, to see this bill followed by another, to make landed property liable for specialty debts. As to this bill making an inroad upon the customs of our ancestors, that was no argument at all; as it was the very purpose for which the house met, to rectify the laws in every particular, however long they may have existed.
Mr. Simeondeclared himself in favour of the bill, and did not apprehend those evil consequences would result from this measure, which the hon. gent. was of opinion would be the case.
Mr. N. Calvertdeclared, he saw no sufficient ground for this innovation in the law; nor did he know, nor had he ever heard of any instances of landed proprietors availing themselves of the law as it now stood, in order to cheat their creditors. He was unwilling, without a clear case of necessity being made out, to remove the old legal land marks of the constitution.
Mr. H. Martinassured the hon. gent. that instances had occurred, which pointed out the necessity of remedying the law, as it now stood. He particularly instanced the case of a person, a considerable land-owner, who had a number of natural children, for whom he wished to provide, who had made over his real estates to trustees, and to divide the produce amongst the children. The surviving trustee had sold the whole of the landed estate, and purchased others, without charging them with any provision for these children; in this state he died; and the family in question were left in a state of abject poverty. There were other instances of as crying a nature. The present measure was not an attempt to get rid of any legal institution, but rather to afford a remedy for an existing defect.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, he did not wish to provoke a debate, in the present stage of the bill; at the same time, he could not but feel surprised at the consequences

83
imputed to this measure, the object of which was to compel justice to be done, by obliging the rich debtor to pay the poor creditor. He denied that this bill would have any injurious effect upon the aristocracy; for no representative of an ancient family could be supposed to die without leaving assets sufficient to pay his debts. No innovation was hereby intended. Did the friends of the aristocracy mean to insinuate; that the landed proprietors alone should not pay their debts? And was there not as powerful an aristocracy in Scotland, although the English law, on this subject, had no place? He declared he knew various instances of landed proprietors availing themselves of the law, as it now stood, to cheat their creditors. He knew the owner of an estate worth £4000 a year, whose predecessor's funeral expences and apothecary's bill remained unpaid. Another, who left debts to the amount of £40,000, and not above 2s. 6d. in the pound had been paid, although the successor to the estate came into possession of £4000 a year. There were many small traders, who had been unable to pay their own debts, and some had been thrown into prison on that account, because they could not compel payment of debts, due to them by landed proprietors.—The report of the bill was then received without a division.