HOUSE OF LORDS.

MONDAY, JULY 20.

The Royal Assent was notified by Commission to the Commercial Exchequer Bills Bill, the Bank Tokens Bill, &c. Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

MONDAY, JULY 20.

Sir Francis Burdett presented a Petition from a number of inhabitants of a town in Lancashire, stating that the country was in perfect tranquillity in their vicinity, and praying that the Peace Preservation Bill should not pass into a law.-Read, and ordered to lie on the table.

The Report of the Vote of Credit for 200,000l. on account of Ireland, was brought up, and taken into consideration, and a Bill ordered to be brought in pursuant thereto.

The Assessed Tax Allowance Bill was committed, and ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

Lord Castlereagh rose for the purpose of moving the postponement of the order for the second reading of the Vice-Chancellor's Bill, which stood for to-morrow. It was thought inexpedient that a Bill of this nature should pass in the absence of so many Members of the House connected with the law, as were then necessarily attending the assizes. He thought it proper, however, to state, that no part of the expence of the new Court of the Vice-Chancellor was proposed to be laid on the public, but that the half of it was to be paid for by the Lord Chancellor, and the other half out of a particular fund belonging to the Court of Chancery. It was considered but fair, that as the Lord Chancellor would discharge as much of the duties of his office as he possibly could, he should be obliged to pay no more than the one half of the expence of the new Court. Mr. Tierney said, he could wish to know whether the labour from which the Lord Chancellor was to be relieved, was not more than an equivalent for the sum he was to pay for it?

The Bill was ordered to be read a second time this day two months.

The Privy Purse Bill was read a third time and passed.

Mr. Tierney presented a Petition from the inhabitants of Bolton, in Lancashire, stating that the neighbourhood of that place was now tranquil; that the laws as they at pre sent stood were perfectly sufficient for the preservation of good order; and praying that the Peace Preservation Bill should not pass into a law.-Ordered to lie on the table.

PEACE PRESERVATION BILL.

Lord Castlereagh moved the third reading of this Bill. Lord A. Hamilton opposed the Bill, as perfectly unneces sary in the present state of the country. He pointed out the tendency it must necessarily have to excite disturbance and disaffection, whenever attempted to be put in execution, and the dangerous situation in which it would place those individuals who might be deprived of their arms in consequence of it.

Sir T. Turton considered the present Bill rather as an aberration from the practice than the principles of the constitution. He defended the conduct of the Magistrates of the country, which, though in all large bodies there might be found some exceptions, was in general distinguished for the utmost mildness and humanity. Much as he deplored the necessity for the Bill, he conceived that necessity was sufficiently proved to the House, though he hoped it might never be found necessary to carry the Bill into execution, and that the disturbances would subside of themselves.

Mr. Calcraft objected to the clause relating to searching for arms. He did not think that there was sufficient evidence before the House to warrant them in going the length of that clause, in trenching upon the rights and liberties of the subject. The House ought to know what was the state of the countries said to be disturbed since the repeal of the laws which obstructed their manufactures. The informa. tion on which the present Bill was founded, was dated in February, March, April, and May last, and the House had no information since the 23d of June on the subject. His information was, that the people were returning faster than the most sanguine could have expected, to their regu lar habits. He should therefore vote against the Bill, on account of the objectionable clauses contained in it.

The Hon. C. Hutchinson objected to the prescut Bill, as

657

calculated to violate every, principle of a free constitution. If a power was given to break open houses in search of arms, such a power would necessarily lead to the commission of the greatest outrages. Such a power ought not to be entrusted to the hands of any persons whomsoever, except in the case of the most urgent necessity. It was because he was most firmly convinced that such a necessity did not exist, that he had opposed, the present Bill in every stage of its progress. He called upon the noble lord opposite to communicate some evidence to the House, to shew them that the state of the country was such as he had represented it. It was not enough for the noble lord to deal in dark and vague surmises, he ought to establish his proposition in a satisfactory manner. This, however, he had never yet thought proper to do. While the noble lord was apparently unable to bring forward any evidence that the country was in a state of disturbance, there was positive information on the table of the House, that it was now restored to tranquillity. He wished to draw the attention of the House to the contradiction in the conduct of the noble lord during the course of the Bill. When he introduced it to the House, his chief reason for inducing the House to grant such excessive powers was, that no danger could be apprehended from Magistrates resident in the country, and who had so great an interest at stake; and then at a late hour of the night, when no person could naturally entertain the least apprehension of such a step, the noble lord came forward by way of what he called a technical alteration, with a power to nominate Magistrates without any qualification whatever. So much for the reliance which could be placed in the noble lord. The Bill went altogether on a false principle, assuming the existence of an array, whereas it had been stated to the House by several respectabie Members of the Committee, that there was not the smallest evidence for such an assumption. He would object to the Bill on the ground of experience. He had seen a similar measure adopted by Government, and acted upon in another coun try, where it had produced the greatest possible mischief. He was convinced that many persons were then driven to disaffection by the outrages committed against themselves and their families.

Mr. Herbert (of Kerry) said, before the Act alluded to by the hon. gentleman who spoke last, had passed, Ireland was in a state of the greatest confusion. The outrages, VOL. III.-1812. 4 P

which no man lamented more than himself, were not the cause, but the effect, of the disturbances of that country. Mr. Tierney was perfectly willing that a measure should be adopted adequate to put an end to the disturbances in the interior, but he thought that the provisions introduced regarding arms, were altogether unnecessary, particularly if Ministers placed any reliance on the efficacy of the previous sections of the Bill against unlawful assemblies, because, without the existence of those meetings, the seizure of arms by the rioters could not be effected. He begged to state to the House three amendments that he had proposed in the Committee, and it would be seen that they were such as ought to have been included in this measure, although they were peremptorily rejected by the noble lord and his friends. They were as follows: 1. That the power of entering a man's dwelling-house should be conferred upon two Magistrates instead of one. 2. That the Magistrate should be subjected to some degree of responsibility in committing this act of violence, by the insertion of the words "upon any reasonable ground of suspicion." 3. That the Magistrate should not have power to make search for arms during the night. In consequence of the negation of these propositions, Mr. Tierney felt himself called upon to resist the measure, and should take the sense of the House upon it.

Mr. Bathurst declared, that the evidence as to the seizure of arms already was complete, but he could add, that this very morning information had been given at the Office of the Secretary for the Home Department, that no less than eight new attempts of that kind had been made within these few days. He admitted that the disturbed districts were now more tranquil, but how could the House be assured that the flame would not be re-kindled before the next session?

Mr. Tierney proposed the following Amendment to be inserted in the Bill by way of rider (after a few words from the Speaker upon the point of Order, whether or not it could be inserted in the body of the Bill): "Provided always, that it shall and may be lawful for his Majesty, by and with the advice of his Privy Council, to declare such districts as are now subject to the operation of this Act, to be no longer in a state of disturbance, and that this Act shall no longer be in force in such districts."

Lord Castlereagh approved of the Amendment, and wished the clause to be so drawn as to include counties that

might hereafter be disturbed. It was rendered the less necessary, however, by the shortness of the duration of the Bill.

The House then divided upon the question, that the Bill be read a third time.-The following were the numbers: For the third reading

A gainst it

Majority

69

15

54

The further proceeding upon the Bill was then postponed for an hour, for the purpose of having Mr. Tierney's Amendment added by way of rider, after it should have been engrossed.

FRAME-WORK KNITTERS' BILL.

The House then went into a Committee on the FrameWork Knitters' Bill, when several of the clauses were gone through.

On the clause prohibiting the master manufacturers from paying their workmen wholly or in part, with or without the consent of the workmen, in any provisions or food, or liquor or clothing, or in any goods or articles whatever; and also on the clause prohibiting the master manufacturers from selling or furnishing to their workmen any provision, &c. by way of truck or exchange, a long conversation took place.

Mr. Sheridan and others thought the first clause perfectly proper, as it would be the height of injustice to suppose that the workmen should receive any thing but the fair sum in money for their work. To the other clause, however, they had strong objections, there being nothing more absurd than that the workmen should be prohibited, after they had been paid their wages honestly, from laying them out with their masters, if they were so inclined.

Mr. Hume and other Members were of opinion, that as there was nothing in the law of England to compel a workman to take goods from his master in payment of his wages, therefore that there was no occasion for that House to interfere by any enactments of this kind. The very clauses now under consideration, if they were to pass in their present form, would add to the wants of those description of persons whose distresses it was their object to alleviate.

The remaining clauses were then read and agreed to, when the House resumed. The Report was brought up, agreed