hereditary revenue, imprest monies repaid (after deducting the repayment of over entries, drawbacks, &c.), estimated to produce the same as on an average of three years, ending 5th Jan. 1805 34,065,512 Estimated produce to the 5th January, 1806,

of the permanent taxes imposed in the present session

1,200,000

2,750,000

Lottery, after deducting the proportion of Ire

300,000,

14,500,000

War taxes, estimated to produce to the 5th
April, 1806

Surplus of ways and means for the year 1804
Loan

1,192,115 20,000,000

74,007,627

There has likewise been a loan of 4,000,000l. for the service of Ireland, and 5,246,5061. will be levied, parochially, for the maintenance of the poor, estimating the sum required for this purpose to be the same as was required in the year ending. Easter, 1803.

On the motion of Mr. Huskisson, it was ordered that the statements be taken into consideration on Tuesday next.

The Attorney-General, on the order of the day being read, for taking into consideration the lords' amendments to the sti pendiary curates bill, moved that they be taken into consideration that day three months.-Ordered.

The Attorney-General then stated, that as this was a measure of considerable importance, he should not, pursuant to his notice of the preceding day, move for leave to bring in another bill on the same subject in the present stage of the session.

Mr. Windham concurred with the hon. and learned gentleman, that this was a measure of considerable importance, and approved his determination not to proceed with it in the present session.

The Paddington canal coal bill, the Scotch assessors bill, and the consolidated fund bill, were read a third time, and passed. The Irish military survey bill, and the Irish sugar drawback bill were reported; to be read a third time the next day.

The Irish distillery bill, the Irish duty collection bill, and the pilots' bill passed through committees; to be reported the next day.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned.

HOUSE

HOUSE OF LORD S.

FRIDAY, JULY 5.

In a Scotch appeal, Campbell v. M'Nairn and others, counsel were heard, and further proceedings postponed till Monday.

The corn amendment bill, and the militia officers bill were read a third time, and passed.

The Irish paper duty bill, hop duty bill, sugar duty drawback bill, and the bill for indemnifying Mr. Trotter, and others who may give evidence in Lord Melville's impeachment, were brought up from the commons, and severally read the first time.

A message was delivered from the commons by Mr. Alexander, in answer to the request of the lords to have the evidence in the case of the Duke of Athol communicated to them, stating that the house had not found it to be the practice of their house to communicate evidence to the lords in similar cases.

The Lord Chancellor thought it his duty to call the attention of their lordships to this message. He supposed it resulted from the principle on which the commons treat every bill in the nature of a money bill. Yet there was a precedent of a message from the commons the reverse of this, on a similar occasion, only ten days since. On the bill which indemnified the persons concerned in the loan to the house of Boyd and Benfield, their lordships requested the evidence from the commons, and received it. In the year 1786, on a bill for appropriating certain sums for the reduction of the national debt, the commons refused the evidence, and stated the reasons of the refusal to be, that they could not enter into any explanation of the motives of their passing a bill of that nature. It was for their lordships to consider how they would proceed in the present case; and he only thought it his duty to bring the subject forward to their attention.

The Duke of Norfolk hoped the bill would not now be pressed, since there could not be time for a due consideration of the claims of the noble duke.

The Duke of Montrose thought the claim ought to be disposed of in the present session.

Lord Holland was of opinion, that it became the house to examine evidence for itself in every bill of importance; and

he

he hoped they would in future do so, instead of receiving evidence brought from another place.

Lord Hawkesbury would not inquire into the merits of the bill; he would only call upon the house to consider what it became them to do on the subject of the message, as a matter of their own privileges. He had always understood that the house of commons would not communicate the motives on which they passed a bill, but had been in the practice of communicating mere evidence; and in the present case, nothing more had been asked.

Lord Radnor moved that the message be taken into consideration on Tuesday next; and that the lords be summoned.— Ordered.

The Earl of Suffolk gave notice of a motion for next session on the case of Colonel Cochrane Johnstone, who was dismissed the service after an acquittal, he believed an honourable acquittal, by a court martial.

A message from the commons brought up Trotter's indemnity bill, the southern whale fishery bill, and a number of other bills passed by the commons, which were all read a first time. The other bills before their lordships were for warded.-Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

FRIDAY, JULY 5.

Mr. Dennis, from the commissioners of excise, presented accounts of balances remaining in the hands of the receiver general of excise, at various periods, from the 5th of January, 1793, to 5th April last inclusive.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. Staveley, from the post-office, presented an account of balances in the hands of the receiver general of the post-office, which was ordered to be printed.

On the motion of Mr. Vansittart, the committee on the Irish revenue jurisdiction bill, and the further consideration of the report of the committee on the Irish port duty bill, were postponed to that day three months.

Mr. Ormsby brought up the report of the committee on the petition from Mr. Collier and others, freeholders of Middlesex, praving for compensation for loss of time in attending the

aittee on the contested election for Middlesex.-Ordered to be taken into consideration on Monday.

A message from the lords intimated their lordships concur

rence

rence in the bill for purchasing ground in Palace-yard, the Dublin harbour improvement bill, the militia officers bill, and the corn import and export regulation bill.

Mr. Fowler, from the tax office, presented an account of the expence incurred for officers and commissioners under the act for the redemption of the land tax, from 5th Jan. 1804 to 5th Jan. 1805.

On the motion of Mr. Vansittart, the Irish distillery bill, the Irish paper duty bill, and the Irish hearth duty bill, were read a third time and passed.

TROTTER'S INDEMNITY BILL.

On the motion of Mr. Whitbread the proceedings on the third reading of the witnesses indemnity bill were resumed. Sir W. Elford introduced an amendment in order to put the witnesses in such a situation that without any apprehensions of the consequences to themselves in furnishing matter for civil proceedings, they might give such free evidence in the support of the impeachment against Lord Melville as would further the ends of substantial justice. Another advantage which he proposed by this amendment, was to shorten the proceedings in the house of lords, in which considerable time had been usually wasted in listening to the objections made by witnesses to the questions proposed to them.

Lord H. Petty, although he did not mean to oppose the amendment of the hon. baronet, and although no one was more willing than himself to admit that the house ought to go to the trial of Lord Melville surrounded by as few embarrassing circumstances as possible, yet thought the sacrifice they were called upon to make was so great, and felt so much reluctance to allow the necessity of the measure, that he suggested to the hon. baronet the introduction of some words in his amendment, to shew that the house agreed to it on account of the importance of the occasion, and that they did not recognise the principle that a person should not give evidence on a criminal prosecution without being previously relieved from any possible subsequent civil proceedings; a principle which would be attended with serious danger, and which ought to be left to the formal argument and consideration of those who by their legal habits were best qualified to discuss it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed with the noble lord in his observations on the danger of universally admitting this principle, but remarked that the words of the amendment

not

not only conveyed no positive opinion in favour of that principle, but that the inference to be drawn from them was the

reverse.

After a few words from Mr. Giles and Mr. Sturges Bourne, Sir W. Elford's amendment was agreed to.

On the question that this bill do pass,

Lord de Blaquiere submitted to the hon. gentleman opposite whether or not it would be honourable in the house in the progress of the impeachment against Lord Melville, to avail themselves of any thing that might have dropped from that noble lord when he made his defence in the house. He made some observations on the proviso of the bill, in which it was stated that the witnesses should not benefit from the indemnity, unless they gave full and fair evidence of all they knew on the subject. Of this, who was to be the judge? He understood that Mr. Trotter was a very nervous gentleman, and at the examination before the committee of impeachment, had appeared much agitated and terrified. Was it not possible that his alarm might cause him to suppress matter tending to justify, as well as to criminate his master, Lord Melville? And then what would be the consequence if he should afterwards recollect circumstances of importance? The noble lord avowed, and said he did not blush to avow, that eventually it would be found, that Lord Melville had been already more severely punished than his delinquency merited. He doubted, however, whether this bill would put Mr. Trotter in a situation to give impartial evidence on the trial, and he very much wished that some amendment

The Speaker here interposed, observing, that the time for introducing amendments was gone by, and that the noble lord was out of order, unless he meant to argue against the whole bill.

Mr. Whitbread observed, that this bill would only indemnify Mr. Trotter in case he declared the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He would be equally liable to lose the advantages of it therefore, if he concealed circumstances prejudicial to, or exculpating of, Lord Melville. Should any thing favourable to Lord Melville occur to Mr. Trotter's recollection before the commencement of the trial, he would consequently be bound to declare it.

Mr. Johnstone, however painful it was to him to differ from the hon. gentleman by whom the bill was introduced, must declare his disapprobation of it, as proceeding on a prin