ments which, although they might have been very proper on former debates, had nothing to do with the question then before the House.

The Speaker decided that the noble lord was not in order.

Lord De Blaquiere then said, that as he was not made of brass, he must bow to the authority of the chair. After a variety of observations, he concluded by opposing the bill.

Mr. O'Hara was for the bill. He was sure that both the field officers of the militia and of the volunteers would cheerfully yield to any deductions, that could tend to give the country a greater disposable force at the present mo

ment.

Sir William Lemon considered that it might be the cause of much discontent, that when the officers of the regulars and militia messed together, the one should say, "We are superior to you; our pay is higher!"

Mr. Ellison agreed in the sentiment of the honourable baronet who spoke last, and thought that it would be a subject of heart-burning, and might create, if not discord, at least a considerable degree of dissatisfaction.

Colonel Craufurd could not at all agree with the opinion of the honourable baronet. So far from the regular officers being entitled to claim any superiority on account of this distinction, he thought the superiority (as far as income went) was on the other side; and that the militia field officers who did not receive the increased pay merely upon the ground that they were men of somewhat superior fortune, and who, therefore, did not require it, ought, on that ground, neither to claim a superiority over the regular officers who were, in general, inferior fo them in point of fortune. He knew that it was unparliamentary to impute any improper motives to members of that House; but he must say, that if, in any other assembly, men had acted the same part as had been pursued by those of opposition; if, on every question that could be brought forward, so much was said in praise of the volunteers, and so much had been said of certain expressions of his right honourable friend (Mr. Windham); he should think that their object was merely to catch at popularity, to win to their side that numerous and respectable body of men, and to make his right honourable friend as unpopular and as odious as they could to that body. This would have been his opinion, if

a similar

a similar conduct had been adopted by any set of gentlemen out of that House, but in that House he knew that it was most unparliamentary to suppose that any member could be actuated by such motives, and therefore he did not impute such to them. As to the distinctions of pay, such distinctions already existed in the regular army, and were not complained of.

Colonel Mitford was against the bill.

Mr. Secretary Windham (after some conversation with Lord Temple), begged leave to withdraw his motion, "that the Speaker do quit the chair," and to substitute in the place of it," that it be an instruction to the committee to empower them to extend the provisions of the act to tho yeomanry and volunteer corps.'

After a few words from Mr. Bastard, the motion was agreed to; as was also that of the House resolving itself into a committee. In the committee, Sir William Elford proposed a clause for leaving out the word "officers," which was negatived by a majority of 38 to 17.

The bill was then passed through the committee, and the report was ordered to be received the next day.

Sir C. Pole moved the first reading of the bill for preventing embankments in harbours, or rivers communicating therewith, without notice previously given to the admiralty A long conversation then took place, in which the object of the bill was universally approved of, which was to prevent the injury which individuals might do to the great harbours and the country. The words of the bill were, however, conceived by many members as too general.

Sir C. Pole said, that in the progress of the bill he would be very ready to listen to any suggestions that were made. The bill was then ordered to be read a second time the next day.

LINEN DRAWBACK BILL.

Upon the motion of Mr. Foster this bill was read a third time.

Mr. Vansittart moved a clause, for continuing the present drawbacks on the exportation of German and Russian linen to the West Indies to the 26th of March 1807, and for the usual time that drawbacks were usually granted after that time.

Mr. Foster opposed this clause as striking directly at the
VOL. III. 1805-6.

40

staple

staple manufacture of Ireland, and being contrary to the bargain made between the two countries.

Mr. Vansittart proposed adjourning the discussion of the clause.

Mr. Foster said that he had been so often persuaded by ministers to postpone the bill, that he could not, in justice to Ireland, postpone it any longer, unless there was a positive engagement that it should be the first business discussed the next day.

Mr. Dawson and Lord Acheson contended, that as it was a subject which every Irish member was agreed on, the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Vansittart) ought not to press his clause.

Mr. Vansitiart consented to withdraw it.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of; and at half past one o'clock in the morning the House adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

MONDAY, JULY 15.

In the appeal "Chamley v. Lord Dunsany and others," Mr. Agar was heard for the appellant. Further hearing the next day.

The masters in chancery bill, the Scots forfeited estates bill, the Irish militia service bill, the volunteer officers rank bill, the Gibraltar and Malta trade bill, the silk bounty bill, the sugar bill, the French wines bill, the gunpowder importation bill, the masts bill, the raisins bill, the excise laws bill, and the innkeepers' allowances bill, were read a second time, and committed for the next day.

Mr. Alexander, and several other members of the House of Commons, brought up the linen drawback bill, and some private bills, which were read a first time.

The Nabob of the Carnatic's creditors bill passed through a committee, and was reported.

The Attorney General, and several other members of the House of Commons, brought up the chancery clerks' bill, the ordnance lands bill, the seamen's wages bill, and the Irish revenues bill, which were read a first time.

The American intercourse bill was, on the motion of Lord Grenville, ordered to be read a third time on Thursday..

The

The Irish quit rents bill was read a second time, after a short conversation between Lord Redesdale, Lord Grenville, Lord Eldon, and the Earl of Limerick, as to the nature of the bill, and committed for the next day.

The House resolved itself into a committee on the Irish school commissioners' bill. Some conversation arose upon the clauses, between Lord Redesdale, Lord Grenville, and the Bishop of Ossory. Lord Redesdale moved an amendment, to render the bill temporary instead of permanent'; which was opposed by Lord Grenville, and negatived. The Bishop of Ossory proposed a clause, to save the privileges of Trinity College, in Dublin, but it was thought by Lord Grenville unnecessary, as the bill would not affect the privileges of the college. After some further conversation the bill passed through the committee, and was reported without amendment.

SLAVE TRADE,

On the order of the day being read for the House resolving itself into a committee on the slave-ship restriction bill.

The Earl of Westmorland went over several of the arguments before urged against the bill, which, he contended, would be highly unjust in its operation, and that by enacting that the ships now employed in the slave trade should be traded by the same owners, great loss of property would frequently ensue to the remaining owners of a vessel, where a part-owner died, or became a bankrupt, as in that case, from the change of the property, the ship could not be continued in the trade.

Lord Grenville contended that it having been determined by both Houses that the slave trade ought to be abolished as soon as possible, it was a necessary consequence of that measure to bring in the present bill, in order to prevent that superabundant supply of slaves, which would otherwise be attempted in the interval to be poured into the West India islands, whilst it was at the same time an act of justice to the subjects of the country to prevent them from engaging in a trade to their certain loss. He did not conceive that any injustice to individua's would result from the present bill, although, in all great measures of policy, it was impossible to prevent some individual hardships arising from their operation.

Lord Eldon argued that in the present case individuals

402

might

might be exempted from loss of property without endangering the principle of the bill. He was of opinion that, from the words of the bill, if any part-owner of a ship employed in the slave trade died or became bankrupt, the property being changed, the remaining owners could not continue to trade with the vessel, the property in which would therefore become of little or no value, the remaining owners sustain a heavy loss, and the estate of the testator or the bankrupt be seriously injured, and thus creditors be unable to obtain their demands.

The Earl of Lauderdale defended the bill, and maintained, that the persons engaged in the trade had had amply sufficient notice of the intention of the legislature to abolish it, and therefore ought not now to complain of injustice. He thought that the words of the bill, which had been objected to, ought to remain, as to allow other owners to trade with the present vessels would only tend to increase the number of claimants for compensation when the legislature finally abolished the trade."

Lord Viscount Sidmouth declared himself friendly to the abolition of the trade, provided it was done cautiously, with full information upon the subject, and with as little injury and oppression as possible to individuals.

Lord Redesdale also expressed himself friendly to the abolition, but thought it had been retarded by the harshness used towards those who carried on the trade. In order to prevent this bill from being a harsh measure upon individuals, he suggested that those words should be left out which restricted the employment of the vessels now in the trade to the present owners.

Lord Ellenborough was of opinion that the words objected to did not legally bear the interpretation which had been put upon them. He contended that notwithstanding the death or bankruptcy of any of the part-owners, the vessels might still be navigated under the old register.

The House then resolved into a committee, where some conversation arose upon the different clauses, in the course of which Lord Ellenborough warmly replied to an expression used by the Earl of Westmorland. The latter noble lord moved to leave out the words "any owner or owners," with a view to prevent the trade from being restricted to the present owners of the vessels employed in it. This was opposed by Lord Ellenborough and Lord Grenville, on the grounds before stated, and supported by Lord Eldon. The propo